Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/04 AGENDA FILE 239 4Ih Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 · Phone (360) 478-5280 · Fax (360) 478-5251 AUGUST 18, 2004 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 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. Claims & Check Register (#AB04-156) B. Minutes of Meeting - August 4, 2004 (#AB04-157) C. Minutes of Meeting - August 11, 2004 (#AB04-158) D. Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement between the City of Bremerton and the City of Puyallup for potential future purchase of Diesel Exhaust Extractors (#AB04-159) E. Amendment to Interlocal Agreement between the City of Bremerton and Tracyton Water District (#AB04-160) F. Appointment of Jessica Kennedy to the Community Development Block Grant (CE~BG) Advisory Committee (#AB04-161) 4. NEW BUSINESS 'A. Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Kiss 'N Ride Easement; and Kiss 'N Ride Easement and License Agreement (#AB04-162) B. Amendment to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Bremerton and Bremerton Police Officer's Guild (#AB04-163) C.Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Bremerton and Teamsters Local #589 (#AB04-164) 5. MAYOR'S REPORT 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. Ordinance No. 4907 [Second Reading] vacating an Underground Portion on the South Side of Second Street (#AB04-150) B. Resolution No. 2934, accepting the application for Annexation received from Kenneth A. Racus (#AB04-165) C. Resolution No. 2935, seeking State Legislative Action to address funding for Municipal Transportation Infrastructure (#AB04-166) CONTINUED ON BACK... E-mail: citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wo.us · Web: www.ci.bremerton.wa.us D. Resolution No. 2936, amending Resolution No. 2930 extending to September 1, 2004 the effective date of the assignment of the "Comprehensive Garbage, Recyclables, and Yard Debris Collection Contract" from RABANCO, LTD to WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WASHINGTON, INC. (#AB04-167) E. Resolution No. 2937 for Closed Record Hearing regarding the Campbell Way Townhomes/Plat Final Planned Unit Development [File No. BP04-00339; Preliminary File No. BP03-00213] (#AB04-168) F. Resolution No. 2938 for Closed Record Hearing regarding the Wycoff Preliminary Planned Unit Development [File No. BP04-00231] (#AB04-169) 7. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - Comments limited to 3-minutes $. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 9. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKERS LIST PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FROM THE CITY OF BREMERTON MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING. THANK YOU. PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME BELOW IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT D~TE ~ IBMITTED: AGENDA BILL CITY COUNCIL SUBJE ~ ~[: Approval of Claims an¢ c'h- q ~ - -,.,~ Committe,~ Meeting D~te: Register CO~ICIL ~ ,EETff,G Dar::- ~ V--O ~ Department: F' cial Services Presenter: Cathy Johnson Phone: 473-5296 SUMMARY: Consent agenda item. Approval of payrolL checks and electronic fund a'anstbrs. ATTACHMENTS: FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: CONSENT AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Approve: 1) Check#'s~..~?cKQ?~/¢through C~,~_andEFT,s ~-~2~_through~'~ ? in the amount of $_~'-~t O~/. 2) Regular Payroll for the pay period ending. __ in the amount ors 3) Retiree Payroll for the pay period ending in the amount of $ COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Den:, [] Table [] Conthme [] ~[o Action " - lq Cts4,tooq BILL DATE SUBMITTED: AGENDA BILL CITY OF B~MERTON CITY CO~CIL SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting - Committee Meeting Date: N/A ~U~RS~ ~, ~OO¢ CO~CILMEET~GDate: Depmment: City ~oun~il Presenter: Daren Nygren, Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: Attached are the minutes for the Council Meeting held ATTACHMENTS: Minutes for ~.~ ~$Jl'- '~c} 'Z. oo4. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): 0 APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: CONSENT AGENDA [] OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ~ RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass the Consent Agenda as presented. ,- ¢ pp, C:OU'~'CIL AcrI2N: ~ ,k ?ore ~ Den,' ~_~ Fable ~, Contin;e [] No Act,on TAPES #1962 & 1963 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, August 4, 2004 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, August 4, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Daren Nygren presiding. Council members present were Mike Short, Will Maupin, Carol Arends, Dianne Robinson, Mike Shepherd, Wendy Priest, Cecil McConnell, and Brad Gehring. Also present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich; City Clerk Paula Johnston; and Council Assistant Christine Grenier Ellingson. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Cecil McConnell, followed by the invocation provided by Pastor Rick Beaudry of Calvary Chapel. President Ny,qren made the following announcements: 1. A Pre-Council session was held in the Council Conference Room from 5:00 to 5:30 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA A. Check numbers 292470 through 292690; EFT-6337, EFT-6338, EFT-6340 through EFT-6346; EFT-6348 through EFT-6352; EFT-6354; P6348 and P6353; in the amount of $917,566.87 (#AB04-145) B. Minutes of Meeting - July 7, 2004 (#AB04-146) C. Acceptance of two EPA State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) totaling $3,686,000 for Wastewater System Improvements (#AB04-147) D. Contract Award with INSlTUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. for "Shore Drive Sewer - 2004 Improvements Project" (#AB04-148) E. 2005 - 2007 Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Kitsap County and the City of Bremerton to form a HOME Consortium under the National Affordable Housing Act (#AB04-149) #0100 MISICIU (PriestJMcConnell) Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. MAYOR'S REPORT Expressed his pride over the Grand Opening of the Conference Center, and hopes the economic recovery will continue to improve the City's image. Police Chief Rob Forbes introduced the volunteers from the Explorers unit who took 3rd place in the recent Western Regional Competition in Las Vegas. Lieutenant Tim Lopez discussed the program and acknowledged Lt. Jessica Redenbau,clh, Capt. Steven Forbra.qd, Lt. Jason Jennin,qs, and Jacob Switzer for this accomplishment. President Ny.qren thanked Geof Hosea for introducing the idea for a "City Pride Program" to the Council, and announced that he would present the award to the winner later in the meeting. 6A- ORDINANCE [FIRST READING1 VACATING AN UNDERGROUND PORTION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SECOND STREET (#AB04-150): Michael Mecham., City Engineer, pointed out that the City initiated the vacation of an underground portion of Second Street at the corner of Washington Avenue and Second Street. This date has been scheduled for a public hearing in accordance with state law and the Bremerton Municipal Code for first reading on the proposed ordinance vacating the subject property. The proposed vacated area will be incorporated into the abutting property owned by Kitsap Federal Credit Union. This is a Class ][! right-of-way for which compensation will be paid by the Kitsap Federal Credit Union. TAPES #1962 & 1963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, August 4, 2004 Page 2 of 5 The Kitsap Federal Credit Union recently purchased the parcel of property at the corner of Second Street and Washington Avenue to construct a new credit union office. In order to provide adequate parking for the new building, the credit union is proposing the construction of an underground portion of Second Street right-of-way. Engineering staff, in cooperation with the Legal staff contacted all utility users of the right-of-way to determine the potential impacts of the vacation. There are telephone, electric, and natural gas facilities in the southern portion of Second Street. In the ordinance, easements were retained to accommodate these utilities. As a part of the construction some of these utilities will need to be removed. The utilities can either be placed in the ceiling of the underground parking or be relocated in the northern portion of Second Street. This is a decision that will need to be made during the design of the credit union building. At the conclusion of the construction, Second Street will function as part of the City Street system as it does today. The south half of Second Street will actually be a structural part of the parking lot. The ordinance states that the street shall be constructed in accordance with state and national standards to accommodate the weight of typical traffic. There were no comments from the public. Mr. McConnell asked if the amount of compensation would be available by second reading. Mr. Lubovich answered that the compensation would be about $90,000. Ms. Robinson asked what AASHTO stands for. Mr. Mecham responded that the acronym stands for American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Mr. Lubovich added that the second reading of this ordinance would be heard in two weeks on August 18TM. #0660 MISlCIU (McConnell/Arends) Move to approve the attached ordinance on first reading, vacating an area underneath the south side of Second Street, from Washington Avenue westedy to the alley at mid-block. 6B - RESOLUTION NO. 2933 REGARDING THE "DOWNTOWN BREMERTON PEDESTRIAN/BTC ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT" INITIATIVE (#AB04-151): Roger Lubovich, City Attorney explained that the Citizen's Initiative 101 was certified by the County Auditor's office on July 23, 2004. This initiative petition seeks to prohibit the City from constructing a traffic tunnel as a part of the Downtown Pedestrian/BTC Access Improvements Project in downtown Bremerton. The City Council has three options with regard to the initiative petition. 1 ) Adopt the proposed ordinance as presented in the petition; 2) Submit the initiative to a vote of the citizens; or 3) Not submit the initiative to a vote of the citizens. It is the City Attorney's recommendation that the initiative petition not be submitted to the voters for the following reasons: 1) The subject matter of the initiative petition is not a valid subject pursuant to Seattle Building and Construction Trades Council v. Seattle, 94 Wn.2d 740 (1980); 2) The issue presented in the initiative petition is now moot; and 3) Submitting the initiative to a vote of the citizens would be confusing in that the voters may think they have an impact on the tunnel decision. He emphasized that following receipt of the petition the Council must take action within 20 days. He requested that the letter from the State and his memorandum be included as part of the record. TAPES #1962 & 1963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, August 4, 2004 Page 3 of 5 The following made comments in support of placing the initiative on the ballot: Ed Rollman requested that the Council allow the initiative to go forward and that the vote be an advisory vote; Gene David Hart expressed his concerns over spending on this project; E.L. Sturdivant asked that Council Members allow the citizens to have their right to representation; Roy Runyon clarified that people who signed a petition may support progress but also hope for a democratic process to address their concerns over the process; Del Knauss urged Council Members to place this issue on the ballot and to abide by the original agreement; Don Lar.qe also agreed that the people should have an opportunity to vote on the issue; Louis Soriano emphasized that by allowing a vote on this initiative, then the State will have to make a decision on the final project alternative; Paul Drnievic encouraged Council to allow the petition to go forward; Michelle Knauss asked Council to consider the appearance of the State's involvement in the project following receipt of the petition; Jerry Reid was concerned over pedestrian safety in the proximity of the proposed ferry terminal and hoped that both citizens' and state concerns be addressed; and Dave Ross emphasized that it is important that the citizens have an opportunity to vote on the issue and that the vote be an indication of what direction the project should take. The fo/lowing made comments against placing the initiative on the ballot: Helen Miller questioned the validity of the initiative and petition, and was concerned about the cost of placing this item on the general election ballot; Ed Wolfe and Kyle Kruqer encouraged the Council to accept the Attorney's legal advice and believed that the project would bring about progress; Richard Hayes, Executive Director of Kitsap Transit explained that the tunnel would benefit both car and bus traffic movement from the ferry terminal; Don Bulman was concerned over the potential for acts of terrorism or the occurrence of an earthquake in the proposed tunnel project; Tim Ryan believed that Council should do what is best for the City and that they should rely on the information that is provided rather than put the issue to the vote; Amy Burnett was relieved that the State would take over this project and that the community would benefit from this project. Mr. McConnell clarified that modifying the petition to read as an advisory vote can not be done under the proposed action tonight. Mr. Lubovich concurred. Mr. McConnell and Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Short asked for points of order, and asked citizens to address the issue of the vote rather than their position on the tunnel project. Mr, Shepherd asked who had jurisdiction over this project at the time the grant was accepted. Mr. Lubovich answered that the Department of Transportation had and still has jurisdiction with respect to projects like in-state highways, WSDOT allowed the City to manage the contract work but, at this time the City does not have the responsibility of oversight. Mr. Shepherd believed that community support is crucial for any future projects to succeed; added that the proposed tunnel project did not go through the Comprehensive Plan review or through public review; supported the initiative process since there are some unanswered questions that need to be resolved; and hoped to offer an amendment to the resolution to allow the initiative to go the ballot. Ms. Johnston cautioned that any amending motion would need to follow the main motion. TAPE #1963 Mr. McConnell supported putting the initiative on the ballot, and suggested that citizens may challenge to place the initiative on the ballot through Superior Court; and was concerned that disallowing a vote on the petition would go against the charter and democratic process. Mr. Maupin stated his agreement with the legal opinion. TAPES #1962 & 1963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, August 4, 2004 Page 4 of 5 Mr. Lubovich believed that given all of the facts, the Superior Court would invalidate a request for the initiative. Mr. Short believed that the project has not been decided and that he also agreed with legal opinion; believed that a better job could be done on informing the public; and he agreed with the point made regarding the "moot argument". Mr. Gehrin.q had received a lot of negative public feedback on the tunnel project; had concerns regarding proper process, jurisdiction, and funding; and would like to see the initiative go the voters. Ms. Priest was in support of urban planning and downtown improvements but was concerned about the small number of stakeholders who are making key decisions on a project of large scale. This would send a strong message to the state by placing the initiative on the balfot which she estimated the cost to be about $7,000-8,000. Ms. Arends was certain that this is a lose-lose position no matter what action is taken; she agreed that the information made public has been limited; was frustrated by how the information was released and how the state has been involved; supported the legal opinion; clarified that both options are being discussed and no final decision has been reached; and lastly, the statements and petition should be kept as part of the record/on file until the issue is resolved. Ms. Robinson was pleased that the state was taking over the project; and agreed with the legal opinion. Mr. Ny,qren supported the resolution and agreed with legal opinion; and added that if the resolution passed, then citizens would be able to appeal the decision of the Council in Superior Court. #0690 M/S/C (Maupin/Robinson) Move to pass Resolution No. 2933 electing not to submit the initiative to a vote of the citizens. Vote in favor of motion: Robinson, Arends, Maupin, Short, Nygren Vote against the motion: Priest, Shepherd, Gehring, McConnell Motion carried: 5-Yes; 4-No The Council recessed at 7:25 P.M. and reconvened the business meeting at 7:42 P.M. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Geof Hosea presented the City Pride Program Award to Patricia Trapp. Kyle Kru.qer announced that the Outdoor Public Market is held on Wednesday nights from 4:00 to 9:00 P.M. near Evergreen Park. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mike Short was glad to be back after an extended absence. Will Maupin spoke about the Grand Opening at the Conference Center, "Bremerton Night Out" in Westpark, and the Japanese Exchange Program. Carol Arends also attended the Grand Opening of the Conference Center and Bremerton Night Out. Dianne Robinson enjoyed being the MC for the Children's Recreation & Art in the Park Festival at Evergreen Park last week; advised the public to check out the summer programs being provided by the Parks Department; and discussed the Community Recreation Program, Summertime Playground Program, and Camp Sparky Program that are currently being offered. TAPES #1962 & 1963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, August 4, 2004 Page 5 of 5 Mike Shepherd reminded the public that if ticket books are purchased by the end of August, there is a $2 a savings per trip on passenger-only ferry service, and that more information may be obtained by going to the following website: http://wwwkitsapferryco.com. Wendy Priest commended the Parks Department for all of the programs that are being provided to children; and announced that the next Peanut Butter & Jam Session would be Wednesday, August 11th from 11:30 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. at the Gazebo Park located on the corner of 4th & Washington. Cecil McConnell if any citizens have questions regarding utility bills and tax audits they may call the Clerk's Office at 478-5311; and commented on the rounds of golf he played with the Japanese delegation. Brad Gehrin.q provided positive citizen comments regarding Gold Mountain Golf Course; invited the public to the Eastside Community Fair on Saturday, August 21st from 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. at Lions Field, which would include refreshments, and bike and scooter safety checks; and announced the Blackberry Blues Jam to be held at the Admiral Theater on Saturday, August 28th starting at 7:00 P.M. with a Motorcycle Show starting at 4:00 P.M. Daren Ny.qren displayed the executive clock that was presented earlier during a gift-exchange ceremony to the City Council from Mr. Nakata of the Kure, Japanese delegation. With no further business, the meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 8:03 P.M. Prepared and Submitted by: CHRISTINE GRENIER ELLINGSON Council Assistant Attest: PAULA JOHNSTON, Interim City Clerk DAREN NYGREN, City Council President City of Bremerton DN/PJ/Is/cge DATE SUBMITTED: AU~USJ'F }"~, '~--c>°~C BILL# t?q-lg AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON ~ ~ CITY CO~CIL SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting - Committee Meeting Date: N/A CO~CILMEET~GDate: ~q~ I~, ~ ~5~ 1~, ~ ~ Depa~ment: Cit~Council ' Presenter: Daren Ny~en, Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: Attached are the minutes for the Council Meeting held ~]M5~ [~t ~oo ~ ATTACHMENTS: Minutes for ~,~SdF ti, "2.-o~ ~L FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): 0 APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: CONSENT AGENDA [] OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass the Consent Agenda as presented. COINCIL ACTION: 7~ ~\pprove I--~ Den) ~ [able ~ Continue [] No Actton TAPE #1964 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, August 11, 2004 The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremedon, Washington, Wednesday, August 11, 2004, at 5:35 P.M., with Council President Daren Nygren presiding. Council members present were Mike Short, Will Maupin, Carol Arends, Dianne Robinson, Cecil McConnell, and Brad Gehring. Council Members Wendy Priest and Mike Shepherd were absent. Also present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich; City Clerk Paula Johnston; and Council Assistant Christine Grenier Ellingson. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Cecil McConnell, followed by the invocation provided by Council Member Carol Arends. President Ny,qren made the following announcements: 1. A Pre-Council session was held in the Council Conference Room from 5:00 to 5:30 PM; which included a 10-Minute EXECUTIVE SESSION to "REVIEW LABOR NEGOTIATIONS" per RCW 42.30.140 (4)(b); and 2. Council will meet for a LEGISLATIVE REVIEW SESSION immediately following the regular meeting to hear presentations on upcoming agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA A. Check numbers 292465, 292691 through 292767, EFT~6358 through EFT 6361, and EFT- 6363 through EFT-6369 in the amount of $737,853.90; Regular Payroll in the amount of $1,222,993.90 for the pay period ending July 31,2004; and Retiree Payroll in the amount of $144,293.80 for the period ending July 31, 2004 (#AB04-152) B. Minutes of Meeting - July 14, 2004 (#AB04-153) C. Minutes of Meeting - July 21, 2004 (#AB04-154) D. Minutes of Meeting - July 28, 2004 (#AB04-155) #0050 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Arends) Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Ms. Robinson announced that the NAACP Bremerton Branch would be meeting Thursday, August 12th from 5:00 - 6:00 P.M. at the Washington Mutual Building located at 501 Pacific Avenue. The honoree would be Mrs. Regina Jones, Executive Director of the Washington State Commission on African American Affairs. Mr. GehrinR invited the public to attend the Eastside Community Fair which would be held on Saturday, August 21st from 10:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. at Lions Field on Lebo Boulevard. Representatives from Police, Fire, and Planning departments, as well as Council Members plan to be in attendance; also invited the public to attend the Blackberry Blues Jam and Motomycle Show which will be held on Saturday, August 28~h at the Admiral Theater located at 515 Pacific Avenue. The bike show is scheduled from 4:00 - 6:30 P.M. and the music starts at 7:00 P.M. Mr. McConnell announced that the next District 1 and 2 Community Meeting would be held on Thursday, August 19th from 6:30 - 8:00 P.M. at the Sheridan Park Recreation Center. The topic will be an "Overview of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan" and Community Development staff Paul Rogerson and Dri Ralph will be in attendance. Also, refreshments will be served. Mr, Ny,qren encouraged the public to attend the District 1 and 2 Community Meeting even if they do not live in those districts, since the Comprehensive Plan is such an important issue. TAPE #1964 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Page 2 of 2 With no further business, the meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 5:40 P.M. The Council reconvened in the Council Conference Room for a LEGISLATIVE REVIEW SESSION to hear presentations on upcoming agenda items. Prepared and Submitted by: CHRISTINE GRENIER ELLINGSON Council Assistant Attest: PAULA JOHNSTON, Interim City Clerk DAREN NYGREN, City Council President City of Bremerton DN/PJ/Is/cge DATE SUBMITTED: 8-4-04 BILL AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 3 b CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: IntergovernmentalCooperative Committee Meeting Date: 08-11-04 Purchasing Agreement between the City of COUNCIL MEETING Date: 08-18-04 Bremerton and City of Puyallup for potential Department: Fire future purchase of Diesel Exhaust Extractors. Presenter: A1 Duke, Fire Chief Phone: 478-5381 SUMMARY: The City of Puyallup is in the process of bidding for Diesel Exhaust Extractors System for their fire stations. The agreement would allow the City of Bremerton to use their bid for the same equipment, if the City so desires. This agreement does not create an obligation to purchase any particular product, and can be used in the future for other items. ATTACHMENTS: Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: ,/ ~ -Z'~ ~-----;~i~-~ · ~5_-xt~ ~.. k /~.. CONSENT AGEND OPERATIONS: ~ , ~ I ~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT: '"'"'~t/,a.~. RECOMMENDED MOTION: To authorized the Mayor to execute the Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement between the City of Bremerton and the City of Puyallup. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT Pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW and to other applicable laws, the CITY OF BREMERTON and the CITY OF PUYALLUP, both political subdivisions of the State of Washington, hereby agree to cooperative governmental purchasing upon the following terms and conditions: This Agreement pertains to bids and contracts for supplies, material, equipment, or services that may be required from time to time both by the CITY OF BREMERTON and the CITY OF PUYALLUP. 1. Each of the parties from time to time goes out to public bid and contracts to purchase supplies, material, equipment and services. Each of the parties hereby agrees to extend to the other party the right to purchase pursuant to such bids and contracts to the extent permitted by law, and to the extent agreed upon between each party and the bidder, contractor, vendor, supplier, or service provider. 2. Each of the parties shall comply with the all applicable laws and regulations governing its own purchases. 3. Each of the parties shall contract directly with the bidder, contractor, vendor, supplier, or service provider, and pay directly in accordance with its own payment procedures for its own purchases. Each party will indemnify and hold the other party harmless as to any claim arising out of its participation in this Agreement. 4. Any purchase made pursuant to this Agreement is not a purchase from either of the parties. The Agreement shall create no obligation to either of the parties to purchase any particular good or service, nor create to either of the parties any assurance, warranty, or other obligation from the other party with respect to purchasing or supplying any good or service. 5. No separate legal or administrative entity is intended to be created pursuant to this Agreement. No obligation, except as stated herein, shall be created between the parties or between the parties and any applicable bidder or contractor. 6. The CITY CLERK of CITY OF BREMERTON and the CITY CLERK of the CITY OF PUYALLUP shall be representatives of the entities for carrying out the terms of this Agreement. 11 7. This Agreement shall continue in force until canceled by either party, which cancellation may be effected upon receipt by one of the parties of the written notice of cancellation of the other party. APPROVED this day of APPROVED this __ day of _, 2004 ,2004 CITY OF BREMERTON CITY OF PUYALLUP BY: BY: Cary Bozeman James C. Bacon Mayor City Manager APPROVED AS TQ FORM: BY: BY: Roger Lubovich Gary McLean City Attorney City Attorney A'I-rEST: BY: BY: Paula Johnston Cindy Huff City Clerk City Clerk 12 DATE SUBMITTED: July 27, 2004 BILL # Oq - [ 6,0 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 5 E CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Amendment to Interlocal Committee Meeting Date: August 11, 2004 Agreement Between the City of Bremerton COUNCIL MEETING Date: August j~, 2004 1o° and Tracyton Water District Department: City Attorney's Office Presenter: Roger A. Lubovich Phone: 473-2345 SUMMARY: On March 5, 2004, the City of Bremerton and Tracyton Water District entered into an Interlocal Agreement for Assumption of Rights, Powers, Duties, Obligations and Transfer of Assets of Water District. The proposed amendment to interlocal clarifies that the transfer of assets from the District to the City occur on the closing date of the interlocal agreement as opposed to the date of dissolution of the District and further finalizes details of the transaction including provisions relating to a loan to the District by the City, customer surcharges, and street lighting billing. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Bremerton and Tracyton Water District 2. Memorandum of Amendment to Interlocal Agreement FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: c~ FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: ! , · ~_-~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ~--~~~ RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move the approve the Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Bremerton and Tracyton Water District and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented and further, to authorize the Mayor to execute any and all other documents necessary to carry out the terms of the amendment. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny ~ Table [] Continue [] No Action AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND TRACYTON WATER DISTRICT This amendment to agreement ("Amendment") is made and entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.33 RCW, the Intergovernmental Disposition of Property Act and Chapter 39.34, RCW the Interlocal Cooperation Act as of the date fully executed below, by and between the CITY OF BREMERTON, a municipal corporation of the state of Washington, (hereinafter "CITY") and TRACYTON WATER DISTRICT, a municipal corporation of the state of Washington, (hereinafter "DISTRICT"), together referred to as the "PARTIES". RECITALS WHEREAS, the CITY and the DISTRICT entered into an interlocal agreement pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW dated March 5, 2004, entitled "Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Bremerton and Tracyton Water District for Assumption of Rights, Powers, Duties, Obligations and Transfer of Assets of Water District", incorporated herein by this reference, for the transfer of assets and obligations of the Tracyton Water District to the CITY ("Interlocal Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the CITY and the DISTRICT entered into a Memorandum of Interlocal Agreement dated March 5, 2004 ("Closing Date") to memorialize the Interlocal Agreement which was recorded under Kitsap County Auditor's No. 200403190002 on March 19, 2004, incorporated heroin by this reference; and WHEREAS, the CITY and the DISTRICT wish to amend the Interlocal Agreement to clarify that the transfer of assets and obligation should be on the Closing Date of the Interlocal Agreement as opposed to the date of dissolution of the DISTRICT to allow the DISTRICT to remain in existence to finalize its affairs prior to dissolution; and WHEREAS, the CITY and the DISTRICT further wish to amend the Interlocal Agreement to finalize details of the closing of the transaction contemplated in said agreement; and WHEREAS, the CITY loaned the DISTRICT the amount of $83,566.86 pursuant to Resolution No. 2906 passed by the City Council on September 24, 2003 and incorporated herein by this reference, to make a payment due on the Drinking State Revolving Fund and now the PARTIES desire to account for said loan by making an adjustment to the water rate surcharge in order to repay the same; and WHEREAS, the CITY has collected and remitted to the DISTRICT since October surcharges in the amount of $40,651.67 and further collected the amount of $16,600.39 in March which was remitted to the DISTRICT in April. The PARTIES desire to account for said remittances in order to apply and make payment of the same toward loan payments due in June and October of 2004; and 1 of 5 14 WHEREAS, the CITY and the DISTRICT, pursuant to prior agreements as noted in the Interlocal Agreement, contracted for the CITY to bill, collect and remit to the DISTRICT fees collected on behalf of the DISTRICT for the DISTRICTS street lighting system and therefore the PARTIES wish to further amend the Interlocal Agreement to provide for the C1TYS continued billing for the DISTRICTS street lighting system during the interim period in which the DISTRICT is making other arrangements for the ownership and/or operation of the system; NOW, THEREFORE, The PARTIES agree as follows: A. Recitals. The above recitals are incorporated as if set forth herein in full. B. Loan Repayment. The loan from the CITY to the DISTRICT pursuant to City Council Resolution No.2906 is hereby repaid by applying the principal amount of the loan ($83,566.86) plus accrued interest at the municipal pool rate in effect during the term of the loan as an offset to the $1,001,000.00 appraised value of the property described in Exhibit G of the Inteflocal Agreement calculated as of the Closing Date. The new adjusted appraised value for the properly in the amount of $917,053.81 ($1,001,000.00 minus $83,566.86 and minus interest of $379.33) shall be used to calculate the water rate surcharge pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Interlocal Agreement as amended in paragraph C below. C. Paragraph 7 of the Interlocal Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 7. Loan Payments. The DISTRICT has been repaying its loans from the Public Works Trust Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund from water surcharges levied on DISTRICT customers as noted above. These surcharges are being levied by the DISTRICT for Phase 1 upgrades until the date of closing of this Agreement which shall be the effective date thereof, ("Closing Date"). After the Closing Date, the CITY will continue to levy said surcharges of $15.91/month for Phase 1 upgrades and make loan payments to the Public Works Trust Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund until such time as the Phase 1 amount of the loans are repaid. As consideration for the conveyance of the Property by the DISTRICT to the CITY, the CITY will offset the outstanding loan to the credit of the Phase 1 loan amount by the amount of $917,053.81, (the appraised value of the Property, minus the amount of the loan repayment pursuant to paragraph B above), leaving a total loan balance of $1,048,576.39 which includes interest of $203,099.05 as the balance to be repaid by water rate surcharges for the Public Works Trust Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund loans. It is the intent of the DISTRICT and CITY that after the credit from the Property is applied against the two loan balances owing, the two loans will continue to be paid for the remainder of their respective 20 year periods, and the current surcharge of $15.91/month paid by Tracyton's customers will be reduced by $8.47/month, based on the Closing Date of March 5, 2004, for a new surcharge of $7.44/month. D. Paragraph 10 of the Interlocal Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 10. Customer Rates. The monthly rate formula for customers within the DISTRICT service area following the Closing Date shall be equal to the rates charged city residents (I00%) 2~f5 plus the monthly surcharge to meet the debt service requirements of the DISTRICT loans. At such time as the DISTRICT loans are fully repaid, the surcharge shall be removed and water customers shall be charged rates as county residents (150%). E. Paragraph 11 of the Interlocal Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 11. Front Footage Fees - Discount. It is agreed that Front Footage Fees, (FFF), within the DISTRICT service area will be equal to those charged to CITY's customers in unincorporated Kitsap County. During calendar year 2001, the FFF was discounted 100% for existing users to the water system improvements. On January 1 of each year thereafter, the FFF discount will be reduced by five percent (5%) until such time as the DISTRICT FFF shall be equal to the fee charged customers in unincorporated Kitsap County. As an example, the 100% FFF discount for calendar year 2001 is reduced by 5% each succeeding calendar year for a 95% FFF discount for calendar year 2002 and 90% for calendar year 2003 and the discount will continue to be reduced until it is eliminated and the full FFF is applied. For each year that the FFF is collected, the amount collected shall be credited to the outstanding loan debt applicable to the surcharge and the surcharge shall be recalculated accordingly. The CITY will honor this reduction following closing of this agreement. The current FFF charged to CITY'S customers in unincorporated Kitsap County at the time of execution of this Amendment (calendar year 2004) is $30.63 per front foot or $1,531.50 (the off road rate). At the time of execution of this Amendment, the CITY is considering a new rate ordinance which would combine the General Facility Fee and Front Footage Fee into one System Development Fee. In the event that this new combined rate is adopted, the calculation of the DISTRICT'S customer FFF discount and DISTRICT'S subsequent credit will be based on the FFF charged to CITY'S customers in unincorporated Kitsap County in effect at the signing of the Interlocal Agreement. Unless otherwise modified by the City Council, the new system development fee will be adjusted each year based on the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U), U.S. City Average, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the year ending June 30 of the previous year. The discount will be applied as noted above until such time as the full System Development Fee is applied. F. Paragraph 13 of the Interlocal Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 13. Rates, Fees and Charges - Effect of Annexation. In the event that property or customers within the district service area are annexed into the CITY, such property or customers shall be subject to the same CITY rates, fees and charges as ail other CITY residents, except for the surcharge set forth in Section 7, which shall remain in effect as provided in said section. Properties served by the District prior to the Closing Date shall be considered customers of the CITY on and after the Closing Date. Prior to the Closing Date, the provisions of BMC 15.02.040, SERVICE BEYOND CITY LIMITS, shall not apply to such existing service. However, BMC 15.02.040 shall apply to all properties requesting utility service from the CITY after the Closing Date. G. Remittance of Surcharges Collected. In order to account for the surcharges, in the amount of $40,651.67, the CITY has collected and remitted to the DISTRICT from October 3~fif 5 through February and the amount of $16,600.39 collected in March and remitted to the DISTRICT in April, the PARTIES agree that the collected funds will be returned to the CITY in order to pay the PWTF loan payment due June 1, 2004 and the DWSRF loan payment due October 1, 2004. H. Street Lighting System. Pursuant to the prior agreements as noted in the Interlocal Agreement, the CITY shall continue to bill, collect and remit to the DISTRICT fees collected on behalf of the DISTRICT for the DISTRICTS street lighting system and during the interim period in which the DISTRICT is making other arrangements for the ownership and/or operation of the system, the CITY shall be paid an administrative fee of $15.00/month for this service. This administrative fee will be deducted from the gross lighting fees collected by the CITY prior to their remittance to the DISTRICT. I. Prior agreements. The terms and conditions of the Interlocal Agreement between the PARTIES dated March 5, 2004 remain in full force and effect except to the extent such may be amended herein. J. Condition of approval. This agreement is conditioned and subject to the approval of the governing body of both parties. K. Memorandum of Agreement - Recorded. A memorandum of this Amendment to Interlocal Agreement shall be recorded in the Kitsap County Auditor's Office. L. Duplicate Originals. This Amendment is executed in duplicate originals. This Amendment approved and entered into by the undersigned parties on the date fully executed as follows. CITY OF BREMERTON TRACYTON WATER DISTRICT CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor GARY KEENAN, Commissioner DATED DATED TIM KNAPP, Commissioner DATED LEE WINTEROWD, Commissioner DATED 41~f 5 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney ATTEST: ATTEST: PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk ., Secretary RSLEGALXFiles\Current Active Files\Tracyton Water District\Tracylon lnterlocal-Amendment.doc 5~f 5 Return Address: Ann: City Clerk City of Bremerton 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 AUDITOR/RECORDER'S INDEXING FORM Document Title(s): I. Memorandum of Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Reference Number(s) of D~cuments assigned or released: Amends 200403190002 Grantor(s): 1. Tracyton Water District [] Additional names on page of document. Grantee(s): 1. City of Bremerton [] Additional names on page of document. Legal Description: N/A (abbreviated) [] Additional legal is on page of document. Assessor s Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: N/A MEMORANDUM OF AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT This "Memorandum of Amendment to Interlocal Agreement" is entered into on the date fully executed below, by and between the City of Bremerton, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Tracyton Water District (hereinafter referred to as "District"). The District and City entered into an agreement entitled "Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Bremerton and Tracyton Water District" on , 2004, to clarify and finalize details of the closing of the transaction contemplated in that certain agreement entitled "Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Bremerton and Tracyton Water District for Assumption of Rights, Powers, Duties, Obligations and Transfer of Assets of Water District" entered into on March 5, 2004, for which a memorandum of interlocal agreement was recorded under Kitsap Auditor's No. 200403190002. MEMORANDUM OF AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum of Amendment to Inteflocal Agreement. CITY OF BREMERTON TRACYTON WATER DISTRICT By: By:. Print Name: Cary Bozeman Print Name: Its: Mayor Its: DATE: DATE: STATE OF WASHINGTON SS. COUNTY OF KITSAP I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Cary Bozeman is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument on behalf of the City of Bremerton as its Mayor, and such execution to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the foregoing instrument. -Notary Seal Mu~t Appear Within This Box- 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this __. day of ,2004. NOTARY PUBLIC, in and for the State of Washington, residing at My appointment expires MEMORANDUM OF AMENDMENT TO 1NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON SS. COUNTY OF KITSAP I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she is authorized to execute the instrument on behalf of the Tracyton Water District as its ., and such execution to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the foregoing instrument. -Notary Seal Must Appear Within This Box- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this ___ day of r ,2004. NOTARY PUBLIC, in and for the State of Washington, residing at My appointment expires APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney RSLEGALXFiles\Current Active Files\Tracyton Water DistricthMemomndum of Amendment to Agreement.doc MEMORANDUM OF AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - 3 23. DATE SUBMITI'ED: 08/06/04 BILL # _0q.-II AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: New Appointment to the Committee Meeting Date: 8/11/04 Community Development Block Grant COUNCIL MEETING Date: 8/18/04 (CDBG) Advisory Committee Department: Executive Presenter: Chris Hugo Phone: 473-5243 SUMMARY: There is currently a vacancy in the Block Grant Advisory Committee for capital projects. The specific opening is to be filled by a member of the City of Bremerton's Planning Commission. It is recommended that the City Council confirm the Mayor's appointment of Jessica Kennedy to fill the vacancy. ATTACHMENTS: None FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: ,. FINANCE DIRECTOR: ~~,~~ MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: ' : ' ' OPERATIONS: T ~. ~-~7[ ~7... __,/~,'Z-, CONSENT AGEND RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to confirm the appoPntment of Jessica Kennedy to the Block Grant Advisory Committee for capital projects. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action 22 DATE SUBMITTED: August 2, 2004 BILL # 0 t~ _ | ~ AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON ~ A CITY COUNCIL ~ ~ SUBJECT: Agreement for Purchase and Committee Meeting Date: 8/11/04 Sale of Kiss N Ride Easement and Kiss N COUNCIL MEETING Date: 8/18/04 Ride Easement and License Agreement Department: City Attorney's Office Presenter: Roger A. Lubovich Phone: 473-2345 SUMMARY: Kitsap Community Federal Credit Union has acquired property which it intends to develop and improve. The City of Bremerton and Kitsap Transit desire to purchase an easement on part of the property after improvement for vehicular dropping off and picking up ferry passengers. The Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Kiss N Ride Easement and Kiss N Ride Easement and License Agreement provide for the purchase of the easement and use of the area designated as the Kiss N Ride. ATTACHMENTS: (1) Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Kiss N Ride Easement (2) Kiss N Ride Easement and License Agreement FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The purchase price for the easement is $450,000, of which the City will be responsible for the payment of $225,000. $90,000 of the $225,000 will be paid by way of exchange offset for the City's vacation of the underground portion of 2na Street. The remaining $135,000 shall be paid by the City on or before January 15, 2005. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: ( CITY ATTORNEY: FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: ~, ~, ~ :_~.:.~.~ ff~,~j~ CONSENT AGEND) coUNciL PP SIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve (a) the Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Kiss N Ride Easement and (b) the Kiss N Ride Easement and License Agreement COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action 23 Department of Financial Services 239 Fourth Street, Brernerton, WA 98337 Telephone: 360-478-5590 Fax: 360-478-5200 rnwilson@ci, bremerton, wa.us Michael R. Wilson, Director of Financial Services TO: Daren Nygren, President, Bremerton City Council Bremerton City Councilmembers CC: Cary Bozeman,/Mayo~ FROM: MichaelR. Wilo .5 SUBJECT: Kiss-N-Ride Funding The "Kiss-N-Ride" project is listed in the 2004 Arterial Street budget (Fund 101) with $225,000 of CDBG monies identified as the resource to fund this project. Since this project was not successful in securing CDBG funds, it must be funded from other City revenues. It is our understanding that the City will secure $90,000 from the vacation of 2na Street right-of-way leaving an unfunded balance of $135,000 for this project. It is my recommendation that this balance be funded from the General Government Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 308) using real estate excise taxes. Real estate excise taxes are specifically to be used for "local capital improvements", including streets, sewers, parks, water mains, etc. and the acquisition of real property associated with such capital improvements. Due to the extraordinary real estate sales activity in Bremerton over the past two years, we now anticipate that the balance of this Fund will be in excess of $1 million by the end of this year. Since the payment for the Kiss-N-Ride easement acquisition is not scheduled until January 15, 2005, the City Council can approve this expenditure in the 2005 Annual Budget using these real estate excise tax revenues. 24 AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF KISS N RIDE EASEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the'Z-~ at)day ,o,f ~'bet...~/ , 2004 by and between the City of Bremerton, a Municipal Corporation ( City"); KITSAP TRANSIT, a Washington Municipal Corporation ("Transit") and KITSAP COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ("KCFCU"). SECTION ONE Recitals 1.1 KCFCU has acquired certain property (the "Property") located at the comer of Washington Avenue and Second Avenue in Bremerton, legally described in Exhibit 1 hereto, on which it intends to develop an office building and corporate headquarters (the "KCFCU Project"). As part of the KCFCU Project, KCFCU desires to build an underground parking garage beneath the Property and certain ground level parking, landscaping and drive aisle improvements. As part of the KCFCU Project, KCFCU has acquired certain abutting property, part of which it will use to access KCFCU's underground parking garage. 1.2 KCFCU proposes to construct a portion of its proposed underground parking garage below the south 12 feet of the Second Street right-of-way abutting the Property, which portion shall hereafter be referred to as the Second Avenue Subsurface Right-Of-Way and specifically means the area of land beginning 2 feet below the existing surface and extending 21 feet below the existing surface of the portion of the Second Avenue right-of-way abutting and north of Lots 8 through 18 inclusive, Block 9, Town of Bremerton, according to Plat recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, page 30, records of Kitsap County, Washington (the "Property"), a distance of 12 feet 0 inches from the north boundary of the Property. 1.3 City and Transit desire the right to use part of the Property for vehicular dropping off and picking up ferry passengers, hereafter referred to as the "Kiss N Ride Area". The "Kiss N Ride Area" is depicted on the rough site plan attached as Exhibit 2. 1.4 KCFCU is, with the assistance of its architect, Rice, Fergus & Miller, and its developer, Opus NW, LLC, designing a preliminary site plan (the "Preliminary Plan") for the completion of the KCFCU Project which includes the improvements to the K/ss N Ride Area necessary for use by City and Transit. SECTION TWO Substantive Terms 2.1 Preliminary Plans. Not later than June 30, 2004, KCFCU will deliver to Transit and the City, for their review and approval, the Preliminary Plan for the AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF KISS N RIDE EASEMENT - Page 1 of 7 (7-8-04) 25 completion of the KCFCU Project. The Preliminary Plan will identify the approximate location of the Kiss N Ride Area and Improvements and the Second Avenue Subsurface Easement. This Agreement is subject to the City's and Transit's written approval of the Preliminary Plan. If the City and Transit do not provide such writ'ten approval by July' 15, 2004, this Agreement shall terminate. 2.2 City Approvals. Not later than August 30, 2004, the City shall procure the written approval of the City's City Council to the terms of this Agreement and lawfully vacate the Second Avenue Subsurface Right-Of-Way. If such approvals (the "Legislative Approvals") are not procured by said date, any party may terminate this Agreement. 2.3 Final Plans. Once the City and Transit have approved the Preliminary Plan and procured the Legislative Approvals in accordance with the provisions of Sections 2.1 and 2.2, KCFCU will, at its sole cost and expense, and with the assistance of its Architect and Developer, prepare final plans and specifications (the "Final Plans") for the completion of the KCFCU Project. KCFCU and its Architect and Developer will (a) seek the input of the City and Transit to insure the Kiss N Ride Area is properly designed to accommodate the long-term needs and uses of the City and Transit for Kiss N Ride usage; and (b) seek the input of the City to insure (i) the portion of the underground parking garage within the Second Avenue Subsurface Right-Of-Way has been properly designed to avoid the risk of damage to the surface improvements (the "Right of Way Surface Improvements") KCFCU will construct over the Second Avenue Subsurface Right-Of-Way; and (ii) the Right of Way Surface Improvements over the KCFCU Easement have been properly designed in accordance with the Preliminary Plan and the City's standards. The Final Plans will incorporate the intended Kiss N Ride Area Improvements and Right of Way Surface Improvements in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Plan and the requirements of the City and Transit. The Final Plans will be subject to the review and approval of the City and Transit, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 2.4 Permitting And Construction. Excluding the duties specifically allocated to the City pursuant to Section 2.5, KCFCU will be solely responsible for (i) procuring all building permits required for the construction and completion of the KCFCU Project; and (ii) the timely construction and completion of the KCFCU Project, including the Kiss N Ride Area Improvements and Right of Way Surface Improvements in accordance with the Final Plans, all applicable building and zoning codes and acceptable industry standards for good workmanship. 2.5 Clarification Of Certain Duties. KCFCU acknowledges that it is responsible for the removal of the three (3) existing power poles on the Property at its expense. The City agrees that it will construct or install, at the sole expense of the City, new sidewalks, trees and lighting along Washington Avenue. KCFCU agrees that it will construct or install, at the sole expense of KCFCU, new sidewalks, trees and lighting along Second Avenue. All such sidewalks, trees and lightihg AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF KISS N RIDE EASEMENT - Page 2 of 7 (7-8-04) 2S (collectively, the "Right-Of-Way Surface Improvements") will conform to the City's standards and applicable building codes. 2.6 Vacation Of Second Avenue Subsurface Easement. Subject to the approval of the Bremerton City Council, the City shall vacate the Second Avenue Subsurface Right-Of-Way. The agreed value of the Second Avenue Subsurface Right-Of- Way is $90,000.00, which shall be offset from the City's share of the purchase price for the Kiss N Ride Easement. If KCFCU does not construct its proposed underground parking garage, KCFCU will dedicate back to the City for right-of- way the vacated area. 2.7 Completion Date. KCFCU shall fully complete the KCFCU Project, including the Kiss N Ride Area Improvements and Right-Of-Way Surface Improvements required of KCFCU pursuant to Section 2.5, not later than December 31, 2005, provided such completion date shall be extended by reason of unforeseen delays not within the reasonable control of KCFCU. KCFCU and the City will coordinate the concurrent completion of the Right-Of-Way Surface Improvements required under Section 2.5 to insure the timely completion of the KCFCU Project. 2.8 Final Inspection. Once the KCFCU Project is substantially complete, the City and Transit will mutually inspect the Kiss N Ride Area and Improvements to insure the improvements comport with the Final Plans, applicable building codes and industry standards. The City will inspect the Right of Way Surface Improvements to insure such Improvements comport with the Final Plans, the construction permits, applicable building codes and industry standards. In the event of any nonconformity or deficiency, the City and Transit will develop a corrective punch list and KCFCU shall, within thirty (30) days, correct any deficient work set forth on the punch list. 2.9 Grant Of Kiss N Ride Easement And License; Payment. 2.9.1 Execution And Delivery Of Easement. Within thirty (30) days of the completion of the KCFCU Project and Kiss N Ride Area Improvements in accordance with this Agreement, KCFCU, the City and Transit shall execute and deliver to Transit's Attorney the Kiss N Ride Easement And License Agreement in the form attached as Exhibit 4. 2.9.2 Purchase Price And Deposit Of Funds. The agreed value of the Kiss N Ride Easement is $450,000.00. This sum shall be payable by Transit and the City in equal shares. Transit's share shall be paid in cash. The City's share shall be paid as follows: a. $90,000.00 by way of excha~qge offset for the City's prior vacation of the Second Avenue Subsurface Right-Of-Way. b. $135,000.00 payable in cash. AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF KISS N RIDE EASEMENT - Page 3 of 7 (7-8-04) 27 Concurrently with KCFCU's execution and delivery of said Kiss N Ride Easement And License Agreement, the City and Transit shall execute and deliver to Transit's Attorney, checks made payable to KCFCU in the principal sum of $135,000.00 and $225,000.00, respectively (the "Funds"). At the City's sole option, the City's payment shall be made on or before January 15, 2005. 2.9.3 Title Clearance. On Transit's Attorney's receipt of the Kiss N Ride Easement And License Agreement and Funds, Attorney shall procure a final title policy (the "Title Policy") issued by Pacific Northwest Title Insurance Company (the "Title Company") insuring the easement interest of the City and Transit, subject only to the Permitted Title Exceptions described in Exhibit 5 hereto. 2.9.4 Recording, Payment Of Excise Tax And Release Of Funds. Once the Title Company issues clearance for the issuance of the title Policy, Attorney shall cause the original Kiss N Ride Easement And License Agreement to be recorded and release the Funds to KCFCU. The real estate excise tax shall be paid by KCFCU. The City and Transit shall pay the title premiums and recording fees in equal shares. 2.10 Guaranty And Correction Of Defective Work. KCFCU guarantees the Kiss N Ride Area and Improvements and the Right of Way Surface Improvements will be of good quality and in conformance with the provisions of this Agreement. For a period of one (1) year from the recording of the Kiss N Ride Easement And License Agreement, KCFCU warrants the Kiss N Ride Area Improvements and Right of Way Surface Improvements will be free of defects (excluding damage caused by Transit and/or the City and/or the public from causes other than normal Kiss N Ride use) and such Improvements will be in conformance with the Final Plans, applicable building codes and acceptable industry standards for good workmanship. In the event of any non-conformity or deficiency, KCFCU shall promptly repair or correct any non-conforming or deficient work. During this one (1) year warranty period, KCFCU, Transit and the City will perform routine and regular maintenance of the Kiss N Ride Area and Improvements in accordance with the Maintenance provisions of the Kiss N Ride Easement And License Agreement. 2.11 Arbitration. In the event any dispute arises under this Agreement, such dispute shall be settled by binding arbitration. Such arbitration shall be before one disinterested arbitrator if one can be agreed upon, otherwise before three disinterested arbitrators, one named by KCFCU, one by the City and Transit, and one by the two thus chosen; provided, that if said two arbitrators cannot agree upon a third arbitrator within fifteen (15) days, then said third arbitrator shall be appointed by the presiding Judge of Kitsap County Superior Court upon motion of either party. A "disinterested arbitrator" shall be a person who shall not have a AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF KISS N RIDE EASEMENT - Page 4 of 7 (7-8-04) 28 direct or indirect financial interest in the decisions to be made by the board of arbitrators and who shall not be an officer, director, employee or agent of any party. The arbitrator or arbitrators shall determine the controversy in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington as applied to the facts found by him, her or them, and in accordance with the roles of Mandatory Arbitration Rules. If the arbitration is conducted by a panel of three arbitrators, a majority decision of the throe shall constitute the binding final and conclusive award. All arbitration proceedings hereunder shall be conducted in Kitsap County, Washington. The appointment of arbitrators shall be signified in writing by each party to the other. If one party shall fail to so appoint an arbitrator for a period of fifteen (15) days after written notice from the other party to make such appointment, then the arbitrator appointed by the party who has made such appointment shall serve as the arbitrator. The award of the arbitrator or arbitrators shall be binding, final and conclusive on the parties. Fees of the arbitrator or arbitrators and the expenses incident to the proceeding shall be borne one-half by KCFCU and one-half by the City and Transit, provided the substantially prevailing party in any such proceeding shall be entitled to an award of and to recover its costs and expenses incurred, including reasonable attorney's fees, and its share of the fees of the arbitrator(s). 2.12 Miscellaneous Provisions. 2.12.1 Successors OrAssigns. All the terms, conditions, covenants and agreements of this Agreement shall extend to and be binding upon the parties and their respective successors and assigns. 2.12.2 Corporate Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of said corporation, except for the Mayor of the City of Bremerton who's signature is conditioned upon subsequent final acceptance and approval by the Bremerton City Council, represents and warrants that he is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said corporation, in accordance with a duly adopted resolution of the board of directors of said corporation authorizing and consenting to this Agreement; authorizing the specific officers signing this Agreement to execute, acknowledge and deliver the same without the consent of any other officer or officers; resolving that such action and execution is in accordance with the bylaws of said corporation; and resolving that this Agreement is binding upon said corporation in accordance with its terms. 2.12.3 Choice Of Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington and in the event any action is instituted on account of this Agreement, the venue of any such action shall lie exclusively in the State Courts for Kitsap County, Washington. AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF KISS N RIDE EASEMENT - Page 5 of 7 (7-8-04) 29 2.12.4 Prior Agreements. This Agreement contains all of the oral and written agreements and understandings, correspondence, representations and statements of the parties hereto with respect to the Kiss N Ride Area and Improvements, and no prior matters shall be effective for any purpose. No provision of this Agreement may be amended or added to except by an agreement in writing signed by the parties hereto or their respective successors in interest. This Agreement shall not be effective or binding on any party until fully executed by both parties hereto. 2.12.5 Partial Invalidity. If any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is, to any extent, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such term, covenant or condition to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be valid and be enfomed to the fullest extent permitted by law. 2.12.6 Notices. Any notices required in accordance with any of the provisions herein or desired to be given hereunder to be given either party shall be delivered personally or, if mailed, then mailed by registered or certified mail or via a nationally recognized overnight delivery service and addressed to such party at the address set forth below. Notices shall be deemed given when delivered, if delivered personally, or three (3) business days after deposit in the United States mail as set forth above. KCFCU: Kitsap Community Federal Credit Union Elliot Gregg, President 1025 Burwell Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Fax # Email: Kitsap Transit: Richard Hayes, Executive Director Kitsap Transit 200 Charleston Blvd., Bremerton, WA 98312 Fax #478-0140 Email: cathiekb @kitsaptransit.com With Copy to: Ronald C. Templeton Matty & Templeton 3212 NW Byron Street #104 Silverdale, WA 98383 Fax #692-1257 Ernail: rctempleton @ telebyte.com AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF KISS N RIDE EASEMENT - Page 6 of 7 (7-8-04) 30 City of Bremerton: Gary Sexton, Director of Economic Development City of Bremerton 239 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Fax #473-5282 Email:gsexton @ci.bremerton.wa.us With Copy to: Roger Lubovich Bremerton City Attorney 239 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Fax #478-5161 Email:rlubovich @ ci.bremerton.wa.us 2.12.7 Negotiation; Representation And Construction. This Agreement and each of its terms and provisions are deemed to have been explicitly negotiated between the parties, and the language in all parts of this Agreement will, in all cases, be construed according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against either party. Prior to signing this Agreement, each party was represented by independent legal counsel. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of the day and year first above set forth. KCFCU Its [ ~ ~ i r~,¥,'r-~/ ~___~"'0 KITSAP TRANSIT RICHARD HAYES, Exe~ti3~ Director AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF KISS N RIDE EASEMENT - Page 7 of 7 (7-8-04) 31 KISS N RIDE EASEMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the ~'~ ggday of ~ C ~' ,2004 by and between KITSAP COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ("Grantor"), and KITSAP TRANSIT ("Transit"), a Washington Municipal Corporation and CITY OF BREMERTON ("City"), a Municipal Corporation. Collectively, Transit and the City shall be referred to as Grantees. 1. Easement And License Grant. For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, Grantor grants, conveys and warrants to Grantees a perpetual easement and license (the "Easement") on that portion of Grantor's Property (the "Easement Area") described in Section 2 below for the purposes set forth in Section 3. 2. Easement Area. The Easement Area consists of the following: a. Exclusive Area. That portion of Grantor's Property that extends 2 feet below and 12'6" above the existing surface of the Property described in Exhibit 1 (hereinafter, the "Exclusive Area"); and b. Common Areas. That portion of Grantor's Property described in Exhibit 2 (hereinafter, the "Common Areas"). 3. Purposes. 3.1 Exclusive Area. Grantees shall have the right to use, maintain, improve and enjoy the Exclusive Area for vehicular passenger loading, unloading and waiting. It is the parties intent that the Exclusive Area be used by the public to drop off and pick up ferry passengers. Hereafter, such use shall be referred to as "Kiss N Ride Use". However, subject to the provisions of Sections 8 and 9, the Grantees may use the Exclusive Area for any lawful use. 3.2 Common Areas. Grantees shall have the right to use the Common Areas in common with Grantor for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress. 4. Title Warranties. In conveying the Easement, it is intended that Grantor is providing all the title warranties encompassed within a statutory warranty deed under Washington law, subject only to the Permitted Title Exceptions set forth in Exhibit 3. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Grantees shall have the full use and quiet enjoyment of the Exclusive Area and maintain exclusive control, dominion and possession thereof. 5. Grantor's Reserved Rights/Restrictions. Grantor has constructed (or is constructing) a subsurface parking garage below the Exclusive Area and Common KISS N RIDE EASEMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT - Page I of 9 (7-8-04) 3£ Area and reserves all subsurface rights associated with the maintenance, .operation,. repair and improvement of the underground parking garage, provided, in exem~s~ng and using its subsurface rights, Grantor shall not interfere with or impair Grantees' right to use, enjoy and maintain the surface area of the Easement Area for the purposes set forth in Section 3, or undertake or suffer any act, event or activity that would damage any improvement on the Exclusive Area. It is contemplated that Grantees may install underground utilities or other improvements below the existing surface of the Exclusive Area; however, Grantees shall make no subsurface improvements or undertake any activities that would damage, disrupt, impair or interfere with Grantor's underground parking garage. Excluding lighting poles, Grantee shall not have the right to erect, construct, place or maintain any improvement, object or structure on or over the Exclusive Area that exceeds 12 feet 6 inches in height as measured from the existing completed and constructed "as built" grade level of the Exclusive Area. Above the Exclusive Area, Grantor reserves all air rights, including the right to construct improvements, so long as such improvements are not constructed or used in a manner that would pose a material risk of damage, injury, disruption, impairment or interferment with Grantee's use and enjoyment of the Exclusive Area. 6. Maintenance. That portion of the Grantor's Property described in Exhibit 4 shall hereafter be referred to as the "Maintenance Area". The Maintenance Area includes the Exclusive Area, the Common Areas and surface level parking area associated with an office building on Grantor's Property. The Maintenance Area excludes Grantor's underground parking garage. So long as the Maintenance Area is used for vehicular and pedestrian parking, ingress and egress, loading, unloading, holding and/or waiting, the Maintenance Area shall be maintained by the parties in accordance with the Maintenance Standards set forth in Section 7 in the following shares: KCFCU: 50% Transit: 25% City: 25% 7. Maintenance Standards. The Maintenance Area shall be maintained in accordance with the following: a. The surface of all vehicular parking areas and drive aisles shall be maintained with asphalt or concrete, kept free of pot holes, debris and obstructions, and periodically sealed, re-stripped and/or resurfaced so as to keep these areas in a professionally clean, neat, attractive and damage-free condition. KISS N RIDE EASEMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT - Page 2 of 9 (7-8-04) 33 b. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters shall be concrete and kept in a professionally clean, neat, attractive and damage-free condition and to the standards of the City. c. Sidewalks, parking areas and drive aisles shall be kept free of litter, debris, snow and ice. d. Landscaping planters shall be maintained and all vegetation properly watered, trimmed, weeded, thinned, pruned and maintained in an attractive appearance. 8. Grantor's Re-Purchase/Extinguishment Rights. 8.1 When Available. In the event Grantees propose to convert the use of the Exclusive Area to a use or purpose other than Kiss N Ride Use (the "Changed Use"), Grantees shall provide written notice to Grantor (the "Conversion Notice"). The Conversion Notice shall specify the proposed Changed Use. For a period of 45 days from the date of Grantees' Conversion Notice, Grantor shall have the right to re-purchase Grantees' Easement, terminate this Agreement and extinguish all of Grantees' rights hereunder in accordance with the provisions of this Section 8, by transmitting written notice (the "Purchase Notice") to Grantees. In the event Grantor fails to timely transmit the Purchase Notice, grantees shall have the right to use the Exclusive Area for the Changed Use specified in the Conversion Notice (and continue to use the Common Areas for the purposes described in Section 3.2). 8.2 Purchase Price. Grantor's Purchase Notice shall specify a proposed purchase price. Grantees shall have 30 days from the Purchase Notice to accept Grantor's proposed purchase price or elect to cause the purchase price to be established by independent appraisal by transmitting written notice (the "Response Notice") to Grantor. If Grantees fail to timely transmit a Response Notice, Grantees shall be deemed to have accepted Gmntor's proposed purchase price. 8.3 Appraisal. If Grantees have timely transmitted a Response Notice requesting an appraisal, the property shall be appraised by an MAI appraisal. If the parties are unable to agree on an appraiser, Grantor, the City and Transit shall each designate an MAI Appraiser and the three appraisers shall establish the purchase price. The decision of a majority of said three appraisers shall be binding on the parties. 8.4 Closing. Not later than 30 days after the Purchase Price has been established, Grantor shall pay the Purchase Price to Grantees, in cash. Concurrently therewith, Grantees shall execute an Easement Extinguishment document in a recordable form designated by Grantor's KISS N RIDE EASEMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT - Page 3 of 9 (7-8-04) 34 title insurer fully terminating this Agreement and extinguishing Grantees' fights hereunder. 8.5 Miscellaneous. In the event Grantor fails to exercise its re-purchase fights under this Section 8, as to the Changed Use specified in the Conversion Notice, Grantor's re-pumhase rights shall continue as to any other subsequent proposed Changed Use. 9. Grantor's Right Of First Refusal. In the event Grantees propose to sell Grantee's Easements right for any valuable consideration and receive a bona fide offer for the pumhase thereof (the "Purchase Offer") from any third party (the "Intended Purchaser"), before accepting such offer, Grantees shall provide written notice (the "Offer Notice") to Grantor, together with a copy of the Intended Pumhaser's Purchase Offer. For a period of 20 days from the date of the Offer Notice, Grantor shall have the exclusive right to purchase Grantees' Easement rights for the price and on the terms set forth in the Intended Pumhaser's Purchase Offer, by transmitting written notice (the "Acceptance Notice") to Grantees. In the event Grantor fails to timely transmit the Acceptance Notice, Grantees shall be free to accept the Intended Purchaser's Purchase Offer and consummate the sale of Grantee's Easement rights on the terms of or substantially equivalent terms of such Purchase Offer, in which case, the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of this Agreement shall automatically terminate. In the event, however, such proposed sale by Grantee to such Intended Purchaser is not actually consummated, Grantor's first refusal rights shall continue as to any new Purchase Offer from any Intended Purchaser. In the event Grantor timely transmits the Acceptance Notice, Grantor shall promptly purchase Grantees' Easement rights on the terms and within the time set forth in the Intended Purchaser's Purchase Offer. The provisions of this Section 9 do not apply as to a transfer solely between the City and Transit to each other, or to Grantees' transfer to another unit of government. 10. Indemnification Obligations. 10.1 By Grantor. Grantor shall save, defend, indemnify and hold Grantees harmless from all damages, liabilities, obligations, claims and demands pertaining to or arising from Grantor's ownership, maintenance, use and operation of all of Grantor's Property and the conduct of Grantor's business thereon, excluding Grantees' use of and/or exercise of Grantee's Easement rights. 10.2 By Grantees. Grantees shall save, defend, indemnify and hold Grantor harmless from all damages, liabilities, obligations, claims and demands pertaining to or arising from Grantees use of or exercise of Grantees' KISS N RIDE EASEMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT - Page 4 of 9 (7-8-04) 35 Easement rights, unless caused by Grantor or its agents, employees or customers. 1 I. No Public Dedication. The transaction set forth in this Agreement is intended to operate as a grant of an easement and license in accordance with the terms hereof and is not intended as a public dedication. 12. Bindin~ Effect. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective legal representatives, successors and assigns. All the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute running covenants that mn with the land. 13. Termination Or Transfer Of Interest. In the event this Agreement is terminated in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, neither party shall have further obligations hereunder. In the event one party transfer its interests in this Agreement to a third party, the transferring party shall be relieved of all further obligations hereunder and the transferee shall assume all the obligations of the transferor. 14. Arbitration. In the event any dispute arises under this Agreement, such dispute shall be settled by binding arbitration. Such arbitration shall be before one disinterested arbitrator if one can be agreed upon, otherwise before three disinterested arbitrators, one named by Grantor and one by Grantees, and one by the two thus chosen; provided, that if said two arbitrators cannot agree upon a third arbitrator within 15 days, then said third arbitrator shall be appointed by the Presiding Judge of Kitsap County Superior Court upon motion of either party. A "disinterested arbitrator" shall be a person who shall not have a direct or indirect financial interest in the decisions to be made by the board of arbitrators and who shall not be an officer, director, employee or agent of any party. The arbitrator or arbitrators shall determine the controversy in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington as applied to the facts found by him, her or them, and in accordance with the rules of Mandatory Arbitration Rules. If the arbitration is conducted by a panel of three arbitrators, a majority decision of the three shall constitute the binding final and conclusive award. All arbitration proceedings hereunder shall be conducted in Kitsap County, Washington. The appointment of arbitrators shall be signified in writing by each party to the other. If one party shall fail to so appoint an arbitrator for a period of 15 days after written notice from the other party to make such appointment, then the arbitrator appointed by the party who has made such appointment shall serve as the arbitrator. The award of the arbitrator or arbitrators shall be binding, final and conclusive on the parties, and judgment on such award rendered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Fees of the arbitrator or arbitrators and the expenses incident to the proceeding shall be borne one-half by Grantor and one-half by Grantees, provided the substantially prevailing party in any such proceeding shall be entitled to an award of and to recover its costs and expenses incurred, including reasonable attorney's fees, and its share of the fees of the arbitrator(s). KISS N RIDE EASEMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT - Page 5 of 9 (7-8-04) 36 15. Notices. Any notices required in accordance with any of the provisions herein or desired to be given hereunder to be given either party shall be delivered personally or, if mailed, then mailed by registered or certified mail or via a nationally recognized overnight delivery service and addressed to such party at the address set forth below. Notices shall be deemed given when delivered, if delivered personally, or three (3) business days after deposit in the United States mail as set forth above. KCFCU: Kitsap Community Federal Credit Union President 1025 Burwell Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Fax # Email: Kitsap Transit: Executive Director Kitsap Transit 200 Charleston Blvd. Bremerton, WA 98312 Fax #478-0140 Email: cathiekb @ kitsaptransit.corn With Copy to: General Counsel Kitsap Transit 200 Charleston Blvd. Bremerton, WA 98312 City of Bremerton: Director of Economic Development City of Bremerton 239 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Fax #473-5282 Email:gsexton @ ci.bremerton.wa.us With Copy to: Bremerton City Attorney 239 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Fax #478-5161 Email:rlubovich @ci.bremerton.wa.us 16. Miscellaneous Provisions. 16.1 Corporate Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of said corporation, except for the Mayor of the City of Bremerton who's signature is conditioned upon subsequent final acceptance and approval by KISS N RIDE EASEMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT - Page 6 of 9 (7-8-04) 37 the Bremerton City Council, represents and warrants that he is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said corporation, in accordance with a duly adopted resolution of the board of directors of said corporation authorizing and consenting to this Agreement; authorizing the specific officers signing this Agreement to execute, acknowledge and deliver the same without the consent of any other officer or officers; resolving that such action and execution is in accordance with the bylaws of said corporation; and resolving that this Agreement is binding upon said corporation in accordance with its terms. 16.2 Choice Of Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington and in the event any action is instituted on account of this Agreement, the venue of any such action shall lie exclusively in the state Courts for Kitsap County, Washington. 16.3 Excluding the guaranty set forth in Section 7 of the Agreement For Purchase Of Kiss N Ride Easement dated July ~_ ,~/.12004, this Agreement contains all of the oral and written agreements and understandings, correspondence, representations and statements of the parties hereto with respect to the Easement, and no prior matters shall be effective for any purpose. No provision of this Agreement may be amended or added to except by an agreement in writing signed by the parties hereto or their respective successors in interest. This Agreement shall not be effective or binding on any party until fully executed by both parties hereto. 16.4 Partial Invalidity. If any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is, to any extent, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such term, covenant or condition to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 16.5 Negotiation; Representation And Construction. This Agreement and each of its terms and provisions are deemed to have been explicitly negotiated between the parties, and the language in all parts of this Agreement will, in all cases, be construed according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against either party. Prior to signing this Agreement, each party was represented by independent legal counsel. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of the day and year first above set forth. KCFCU KISS N RIDE EASEMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT - Page 7 of 9 (7-8-04) 38 By ELLIOT GREGG, Presi~ ' KITSAP TRANSIT RICHARD HAYESTE~cutive Director CITY OF BREMERTON Its ~-~ ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) : SS. COUNTY OF K1TSAP ) I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ELLIOT GREGG is the person who appeared before me, and said person ackowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the President of KITSAP COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. Notary Pubhc ,n a~r)~ for ~e ~i~ate of~/J{~,~ii~./'ej Residing at: ,z//,/h/ ll,/ /1, e ~.' ; ~ appointmentexplres: ~/I/[/~, PnntName ~?5~,o. ji!~jc:...~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KITSAP ) I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that RICHARD HAYES is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Executive Director of KITSAP TRANSIT to be the free and KISS N RIDE EASEMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT - Page 8 of 9 (7-8-04) 39 voluntary act of such party for the uses and proposes mentioned in this instrument. Dated: ~--r~tZ'510q Residing at: ~o~~.¢U ~0t~ry mubh~ in and fo' 'r th~State o~ My appointment expires: ~/~Tt, g Print Name STATE OF WASH~GTON ) . SS. COUNTY OF KITSAP ) instrument, on oath stud that he/she is authorized to execute the ins~ment and acknowledged it as the~ of C~Y OF BREMERTON to be the free volunt~y act of such pa~y fSr the uses and pu~oses mentioned in this instrument. Dated: 7- o~/-0¥/ ~/LtA,~,(~. Residing at:~aa:~.,~ Notary Pt~lic ih"dnd f~r the State~f Washington My appointment expires: -~Z~"-O~, ('~ ~',rt~/ Print Na~e KISS N RIDE EASEMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT - Page 9 of 9 (7-8-04) 40 Exhibits Legal Description - Credit Union Property * Exhibit 1 of Purchase Agreement Site Plan * Exhibit 2 of the Purchase Agreement * Exhibits 1 and 2 of Easement Agreement Title Exceptions - none * Exhibit 3 of Purchase Agreement * Exhibit 3 of Easement Agreement FROM :MATTY&TEMPLETON FAX NO. :3606921257 Au9. 15 2004 Oi:5~PM F'2 EXI~IIBIT "1" Office File No.: E-16~-141 Description: LOT(S) g THROUGH 18, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 9, TOWN OF BREMERTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE(S) 30, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. FROM :MRTTY&TEMPLETON FAX NO. :5606921257 Aug. 13 2004 01:53Pbl P3 FROM :MATTY&TEMPLETON FAX NO. :5686921257 Aug. 13 2004 01:55PM P4 EXHIBIT 3 TITLE EXCEPTIONS None DATE SUBMITTED: BILL # AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON q CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Amendment to the Collective Committee Meeting Date: August 11, 2004 Bargaining Agreement between the City and COUNCIL MEETING Date: August 18, 2004 Bremerton Police Officer's Guild (BPOG). Department: Human Resources Presenter: Carol Conley Phone: Ext. 5347 SUMMARY: This amendment agreed to by the City and the BPOG will add one-half percent (.5%) to each bargaining unit member's base pay rate effective July 1, 2004. To receive the payment, a bargaining unit member must have been employed with the City on July 7, 2004, and must have been hired on or before July 1, 2004. ATTACHMENTS: Amended Article 5, Wages, Section 5.1 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Passage of this amendment would require a budget adjustment in the amount of approximately $9,422 for 2004. DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: ,., .q-/z. :. ~ .... Et:/, ':'- "'~_~ F~ANCE DI~CTOR: MAYOR: * OPE~TIONS: CO~CIL P~SIDENT: ~COMMENDED MOTION: Motion to approve the amendment to the collective bargaining agreement between the City and the BPOG. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action 41 LETTER OF IINDERSTANDING This Letter of Understanding is agreed It) pnrsuant to Article 23, Section 23.2 of file Collective Bargaining Agreement between lhe City of Brcmcrton and the Bre ncr n Pc I ce O Icers Guild. Article 8 is hereby amended as follows: ARTICLE 5 WAGES 5.1 HOU~Y WAGE RATES: Hourly wage rates shAl be paid as set fo~ in Appendix A which is attached hereto ~d made a pan hereof which reflects ~e following: Effective Janu~y 1, 2003, Ap~ndix "A' reflects a 2.5% increase. Effective J~u~y 1, 2~4, ~e wage increase shMl be based u~n 90% of the CPI-W for Seattle~acom~Bremegon as of June 30, 2003, plus a .5% adjustment wi~ a ~nimum increase of 2% ~d a m~imum incre~e of 5%. Effective July 1, 2004 fl~e City a~rees to add one-half percent (.5%) to ~g~h ~.~ggining unit member'~.~ ~y rg!e qfl~q[jv¢ J ]'~d%~t.l~ payment a ~..Bi~._nj__~em~e~._m~s _hdave_~e~ employed with &e City on July 7. 2004, and mnst have been hired on or befbre July 1, 20~. Effective J~u~y 1, 2~5, ~e wage increme shMl be ~ase'2 upon 1 ~% of ~e CPI-W for Seattle~acom~remegon ~ of June 30, 2~4, plus a .5% adjustment with a ~nimum incre~e of 2% ~d a m~imum increase of 5%. · Effective J~u~y 1, 2~3, Serge~ts will a 2.5% increme to their base rate of pay in addition to ~e COLA. 5.1.1 Adv~cement ~rou~ ~e hourly wage rates from ~e first rate ~rough the final rate of ~e longevity scMe will occur u~n completion of prescribed number of full ye~(s) of continuous employment since ~e employee's last wage placement. ~ the event ~ employee is on approved leave of absence wi~out pay, ~e employee's next wage rate advancement date will be extended by ~e actual number of days ~e employee wm absent on such leave. No such step increase sh~l be denied employees who have met acceptable pefform~ce st~dards. Step increases may be withheld for a m~imum of six (6) monks. The denial of a step increase is subject to ~e ~iev~ce pr~edure. ~,~..~__5.1.2 A new employee's wage rate shall be set at ~e first year rate, except &at a new employee who h~ prior p~d work experience as a full time Patrol Officer in a police service which operates a full time se~ice using paid employees, may have his or her wage rate set at ~e second year or ~ird year rate b~ed upon relev~t years ~d type of prior experience. Placement at second or third year rates shall be determined by ~e City. 42 FOR THE CITY: FOR THE BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS' GUILD: g/\l~Ol,.S. ~ON!._E~] ......... Matt Th_uring Human Resources Director President Chief of Police Vice President 43 DATE SUBMITTED: 8-12-04 BILL # AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON q CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Collective Bargaining Committee Meeting Date: N/A Agreement between the City and Teamsters COUNCIL MEETiNG Date: ~k{~u4T' I ~: ,~ cc ~ Local//589 Department: Human Resources Presenter: Carol Conley, HR Director Phone: 473-5347 SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCW 41.56, negotiations have concluded between representatives of the City and the Teamsters resulting in the attached Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). These negotiations have been discussed with Council in Executive Sessions. This CBA replaces the current one that expired on December 31, 2003. The new CBA is for a two (2) year term, beginning January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2005. It was ratified by the Teamsters' membership on August 10, 2004. Council approval is required to implement this agreement· ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and Teamsters Local #589 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:. --~-~KJ. CITY ATTORNEY · MAYOR: FISCAL/B~GET: OPE~TIONS: CO~CIL P~SIDENT: ~COMMENDED MOTION: Motion to approve the Collective Bargaining Agreement by and between the City and Teamsters Local ~589, January 1, 2004 t~ough December 31, 2005, ~d make the necessary amendments to the budget. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action 44 Estimated Impacts of Teamsters Contract General Fund 2004 Est. 2005 Budgeted Contract Difference Effect CPI Increase 9% 1% 0.001 2.531 Increased Personnel Costs 26,549 29,489 2,940 65,879 Downtown Parking 0 10,880 10,880 32,640 Medical Premium changes * No Changes (70,010) Budget Change required 13,820 Total Cit~ 2004 Est. 2005 Budgeted Contract Difference Effect CPI Increase 0.009 1% 0.001 2.531 Increased Personnel Costs 76,684 87,429 10,745 223,527 Downtown Parking 10,880 10,880 32,640 Medical Premium changes * No Changes (218,625) No budget adjustment due for non General Fund funds. Dollars included in clearing rate * Medical calculations are based upon using the 2004 Group Health and KPS rates Assumes that the KPS rates would not change due to the move of these employees into the existing plan. TEAMSTERS AGREEMENT Financial Services Notes: August 12, 2004 1) Page 4 - Top of page, change date to December 31, 2005. 2) Page 7 - Section 5.2, change "Finance" to "Director of Financial Services". 3) Page 18 - Section 9.2.1, Financial Services would recommend not adding the last sentence. The use of the "floating holiday" should be for a normal 8-hour work day and we should not allow it to be broken in hourly "leave" increments. 4) Page 23 - Section 13.5, change "Administrative Services Director" to "Director of Financial Services". 5) Page 36 - Article 30, the cost to the City for this benefit is estimated at an annual cost of $32,640. 6) Other issues Financial Services had with the last Teamster's agreement were addressed in November 1, 2003 notes. 7) Fiscal and budget impact needs to be addressed in the agenda bill. 45 VERSION #5 - Revised 7/211/04 based on 7-12-04 Mediation recommended settlement PROPOSED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT I OF 37 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -~ TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS TO THE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF BREMERTON AND GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 JANUARY 1, ~,004 .... THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 PREAMBLE .......................................................................................................................................................... _44 ARTICLE 1 ...........Non-Discrimination ............................................................................................................... _44 ARTICLE 2 ...........Recognition ............................................................................................................................. _44 ARTICLE 3 Union Dues ...................................................................... 55 ARTICLE 4 ...........Union Access ......................................................................................................................... 66 ARTICLE 5 ...........Wages ..................................................................................................................................... 7:3 ARTICLE 6 ...........Hours Of Work ................................................................................................................... 1~144 ARTICLE 7 ...........Overtime ............................................................................................................................ 1~24~ ARTICLE 8 ...........Vacation Leave .................................................................................................................. 1~444- ARTICLE 9 ...........Holidays ............................................................................................................................. 174-7 ARTICLE 10 ......... Sick Leave And Industrial Disability ................................................................................ 184-8 ARTICLE 11 ......... Other Paid Leave ............................................................................................................... 2~lL~ ARTICLE 12 ......... Retirement Benefits ............................................................................................................ 2~:2~ ARTICLE 13 ......... Insurance Benefits ............................................................................................................. 2~2g.3 ARTICLE 14 ......... Work Related Expenses ...................................................................................................... 2424 ARTICLE 15 ......... Subcontracting Work ......................................................................................................... 2~.999 ARTICLE 16 ......... Municipal Court Non-Civil Service Employees Employment Rights ................................ 2~999 ARTICLE 17 ......... Drug Free Work Place ....................................................................................................... 303,0 ARTICLE 18 ......... Bus Passes .......................................................................................................................... 3~I.:~4- ARTICLE 19 ......... Management Rights ........................................................................................................... 3~13A ARTICLE 20 ......... Work Stoppages ................................................................................................................. 3~17,4 ARTICLE 21 ......... Grievance Procedure .......................................................................................................... ARTICLE 22 ......... Severability ........................................................................................................................ 3~3.gg ARTICLE 23 ......... Entire Agreement ............................................................................................................... 3~33,-3 ARTICLE 24 ......... Conflicting Provisions ....................................................................................................... 3~4.a,4 ARTICLE 25 ......... Labor Management Committee ......................................................................................... 34.:~4- ARTICLE 26 ......... Job Sharing .............................................................................................................................. 30 ARTICLE 27 ..........Temporary Assignment And Special Assignment ................................................................... 31 ARTICLE 28 ..........Wastewater Treatment Plant Employees ................................................................................. 32 ARTICLE 29 ....... Teamsters Supplemental Pension Plan And Teamsters Retirees Medical Plan .................. ARTICLE 30 ........ Term ..................................................................................................... 32 APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................................................ 34 Proposed COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 2 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January I 200~I through December 31, 20053 ALPHABETICAL SUBJECT INDEX APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................................................................... 34 BUS PASSES ............................................................................................. ARTICLE 18 ................................. 3~I~!- CONFLICTING PROVISIONS ................................................................. ARTICLE 24 ................................. 3~484 DRUG FREE WORK PLACE ................................................................... ARTICLE 17 ................................. 3~0g0 ENTIRE AGREEMENT ............................................................................ ARTICLE 23 ................................. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE .................................................................... ARTICLE 21 ................................. 3~27~2 HOLIDAYS ................................................................................................ ARTICLE 9 ................................... HOURS OF WORK .................................................................................... ARTICLE 6 ................................... 1~144 INSURANCE BENEFITS .......................................................................... ARTICLE 13 ................................. 2~2gg JOB SHARING ........................................................................................... ARTICLE 26 ....................................... 30 LABOR MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ................................................ ARTICLE 25 ................................. 3~434 MANAGEMENT RIGHTS ........................................................................ ARTICLE 19 ................................. 3~i.g4 MUNICIPAL COURT NON-CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ..................................................................... ARTICLE 16 ................................. 2~999 NON-DISCRIMINATION ......................................................................... ARTICLE 1 ....................................... 44 OTHER PAID LEAVE .............................................................................. ARTICLE 11 ................................. 2~1 _-2q- OVERTIME ............................................................................................... ARTICLE 7 ................................... 1~2q4 PREAMBLE ........................................................................................................................................................... _44 RECOGNITION .......................................................................................... ARTICLE 2 ....................................... 44 RETIREMENT BENEFITS ........................................................................ ARTICLE 12 ................................. SEVERABILITY ....................................................................................... ARTICLE 22 ................................. 3~33~3 SICK LEAVE AND INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY ................................... ARTICLE 10 ................................. 1~848 TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT AND SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT ............ ARTICLE 27 ....................................... 31 SUBCONTRACTING WORK .................................................................. ARTICLE 15 ................................. 2~999. TERM ......................................................................................................... ARTICLE 26 ..................................... 32 UNION ACCESS ....................................................................................... ARTICLE 4 ....................................... _66 UNION DUES ............................................................................................ ARTICLE 3 ....................................... VACATION LEAVE ................................................................................. ARTICLE 8 ................................... 1~444 WAGES ....................................................................................................... ARTICLE 5 ....................................... WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - EMPLOYEES ....................... ARTICLE 28 ....................................... 32 WORK RELATED EXPENSES ................................................................. ARTICLE 14 ................................. 2~494 WORK STOPPAGES ................................................................................ ARTICLE 20 ................................. 3 Prt~o~sed COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 3 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1,200~4[ through December 3 , 20053 AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF BREMERTON and GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 JANUARY 1, 2004I THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 20043 PREAMBLE This Agreement is made and entered into pursuant to the provisions of RCW Chapter 41.56 by and between the City of Bremerton, a municipal co~poration of the State of Washington, hereinafter known as the "City", and the General Teamsters Local Union No. 589 hereinafter known as the "Union" for the purpose of setting forth the wages, hours and working conditions which will be in effect during the term of this agreement for employees included in the bargaining unit described in Article 2 below. ARTICLE 1 NON-DISCRIMINATION 1.1 Non-Discriminatory Application - The provisions of this Agreement will be applied equally to all employees in the bargaining unit without discrimination as to age, sex, marital status, race, color, creed, religion, national origin, political affiliation; or mental, physical or sensory handicap, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. 1.2 Non-Discrimination--Union Activity -- The provisions of this Agreement will be applied equally to all employees in the bargaining unit without discrimination as to Union affiliation or legal Union activity or lack thereof. The City and the Union will each be responsible for complying with this provision. ARTICLE 2 RECOGNITION 2.1 Represented Employees - The City recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative for the purpose of negotiations concerning wages, hours and conditions of employment for all full-time employees in regular positions and part-time employees in regular positions in classifications set forth in Appendix A and such classifications as may be added to the bargaining unit during the term of this Agreement by mutual agreement or by official action of the Public Employment Relations Commission. 2.2 Classifications Excluded - The classifications of elected officials, appointed officials on part-time boards and commissions, city attorneys, department heads and their assistants, and supervisors (unless specified in the union recognition section) are not included and will not be added to the bargaining unit. P_lPEosed COLLECTWE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 4 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January I 20041 through December 31, 20053 2.3 Employees Excluded. 2.3.1 Seasonal employees are employees used by the City to handle peak work load periods. Seasonal positions will be used for no more than eight (8) months in a calendar year in accordance with City Policy. 2.3.2 Temporary employees are employees used by the City for specific projects or programs, or to replace employees temporarily unable to work per Article 27.1. 2.3.3 Project temporary employees are assigned for the ~ "s "' term of a~ pectflc proiect or program and may exceed one (1) year, provided, however, that the term of the assignment may be further extended by mutual agreement of the parties, and such employees shall be members of the union as per Article 3. 2.3.4 All other tempormw employees shall be excluded from the bargaining unit with the understanding that neither the employees nor the positions will be used for more than a total of 12 months in accordance with the applicable Civil Service Rules. 2.3.5 Confidential employees regardless of the classification they occupy. ...................... ~ ...... e ........... ~ .............................. thc) py. 2.4 New Classifications In the event the City creates a new position or reclassifies an existing position proposed to be exempt from the bargaining unit, the Union will be notified in writing. In the event that the Union disputes the City's proposed exemption of the new position from the bargaining unit, the Union will provide written notice specifying the reasons for dispute within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of written notice from the City. In the event that the City and the Union are unable to resolve the dispute, either party may refer the issue to the Public Employment Relations Commission for resolution. ARTICLE 3 UNION DUES 3.1 Dues Deductions Based upon mutual agreement, regular monthly TI.~,,,~ t~;~,.j ...... ,,.~;11 ~,~,*~*~,A~'I ..... · ......... Y ~,~,,~,,~ _ulJmon membership initiation fees, dues, agency fees and assessments will be deducted by the City ......... i~ ............ ~, .......... from the pay of those employees who provide written authorization to the City to make such deductions. The City will transmit the total amount of deductions to the Union along with a list of employees and their Union-related deductions. 3.2 Maintenance of Membership -- An employee covered by this Agreement who is a member of the Union on or after the execution of this Agreement will remain a member in good standing. Good standing will be defined as tendering of uniformly required periodic dues. Failure of such an employee to abide by the foregoing provision will constitute cause for discharge of the employee, provided that when an employee fails to fulfill the above obligation, the Union will provide the employee thirty (30) Proposed COLLECTWE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 5 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1, 2004l ~hrough December 31, 20053 days notification in writing of the Union's request to the City to initiate discharge action and during this period the employee may make restitution in the amount which is overdue. Should the employee make such restitution, the request for discharge will be withdrawn. 3.3 New Employees New etgmployees employed during the life of this Agreement ~ ' execution ~ate cf this Agreement will, within thirty (30) days of their respective date of employment, achieve good standing in the Union and will thereafter maintain such good standing as a condition of employment. Good standing will be defined as tendering of uniformly required periodic dues and; fees ~. Failure of such an employee to abide by the foregoing provision will constitute cause for discharge of such employee subject, however, to the same requirement for notification and opportunity for restitution as specified in Section 3.2 above. The City will notify the Union of newly employed bargaining unit employees as they are hired so a shop steward may be available at time of orientation. It shall be understood that new employees do not have the option to donate money to charity in lieu of paging dues. 3.4 Union Security Effcctivc Januc:ry !, 2002, Aall bargaining unit employees not cmTently paving dues. shall be required to pay dues or donate an equal amount to a qualified charity as identified under IRS Code 501 C (3)of their cho:~ce. Those employees donating money to a charity in lieu of the payment of periodic dues, shall may be required by the Union to produce proof of payment to the charity. Failure of such an employee to abide by the foregoing provision will constitute cause for discharge of the employee, provided that when an employee fails to fulfill the above obligation, the Union will provide the employee thirty (30) days notification in writing of the Union's request to the City to initiate discharge action and during this period the employee may make restitution in the amount which is overdue. Should the employee make such restitution, the request for discharge will be withdrawn. (The intent of this language is to address those current employees donating money to a charity in lieu of periodic dues payments). 3.5 Refusal to ,loin Union -- An employee who refuses to join the Union on the basis of bona fide religious tenets or teachings of a church or religious body of which the employee is a member will pay an amount of money equivalent to regular Union dues and fees to a non-religious charity or to another organization mutually agreed to between the employee and the Union. 3.6 Indemnification - The Union will indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all liability resulting from the dues and fees deduction provisions specified in this Article. ARTICLE 4 UNION ACCESS 4.1 Union Representatives The Union will provide written notice to the City of the names of the officials authorized to represent the Union. The City will provide reasonable access to City facilities to such authorized representatives for the purpose of investigating grievances and other legitimate Union business provided that such access does not um'easonably interfere with the work and duties of an affected employee or of other on-duty employees. ~_[91.~93.qO. COLLECTIVE BARGAiNiNG AGREEMENT PAGE 6 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1, 2004 [ through December 31, 20051~. 4.2 Shop Stewards The Union will have the right to appoint six (6) Shop Stewards. The Union will make every reasonable effort to have no more than four (4) stewards from the same department. 4.2.1 The Union will provide written notification to the Human Resources Director of the name and assigned areas of all Shop Stewards appointed by the Union. The City will provide reasonable access to employee work places to Shop Stewards for the purpose of investigating grievances provided that such access does not unreasonably interfere with the work and duties of an affected employee or of other on-duty employees. A Shop Steward will obtain the permission of his or her supervisor and the supe~wisor of the affected employee prior to contacting an employee during work hours. A Shop Steward may perform his or her Steward duties on City paid work time provided that such duties do not unreasonably interfere with the Steward's ability to perform the duties of his or her position with the City. In no event, however, will a City employee who is a Shop Steward be granted more than five (5) hours of paid work time for the purpose of investigating and resolving a single grievance. It shall be understood that the five (5) hours maximum does not mean five (5) hours per workday, but five (5) hours total time. ARTICLE 5 WAGES 5.1 Pay Rates - 5.1.1 Effective January 1, 2004, the wages as shown in Appendix "A' shall be increased by one percent !2 month:;. Employees who have separated from City employment before the effective date of ratification of the contract by the Union and City Council shall not be entitled to any retroactive pay increase. 5.1.2 Effective January 1, 2005, the wages as shown in Appendix "A" shall be increased by 100% of the Seattle/Tacoma/Bremertou CPI-W from June 2003 to June ..................... 9aoa r:,:c.,,.:..~ · ......... v I, 2002, - ~,-~, .................. from 5 1.3 txc~,~.,:.,~ ~ ........... . · ...... , ............ ~, .................. 5.2 New Employees -- A new employee's pay rate will be set at first step of the pay scale; however, a new employee may have his or her pay rate set at a higher step based upon relevant years and type of prior paid work experience. Placement of a new employee's pay rate at a step higher than the first step must be approved by the Department Director, the Human Resources Director Manager and Finance~. 5.3 Advancement through Pay Rates - Advancement through the pay rates from the first step through the final step of the pay range will occur upon completion of the prescribed number of months or year(s) of continuous employment since the employee's last pay placement, provided, the City may withhold a step Pro~0~Eed COLLECTWE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 7 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON - TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January I, 200~[ through December 3 , 200~3 increase for work performance that does not "Meet Expectations". A step increase may be withheld for a maximum of twelve (12) months, during which time the employee will receive monthly evaluations. The employee's immediate supervisor will notify the employee in writing of expected failure to meet expectations at least thirty (30) days prior to the due date of the work performance evaluation. If such notice is not provided the step increase will not be withheld. The withholding of a step increase will not change the employee's current anniversary step date for pay purposes. In the event that the employee "meets expectations" at one of the monthly evaluations during the subsequent 12 months, they will receive a step increase effective as of the due date of that monthly evaluation. It shall be understood that the increase will not he applied retroactively to the month(s) in which the employee received a rating below 'meets expectations". In the event an employee is on approved leave of absence without pay, in excess of eighty (80) consecutive work hours, the employee's next pay rate advancement date will be extended by the actual number of days the employee was absent on such leave. 5.4 Pay Rate upon Placement at New Pay range - 5.4.1 Reclassification/downgrade to a lower classification - In the event an employee is reclassified from one classification to another classification which is at a lower pay range or, if an employee's classification is downgraded from one pay range to a lower pay range, the employee's pay rate at the lower pay range will be set at that step which is closest to, equal to, but not greater than the pay rate he or she was receiving at the former pay range. All time the employee had served at the former step toward advancement to the next step of the former pay range will be used in determining the time required to advance to the next step of the new pay range. If the employee is at final step or beyond the final step in the new pay range, then his/her pay rate shall remain frozen at that rate until such time as the final step provides for an increase. 5.4.2 Reclassification/upgrade to a higher classification - In the event an employee is reclassified from one classification to another classification in a higher pay range the employee will receive no less than the entry level step of the new pay range or a five percent (5%) pay increase, whichever is greater; provided that no employee is thereby advanced beyond the final step of the higher pay range. The employee's advancement to the next step in the new pay range will be based on the effective date of the reclassification to the new pay range, w~.:, ,,,~ ....... o~v,,~,,: .... ~,.,...~'"' -~,,,;, apply to any . pay ~ .............................................. o .... r~; .... t,~, ............. arrent rate Proposed COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 8 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January l, 20031 through December 31,200~3 ..... v ............. udy. 5.6 Lonffevitv Pay -- Longevity pay will be applied to the base hourly pay rate of each employee for years of completed continuous employment on the following basis: 0 through 5 years' continuous employment 0% Commencing 6 through 10 years' continuous employment 1% Commencing ! 1 through 15 years' continuous employment 2% Commencing 16 through 20 years' continuous employment 3% Commencing 21 years and over continuous employment 4% 5.7 Premium Conditions - 5.7.1 Standby - An employee is placed on standby duty when the City requires the employee to be immediately available to report for work other than during his/her normal scheduled hours of _PEsEsed COLLECTWE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 9 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHiNGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1, 2004[ through December 31, 20053 work. When standby is implemented, all qualified bargaining unit members, including leads and supervisory bargaining unit members, shall share in the standby hours or lists. 5.7.1.1 Standby Equipment - A. An employee on standby duty will be provided with a radio that has a police frequency. B c ..... cA,. a_:.~,~ r~ ...... i ©ffi _A ig d dby d ty pi ...... ~ ...................... cerg, ass ne stan- u em oyees shall have the take home use of a city vehicle for the week, per City policy. 5.7.1.2 Standby Pay - The following standby rates will apply: A. Weekday or regular day off beyond two - Two (2) hours of employee's regular hourly rate of pay; B. Holiday - Three (3) hours of employee's regular hourly rate of pay; C. Regular day off - Three (3) hours of employee's regular hourly rate of pay up to a maximum of two (2) days; D. Type of Compensation - The employee may choose pay or compensatory time pursuant to Section 7.2.1. 5.7.1.4 Standby will normally consist of not more than seven (7) consecutive days, provided; however, based upon mutual agreement of the employee and immediate supervisor, the employee may be placed on standby in excess of seven (7) days. 5.7.2 Shift Differential -- An employee assigned to work a shift schedule which begins at 12 noon or later and/or earlier than 6 a.m. will be compensated a shift differential of seventy-five cents ($.75) per hour for each hour of the shift so worked. Pr{. ~12o~ COIJ. ECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 1 0 OF 3 2 CITY OFBREMERTON, WASHINGTON - TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1,200~ through December 3 I, 200~3 5.8 Paydays Paydays will be the 7th and 22nd of each month. If a payday falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or on a Monday holiday, the City will make every effort to distribute pay checks on Friday. The parties encourage employees to utilize "automatic deposit" of their paychecks. 5.9 Direct Deposit - New employees hired after the date ot' ratification of this agreement by both parties, shall be required to sign tip for direct deposit of their pay checks. 5.11.__~ Payroll Errors - Should the City be responsible for any payroll error, adjustments in excess of fifty ($50.00) dollars will be paid within two (2) business days. ARTICLE 6 HOURS OF WORK 6.1 Normal Hours of Work -- The normal hours of work for regular full time employees will be forty (40) hours per week. The normal hours of work for regular part time employees will be the number of hours per week that the Department Head schedules which will not exceed forty (40) hours per week and will not exceed the Department's approved budget allocation for the position. 6.2 Normal Work Schedule - The normal work schedule for regular full time employees will consist of five (5) consecutive eight (8) consecutive hour days or four (4) consecutive ten (10) consecutive hour days. The Department and employee may mutually agree to any other work schedule by the filing of an alternate work schedule form that shall require the approval of the Department and the Human Resources Manager. Except in emergency situations (such as weather and acts of God) employees will be given fourteen (14) calendar days notice of any change in their normal work schedule, except that Public Works and Utility Depamnent employees will be given seven (7) calendar days notice of any change in their normal work schedule, otherwise employees will receive overtime compensation. The normal work schedule for regular part time employees will be that which is scheduled by the Department Head and shall consist of no more than five (5) consecutive days in a workweek. The normal work schedule will usually be set to begin on Monday and conclude on Friday but may be set to begin on another week day and conclude five (5) consecutive days thereafter, based upon the needs of City. The City will make every reasonable effort to schedule employees with two (2) consecutive days off between workweeks. 6.3 Meal Periods - All employees shall have a regularly designated mealtime, 30 minutes or one (1) hour in length, without pay, which shall be scheduled by the Department Director or designee. The thirty (30) minutes or one (1) hour designated mealtime includes travel time to and from the work site. The lunch period will take place no sooner than three (3) hours and no later than five (5) hours from the beginning of a 5/8 schedule, and no sooner than four (4) hours and no later six (6) hours from the beginning of a 4/10 schedule. No employee will be required to work mom than five (5) consecutive hours without a meal period. An employee who works three (3) or mom hours beyond their normal work day shall be allowed at least one thirty (30) minute meal period either prior to or during the overtime period. When an employee is required by the City to remain on duty on the premises or at a proscribed work site when it is in the best interest of the City during a meal period, the meal period will be paid as time worked. Proposed COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 3_ 3_ OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1, 2004 [ through December 31, 2005.3 6.3.1 Employees shall be allowed one (1) rest period (break) per one half (1/2) shift (workday) provided: A. The time, length and location of break is determined by the employee's supervisor, with the understanding that the employee shall receive no more than fifteen (15) minutes. B. Break periods will be scheduled as near as possible to the midpoint of a work period. The City will make a reasonable effort to ensure that no employee is required to work more than three (3) hours without a rest period. C. The purpose of granting breaks is to relieve fatigue and mental strain on the job; therefore; 1. Combining two (2) dally breaks into one thirty (30) minute break is not permitted. 2. Using breaks to lengthen meal periods, to cover tardiness, or to leave work early is not permitted except under special circumstances and with the approval of the Department Director or designee. 3. Accumulating breaks from day-to-day is not permitted. ARTICLE 7 OVERTIME 7.1 Overtime Defined - Overtime is all required and authorized work performed in excess of a full time employee's normal 40 hour and/or dally work schedule. Overtime includes required training, instruction, callback and other such work which is required and authorized by the City, and is performed during an employee's normally scheduled off duty time. Overtime for regular part-time employees is all required and authorized work performed in excess of forty (40) hours during the employee's weekly work schedule pursuant to Article 6, Section 6.2_. _The use of any paid leave time will be considered as time worked for the purpose of calculating overtime. 7.2 Overtime Compensation -- Overtime work will be compensated at the rate of one and one-half (1-1/2) times an employee's hourly rate in cash or in compensatory time. The form of overtime compensation will be at the election of the employee provided Compensatory time off will be taken by mutual agreement between the employee and supervisor. Upon the death of the employee, accrued compensatory time shall be paid to the employee's estate. Prtlpgsgd COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 3. 2 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1, 20~[ through December 31,200~3 7.2.2 Use Of Compensatory Time .... ~, ......... !, ,~rgY~ ~.,,,,;,,, 7.2.1. above ......... e .... t,t ...... to ..... v .......... J ................ January 1, 2~2, ~{he m~imum ~lowed accm~ of com~nsato~ time sh~l be fifty (50) hours, ~d ..........,~o,,j I, ~ in excess of that m~imum sh~l be p~d at the applicable rate. Employees who wish to cash out ~1 or a portion of hisser accumulated compensato~ time will have ~e option to receive t~s pay the last pay day ~ of November. Employees who wish to exercise this option sh~l sub~t their request, in writing, to the Depment Director, no later than November 1st of each ye~. 7.3 Telephone Calls To Employees - ff ~ employee receives a work related telephone c~l w~le off duty, he/she sh~l receive a ~nimum of one queer (1/4) hour pay at the ove~ime rate for each c~l, provided, however, ~at addition~ c~ls received by the employee within the queer hour ~nimum sh~l not p~a~d. 7.4 Call Back ~nimum Overtime ~ ~ the event ~ employee who has dep~ed from his or her no~ work hours is c~led back to work for a period of time w~ch is less th~ two and a half (2.~) hours, the employ~ will receive a ~nimum of two ~d a h~f (2.~) hours of ove~ime com~nsation. A c~l back initiates a two m~d a h~f (2.~) hour gu~antee ~fiod. Subsequent c~l backs will not initiate ad&tion~ two and a half .-(2.~) hour gun,tee period until the origin~ two ~d a half (2.~) hour gun,tee ~fiod h~ passed. .................. j *, .... , ........................................................ 7.5 Cou~ ancot Subp~naed Ap~arances An employee who ap~s in Cou~ or responds to a subpoena as a representative of the City which is related to his or her employment on off duty time sh~l receive ove~ime compensation for such ap~ances, ff the employ~ is being prosecuted for a willful, illeg~ act in the peffo~ce of ~eir duties as a city employs, they will not be p~d for time unless they ~e found innocent ~or the case is dismissed. 7.6 Use of Bargaining Unit Emplo~e~ for Ove~ime - The City sh~l offer O.T. to qu~ified b~g~ning unit employees within the &vision prior to utilization of tempor~ employees for such O.T. The City will m~e a reasonable attempt to offer this work by seniority. 7.7 Emergency Crews - Employees may be pre-assigned to an emergency shift schedule (e.g. 12-hour shift for Snow Removal Crews). Crews will be designated as follows: "A" shift and "B" shift. Employees on emergency crews will receive shift differenti~ pay ~d work the 12-hour shift throughout the period of the emergency. Employees in each crew (both "A" ~d "B" shifts) c~led out Proposed COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 1 3 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1, 20041 through December 3 , 20053 for an emergency shift shall receive two hours callout (overtime) pay for the first full 12-hour shift. (e.g. Pay would be 2 hours overtime for the call-out, 6 hours straight time, plus 4 hours overtime. That crow's next emergency shift pay would be 8 hours straight time plus 4 hours overtime.) Pay for call-outs prior to the full emergency shift will be in accordance with overtime and callout policy per Article 7. If the callout occurs within two (2) hours of the first emergency shift, the first emergency shift crew will respond and work continuously through the shift. EXAMPLES: Snow Removal Crew - If an emergency schedule is initiated after 10 p.m. but before the normal shift (7:30 a.m.), the "B" shift will be called in and work until noon or eight hours minimum. If the callout occurs prior to 10 p.m., the "A" shift will be called in and work until midnight when "B" shift will relieve. If the emergency is declared during the normal work shift, "B" shift will work the normal eight (8) hours then be released; "A" shift will work until midnight when relieved by "B" shift. Other Emergency Crews - Any other divisions may use other start/quit times, but will follow the principle of the example of the Snow Removal Crew. When the Division Manager has determined that the emergency condition is over, the crews will revert to their regularly scheduled shift. The transition shifts going into and out of the emergency shift schedule, will work until released by the supervisor, however, they shall work a minimum of eight (8) hours during the transition shift. ARTICLE 8 VACATION LEAVE 8.1 Vacation Accrual -- Employees shall accrue vacation leave for all regularly scheduled compensated hours including paid holiday, sick leave, vacation and other paid leave time, excluding workers' compensation time loss benefits pursuant to the following schedule: Period of Continuous Full Time Employment Hours Accrued/Year Date of Hire through 5 years 104 Hours 6th year 120 Hours 7th year 128 Hours 8th year 136 Hours 9th year 144 Hours 10th year 152 Hours 1 lth year 160 Hours 12th year 168 Hours 13th year 176 Hours 14th year 184 Hours 15th year 192 Hours 16th year 200 Hours _Proposed COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 3_4 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON - TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1,200~ I. through December 31, 20053 17th year and thereafter 208 Hours 8.2 Vacation Eligibility - An employee becomes eligible to take accrued vacation leave upon completion of six (6) months of continuous employment. Vacation leave may not be taken in segments cf less than one-quarter (1/4) hour increments. Vacation leave must be earned in the pay period prior to the time an employee takes any vacation leave since accruals tire added to an employee's leave balance aftcr payroll has been posted. 8.3 Vacation Scheduling Annual vacation leave will be mutually scheduled between the employee and his or her Department Head or designee_. Vacation leave must be approved by the Department Head prior to an employee taking the time off. In the event mom than one employee requests vacation leave for the same time period submitted on the same day, the requesting employee with the greatest city-wide seniority shall be granted the vacation leave. 8.4 Maximum Vacation Accrual The maximum number of vacation accrual hours that any employee will be allowed to carry forward from one calendar year to the next will be as follows: Years of Service Maximum Carryover Hours Date of Hire through 5 full years of employment 160 Hours Over 5 full years of employment 240 Hours 8.5 Carryover - In the event an employee has been prohibited from taking sufficient vacation time to reduce his or her vacation balance to the maximum allowable carryover at the end of a calendar year, (or unable to because of absence from work due to illness or disability) thc excess hours will be carried forward into the next the calendar year. An employee who fails to request scheduled vacation time during the year and whose accrued vacation hours exceed the maximum carry over balance at the end of the calendar year shall forfeit such excess vacation hours. 8.6 Vacation Pay-Out - Upon the retirement or separation term~nat:,~n of a regular employee, or upon the date of an employee's disability retirement, the accrued vacation hours of such an employee will be paid to the employee in a lump sum payment at the employee's straight time hourly rate at the time of separation except an employee shall not be paid vacation pay out unless employed over six (6) months). 8.7 Payment of Vacation Leave Upon Death In the event of the death of an employee, the employee's estate will be paid in a lump sum for the total accrued and unused vacation leave hours at the employee's regular hourly pay rate in effect at the time of death. 8.8 Donations Of Vacation Leave - Donations of Vacation leave permit employees to aid any City employee who is suffering from an extraordinary or severe illness, injury, impairment, physical or mental condition which has caused or is likely to cause the employee to take leave without pay or to terminate his or her employment prior to a determination that the affected employee is not expected to recover to an extent that will enable the employee to resume his or her normal duties or the duties of another position with the City or another employer. ~!lopos¢,] COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 1 5 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO, 589 January 1, 2004-I. through December 31,200,~3 8.8.1 Eligibility - An employee who (1) is suffering from an illness or injury causing his or her extended absence from work, and (2) who has depleted or will shortly deplete his or her total available accrued vacation, compensatory leave accrual, sick and floating holiday leave, may request donations of vacation leave. 8.8.2 Criteria For Approval - A request for donations of vacation leave shall be submitted to the requesting employee's Department Head accompanied by medical documentation verifying the medical condition requiring the need for leave, and the time period during which the employee can reasonably be expected to be absent from work due to the condition. Upon verifying that the requesting employee meets all of the eligibility requirements above and upon determining that the medical documentation received provides appropriate verification of the medical condition and time period involved, the Department Head will recommend the employee's request for donations of vacation leave be approved by the Mayor. The Mayor will review the request to assure that all of the requirements set forth in this subsection have been met and, if so, shall approve the employee's request for donations of vacation leave. 8.8.3 Notification - Upon approval by the Mayor, all City employees shall be notified of the approved request for donation of leave. 8.8.4 Conditions Of Donation - An employee who has been employed for at least six (6) months who desires to donate accrued vacation leave to a requesting employee will do so as a free and voluntary act and no duress or coercion shall be placed upon an employee to make such donation of his/her accrued vacation leave. Employees who are utilizing donated leave to cover their own absences may not donate leave to another employee until such time as they have returned to their normal schedule, and any excess donations made to them have been returned pursuant to 8.7.5 below. An employee who desires to donate vacation leave shall complete a Donation of Vacation Leave Form and submit it to his/her Department Head. The donated vacation leave will be transferred to the requesting employee's sick leave balance with the next payroll report. Forms will be date stamped and all time donated shall be in full hour increments and shall be credited to the employee on an hour-for-hour basis. A monthly update of the condition of the employee by the attending primary medical doctor shall be required and furnished to the Department Director. 8.8.5 Use Of Donated Leave - An employee who has received donated vacation leave will be able to use the sick leave in the same manner as if he or she had personally accrued the leave, provided that the use of the sick leave is in conformance with the provisions of this Article. 8.8.6 Return Of Excess Leave Donations -- Donated leave will remain in the employee's sick leave balance for a period of six (6) months fi:om an employee's return to worL and may only be used by the employee for absences related to the condition for which it was Proi)O¥~.COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 3_ 6 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January I, 200¢t through December 31, 20053 donated. In the event of excess donations received but not used due to early recovery, resignation, retirement or death, all donations received but not utilized shall be returned to the donating employee(s) based on the proportion of hours that employee donated in relation to the total hours donated by all employees (e.g. an employee who donates 50 hours of 450 hours total donated shall be credited with 50/450ths of the hours not utilized). Such returned leave shall be reflected in the appropriate leave balance as soon as possible. Time donated for this purpose will not be considered as time used during the donor's performance rating period. 8.9 Administrative Leave - Any bargaining unit employee may be placed on Administrative Leave (leave with pay) for masons in the best interest of the City and/or employee -(e.g. to diffuse a work-related or personal problem or to conduct an investigation). The City may place certain restrictions on an employee on Administrative Leave and require him/her to be available durine his/her normal work schedule. 8.10 Cancellation of Vacation Leave by City - If an employee has an approved vacation canceled by the City, the City will reimburse the employee for all verifiable non-refundable expenses incurred by the employee after the date the Leave Request was approved. ARTICLE 9 HOLIDAYS 9.1 Holidays Observed The following holidays will be observed by the City: HOLIDAY DATE OBSERVED New Year's Day January Ist Martin Luther King's Birthday 3rd Monday in January President's Day 3rd Monday in February Memorial Day Last Monday in May Independence Day July 4th Labor Day 1 st Monday in September Veteran's Day November 11th Thanksgiving Day 4th Thursday in November Day after Thanksgiving 4th Friday in November Christmas Day December 25th One Floating Holiday Approval of Supervisor 9.1.1 In addition, any other holiday legally proclaimed by the Federal or State government, provided that the City takes official action to have such holiday also observed by the City. 9.2 Alternative days of Holiday Observation -- If a holiday observed by the City falls on a Saturday, the holiday will be observed on the preceding Friday. If a holiday falls on a Sunday, the holiday will be observed on the following Monday. If the day a holiday is observed by the City falls on an employee's regularly scheduled day off, the employee will receive an alternate day off as a paid holiday during the same or following pay period. ~5.gd COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 3_ 7 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1, 20041 through December 31, 2005.3 9.2.1 Floating Holiday - One (1) floating holiday (eight (8) hours) will be granted to each employee an a da:,' at a time ;-which is mutually agreeable to the employee and the employee's immediate supervisor. New employees shall have been employed by the City for six (6) months in order to qualify for a floating holiday. Floating holiday leave may not be taken in less than one ( 1 ) hour increments. 9.3 Holiday Compensation (Full Time Employees) An employee shall receive eight (8) hours of time off with pay for each holiday observed by the City, including a floating holiday of each employee~ choice. An employee who is assigned at the City's request to work a four-day ten (10) hour schedule will receive ten (10) hours of time off with pay for each holiday. In order to receive holiday compensation, each employee must work or be on authorized paid leave on the scheduled work day prior to or the scheduled work day immediately after each holiday. 9.5 Holiday Compensation (Part Time Employees) - Part-time employees will receive fifty (50%) percent of their normal work day, provided they will receive not less than four (4) hours. 9.6 Working on a Holiday -- An employee required to work on a holiday will be compensated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's regular straight time rate of pay for the time worked in addition to regular holiday pay provided in 9.3 above. ARTICLE 10 SICK LEAVE AND INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY 10.1 Sick Leave Accrual -- Employees will accrue sick leave time with pay at the rate of .046154 hours for each regular hour worked, including paid holiday, sick leave, vacation and other paid leave time and excluding time for which workers' compensation time loss benefits are paid. The maximum annual accrual will be ninety-six (96) hours. 10.2 Maximum Sick Leave Accrual Employees will be able to accrue sick leave to a maximum of 1200 hours on January 1st of each year. 10.3 Sick Leave Incentive An employee who takes thirty-two (32) hours or less of sick leave in the calendar year will have eight (8) hours added to his or her vacation leave balance at the beginning of the following calendar year. 10.4 Sick Leave Retirement Payment - An employee who retires from City service on a service or disability retirement will be provided a Sick Leave Retirement Payment at thirty-five percent (35%) of the employee's accrued and unused sick leave hours to a maximum of 35% of 960 hours (a maximum total of 336 hours). The payment will be made to the employee at the employee's regular hourly pay rate in effect at the time of retirement. Prgpgse~d. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 3_ 8 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO, 589 Janum'y 1,200~t through December 31, 2008¢ 10.5 Payment of Sick Leave Upon Death - In the event of the death of an employee, the employee's estate will be paid for the total accrued and unused sick leave hours at the employee's regular hourly pay rate in effect at the time of death. 10.6 Sick Leave Use Sick leave shall not be granted in advance of actually being accrued. Sick leave will be made available to each employee up to the amount of each employee's accrued sick leave balance and shall be used in increments of no less than one-quarter (1/4) hour to cover an employee's absence from his or her regularly scheduled work hours due to: 10.6.1 The temporary disability of an employee resulting from his or her personal illness or injury. 10.6.2 Providing care for.~ a child of the employee~ under the age of 18 when they have a health condition that requires supervision or treatment; or b) a spouse, parent, parent-in-law or grandparent of the employee who has a serious health condition or an emergency condition. 10.6.3 Attending medical, dental and/or oculist appointments as needed for preventive or rehabilitative health care of the employee or the employee's children when such care requires parental presence to supervise or authorize treatment, 10.6.4 Upon the birth or adoption of a child, an employee may use accrued sick leave pursuant to FMLA. 10.6.5 Providing care for an employee's immediate family member as provided fGr in Section 10.6.2, when the family member has a health condition that requires the assistance of an adult caretaker until such time as other care can be arranged ~-~ ......... '~ ..... :.~..., ~. ....... r - ' ' . No more than forty (40) hours of sick leave can be used for this purpose for the following family members: , ~' , brother, sister, brother/sister in-law,~----~t-~,-,o,"~-" ....... grandparents in-law, grandchildren, and step relations as described herein of both the employee and the employee's spouse. (Revised RCW 49.12.270 as of 1-1-04). 10.7 Notification of Sick Leave Use - An employee who is absent or expects to be absent from work due to causes specified in 10.6 above, will provide notification as follows: 10.7.1 Routine Appointments - An employee who schedules a routine medical, dental or oculist appointment will make every reasonable effort to schedule such an appointment at a time, which will cause the least interference with departmental operations. The employee shall give prior notice of the date and time of the appointment to his/her immediate supervisor. An employee's immediate supervisor may request that the employee reschedule routine appointments when, in the judgment of the supervisor, the scheduled absence of the employee would unduly interfere with the operations of the Department, however, the P~osed COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 1 9 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January I, 2004[ through December 31,200~ immediate supervisor will not unreasonably require an employee to reschedule routine medical, dental or oculist appointments. 10.7.2 Unanticipated Absence An employee who is absent from work or will be unable to report to work as scheduled due to personal illness or injury, or for other causes specified in 10.6 above, will promptly notify their immediate supervisor, tlr if unavailable, the departmenffdivision ~nanager tSc dcpart:ncnt by telephone Gr c;thcrwi:;c as soon as practicable and will make every effort to notify their immediate supervisor, or unavailable, the department/division manager -_Department within the first one-half hour of each work day or, if possible, within the one-half hour preceding each work day of absence. In the event neither the immediate supervisor nor the deparlment/division manager can be contacted directly, the employee may leave a voice mail message. However, the employee is obligated to speak directly to the employee's immediate supervisor or the department/division manager during the day of the employee's absence. Each employee will be given contact information (including office/cellular/pager numbers), to the employee's immediate supervisor and departmentJdivision manager. In the event of a prolonged illness or injury, the Department may exempt an employee from the requirement to report their absences on a daily basis, and may establish an alternative reporting arrangement appropriate to the circumstances. 10.7.3 Sick Leave during Authorized Paid Leave -- An employee who becomes ill or is injured during his/her paid vacation or compensatory time off for accumulated overtime, may request the conversion of such paid leave to sick leave with pay by promptly notifying the department of the illness or injury and providing such information as is required by the department to verify the appropriateness of such a conversion. 10.8 Sick Leave Documentation and Approval An employee who has been absent on sick leave will, within the first work day after returning to work, complete and submit a request for approval of sick leave on the City's Leave Request form, and provide such information as is required by the Department to approve the use of sick leave with pay for the absence. Sick leave must be approved by the Department prior to payment. The Department will not unreasonably withhold approval of sick leave with pay from employees. 10.8.1 Sick Leave Certification - The Department may require an employee to provide a professional physician's certification of an employee's, child's or family member's illness or injury as a condition of approving sick leave with pay. In the event the Department intends to require such verification, the employee will be notified of the requirement prior to retuming to work. 10.8.2 Return to Work/Fitness for Duty Certification - The Department may require an employee to provide a Fitness for Duty certification completed by a professional physician that the employee is sufficiently recovered as to be able to return to work and assume his or her normal duties prior to the employee returning to work or, in the event the employee has appeared at work, prior to resuming work. If the department does not allow the employee to retum to work due to the need Proposed COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 2 0 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1, 2004[ through December 3 I, 20053 for a Fitness for Duty certification, the employee will be allowed to continue the use of sick leave. 10.9 Industrial Disability Leave An employee who incurs a work-related illness or injury and who qualifies to receive Workers' Compensation benefits will be allowed to use accrued sick leave to supplement the Workers' Compensation benefits so as to provide the same gross pay he or she would have received for full time, active service. In no event will the combination of Workers' Compensation and employee sick leave exceed 100% of an employee's regular pay rate at any time of the disability period. ARTICLE 11 OTHER PAID LEAVE 11.1 Bereavement Leave -- An employee will be granted three (3) days of bereavement leave for attending funerals in the State of Washington and five (5) days for out of state funerals of members of the employee's immediate family. Immediate family shall be defined as spouse, child, mother, father, mother/father in-law, brother, sister, brother/sister in-law, grandparents, grandparents in-law, grandchildren, step relations as described herein of both the employee and the employee's spouse. All time off for bereavement leave may be charged against an employee's vacation, floating holiday, sick leave or compensatory time leave balance at the option of the employee, if available. Additional time off may be requested by the employee and granted by the Department head in extenuating circumstances. 11.2 Jury Duty, Witness Leave An employee shall be granted a leave of absence with pay for the purpose of reporting to or serving on jury duty or serving as a witness on a case relating to their job with the City, except in those instances when the employee is involved as a party in an action being taken against the City. Any juror or witness fees received by the employee for the performance of such duties shall be assigned to the City. If more than 2.5 hours of their workday remains at the time of release from jury duty or serving as a witness, the employee shall report for duty. 11.2.1 City Notification - Employee shall be required to notify the City immediately upon receipt of written notification from the Court that they must report for Jury Duty or serve as a Witness as the result of a case related to his or her employment, by submitting a Leave Request form with a copy of the Jury Duty/Witness Notice attached. Upon telephone confirmation by the Court to report, employee shall immediately notify the on-duty supervisor. ll.;g3 Military Duty Leave -- An employee who presents official orders requiring hisser attendance for a period of training or other active duty as a member of the United States Armed Forces or the State National Guard shall be entitled to military leave with no loss of pay for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) work days annually. Authorized leave of absence for additional or longer periods of time for assignment to duty functions shall be without pay (unless the employee chooses to use accrued vacation leave or compensatory time) and shall be granted by the City. An employee receiving up to fifteen (15) work days of training or serving on active duty shall receive their regular pay and the amount received from the Federal or State government, pursuant to RCW 38.40.060 as may be amended from time to time. Propos¢~l COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 2 1 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1, 2004~ through December 31, 20053 11.42 Emergency Leave - In the event of an unforeseen emergency which requires the absence of an employee, the employee will promptly notify his or her immediate supervisor, or in the absence of the immediate supervisor, the manager on duty in the Department within the first one-half hour of each work day or, if possible, within the one-half (1/2) hour preceding each work day of absence. Such emergency leave shall be charged to an employee's unused vacation, floating holiday or compensatory time leave balance. ARTICLE 12 RETIREMENT BENEFITS 12.1 State Retirement System - Each employee will be enrolled in the Washington State Retirement system for which he or she qualifies. Contributions to the Retirement system will be made on a pre-tax basis. Each employee will be covered by the federal Social Security Act. NOTE: See Article #29 for Teamsters Pension Trust participation. ARTICLE 13 INSURANCE BENEFITS 13.1 Medical Insurance - The City will make medical insurance coverage available to employees and their dependents, as follows or another plan of equivalent or better coverage: · Kitsap Physician's Service (KPS) Plan B -Group Health Cooperative (GHC) 13.2 Insurance Premium Payments -- Payment of insurance premiums will be made as follows: 13.2.1 Employee premium paid in full by the City. Employee contribution toward dependent coverage will be seven ($7) dollars per month per dependent up to a maximum of twenty-one ($21) dollars per month for full family coverage. 13.2.2 -Effective January 1, 2005, Section 13.2.1 no longer applies. Employees will be required to pay the following contributions towards the monthly premiums for medical coverage: KPS Plan B- Employee only coverage Employee 0% City 100% Dependents coverage Employee 5% City 95% GHC - Employee only coverage - Employee pays 100% of the difference between the City's contribution to KPS Plan B Employee only coverage and the cost of GHC Employee only coverage. Dependent coverage- Employee pays 100% of the difference between the City's contribution to KPS Plan B dependents coverage and the cost of GHC dependents coverage. ~mp~d COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 2 2 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1, 20041 through December 31, 2005/I Example/41: An employee who selects KPS Plan B tbr EE + Spouse+2 children will pay 5% of the total premium cost to insure their deJ2endents, lfthe monthly premium is $500 for dependents coverage, the employee would be required to pay five percent (5%) = $25.00 per month and the City would pay ninety-five percent (95%) = $475.00 per month. Example #2: An employee who selects GHC for EE+Spouse+2 children will pay 100% of the difference between the City's contribution to KPS Plan B and GHC. If the GHC monthly premium is $1,000, the employee would be required to pay $525.00 per month ($1000 less $475 that the City pays towards the coverage with KPS). Example #3: An employee who elects Employee only coverage with KPS Plan B will pay zero percent (0%) of the premium cost, and the City will pay 100%. Example #4: An employee who elects Employee only coverage with GHC will pay 100% of the difference between the City's contribution to KPS Plan B. If the monthly premium for Employee only coverage with KPS is $250.00 and the same coverage under GHC is $400, the employee would be required to pay $150.00 per month ($4(X) cost less $250 City pays towards the coverage with KPS.. 13.4 Dental Insurance -- The City will provide the same benefit levels as are contained in the Washington Dental Service Plan _FA dental program for employees and their dependents and provide for full payment of insurance premiums. 13.5 Insurance Benefits Committee - The Insurance Benefits Committee will be comprised of the following members: Mayor or designee, Human Resources DirectorMamag~ or designee, Administrative Services Director or designee, one employee selected by the non-represented management and professional employees, and one individual selected by each of the recognized unions. The committee will elect a chair and any other officers it deems appropriate_. 13.6 In the event changes in state or federal law create an impact on the present health and welfare premiums or plans, the parties will reopen negotiations on such subject. 13.7 13.7 Vision Insurance - The City will pay the premium for the Washington Teamsters Welfare Trust Vision Plan for all bargaining unit employees employed in the previous month. It shall be the responsibility of the employee to ensure that the required paperwork is completed in a timely manner in order to enroll him/herself and/or dependents. P_!L)pE~_COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 2 3 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHiNGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1, 20041. through December 31, 20053 ARTICLE 14 WORK RELATED EXPENSES 14.1 Uniforms - The City will provide new and replacement uniforms for each employee in the department whenever the department head determines it is in the best interest of the City· The characteristics of the uniform and what will constitute the uniform shall be at the sole discretion of the Department Head or designee. 14.1.1 Employees furnished uniforms shall be required to wear their uniform when performing work and required by the department. 14.1.2 Standard uniforms provided by the City through uniform service contracts; i.e., shirts, pants and jackets, will be maintained by the City at City expense. All other uniform apparel such as polo shirts, tee shirts, etc., purchased by the City shall be maintained by the employee at the employee's expense. 14.1.3 Employees are expected to take reasonable care of their uniforms. Employees shall notify their supervisor when uniforms are in need of replacement and/or repair. 14.1.4 City uniforms shall not to be worn during non-work hours or to non-work locations, except for incidental stops to or from work and meal periods. 14.1.5 While in uniform, employees shall not publicly drink intoxicating liquor, be publicly intoxicated or under the influence of a controlled substances. 14.2 Cleaning Allowance - ! ! 99 $335.00 _, k_The cleaning allowance for Anima! Central Officer:; and Warrant Servers shall ~ ........ ~ oj .................j .... j ...... ance of $350.00. be ............. ~,.,¢la aa r 14.3 Animal Cantm! & Warrant Servers - The City .... ~,,~j~, will provide five (5) uniforms to Animal r~.,.,.~ r,~:n ...... and Warrant Servers. 14.4 Tool Allowance - Vehicle Maintenance: 14.4.1 The City will provide an annual tool allowance of $300 per mechanic to buy more efficient tools or to replace lost, broken, or stolen tools. 14.4.2 The City will purchase all specialty or new tools that are required to perform the job because of changing technology or City equipment. 14.4.3 Replacement of tools lost or stolen on City property or while performing City business will be replaced in accordance with City Policy #3-10-16. Proposed COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 2 4 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1, 2004:-I- through December 3 , 20053 14.4.4 All special and heavy duty tools, power tools, and tools larger than one-half (1/2) inch drive will be furnished and maintained by the City. The City will service and repair ail employee owned pneumatic and calibrated tools. 14.5 ~Safet¥ Shoes crt~:,,,~ ~ ........... ................. j l, 2~.)2, Tthe City will reimburse employees up to a maximum of $125.00 $!!5.00 for the cost of safety or calked shoes/boots, when the Department/Division has determined that they are required. 14.6 CDL License - When a Commercial Drivers license (CDL) is required t'or a position by the City, the City will only pay for the cost of the CDL endorsement and required physical examination when making initial application and upon any required renewal. 14.76 License/Certification Differential Pay - ...... J !, eEmployees that are required by the City employer and/or choose to have a Washington State certification or license above the minimum certification level set forth below will receive fifty dollars ($50.00) per month for each current certificate above the established minimum. Certifications obtained outside of the certification series identified for the division or work group will be considered only when such certification benefits the City as determined by the Director of Public Works & Utilities. 14.6.1 WWTP (WWTP Operator Certification Series) · WWTP Operator- WWTPO Group 11 Plant · WWTP Lab Technician - WWTPO Group lI Plant · 'WWTP Operations Supervisor - WWTPO Group Ill Plant 14.6.2 Water Operations (Water Distribution Certification Series) · Water Operator - Water Distribution Manager I · Water Operator Sr. - Water Distribution Manager ll · Water Operator Lead - Water Distribution Manager I1 · Water Operations Supervisor - Water Distribution Manager III · Environmental Technician attd Water Resources Assistant (Water Distribution~ WWTP Operator~ or Sewer Collection Certification Series) Level II Certification in arty Series. Differential pay is allowed for certifications above Level II for one series only. Propgsg~l COLLECTiVE BARGA NING AGREEMENT PAGE 2 5 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January I, 20041 through December 31, 2005/I 14.6.3 Water Maintenance (Water Distribution Certification Series) · Water Distribution Supervisor- Water Distribution Manager I1/ 14.6.4 Cross Connection Contrnl Specialist (Cross Connection Cnntrol and Backflow Assembly Tester Certification Series} · .Cross Connection Control Specialist I 14.6.5 Storm/Sewer Maintenance (Sewer Collection System Certification Series) · .Utility Service Specialist Supervisor - Sewer Collection System Level III 14.6.6 Automotive Maintenance Technicians (Automotive Service Excellence Certification Series} One ASE Master Certification ~ Automotive, Heavy Equipment, or Emergency Vehicle Technician. Differential pa~' is allowed for each additional Master Certification 14.6.7 Electronics (International Municipal Signal Association - Traffic Signal Certification Series and NT Telephone Certification) · -Electronics Technician - IMSA Level II - Traffic Signal · 14.6.8 Traffic Maintenance (International Municipal Signal Association - Signs and Markings Certification Series) · .Sign Shop Service Specialist Supervisor - IMSA Level 1II - Signs and Markings 14.6.9 Engineering (Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor). There is no Differential Pay allowed [or EIT or L$IT Certifications. · .Engineer I - Engineer-ln-Training Certification or Land Surveyor-in-Training Certification · .Engineer 1I - Engineer-ln-Training Certification · -Engineer III - Professional Engineer Proposed COLLECTIVE BARGALNING AGREEMENT PAGE 2 6 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January I 2005~ through December 31, 2005~ ~k.ed COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 2 7 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January I, 2004g through December 31,200~ oEnginccr I Engineer In T:'ain~ng Certification -Engineer II ~c[essien~ EngL'~eer 14.6.10 Certified Underwater Divers - The City will provide monthly certification pay as provided in the Agreement for up to (2) two emplo,/ees who are National Association fro' Underwater Instructors (NAUI) certified (or equivalent) marine divers for underwater maintenance and non-hazardous investigations. Divers will provide all their own diving equipment; however, the City shall replace any equipment damaged in the line of duty. The City shall provide all supplies requited for any work requested including air. An employee's air tanks shall be refilled by the employee at the end of each assignment, and lhe City will reimburse the employee for the cost of refilling the tanks. It shall be understood that employees holding this certification shall be given the opportunity to refuse to perform work the,/feel is too dangerous. 14. ? Maintenance of Certifications - The City will reimburse an employee for the actual costs of obtaining and maintaining a professional or work related certification including a CDL license, which is required by the City or has been required as a condition of working in a particular classification_. 14.7.A Failure to maintain/obtain required certifications - If an employee fails to obtain or maintain a certification required in order to perform the essential duties and fi_~nctions of his/her position, shall not receive the monthl,/certification pay. New hires who are required to obtain a CDL license for their position within six months fi'om their date of hire, and who fail to obtain the required CDL license shall be terminated by the City. t_The City will reimburse an employee up to eight ($8.00) dollars per meal for meal expenses when the employee is required to work during a bona fide emergency situation after completing his or her regular work day~ provided that the employee works at least three (3) additional hours during a twenty-four (24) hour period. To receive reimbursement for meal expense, the employee will submit an appropriate expense claim form 14.9 Travel Authorization and Expense Reimbumement - Travel authorization and expense reimbursement shzdl be pursuant to Chapter 2.74, Travel Authorizatk)n and Expense Reimbursement, of the Bremerton Municipal Code. Propgse~_COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 2 $ OF 3 2 C1TY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1, 2004[ through Deceinber 31,200~3 ARTICLE 15 SUBCONTRACTING WORK 15.1 The City of Bremerton and the Union will agree that conditions surrounding decisions to subcontract work normally performed by non-uniformed employees are subject to the following: The City will provide a minimum of thirty (30) days advance notice of it's intention to subcontract out work and bargain the impact of such proposed subcontracting. In the event the City enters into a contract, depending on the needs of the City at that time, the City shall have the option to either to keep those affected employees employed in any job classification for which they are qualified, at their current rate of pay, or to pay them under the following conditions: Either one (1) week of severance pay or continued employment for each completed year of regular employment with the City, up to a maximum of 16 weeks. Employees will be cashed out of all vacation leave accrued as provided by current agreement. Pay out for Sick leave accrual will be granted only to those employees who are within five (5) years of earliest retirement under (PERS), and then at a maximum not to exceed seventeen and one-half percent (17.5%) of their existing balance. Those affected employees will also be placed on Civil Service Reinstatement Registers in accordance with existing roles. ARTICLE 16 MUNICIPAL COURT NON-CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS 16.1 Hiring -- The Department will hire and promote employees of the Municipal Court Department in conformance with federal, state and local laws governing hiring practices. Newly hired employees will serve a six month (6) probationary period during which period the employee may be terminated without cause. Any employee terminated during the probationary period will have no recourse to the grievance procedure. 16.2 Promotional Probation -- Newly promoted employee's will serve a six month (6) promotional probationary period during which time the employee may be reduced to his or her former position in the Court at the discretion of the Municipal Court Judge or designee, at the pay step pursuant to 5.4.1. Any employee reduced to his/her former position during the promotional probationary period will have no recourse to the grievance procedure. Proposed COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 2 9 OF 3 2 CITY OFBREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1,200~t through December 31,200~3 16.3 Discipline and Discharge The Department may discipline or discharge an employee for good cause. "Cause" is hereby defined to be identical to the cause or causes, which are set forth in the Civil Service Rules governing employees covered by Civil Service. 16.4 Civil Service - The procedures which will be employed by the Department in taking disciplinary action or in discharging an employee of the Department who is not covered by Civil Service will be identical to those which are prescribed for use for employees covered by Civil Service with the following exceptions: 16.4.1 The Department will file all required materials with the Human Resources Manager in lieu of the Civil Service Officer. 16.4.2 Appeals of the Department's decision will be processed through the Grievance Procedure contained in this agreement. 16.5 Layoff -- Employees subject to layoff will be provided thirty (30) calendar days written notice prior to the effective date of layoff. Layoff of Municipal Court employees will be accomplished by seniority from date of hire within the series of classifications grouped as follows: Group 1: Senior Legal Technician Legal Technician Group 2: Probation Officer Detention Specialist 16.5.1 Any new classification used in the Department will be placed in a series group by mutual agreement between the Human Resources Department and the Union. If an employee of the Department who is covered by Civil Service is to be laid off by seniority, he or she will exercise their fights under the Civil Service layoff procedures. 16.6 Civil Service Employees Employees covered by Civil Service will be hired, disciplined and discharged in conformance with Civil Service Rules. ARTICLE 17 DRUG FREE WORK PLACE 17.1 The maintenance of a drag-free work place is essential to the safety and welfare of City employees. The following provisions will apply to employees covered by this agreement: 17.2 Controlled Substances - 17.2.1 The unlawful manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, possessing or using of a controlled substance or alcohol in the work place is prohibited. Reporting to work under the influence of a controlled substance or alcohol is prohibited. ~92~d COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 3 0 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January I, 2004.t. through December 31,200~ 17.2.2 As a condition of employment, all employees must notify their department head of any criminal dmg statute conviction for a violation occurring in the work place no later than five days after such a conviction. 17.3 Prescription or Over-the-Counter Drug Use - The use of prescription and over-the-counter drags which compromise safety in the work place or the quality of the employee's work product is prohibited. 17.4 Employee Sanctions - It is the responsibility of every employee to be aware of the above provisions and to abide by them. Failure to observe these provisions could result in immediate disciplinary action against the employee, up to and including termination. The employee may be required to participate satisfactorily in an alcohol or drag abuse assistance or rehabilitation program. 17.5 Drug Abuse Education Program -- The City will utilize all available City resources, such as the Police Department's D.A.R.E. program, to educate employees as to the dangers of drag abuse. 17.6 Confidentiality - The confidentiality of all complaints and reported violations of the provisions of this policy will be strictly maintained, except as required by public disclosure laws or court orders. 17.7 The parties have agreed to the City of Bremerton Human Resources Policy 3-20-03 "Drag and Alcohol Policy" for employees required to have a Commercial Driver's License, with an effective date of January 1, 1996. The parties agree that the City of Bremerton Human Resources Policy #3-20-03" Drag and Alcohol Policy" will apply to employees not required to have a CDL, however, they will not be subject to random testing.. ARTICLE 18 BUS PASSES 18.1 The City will provide Kitsap Transit bus passes to employees working in the downtown core who request bus passes. To be eligible to receive such passes, the employee must ride the bus to and from work an average of three times a week. The City will establish procedures for the issuance of bus passes to employees. ARTICLE 19 MANAGEMENT RIGHTS 19.1 Subject only to the limitations expressly stated in this agreement, the Union recognizes that the Employer retains the exclusive right to manage its business including, but not limited to, the right to determine the methods and means by which its operations are carried on, to direct the work force and to conduct its operations in a safe and efficient manner. ARTICLE 20 WORK STOPPAGES 20.1 STRIKES/LOCKOUTS PROHIBITED- The City and the Union agree that the public interest requires efficient and uninterrupted performance of all City services and to this end pledge their best efforts to avoid or eliminate any conduct contrary to this objective during the term of this Agreement. Accordingly, it will be a violation of this Agreement for the City to cause a lockout of its employees or pr~_~pt~sed COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 3 3_ OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1, 20041 through December 31,200,?~ for the Union to call, encourage, or participate in any strike, sympathy strike, slowdown, or other work stoppage. Employees engaging in any of the aforementioned activities will be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the roles of the Civil Service Commission. ARTICLE 21 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 21.1 Definitions: 21.1.1 Grievance -- A grievance is an alleged contract violation, question, or challenge raised by an employee or the Union as to the correct interpretation or application of this Agreement by the City. Such allegation, -question, or challenge is to be resolved through this Grievance Procedure. 21.1.2 Civil Service Appeal An appeal is an allegation of a violation of the Civil Service Rules which is to be resolved through the Civil Service Appeals procedure and is not resolvable through this Grievance Procedure. 21.2 Step 1 -- An employee or Union representative who believes that a question exists as to the correct interpretation or application of this agreement will first discuss the action giving rise to the belief with the immediate supervisor involved within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date the action took place or within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date upon which the employee could reasonably have been expected to know of such action. The employee will have the right to be assisted by an authorized Union representative during this discussion if they request one. The time limits above shall not apply to payroll errors. 21.3 Step 2 - In the event that the immediate supervisor does not resolve the grievance to the satisfaction of the employee or the Union within a period of fourteen (14) calendar days at Step 1 of this procedure, the employee or the Union Representative will reduce the grievance to writing and will state: the section (or sections) of this agreement which is alleged to have been interpreted or applied incorrectly; an explanation of the grievance in detail, including dates, actions and such other information needed to understand the facts and circumstances giving rise to the grievance; and the remedy sought. The employee will have the right to be assisted by an authorized Union representative in reducing his or her grievance to writing. The employee or Union representative will present the written grievance to the employee's Department Head within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date the employee received the immediate supervisor's response. The Department Head will meet with the employee and/or the employee's Union Representative within fourteen (14) calendar days after receipt of the written grievance for the purpose of considering the matter. The Department Head will reduce his or her decision to writing and will transmit the decision to the employee and the Union representative within fourteen (14) calendar days of meeting with the employee and/or the Union representative. 21.4 Step 3 - In the event that the Department Head does not resolve the grievance to the satisfaction of the employee or the Union representative at Step 2 of this procedure, the employee or the Union representative will transmit a copy of the original grievance along with a copy of the Department Head's written response to the Human Resources Manager with a copy to the Mayor within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of the Department Head's written response. The Human Resources Manager Proposed COLLECTWE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 3 2 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 JanuaE~ 1, 20041 through December 31, 2005¢ will consider the grievance and may convene a meeting. The Human Resources Manager will reduce his or her decision to writing within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of the grievance and transmit the decision to the Union. 21.5 Step 4 -- In the event that the Human Resources Manager does not resolve the grievance at Step 3 of this procedure, the Union may request arbitration of the issue by written notification to the Human Resources Manager. Immediately thereafter, the parties will petition the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) for a list of nine (9) arbitrators. 21.6 Powers and Duties of the Arbitrator It will be the duty of the arbitrator to conduct a hearing on the issue or issues submitted by the parties for decision. The heating will be kept informal and private. The arbitrator will interpret the provisions of this agreement as they apply to the issue or issues submitted for decision and will not add to, subtract from nor in any way otherwise alter nor recommend the alteration of the terms and conditions of the agreement in deciding the matter. As soon as is practicable after conducting the hearing, the arbitrator will render a written decision which will be binding upon the parties. 21.7 Costs of Arbitration - The expenses of the neutral arbitrator will be borne equally by the parties. Each party will singly bear all costs related to preparing and presenting its own case before the arbitrator, including costs of witnesses. The party desiring a record of the proceedings will bear the cost of obtaining such record. 21.8 Time Limits -- Time limits established in this procedure will be strictly adhered to but may be waived by mutual agreement of the Union and the City. All procedures contained herein will be complied with as expeditiously as practicable. ARTICLE 22 SEVERABILITY 22.1 In the event that any provision of this Agreement is held invalid by operation of law or by any tribunal of competent jurisdiction, or if compliance with or enforcement of any Article should be restrained by such tribunal pending a final determination as to its validity, the remaining provisions of this Agreement will not be held invalid and will remain in full force and effect. The Union and the City will immediately meet and attempt to renegotiate any provision found invalid. ARTICLE 23 ENTIRE AGREEMENT 23.1 The Union and the City acknowledge that each has had the unlimited right and opportunity to make proposals with respect to any matter deemed a proper subject for collective bargaining. The results of the exercise of that right are set forth in this Agreement. Therefore, the City and the Union each voluntarily and unqualifiedly agree to waive the right to oblige the other party to bargain with respect to any subject or matter not specifically covered by the Articles of this Agreement during the term of this Agreement, except as mutually agreed upon. Proposed COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 3 3 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January I, 200~[ through December 31, 20053 ARTICLE 24 CONFLICTING PROVISIONS 24.1 In the event that any provision of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with any other Resolution, Ordinance, Policy, Regulation or Rule of the City, the provision of this agreement will prevail. ARTICLE 25 LABOR MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 25.1 Labor Management The City and the Union agree that a need exists for closer cooperation between labor and management. To accomplish this objective, the Employer and the Union agree that no more than five (5) duly authorized representatives of the Union will function as one-half (1/2) of a Labor- Management Committee, the other half being no more than five (5) certain representatives of the City named for that purpose. The Committee will meet at least once every three (3) months for the purpose of discussing and facilitating the resolution of all problems, which may arise between the parties. The City will provide a draft of the minutes of the meeting to the Union's Committee members within (2) two weeks of the meeting. At the Committee's discretion, additional meetings may be held. The Committee will be chaired by a member elected by the Committee. 25.2 Should the Union and Employer mutually agree to change, add, or delete any provision of this Agreement, policies or mles, such change will be set forth in writing. ARTICLE 26 JOB SHARING 26.1 Job Sharim, - The parties consider job sharing as a potential viable alternative to full time employment. Jobs may be shared on an hourly, or dally basis. 26.2 All leave for job-sharing employees will be provided on a pro-rated basis. Insurance benefits premium costs will be determined on a case by case basis; however, the total cost to the City cannot exceed the cost for a full time employee. 26.3 Job sharing may only be done by mutual agreement of the employees affected and Department Head or designee. Vacant full time positions may be announced as "Job Sharing" only if agreed to by the City and Union. 26.4 All time worked by an employee above the base scheduled hours for the position will be considered overtime, provided, however, that the combined paid hours for the position exceed forty (40) in the work week. 26.5 Job sharing employees must sign a "Job Sharing Contract" acknowledging their acceptance of appropriate conditions including the following: Proposqd~COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 3 4 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1,200¢t through December 31,200~3 26.5.1 Either job sharing employee may request terminating the contract and returning to full-time employment. Accommodation of this request shall be subject to the availability of a vacant position. The remaining employee may be required to work full-time until another "job sharing" employee can be found, and is approved by the Department Head or designee. 26.5.2. Job sharing employees agree to work full-time during the absence of the other employee, when requested. 26.5.3 Regular status for employees "job sharing" will be achieved upon successful completion of hours worked equivalent to the duration of the probationary period for the classification. 26.5.4. Step increases for "job sharing" employees shall be granted in the same manner as full-time employees on an equivalent basis. 26.5.5 Other conditions as may be considered necessary by the Department Head or designee may be made part of the job sharing contract. Provided, however, that they do not alter any terms of this Labor Agreement or the Civil Service Rules. 26.5.6. The job sharing contract may be terminated at the discretion of the Department Head or designee in accordance with the Civil Service Rules. 26.5.7. The negotiated job sharing contract will indicate the base schedule to be worked by each employee and the distribution of insurance benefits premium costs. ARTICLE 27. TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT AND SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT 27.1 Temporary Assignment - An employee covered by this Agreement may be temporarily assigned the duties and responsibilities of a position which has a higher pay classification than his/her regularly assigned classification in which the incumbent employee is absent due to an extended illness, leave of absence or other extenuating circumstances, An employee who is temporary assigned to such a position shall be compensated at five percent (5%) above his/her current pay rate or the first step of the higher pay rate, whichever is greater. In no case shall an employee be paid more than the top pay step of the higher classification or serve in a temporary assignment for more than one (1) year. A temporary assignment may be extended one (1) time, on a case-by-case basis, for up to a maximum of six (6) months at the discretion of the Department Director. Such extension shall require the concurrence of the Human Resources Director and the Union. It shall be understood that compensation at the higher pay rate shall be effective after the completion of forty (40) consecutive hours in the temporary assignment. The first forty (40) hours of the temporary assignment shall be paid at the employee's regular rate of pay. Temporary Assignment will not affect an employee's anniversary date for step advancement purposes. 27.2 Special Assignment - An employee covered by this agreement may be placed in a special assignment, rather than being permanently reclassified to a higher level to allow for employee rotation, to enhance upward mobility, or for special projects for a period of one (1) calendar year or less. Special Assignments shall not to be used for staffing shortages. Compensation for Special Assignments may be granted up to a maximum of ten percent 10% above what the current rate of pay is for the employee and ~Prt$o_sed COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 3 5 OF 3 2 CiTY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1, 20041 through December 31, 2005.3 requires the approval of the Human Resources Director ~ ....... ~,,~.. Special Assignment will not affect an employee's anniversary date for step advancement purposes. ARTICLE 28 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - EMPLOYEES 28.1 WWTP Operator's License Differential - WWTP Operator's that are required by the employer and/or choose to have a Washington State Operator's License above Group 1/ will receive Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per month for each current certificate above Group II. 28.2 WWTP Operations Supervisor License Differential - WWTP Operation Supervisor's that have a Washington State Operator's license above Group 11/, will receive Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per month for each certification above Group Ill. 28.3 WWTP Operator-in-Charge Differential - When the employer designates a WWTP Operator-in- Charge for a minimum of one full shift, they will receive a five (5%) percent differential applied to their base hourly pay for each shift so assigned. 28.4 WWTP Operator Trainee Probationary Period - The probationary period shall be not less than six (6) months and no more than eighteen (18) months, contingent upon when employee obtains the required Ope Ii C~ r,..,~r.: .......... 4 o~k.,~: ..... ;" ~-'" :- "" rc:,pccts WWTP rator's cense. Thc :51 Scrv:~cc ............ e ....................... w,-2 28.5 Promoted Employees - If between six (6) and eighteen (18) months the employee does not qualify for WWTP Operator they will be returned to the class they previously held, provided they held such class in a non-probationary status. 28.6 New Hires - If between six (6) and eighteen (18) months the employee does not qualify for WWTP Operator, the employee shall be terminated.wi!! be a!low.ed to excrci:;c C~vi] Se~,'ice R'a]e ] 5.01 a:; if ARTICLE 29 TEAMSTERS SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN The City agrees to allow the bargaining unit employees the opportunity to voluntz~ly participate in the Teamsters Supplemental Pension Plan. It shall be understood that participation in this plan shall be strictly voluntary and that 100% of the cost of participation shall be the sole responsibility of the employee. ARTICLE 30 DOWNTOWN PARKING - Effective as of the first of the month following ratification of this contract by both the City and the Union, the City shall provide free parking for all bargaining unit members who are assigned to wGrk on a regular basis in the downtown area. Proposed COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 3 6 OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO, 589 January I, 200,~ t through December 3 I, 200~3 ARTICLE 310 TERM 310.1 This Agreement will become effective upon January 1, 20~4-_ and will remain in effect through December 31, 2005_5. All requests to amend, modify or terminate this Agreement will require either ~:v,., ~m days prior to party to file written notice upon the other at least one hundred eighty (180) ...... December 31, This agreement is hereby submitted to the Bremerton City Council by the City representative and the Union representative for the Council's consideration and approval. Upon approval, this agreement will become binding upon the City, the Union and all of the employees in the bargaining unit covered by this agreement. APPROVED by the Bremerton City Council on the 4x)th day of ,-004 Signed this day of ,2004 · ......... FOR THE CITY OF BREMERTON FOR GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION #589: Carol S. Conley, Human Resources Director Kenneth P. Troup, Business Representative E. Approved as to Form: /~.....I.. ' 1.*...:.. ~:*., City Attorney ............... Roger Lubowch, ............. ~ By Honorable Cary Bozeman, Mayor Attest: Paula Johnston, --~..--v ..]ty Clerk Propos¢~COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PAGE 3 ? OF 3 2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 589 January 1,200~t through December 31,200~3 DATE SUBMITTED: July 21, 2004 BILL # O4 ' I 5 AGENDA BILL G A CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Ordinance Committee Meeting Date: / # ,~07 vacating an underground cOUNCIL MEETING Date: ~ <~:>--/' ~"~9~ portion of Second Street Department: _ City Attorney's Office Presenter: Brett Vinson _~.(.O~ ~O-~[v%~ Phone: 473-2345 SUMMARY: The City initiated the vacation of an underground portion of Second Street at the comer of Washington Avenue and Second Street. This date has been scheduled for a public hearing in accordance with state law and the Bremerton Municipal Code for first reading on the proposed ordinance vacating the subject property. The proposed vacated area will be incorporated into the abutting property owned by Kitsap Federal Credit Union. This is a Class II right-of-way for which compensation will be paid by the Kitsap Federal Credit Union. ATTACHMENTS: 1.) Ordinance # ~c~07 ; 2.) Site Map; 3.) Engineering StaffReport FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): No Impact APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: ,~-; ~'~/' CITY ATTO~EY: MAYOR: FXSCaL/B O T: OPE~TIONS: co cI ~COMMENDED MOTION: B. Move to adopt Ordinance ~0~on second reading, vacating an area underneath the south side of Second Street, from Washington Avenue westerly to the alley at mid-block. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action R:\LEGAL\Ordinances~Public Works & Utilities\Vacation - 2nd St. Underground.ab.doc SUMMARY OF UNDERGROUND STREET VACATION FOR THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF SECOND STREET Between Washington Avenue and Pacific Avenue BACKGROUND The Kitsap Federal Credit Union recently purchased the parcel of property at the corner of Second Street and Washington Avenue to construct a new credit union office. In order to provide adequate parking for the new building, the credit union is proposing the construction of an underground parking lot. It is proposed that the parking lot extend into the underground portion of the second street right of way. SUMMARY Engineering staff, in cooperation with the Legal staff contacted all utility users of the right-of way to determine the potential impacts of the vacation. There are telephone, electric and natural gas facilities in the southern portion of Second Street. In the ordinance, easements were retained to accommodate these utilities. As a part of the construction some of these utilities will need to be removed. The utilities can either be placed in the ceiling of the underground parking or be relocated in the northern portion of Second Street. This is a decision that will need to be made during the design of the credit union building. At the conclusion of the construction, Second Street will function as part of the City street system as it does today. The south half of Second Street will actually be a structural part of the parking lot. The ordinance states that the street shall be constructed in accordance with state and national standards to accommodate the weight of typical traffic. ORDINANCE NO. 4°7 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, relating to the vacation of streets, vacating an area underneath the south side of Second Street from Washington Avenue westerly to the alley at mid-block, in the City of Bremerton. WHEREAS, the City has initiated the vacation of an area underneath the south side of Second Street, from Washington Avenue westerly to the alley at mid-block, in the City of Bremerton; and WHEREAS, the City passed Resolution No. 2932 declaring its intention to vacate this area underneath Second Street, from Washington Avenue westerly to the alley at mid-block, which resolution also set a hearing to take public comment or consider written objections to the partial underground vacation; and WHEREAS, fewer than fifty percent of the property owners abutting said tight- of-way filed written objections to this action prior to the time set for public hearing herein; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held with proper notice on August 4, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of the Bremerton City Hall to take public comment or consider written objections to this vacation; and WHEREAS, this vacation is sought to incorporate the area into the abutting property owned by Kitsap Federal Credit Union; and WHEREAS, the City Council has detemfined that it is in the best interest of the public to proceed with the vacation; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION2. The area underneath the south side of Second Street, from Washington Avenue westerly to the alley at mid-block in the City of Bremerton, as described in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby vacated to the abutting property owners subject to reservations of easements as set forth in Section 3 and conditions for construction of improvements as set forth in Section 4. l Second Street Partial Underground Vacation 85 SECTION3. Reservation of Easements. 1. The following easements are reserved in the area vacated: a. An easement is reserved for the City of Bremerton, Public Works and Utilities Department for construction, operation, maintenance and repair of City utilities over, under and upon the entire area vacated pursuant to this ordinance. b. An easement is reserved for Cascade Natural Gas for construction, operation, maintenance and repair of gas lines and appurtenances over, under, upon and across the existing facilities within the area vacated pursuant to this ordinance. c. An easement is reserved for Qwest Corporation to construct, reconstruct, modify, change, add to, operate, maintain, and remove telecommunication facilities, and appurtenances over, under, upon and across the existing facilities within the area vacated pursuant to this ordinance. d. An easement is reserved for Puget Sound Energy to construct, reconstruct, modify, change, add to, operate, maintain, and remove electrical facilities, equipment and appurtenances over, under, upon and across the existing facilities within the area vacated pursuant to this ordinance. 2. The utilities within the above-reserved easements may be rerouted and relocated to an area outside the vacated area as requested by and at the cost of the abutting property owner subject to approval by the Department of Public Works and Utilities. 3. The Department of Public Works and Utilities is authorized to release and reconvey reserved City easement or easements within the vacated area when and if City utilities are rerouted and relocated. SECTION4. Improvements within Vacated Area. The construction of any underground improvements shall meet current vehicle loading requirements on the restored roadway, curb, gutter and sidewalk over the vacated area as required by AASHTO and WSDOT Design Manuals. SECTION 5. Severabilit~. If any one or more section, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in fome ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2004. PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2004. DAREN NYGREN, Council President 2 Second Street Partial Underground Vacation Approved this day of ,2004. CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: PAULA JOHNSTON. City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the day of ,2004. EFFECTIVE the .day of ,2004. ORDINANCE NO. R:\LEGAL\Ordinances\Public Works & UtilitiesWacation - 2nd SI Underground-oral.doc 3 Second Street Partial Underground Vacation 87 EXHIBIT A Vacation of an underground portion of Second Street, of the Plat of the Town of Bremerton, as recorded in Volume 2, of plats Page 030, records of Kitsap County Washington, situate in Government Lot 1, Section 13, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, Kitsap County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point at the northwest comer of Lot 8, Block 9 of said plat, also being the True Point of Beginning; thence N 1°35'17" W 20.03 feet to a line parallel with and twenty feet north of the north line of said Block 9; thence S 88°24'43" E 223.84 along said parallel line; thence S 63°37'44" E 69.92; thence leaving said parallel line, S 26°22'16'' W 20.00 feet to the said north line of Block 9; thence along said north line N 63°37'44'' W 65.53 feet; thence N 88°24'43" W 218.34 feet to the Tree Point of Beginning. EXCEPT for that portion of the area two (2) feet immediately below and running contiguous to the current surface grade of the above described property. Vacation of Portion of Second Street, Subterranean Page I of I 88 IT! PACIFIC A VEi~ /E mA ~ ~ Z.-.I Zm 0 Z ~'d 8G&S-8£~-O98 uc~s~^~O 9u~Jaau~u3 eBb:G0 ~0 8~ City of Bremerton, Department of Public Works and Utilities Engineering Division Staff Report Vacation of an Area Underneath the South Side of Second Street City Council/Public Hearing Date: August 4, 2004 Report Prepared By: Gunnar Fridriksson, Civil Engineer SUMMARY A. Applicant: City of Bremerton 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Location: An area underneath the south side of Second Street, from Washington Avenue westerly to the alley at mid-block. B. Attachment: Exhibit Map BACKGROUND The City of Bremerton has initiated the vacation of an area underneath the south side of Second Street, from Washington Avenue westerly to the alley at mid-block. Kitsap Federal Credit Union (KFCU) has proposed purchasing the abutting property to construct a new building with an underground parking garage. The design of the new underground parking garage requires a portion of the structure to be located within the right-of-way of Second Street. As this subterranean use of Second Street will not impair use of the surface improvements on Second Street to the traveling public, the City has initiated this vacation. The proposed vacation location is illustrated on the attached exhibit. RIGHT.OF.WAY CONDITIONS · Functional Classification Local street, non-arterial · Existing Right-of-Way Width (surface) 60 feet · Proposed Right-of-Way Width (surface) 60 feet · Pavement Width 36 feet · Surface Type Asphalt · Curb and Gutter Yes · Sidewalks 12 foot 90 HEARING CONSIDERATIONS BMC 11.20.120 sets forth issues that the City Council shall determine following the Vacation Hearing. These issues and City staff positions are as follows: 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. City Staff Position: The surface of the right-of-way is required for local access and use, and will need to be retained by the City at the full 60 foot width. The City will relinquish use of an area underneath a portion of Second Street, below approximately 2 feet below existing finish grade at the curb and gutter on the south side of the street. 2. Whether the vacation is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. City Staff Position: The proposed vacation does not conflict with the City Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether the continued use of the proposed vacation as a public way is not of such public benefit as to justify the costs of maintenance. City Staff Position: Loss of the subterranean use of Second Street will not increase or decrease the City's maintenance responsibility in this area. 4. Whether substitution of a new and different thoroughfare would be more useful to the public. City Staff Position: The roadway and its use shall remain and be unhindered by the loss of the area underneath Second Street. No other thoroughfare would improve circulation in this area. 5. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater public use or need than presently exists. City Staff Position: No future use of this portion of the area underneath Second St. is anticipated. 6. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the same. The abutting property owner is Bremer Trust, who will complete an agreement for sale of the property to KFCU at the end of July. Both the Bremer Trust and KFCU support the vacation. July 22, 2004 Engineering Division Staff Report Proposed Underground Vacation of a Portion of Second Street Page 2 of 6 SHORELINE ACCESS This portion of right-of-way does not provide shoreline access. UTILITIES All private utility companies were contacted. Cascade Natural Gas, Puget Sound Energy, and Qwest will retain an easement. Utility easements will be reserved for the existing City storm water and sanitary utilities. All easements for existing utilities will be released upon redevelopment of the property by KFCU and construction of the parking garage, and arrangements are made for the utility relocations. SUFFICIENCY OF SIGNATURES Not Applicable - The City initiated the vacation. COMPENSATION The City will receive compensation in the amount of $90,000.00 from KFCU for this vacation. This is in accordance with an agreement between the City, Kitsap Transit and KFCU for a "Kiss-n-Ride" drop off area for the Bremerton Transportation Center. STAFF COMMENTS The City Fire Department, Attorney, Department of Community Development, Police Department, and Engineering all support this vacation. Staff recommends approval of the vacation of an area underneath Second Street with easements reserved for all existing utilities. The construction of any underground improvements shall meet current vehicle loading requirements on the restored roadway, curb, gutter and sidewalk over the vacated area as required by AASHTO and WSDOT Design Manuals. July 22, 2004 Engineering Division Staff Report Proposed Underground Vacation of a Portion of Second Street Page 3 of 6 Looking westerly on Second Street from corner of Second and Washington. Looking easterly on Second Street from alley. July 22, 2004 Engineering Division Staff Report Proposed Underground Vacation of a Portion of Second Street Page 4 of 6 93 Looking from parking arage north of Second Street, south-westerly at vacation area and ab~ Looking from parking garage north of Second Street, south-easterly at vacation area and abutting property. July 22, 2004 Engineering Division Staff Report Proposed Underground Vacation of a Portion of Second Street Page 5 of 6 DATE SUBMITTED: August 4, 2004 BILL AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Resolution Committee Meeting Date: 8/11/04 No. o~ q 35t accepting the proposal for COUNCIL MEETING Date: 8/18/04 annexation from Kenneth A. Racus Department: Community Development ~ ¢ - '- Presenter: Chris Hugo Phone: 473-5243 SUMMARY: The City received a petition from Kenneth A. Racus seeking annexation of territory into the City. The City must meet with the initiating party not later than 60 days after filing the request to consider the petition and make certain decisions regarding the annexation. The proposed resolution accepts the proposal for annexation, adopts the comprehensive land use plan designation for the proposed annexation area, requires the assumption of all existing City indebtedness and requires that the appropriate petition be filed with the City and the required information be forwarded to the Boundary Review Board. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution 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 pass Resolution No. ~q3 ~ , accepting the application for annexation received from Kenneth A. Racus. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action RESOLUTION NO. ~ A RESOLUTION of' the City Council of, the City of' Bremerton, Washington, accepting the proposal for annexation and authorizing the circulation of, a petition f,or annexation and f,urther requiring the adoption of, the City's Comprehensive Plan land use designation f,or the proposed annexation area and requiring the assumption of' all of, the City's existing indebtedness by the area to be annexed. WHEREAS, on June 29, 2004, the City received a petition for annexation of territory to the City of Bremerton from Kenneth A. Racus; and WHEREAS, the proposed area for annexation is legally described and further depicted in the Petition for Annexation of Territory to City of Bremerton attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the initiating party is the owner of not less than ten percent in value of.the property, according to the assessed valuation for which annexation is petitioned; and WHEREAS, the initiating party is the owner of not less than ten percent of the acreage for which annexation is petitioned; and WHEREAS, the proposed area f,or annexation is located within the City's Urban Grown Area (UGA); and WHEREAS, the land designation previously established by the city for the proposed area for annexation is low density residential (LDR); and WHEREAS, the City Council must meet with the initiating party not later than 60 days after filing the request for annexation to consider the petition and decide ~vhether it will 1) accept, reject, or geographically modify the proposed annexation; 2) require the simultaneous adoption of the comprehensive plan f'or the area proposed to be annexed; and 3) require the assumption of all or any portion of'City indebtedness by the area to be annexed; and WHEREAS, City Council has set August 18, 2004 as the date that it will meet with the initiating party to consider the petition; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that it in the best interest of the city to accept the proposed annexation as presented, require the simultaneous adoption of.the comprehensive plan for the area proposed to be annexed and require the assumption of, all or any portion of City indebtedness by the area to be annexed; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1 Annexation - Racus 96 SECTION 1. The Petition for Annexation of Territory to the City of Bremerton attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby accepted as presented without any geographic modification to the area proposed to be annexed. SECTION2. The City Council hereby simultaneously adopts the comprehensive plan land use designation of LDR previously established by the City for this area in the UGA for the proposed annexation area. SECTIONS. The City Council shall require the assumption of all existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. SECTION 4. The initiating party shall be required to submit the appropriate petition as required by law to proceed with the annexation and to forward the required information to the Boundary Review Board (BRB). SECTION 5. Severabilitv. 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 6. 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 ,2004. DAREN NYGREN, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk R:\LEGALXResolutions\Community DevelopmentXRacus Annexation Petition Resolution.doc 2 Annexation - Racus 97 OFI~CE OF CITY CLEF,K PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO CITY OF BREMERTON~i~. .... ~ i. City Council CiTY OF BREMERTON JUN ~ 9 239 - 4TM Street Bremerton, Washington 98337 Ci v o~' ~: .~ We the undersigned, who are the owners, according to the records of the auditor of Kitsap County, of not less than 60% of the area of the following described real property situated in Kitsap County, Washington, respectfully petition that the said real property be annexed to the City of Bremerton, Washington and we respectfully state as follows: 1. The area proposed to be annexed to the City is more particularly described as follows: Part of Tract 18, Robesons One, Two and Five Acre Tracts, as per Volume 1 of Plats, Page 72, records of Kitsap County, described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Tract 18; thence North 2'55'27" East along the West line of Tract 18, 95.99 feet, more or less to existing fence; thence South 85* 49'08" East following the fence, 651.69 feet to the East line of Tract 18; thence following the East line of Tract 18, South 3*02'33" West 59.80 feet more or less, to the Southeast comer of said Tract 18; thence following the South line of Tract 18, North 88*59'56" West 652.46 feet to the point of beginning; situate in Kitsap County, Washington; and Tract 19, Robeson's 1,2 and 5 Acre Tracts, Volume 1 of Plats, Page 72, Kitsap County, Washington Said pamels being situated on the east side of Pine Road approximately 100 feet South of NE Roswell Drive, in the Northeast N of Section 2, Township 24 North, Range 01, East, W.M. 2. The said area adjoins the existing boundaries of the City of Bremerton and is in Kitsap County. 3. A plat map outlining the boundaries of the real property described above is attached hereto and made a part of this petition. 4. The undersigned petitioners respectfully request the City Council of the City of Bremerton to entertain this petition and fix a date for public hearing thereon, such date to be not less than fifteen (15) days after notice of the date and time of the hearing has been published in one issue of a newspaper in general circulation in the area proposed to be annexed, the said notices are to specify the time and place of hearing and invite interested parties to appear and voice approval or disapproval for the proposed annexation Property Owner Name: Tax ID No._ 3962-000-018-0000 EXHIBIT A 98 Kenneth A. Racus _20207- 96th Ave. NE, Bothell, Wa. 98011 Property Owner Name: Tax ID No.__3962-000-019-0009 Kenneth A. Racus _20207 - 96th Ave. NE, Bothell, Wa. 98011 Property Owner Name: Tax ID No.__3962-000-019-0009 .~,j~. ~/)¢~,_.~,th A. Racus~ _20207- 96th Ave. NE, Bothell, Wa. 98011 99 STATE OF WASHINGTON County of ~'1~.¢~ } ss: On this day personally appeared before ,ne K~iil4~'~T~ ~ .~ ~ to me ~own to be the individual ~ 8escribed in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and ae~owledged that ~ signed the same as ~$ 'free and volunta~ act and deed, for the uses and pu~oses therein mentioned. Stye ~f My Ap~lnfment ~rm J~ ~. ~ . My Appointment Expires on / t - ~ 200 . RACUS PROPOSED ANNEXATION LOCATION: · Pine Road, eastside, approximately ¼ mile north of Sylvan Way SIZE: · 10 acres, more or less CURRENT STATUS OF PROPERTY: · Property straddles the City Limits, approximately 2/3rds outside the City and 1/3rd inside. · Unincorporated portion lies entirely within City UGA. PROPOSED USE: · Subdivide into residential lots at approximately 8 units / acre COUNTY LAND USE PLAN / ZONING: · Urban Residential / 5-9 units per acre CITY UGA LAND USE DESIGNATION: · Low Density Residential CITY PROPOSED ZONING: · SF-3 (3-8 units / acre) AUGUST 18, 2004 5:30 PM My name is John Park. I represent 60 residents of the devel- opment known as Normandy Park, located exactly 1,442 steps North of this subject property on Pine Rd. There are more, but 60 was all I could contact since I saw the article in the Bremerton Sun this afternoon. Is this the beginning of the end of my suburban neighbor- hood ? Do you know what suburbia is ? I do not think it is 70 homes on 9 acres ! There may or may not be garages, but there needs to be room to park a minimum of 2 cars OFF OF THE STREET ! (hopefully with driveways, no parking on the yard grass!) NOW TRAFFIC ! Have you ever considered improving the Streets and traffic corridors to accommodate planned devel- opment? Look at what we end up with when you don't: Speed bumps, those round de round things or planter boxes And skate hoard ramns in the middle of the streets to SLOW traffic down. And you all know where those are ! Shouldn't we be looking for ways to EASE traffic, or speed It up? Now I am not advocating a tunnel down Pine Rd for Goodness sake, but this already crowded street needs some help, not a super development like this. DATE SUBMITTED: 7/27/04 BILL # AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON ~ CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Resolution to seek State Committee Meeting Date: 08/11/2004 legislative action to address funding for COUNCIL MEETING Date: 08/18/2004 municipal transportation infrastructure Department: Public Works ~¢$o~'~'u~, ~o. glq3~ Presenter: Phil Williams Phone: 473-5755 SUMMARY: The City of Seattle is attempting to put together a coalition of cities to lobby the legislature regarding increased transportation funding. The effort will involve an appeal for both additional state dollars and pass-through federal funding for cities. In addition, this coalition will look to the Governor and the legislature for new local options for transportation funding. This would include specific authority to develop and operate a street utility. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution /~o. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A APPROVALS: ,/.<__ CITY ATTORNEY: <~-" ~ FiNANCE DIRECTOR: -NJ ~ [c~ -'~ . MAYOR: ~ FI ~,..,73~ , ~_ _ SCAL/BUDGET: .'_'?f.~/_l.'_~.~_:(,d'-:--.-f~ 1CONSENT AGENDA OPERATIONS'. :'( \ :~'~ ' RECOMMENDED MOTION. That Council adopt the resolution as written and forward to the Governor, our local state legislative delegation (both House and Senate), other Kitsap County Cities, and the City of Seattle with a cover letter signed by the Mayor. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action 103 RESOLUTION NO. i~,q35 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington seeking State legislative action to address funding for municipal transportation infrastructure. WHEREAS, the City shares with other Washington cities the converging challenges of maintaining an aging transportation infrastructure while also attempting to expand mobility resources for neighborhoods, business investment, economic vitality and future development; and WHEREAS these challenges are compounded by the erosion of viable funding resources for transportation even as the needs for funding intensify; for example: (a) During the 14-year period since 1990, cities have lost transportation revenue sources; (b) In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled Residential Street Utility Fees unconstitutional, and more recently, cities lost the Vehicle License Fee due to the passage of Initiative 776; (c) Fuel tax revenues have declined at an average rate of almost 4 percent per year (in inflation adjusted dollars) due to the restrictive structuring of that revenue source; and WHEREAS, Washington's municipalities do not have sufficient viable funding mechanisms to implement adequate and appropriate user fees for transportation improvements; and WHEREAS, the last comprehensive action by the Legislature to provide local options for transportation funding was in 1990; and WHEREAS, at that time, the Legislature, recognizing the need for local transportation funding, authorized four funding mechanisms: a local option fuel tax; a commercial parking tax; street utility fees; and vehicle license fees, and WHEREAS, 14 years later, none of these sources are currently viable for local transportation funding; and WHEREAS, as the condition of the transportation infrastructure deteriorates, the cost becomes significantly more expensive for repair or replacement, effectively doubling every 10 to 15 years; and WHEREAS, the cost to the public extends beyond these direct costs in the fbrm of impacts on the quality of life, on the business investment climate, on the cost of vehicle 204 maintenance, and on the ability to travel without facing delays, detours, and congestion; NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City calls upon the Governor and the Legislature to provide new and appropriate funding tools that may be administered at the municipal level to pay for transportation infrastructure. SECTION2. The City calls upon the Governor and the Legislature to provide additional direct funding, generated by the State, for municipal transportation infrastructure. SECTION3. The City encourages other Washington municipalities to join in this call by passing similar resolutions as a means of conveying the severity and urgency of the situation. SECTION 4. Severability. 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. SECTIONS. 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 ., 2004. DAREN NYGREN, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PAULA JOHNSTON, Interim City Clerk R:\LEGAL\Resolutions\Public Works\Resolution, State [/~gislation, Trans Planning.doc 20§ City council: Resolution 2935 From: Del & Michele Knauss <damknauss@comcast.net> To: <citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Date: Wed, Aug 18, 2004 8:34 AM Subject: Resolution 2935 Lori, Please ensure that this gets into the official record of the council meeting. Thanks, Del I urge the council to vote no on resolution 2935 because I do not believe the City should have the authority to develop and operate a street utility just so you can collect another utility tax like you do on our water, sewage and garbage. I'd like to remind the Council that you are getting ready to raise our utility bills by 30 - 40%. You are also going to ask us to approve a parks bond issue, the schools are going to ask us to approve a new school bond, and last but most important you are spending $28 million dollars downtown for a one way tunnel. Maybe we should ask Norm Dicks to let us use the money to pave every street in town. Bremerton residents already pay enough utility taxes, do not tax us for using our own streets. Del Knauss 139 Olympic Avenue Bremerton, WA DATE SUBMITTED: July 27, 2004 BILL # AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Public Heating on Resolution Committee Meeting Date: August 11, 2004 amending Resolution No. 2930 relating to COUNCIL MEETING Date: August 18, 2004 assignment of the Comprehensive Garbage, Department: City Attorney's Office Recyclables and Yard Debris Collection Presenter: Roger A. Lubovich Contract Phone: 473-2345 SUMMARY: City Council passed Resolution No. 2930 approving the assignment of the City's Comprehensive Garbage, Recyclables and Yard Debris Collection Contract from Rabanco, LTD to Waste Management of Washington, Inc. Rabanco and Waste Management desire to extend the effective date of the assignment from August 1, 2004, to September 1, 2004. The proposed resolution amends Resolution No. 2930 extending the effective date of the assignment. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution Jg~. o2q3~ FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: OPERATIONS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to pass Resolution No. 2{ 3(* amending Resolution No. 2930 extending to September 1, 2004, the effective date of the assignment of the Comprehensive Garbage, Recyclables and Yard Debris Collection Contract from Rabanco, LTD to Waste Management of Washington, Inc. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action RESOLUTION NO. ~q3.~, A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Resolution No. 2930 relating to the assignment and conveyance of the Comprehensive Garbage, Recyclables and Yard Debris Collection Contract from Rabanco, LTD to Waste Management of Washington Inc. WHEREAS, the City Council, in Resolution No. 2930, approved the assignment of the City's Comprehensive Garbage, Recyclables, and Yard Debris Collection Contract from Rabanco, LTD, ("Rabanco") to Waste Management of Washington, Inc.; and WHEREAS, Rabanco and Waste Management of Washington Inc. ("Waste Management") desire to extend the effective date of the assignment from August 1, 2004 to September 1, 2004; NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION1. Section 2 of Resolution No. 2930 entitled "Effective Date" is amended to state: The Assignment effective date will be September 1, 2004. SECTION2. Severabilitv. 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 fome and effect. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this day of ~, 2004. DAREN NYGREN, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk R:\LEGALhResolutions~rabanco wastcmanagement garbage assignment-amendment,DOC I Waste Management Assignment DATE SUBMITTED: August 9, 2004 BILL # AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL .... "'"" .... '"'" ........... '"'"'"'"' ..... '"'"" .... SUBJECT: Closed Record Hearing on Committee Meeting Date: NA Re, solution approving Campbell Way COUNCIL MEETING Date: August 18, 2004 Townhomes Final Plat, File BP04-00339 Department: DCD Presenter: Robert Grumbach Phone: 473-5379 SUMMARY: Resolution 2927 granted preliminary approval to the Campbell Way Townhomes PUD/Plat to subdivide 0.99 acres of land into 14 individual lots in order to construct 14 town_houses at 1207 Campbell Way. The City Engineer and Community Development Director signatures accompany the final plat recommending approval. ATTACHMENTS: (1) Procedures for Closed Record Hearing, (2) Resolution 2927, (3) Proposed resolution for final approval FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): .None DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: ~ FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: CLOSED RECORD HEARING - N/A CONSENT AGENDA [] OPERATIONS: CLOSED RECORD HEARING - N/A COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Resolution No. :2~ ~7approving the final plat for Campbell Way Townhomes and authorizing the City Council President to sign the Mylar. COUNCI~ ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action 108 RESOLUTION NO. 2q 3 7 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremcrton, Washington, approving the Campbell Way Townhomes Final Plat. WHEREAS, on May 26, 2004, City Council passed Resolution No. 2927 granting preliminary approval to the Campbell Way Townhomes PUD to subdivide 0.99 acres of land into 14 individual lots in order to construct 14 townhouses at 1207 Campbell Way; and WHEREAS, all conditions set forth in the preliminary approval have been met and final plat approval is requested; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The final plat for Campbell Way Townhomes is hereby approved. SECTION2. The City Council President is hereby authorized to sign the Mylar. SECTION3. Severabilitv. 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 ,2004. DAREN NYGREN, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk R:\LEGAL\Resolutions\Commun/ty Development~Final Ti~'eret PUD doc 1 Final Tiferet PUD Approval 109 MEMORANDUM Department of Community Development 286 4th Street * Bremerton, WA 98337 Phone: (360) 473-5275 Fax: (360) 473-5278 DATE: August 6, 2004 TO: BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL FROM: Robert J. Gmmbach, AICP, Current Plarmer't~- SUBJECT: CAMPBELL WAY TOWNItOMES FINAL PLAT (BP04-00339) The City Council granted approval to the Campbell Way Townhomes preliminary Planned Unit Development and plat by Resolution 2927 on May 26, 2004. The proposal was to construct 14 townhouses on 14 individual lots at 1207 Campbell Way. A shoreline conditional use permit was granted separately to allow the townhouses to intrude into the shoreline view corridor. The preliminary approval included 15 conditions necessary for final approval. The purpose of the closed-record hearing is for the City Council to make a determination if the final plat conforms to all terms of the preliminary plat approval and other applicable state and local ordinances in effect at the time the application was received. City staffis currently reviewing the final Planned Unit Development and plat and must find it in compliance before presenting it to the City Council. The City Engineer and Community Development Director's signature on the final Planned Unit Development and plat will attest to their review for compliance. Should the City Council agree with the staff's review, it is requested they authorize the City Council President to sign the Mylar containing the map of the final plat so that it may be recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor's office. If you have any questions, please let me know (473-5379). 110 PROCEDURE FOR CLOSED RECORD HEARING ON HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION I. STAFF REPORT AND PRESENTATION 1. After the Appearance of Fairness inquiry, Council President asks staff to present Hearing Examiner Recommendation. 2. Pursuant to Council policies, no public comment permitted. 3. Council may ask questions of staff and applicant (discussion limited to the record). II. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION The Council may approve and adopt the hearing examiner's recommendation unless one of the following conditions exists on the record: 1. Proceedings were materially affected by irregularities in procedure, 2. Recommendation is outside the authority of the hearing examiner, 3. Recommendation is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, 4. Recommendation is not supported by substantial evidence, or 5. Recommendation is based on clearly erroneous application of law to facts. III. DECISION The Council may take any of the following actions: 1. Approve and adopt the hearing examiner's findings and recommendation, 2. Modify and approve the findings and recommendation based upon council findings, 3. Reject and deny the hearing examiner's findings and recommendation on the proposal as originally submitted based upon councilfindings, or 4. Continue the closed record hearing and remand to the hearing examiner for clarification on issues of record. a) No public testimony on remand. b) Requires consent of applicant if remand causes decision to be made beyond 120 day review period. R:~LEG AL\Depar t meats-GenerahCity Coun¢il\Ciiy Council Procedure re hearing exam recom.doc 111 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, approving the preliminary plat and plam~ed unit development (file No. BP03-00213). WHEREAS, the City has received a Preliminary Plat application for 1207 Campbell Way from Tiferet LLC; and WHEREAS, On March 16, 2004, the Administrative Heating Examiner held an open record hearing on the application pursuant to BMC 21.02.855; and WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Exmniner has entered findings, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Comlcil dated March 26, 2004 Council's acceptmxce and approval; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BKEMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the £mdnigs, conclusions and reconnnendation of the Administrative Heating Examiner attached as Exhibit "A" and approves the preliminary plat and planed unit development for 1207 Campbell Way (file No. BP03-00213) subject to the proposed conditions contained in Exhibit "A.' SECTION2. 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 day of ~9'k~, ~_, ,2004. (~ t~ - ,]~.,a.~_DARENNYGRE~esident "I~U~-JC5 - - ~q~ Interim City Clerk R:kLEGALkl~esolutions\Communiw Development\Tiferet PUD.doc I Tiferet Preliminary Plat and PUD 3_12 BEFORE THE HEARINGS EXAMINER "~:~i, ~! .: FOR THE CITY OF BREMERTON · ~:, ~ tn the Matter of the Application of NO. BP0~-00~I~ Campbell Way Townhomes Tiferet LLC, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS For Approval of a Subdivision & Planned AND RECOMMENDATION Unit Development roi' Campbell Way SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION The Hearings Examiner recommends to the Bremerton City Council that the request for approval of a Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) to sabdivide .99 acres of land into 14 individual lots in order to construct 14 town_honses at 1207 Campbell Way be GRANTED, with conditions. Development of this proposed project is dependent upon state Department of Ecology approval of a shoreline conditional use permit authorizing a deviation from the view con'idor requirements under tlxe City's Shoreline Master Program. The Healing Examiner has approved the request for a shoreline conditional use, but this approval is not final until Ecology has an opportunity to review the approval. SUMMARY OF RECORD Request Mark Goldberg of Tlferet LLC (Applicant) requests approval of a Preliminary Plat and a Planned Unit Development to re-plat an existing 13-lot subdivision on .99 acres into 14 residential lots for constructing townhouses.~ The subject property is located at 1207 Campbell Way. Hearing Date The Hearings Examiner for the City of Bremerton held an open record heanng on the matter on March 16, 2004. The City recommended approval at the hearing; the,,Applicant expressed agreemeni with the recommended conditions; and, several citizens spoke in favor of the proposed development. There was no testimony offered in opposition to the proposed development. Testimony The following individuals presented testimony undm- oath at the open record hearing: t. Mr. Rober/Gmmbach, Ci~ ofBremerton Plamter 2. Keith MaebJmn, Applicant's Representative ~ The subject tax parcel (3976-028-010-0003) was platted into 13 underlying lots during the creation of fl~e U.S. Naval Shipyard Addition to Bremerton. Because the proposal presents a s~ificant depmWare from what now exists in terms of lot layout and proposed deYelopment, it was dete~mtined b? the CiD, that a re-platting of the prope~y should occur. Exhibit J. Forge Y. 3. John Lyall 4. Jolm Cox (by letter submitted during the hearing) 5. Andy Kosusko, Architect & Plam~ing Commission Member 6. Janine Haynes 7. Julie Meyers 8. Roselee Duffey, Architect Exhibits The following exhibits were admitted into the record at the open record heming: i. Staff Report 2. Application 3. SEPA Determination 4. Comprehensive Plan Designation 5. Ori~nal Lot Lines 6. Geotechnical Report 7. Shoreline Designation 8. View Corridor Tables 9. Average Lot Width Dia,'am 10. View Corridor Dia=m'ams 11. Applicant Letter 12. Photographs of Adjacent Lots 13. Ecology Decision on Cout[s 14. City Staff Cmranents from Other Departments 15. Department of Ecology Cmrmaents 16. Aftidavits of Notice Upon consideration of the testh~nony and exhibits admitted at the open record heahng, the Hearings Examiner enters the following Findings, Conclusions and Recmrm~endation: FINDINGS 1. The Applicant requests approval of a Preliminary Plat to subdivide .99 acres into 14 lots and approval of a Planned Unit Development to develop 14 residential townhouses on those lots. By separate application, the Applicant also requests approval of an adnrinistrative Shoreline Substantial Development pen-nit and approval of a Shoreline Conditional Use permit, decided in a separate Hearing Examiner decision. The subject property is located at 1207 Campbell Way. The parcel number is recorded as Tax Account Number 3976-028-010-0003. Exhibit ], Staff Report, _page ];Exhibit 2, Application. 2. The City of Brmnerton Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is General & Professional Office. Comprehensive Plan goals and policies app]icable to the proposal include the following: hrearing~- £xruniner/or the CiO' of i~rellzerton Dfere~ LLC, ?40. BP03-00213 P~e 2 Goal # I Urban Growth: "E~cot.'ctge de~,elopment i. ttrba;~ n~'eas u,here adeqttate p~&lic.fitcilities ~l~d services mist o~ ca~ be provided i~ a~ efficient mam~e~' " Supporting Policy (3): Accommodate new development with care so tbat Bremerton will ~ontinue to be a ~vell-balanced "most livable city." Goal ~ 2 Reduce Sprawl: "Redace the i~ctppropri(tte com.'ersio~ cf' tmdeveloped la~d into sprawling, /ow-clensi~' development." SuppoSing Policy (5): Promote the concept of development clustering to conse~we energy, save land, lower public costs, reduce sprawl and provide open spa~e. Goal ~ 4 Housing: "Encmtrage the availabili~' ef ~ffordable ho~tsing to all economic segments q( ~e pop,clarion ef this' state, promote a vari~O ef reside~tial densities and housing O~es, and e~cottrage presetq'atio~ Cf existing hoasit~g stock." ~oal ~ 9 Open S~ace and Recreation: "E~co~trage the retention e/ ope~ space a~zcl development ef recreatio~al opporttmities, co~se~x,e fish and wildlife habitat, incre~e access to natural resottrce la~cls and water', a~d develop flartcs, ' Suppmxing.Policy (3): Inco~orate rata new development proposals the provisions of ~e adopted Waterfl-ont Access Plan and other plans and regulations that cai1 for shoreline access ~provements. pafl~ways, or other forms of access or facilities linkage. HOUSING ELEMENT: Goal D (2) New Housing Development: "Provide a vafie~ ofhoushxg Wpes ~d densities to meet changing needs of Bremerton residents" Supporting Policy (3): St~ulate fl~e production of new housing for ail income, age, family ~pe and et~dc groups. LAND USE ELEMENT: The prope~%~ is located in the ~aeaton Way Comdor Specific Area Pla~ (Element E, 11. E-3 (page 55)), Policies for the Wheaton Way Comdor fl~at are applicable to ~mre development m~luae the following "Developme~2t shall flro~;ide i~te~zonnecting pedestria~ wall~vco's, to the greatest extent possible~ to encottrage walking." "The flro,Jisio~ else{re cmcl~fi'eqztent pedestrian crossings ef Wheato;~ Woo' shall be a prioriO' and shall not be precluded ~' the need to move la~ge vohtmes ef trc~ic. " "A street tree program shall be established b)' the CiO' a~d applied to all ~e~' and expa~ding developme~t thro~tgh their la~clscape pla~*s ' · "Nen, cttrb ctit~ arid clri~;ewcn,s shall be clisco~iraged. Fro~tage roads or common access poi~s se~.'i;~g Jeveral adjacent properties a~'e firefe~'red. " "For t~.a~,sportation plaJmi;~g purposes, priori? shall be given to Pla;* Amendments a~d Rezones that wo~tld increase reside~rial clensiO' within one- .fo~trth mile qf the Wheato~ Woo' Co~widor. ' Findi~gs, Co~zclztsio~s & Recomme~datio~ xSrearings £3'ami~ler for the City qfBremerto~ T~eret LLC No. BP03-00213 Page 3 ef l l 3. The subject property is zoned Shoreline Mixad Use (SMU) and is desi~ated "Urban Commercial" within the City's Shoreline Master Plan. Exhibit l. StqJ'£Re?ort, page 1. The Breme~lon Shoreline Master Program contains the following goals and policies that are relevant to a review of these applications: B: LANDS ADJACENT TO SHORELINES: i~bbrelme uses and resmore values and that rain,force the policies qf the Shoreline Management Act and Bremerton 's Shoreline Master Program" Policy B-l: Consider the compatibility of proposed upland uses with those allowed in each adjacent shoreline environment and with the pm~pose and intent of the envh'onment designation Policy B-2: Minimize shoreline impacts from residential development on upland 'Mew" prop~n3q i.e. stoma water run-off, septic dram field seepage, intensification of risks geolog/cal instability, etc. Policy B-3: "Adjacent lands" policies shall be implemented th~-ough zoning, subdivision, short-plat and other land use ordinances, and tlzrough mechm~isms such as the Capital Facilities Plan and budget. G_ 9al: "Protect both the economic viabili[3' and resource values e£urban shorelines Policy C-1: Protect and preserve natural and/or critical areas through the developed urban envirorm~ent and recognize that Shoreline of Statewide Significance pfiorities also apply Policy C-6: Promote aesthetic and vie'~ protection fln-ough sign conu-oI regulations. appropriate siting and screening requirements, protection of view corridors, and the use of architectural standards. D: PUBLIC ACCESS: Goal: "Protect and enhance the rights qf the general public to enjoy tile physical and aesthetic qualities Qf the shoreline, while allowing controlled development consistent ~vith thepablic interest." Goal: "Protect and enhance shoreline visual and physical access consistent with Shoreline ]vlctnogement Act and Public Trust Doctrine princip[es." Policy D-3: Assure that development, uses and activities on or near the shorelhre do not irnpai~ or detract from the public's access to the water or shoreline. Policy D-4: ErLh. anee and preserve public views. Policy D-6: Preserve, maintain and enlmnce public access and views afforded by shoreline street ends, public utilities, and rights-of-way whenever feasible. Findings, Col?c]usion$ ~ Recommendation Z-Jearings £.wlminer for the Ci~' Qf~remerton Dferet LLC No BP03-00213 Page 4 of] ] G: HOUSING: Goal: "Permit residel?tia/ development! i~7 shc.'e/i~e arects crud in the vice,frO Qf other crilicul or se~siti~'c /cmds ~eeded the site or genera/loccttio~. Policy G-4: Encourage the use of Planned Unit Developments and clustering development to help protect natural features, prese~7,e open space, mmhnize physical impacts, and re&me the costs of utilities and roads. Policy G-5: Require adequate setbacks, buffers, and open spaces as needed for shoreline development to protect vegetation, natural features, views, and othe~ aesthetic characteristics. 4. The proposed subdivision would contain 14 lots ranging in area fi-om 1,080.8 square feet to 2,522.3 square feet. Setbacks would range fi'om 0 feet to 12 feet, with most at a "0" foot setback. Exhibit ], Appe~dix A, A~plicatio~*. The Applicant proposes to construct 14 townhouses on the lots, and provide a public access way from the street to the top of the bluff. A "townhouse" in ~e Breme~on Municipal Code means a single-unit structure in a row of at least tlvee units, each with its own front and rear outside access. Ownership of the unit includes ownership of the land beneafl~ the unit. The Applicant is proposing a Pla~ed UMt Development (PUD) of fomteen townhouses to allow for a reduction in the zoning side yard setbacks otherwise required in the SMU zone. However, the Breme~on Municipal Code does have specific standards fora PUD, whicln are set tb~th in Chapter 2I .02. These requirements address perimeter and interior setbacks; height restrictions; open space requirements; mi~mum lot size requirements; and parking requirements. The development, as proposed, meets the bulk and setback requirements for a PUD established in the Breme~1on Municipal Code. There is no density standard in the S~ zone. E.¥hibit l, page 9: Tesrimo~? qflMr. 5. ~e subject prope~ is cu~ently undeveloped and contains deciduous trees, s~bs, ~d ~ass. Sun'o~ding land uses include a neighborhood center and professional building to the no~; a duplex to the east; Sheridan City Park to the west: and wat~ to Ce south. ~xhibit J, ,4p~endix B, E~,viromner~tal Checklist. 6. ~e subject prope~ is cun-ently se~wed with electricity, natural gas, re~se setxSce, telephone, water and sanitm~ sewer. Access to the site is available fi'om Campbell Way/Lebo Boulevard. Exhibit 1. Aype~dix B, Em,iromne,tal Cbecldist, Appe~dix E, Certificate qf ~Ttter AYailabiliO'. 7. The subject prope~y slopes gently fi'om Campbell Way towm'd the top ora high bank mmine bluff. The properly contains slopes exceeding 100% and qualifies as a La~,&Iide ~azard Area, Steep Slope and a~t Erosio~ Hazarclous Area as defined in BMC Section 2 t.22. t00(b)(3)(v), (4)(ii) and 21.22.100(b)(2). Landslide Hazard .~'eas and Steep Slopes require a 50-foot buffer. These areas may not be distm-bed unless a geotec~ical repo~ is prepared to assess the consequences of a reduction ~n the buffer. The Applicant retained Consolidated Engineehng to prepare a geotec~ical repo~. A repotl was submitted to the fii~di~gx, Co~ch~sio~s & Recomme~datio~ ~ec~ringx ~.xa~fftfer for the Cin' q{ Breme~'to~ T?erer LLC, :Vo. Bfi03-O02i3 City dated August 14, 1998, with supplements dated October 24, 2003 and March 1. 2004. The geotechnical analysis states that a 25-foot setback for the structures from the top of the slope is ~'adequate" for the proposed project. This opinion was based on site visits, excavations, soil types and a slope stability history. The supplements provide additional detail as to what may be appropriate within the 25-foot setback. The report states that patio areas and vegetation are appropriate within the setback area. The repro1 also notes that trees on the site should be retained as they add to slope stability. Exhibit 6, Geotechnica/Report and &tpplements. 8. The subject property is covered by the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. The Master Pro,am contains a number of site development standards, including height restrictions to preserve view corridors. The proposed development does not impair views of the water fi-om upland residential properties, as properties upland are zoned for and contained commercial rises. However, there is no administrative waiver process fi'om the view corridor requirements, so the proposed development must meet those standards even if there is no interference with views fi'om other properties.: Tbe Applicant is requesting a Shoreline Conditional Use permit to obtain some relief from the view conddor requirements, A decision on the application will be issued by the Heating Examiner in a separate document. The Department of Ecology must review all Shoreline Conditional Use Permits as required by the Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58. The Department of Ecology commented that it may deny the permit requested for this development proposal. Ex-hibit ih, Ecolo~, Letter. However, since the time of the comment the Applicant has elected to expand public access to the bluff. The proposed development meets all other requirements of the Shoreline Master Pro,am, and will meet the view corridor requirements if a Shoreline Conditional Use permit is approved. See. S]?oreiine Conditiona! Use Decision. 9. The City of Bremerton Department of CommuniU' Development submitted the proposal to other City departments for review and comment. The Department of Public Works & Utilities ~ubmitted extensive comments dated December 10, 2003, addressing road improvements; ston~water plans; water and sewer availability; and street lighting. The department noted that water and sewer were available to the site, but that improvements would be needed to the roads to access the site. The roads have sufficient capacity to provide for all increased traffic, but road improvements are needed for safe access and for pedestrian safety. The recommendations of the public works staffwere agreed to by the Applicant as appropriate conditions to mitigate the impacts fi-om the proposed development. Exhibit 14, S~aff Comments: Testimony of Mr. Maehhun. 10. Several citizens presented testimony at the heahng in support of the proposed project and approval of the proposed permits. The citizen testimony noted the consistency' of this Wpe of development proposal with the vision expressed in the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; lauded the availability of affordable housing near a health care facility; 2 Two professional architects presented testimony at the hearint suggesting that the Pla:ming Commission and City Council review the view con-idor requirements for possible revisions to the Shoreline Master Program. The concern is that the requirements may act as a ban-der to good development proposals because the requirements m-e difficult to nmet and often do not seem to directly benefit any other propelties. Tesrm~om of M; Kos ko a d Ms Du.~ev Findings, ConcIusio;w & Recommendation Hew'9'~gs E:~aminer fm' the CiO e~'Bremerton Tiferet LLC ~Vo BP03~O0213 Page 6 oflll and generally expressed delight at the prospect of additional housing near the downtown area. Testimony qf Mv. L.¥'all, Mr. Cox. Mr. KoLvusko, 3,/s. Hr(vnes, Ms. 3~e~x and g~s. 11. The City of Breme~lon was designated lead agency for review of envirom~ental impacts caused by the proposal. The City considered an envirom~aental checklist and the requirements of City ordinances phor to issuance of its threshold detem~ination. The City Responsible Official determined that the proposal would not have probable si~ificant enviromnental impacts and issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on March 1, 2004. Exhibi~ 3, SEPA DNS. 12. Notice of~e open record hearing ~vas posted on site on March 1,2003, mailed to adjoining prope~y owners on Februa~ 27, 2004 and published in The Sun on December, 23 & 30, 2003 in accordance with City of Breme~1on notice requirements (BMC 21.02.895). Exl~ibit ] 6, Legal Notice Affi&vits. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction Pursuant to Sections 2.13.070, 2.13.080 and 21.02.855 of the Breme~on Municipal Code (BMC), the Hearings Examiner of the City of Breme~on has juhsdiction to hold open record pre-dec~sion hearings on Preliminaw Plat and Planned Unit Development applications and reco~end action to the CiW Council. The recommendation may be to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. BMC 2. J3. J]O. Criteria for Review - Prelimina~ Plat To reco~end approval of a Prel~inaw Plat, the Hemsng Examiner must find that the application satisfies the criteria for a Preliminaw Plat; is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and conforms to ail applicable City development regulations, minhnum standards, and desi~ guidelines. BMC 2].02.885. The criteria for approval ora Prel/minau Plat are found in Chapter 58.17 of the Revised Code of Washington. Pursuant to RCW 58.17.110(2), a Prelimmau Plat application may not be approved unless: (a) appropriate provisions m'e made for the public health, safeW, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, play~'ounds, schools and school~'ounds and all other relevm~t facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and ¢) the public use and interest will be seiwed by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. ?~ndi~?g;, Conchtxionx & Recommendation ~e~ll'ings £xcuniner for die C~O' qf ~remeuto~ T~fe~et LLC, .h~ BP03-O02]~ Page 7 ell 1 119 _Criteria for Review- Planned Unit Devel__opmen/ 1. BMC Section 21.02.480 requires a PUD to conform to the following general criteria: fa) The location, design, and uses ef the PUD shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Bremerton Shoreline Management Program. and with other applicable plans and ordinances adopted ? the Cin'. (b) The PUD shall be integrated with its surroundings and designed to harmonize with existing or proposed de~elopment in the neighborhood. ]n the case efa departure in character fi'om the surrmmdi~g land uses, the scale, intensiO' and desig~7 shall adequateh, reduce the i.pact Cf the development in szzc]~ a win, that the project will not be bletrimenta/ to the neighborhood. (c) The traffic generated ? the PUD shall be accommodated sq(eb' and within the adopted Levels 2[Sen'ice for q[fected streets. (d) Ail development will be adeqztateO' sezn,ed b)' existing or planned.facilities and (e) The PUD will result in an attractive, healtl~fid, ~[ficient and stable environment for living, shopping, working, and leisure activities. (f) The development plan shall make adequate sad appropriate provision for the prese~7,ation ef the em,ironment, both natural and man-made, and the conse~ation of energy. Conclusions Based on Findings - Preliminary Plat t. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposaI will provide additional housing for the City of Bremerton m a location where city services already exist. The proposed development appears consistent with Bremerton's desire to continue to be a "most livable city". Findings qf Facts Nos. ], 2, 3, 4, 6, ]0. 2. The proposal is consistent with identified zoning standards. The proposed subdivision will create fourteen lots or one for each townhouse proposed. The project, as proposed, meets the bulk and setback requirements of the ciW code. Findings of Facts Nos. 1, 4. 3. With conditions, appropriate provision will be made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for all other relevant facts. Conditions of approval will mitigate tra~c impact by requiring frontage improvements. The City conducted en¥irom~ental review of Ce proposM and determined that it would not result in si~if~cant adverse enviromnental i~2pacts. Water, sewer, garbage se~,ice, natural gas, electficiD' and telephone Findings, Conclusions & Recommenclcttion Nestings ~xaminer for rl~e Ci~, are available to each of the four lots. The Applicant will preserve existing vegetation where possible and will take measm-es prior to clearing and constvaction that will mitigate erosion. The Applicant will provide public access to a shoreline overlook that will enhance access to the shoreline area. Conditions of approval are necessary to ensm-e ~ture frontage improvements are installed, the public access is constructed, and that the concerns of the public works depm~ment are addressed. ~in~in~s 4. The public use and interest will be served by the creation of four single-family residential lots complying with CiD' of Bremerton zoning standards. The proposed plat will provide increased housing opportunities for residents of Bremeaon in a ma~er consistent with the c~4te~da for approval of preliminary plats. Findings qfFact Nos. ]-I l. ~gnclusions Based on Findings - Planned Unit Development 1. With conditions of approval, the location, design, and uses of the PUD will be c°nsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Bremerton Shoreline Management Program, and ~th other applicable plans and ordnances adopted by the CID'. Clustering medium-density residential tow~ouses is consistent with several goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Management Pro,'am referenced previously in this repo~. The land use tables in the zoning code allow tow~ouses in the Shoreline Mixed Use Zoning desi~ation; and the Shoreline Use/Activin' Matrix allow residential uses landward of the Ordinm3' High Water M~k in the Conu~ermal Shoreline desigmation. A condition of approval is necessaw to ensure adequate public access is provided. Findings e~Facts Nos. l, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9. lO. 2. The proposed PUD w~ be ~tegrated with its surroundings and designed to harmonic ~th exist~g development in the neighborhood. ~e presetwation of open space and the desi~ of the tow~ouses inte~'ate well with the mixture of conm~ercial residential devdopment tbund in the sun-ounding re'ea. Findings e[Facts Nos. i, 4, l O. 3. The traffic generated by the PUD can be accommodated safely and with~ the adopted Levels of Se~wice for affected streets. Campbell Way and Lebo Boulevm'd are each well below capacity tbr tra~c flow. The proposed PUD will have o~y a minor h~pact on tra~c in the re'ea. Findings of Facts Nos. 9,1i. 4. The proposed development will be adequately served by exist~g fae~ities and ser~4ees. The subject propelty has CiD' of Breme~xon sewer and water available to it. Police and fire protection is also available. ~ere is a ci~ park immediately adjacent to the subject prope~. Thus, any residents of the proposed PUD will have more than adequate se~q,iees available to them. Findings of Facts Nos. 5, 6. 5. The PUD ~411 result in an attractive, healthful, efficient and stable environment for lives, shopping, wor~g, and leisure actNities. One of the primm~ benefits of the proposed PUD is its proximity to shopping and recreation areas. The type of development proposed is higMy desired by a number of citizens due to its proposed attractive naml'e and proximi~ to urban amenities. Findings ef Fac~ Nos. X 6, lO. ~indings, Conclusions ~ Recommendation ~earings ~xominecfor the CiD' qf Breme~'ton T~eretLZC ~ BP03-00213 121 6. The development plan will maize adequate and appropriate provision tm' the preservation of the environment, both natural and man-made, and the conservation of energy. One of the challenges of the proposed development is protection of the steep bluff overlooking the water. The Applicant retained a geotechnica] eugineer to assess the stability of the slope and to ascertain ifa building could be placed on it without ham2 to it. The report found that it would be possible to building witbout damage to the bluff. The consultant who prepared that report now bears responsibility for that assessmeut. In addition to retention of trees, the careful removal of water fi-om the project m-es over the bluff will be essential to the protection of the bluff. The Applicantis proposal to pipe the water over the bluffwill help protect the bluff. With conditions of approval, adverse visual impacts of the pipe could be avoided. Compliance with the state energy code will hello ensure an energy efficient development. Findings pfFctcts Nos. 1, 4, 7. 8. 9. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearings Examiner recommends approval of a Preliminary Plat and Planned Urfit Development to subdivide .99 acres into fourteen lots for the purpose of construction townhomes as described in the application (Exhibit 2, Application & Site Plan), subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planned Unit Development shall constitute a limitanon on the use and design of the site to those uses, designs and standards that are specifically included in the Planned Unit Development. Such limitation shall remain in effect until the Planned Unit Development is constructed, or until the preliminary approval expires in which case the previous zoning automatically returns. 2. Approval of the Planned Unit Development is subject to the Department of Ecology's final approval of the conditional use permit. An), conditions set fol2h in the conditional use permit shall be deemed conditions for approving the Plmmed Unit Development. 3. An open space guarantee, which ensures the retention of the open spaces and provides for pen-nanent maintenance of the open space (active and passive), is required per BMC Section 21.02.510 prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. 4. Two off-street parking spaces per each dwelling unit shall be provided. 5. A geoteclmical engineer is required to inspect the site when excavation for the footings occurs to dete~Tnine if the footing designs are adequate. Evidence of the geotechnical inspection shall be submitted to the Depmlment of Community Development prior to finalizing building pemaits. 6. A dedication to the City of approximately 1,083.5 square feet of frontage along Campbell Way/Lebo Boulevard is required as set forth in the revised site plan received January 26, 2004. A title repoIt is required to accompany the final plat pursuant to RCW 58.17.165. Findings, Conclusionx & Recomme~darion Hea~ ings Exanliller.f~r ~?le Cio' o.£Bi emer~on T!ferer LLC, ~-o B?03-002i3 Page JO of J] 122 7. A 5-foot public access easement is required for the sidewalk along Campbell Way/Lebo Boulevard. The City Engineer shall approve the language ibr the easement prior to finalizing the plat. 8. The private street may be developed according to the City standards for a driveway. The street shall be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the plat. 9. A public main extension for water services meeting City standm'ds is required to be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the plat. I 0. The development must meet the City standards for storm water drainage. Sto~n,n water facilities shall be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the plat. The 8-inch pipe used for disposing of ston'nwater over the bluff shall be installed in a manner that reduces visual . impacts of a pipe "hanging" over the bluff. Methods nsed may include hiding in vegetation, painting to blend with the back~ound or ditching to make it less visible. 11. A final Plato]ed Unit Development and plat meeting applicable development standards and conditions shall be submitted to the City for approval within two years of the date of preliminary plat approval pursuant to BMC Section 21.02.520(a). 12. Six copies of the Plam~ed Unit Development and plat (not Mylar) shall be submitted to tbe Depm-tment of Community Development for final compliance review. 13. The Director of Co~mnunity Development shall approve the final Planned Unit Development prior to finalizing the plat. 14. The Applicant will obtain addresses from Public Works, which will be indicated on the final plat. 15. A copy of the recorded Planned Unit Development and phi shall be provided to the Department of Community Development before building pen2its can be issued. Decided this ~'day of March 2004. Theodore Paul Hunter Hearings Examiner for the City of Bremerton Findings, Conch~$ions & Recommen&trioJ? [t_earings £xmniner for the Ci~ q[~remermn T(fere~ LLC, No BP03-00213 Page JJ efi]] 122 DATE SUBMITTED: August 5, 2004 BILL # AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON ~ F CITY COUNCIL ....... '""'""' ............. " .... '" ..... "'""'"'" SUBJECT: Closed record hearing for the Committee Meeting Date: NA Wycoff Preliminary Planned Unit COUNCIL MEETING Date: August 17, 2004 Development and Plat Department: DCD Presenter: Robert Grumbach Phone: 473-5379 SUMMARY: Hearing Examiner recommendation on a preliminary Planned Unit Development and plat (File Number BP0-00231) to subdivide 2.486 acres of land into 22 individual lots in order to construct 22 attached single-family dwelling units at the northeast comer of North WycoffAvenue and 25t~ Street. The recommendation included twenty-one (21) conditions to be imposed for final plat approval. ATTACHMENTS: (1) Procedures for Close Record Hearing. (2) Heating Examiner Recommendation. (3) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Decision. (4) Staff Report. (5) Site Plan. (6) SEPA. (7) Heating Examiner decision on Appeal of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. (8) Proposed resolution on Hearing Examiner's recommendation. Note: Staff Report Appendicies A through S are available in the City Council office FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FISCAL/BUDGET: CLOSED RECORD HEARING - N/A CONSENT AGENDA [] OPERATIONS: CLOSED RECORD HEARING - N/A COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass resolution:No.'1 ~[$~ approving and adopting the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Administrative Hearing Examiner and approve the preliminary Planned Unit Development and plat for the Wycoff PUD subject to the proposed conditions. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action 124 MEMORANDUM Department of Community Development 286 4th Street * Bremerton, I/VA 98337 Phone: (360) 473-5275 Fax: (360) 473-5278 DATE: August 5, 2004 TO: BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL FROM: Robert J. Grumbach, AICP, Current Planner~ SUBJECT: Closed Record Hearing on Preliminary Planned Unit Development Attached are the following items for the closed record hearing on the Wycoff Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Plat (File No. BP04-00231): 1. Procedures for Close Record Heating 2. Heating Examiner Recommendation 3. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Decision 4. StaffReport 5. Site Plan 6. SEPA 7. Heating Examiner decision on Appeal of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 8. Proposed resolution on Heating Examiner's recommendation If you would like to review the appendices to the staffreport, a copy of the appendices is available at the City Council office from Loft Smith. If you have any questions, please call me at 360 473-5379. PROCEDURE FOR CLOSED RECORD HEARING ON HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION I. STAFF REPORT AND PRESENTATION 1. Aider the Appearance of Fairness inquiry, Council President asks staff to present Hearing Examiner Recommendation. 2. Pursuant to Council policies, no public comment permitted. 3. Council may ask questions of staff and applicant (discussion limited to the record). II. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION The Council may approve and adopt the hearing examiner's recommendation unless one of the following conditions exists on the record: 1. Proceedings were materially affected by irregularities in procedure, 2. Reconmaendation is outside the authority of the hearing examiner, 3. Recommendation is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, 4. Recommendation is not supported by substantial evidence, or 5. Recommendation is based on clearly erroneous application of law to facts. III. DECISION The Council may take any of the following actions: 1. Approve and adopt the hearing examiner's findings and recommendation, 2. Modify and approve the findings and recommendation based upon council findings, 3. Reject and deny the hearing examiner's findings and recommendation on the proposal as originally submitted based upon councilfindings, or 4. Continue the closed record hearing and remand to the hearing examiner for clarification on issues of record. a) No public testimony on remand. b) Requires consent of applicant if remand causes decision to be made beyond 120 day review period. R:\LEGAL\Depar~ments-General\City Council\City Council Procedure re heating exam vecom.doc 126 FOR THE CITY OF BREMERTON i~ii[k,l~;!!'3!~ BUILDING DE[Skk!T~i~T In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. BP04-00231 ) Wycoff Dwelling Units Tiferet LLC, ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS For Recommendation of a Preliminary Plat ) AND RECOMMENDATION and Planned Unit Development. ) SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION The Heatings Examiner recommends to the Bremerton City Council that the request for approval of a Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) to subdivide 2.486 acres of land into 22 individual lots in order to construct 22 dwelling units at the northeast comer of North Wycoff Avenue and 25th Street be GRANTED, with conditions. The appeal of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance is denied. Development of this proposed project is dependent upon approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will be decided by the Director of the City of Bremerton's Department of Community Development. SUMMARY OF RECORD Request Mark Goldberg ofTiferet LLC (Applicant) requests approval of a Preliminary Plat and a Planned Unit Development to plat a 2.486-acre parcel of land into 22 residential lots for the purpose of constructing dwelling units. The subject property is located at the northeast comer of North Wycoff Avenue and 25th Street, Bremerton, Washington. Hearing Date The Hearings Examiner for the City of Bremerton held an open record hearing on the matter on June 15, 2004. The City recommended approval at the heating, the Applicant expressed agreement with the recommended conditions, and several citizens spoke in favor of the proposed development. There was also testimony offered in opposition to the proposed development. Testimony The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing: 1. Robert Grumbach, City of Bremerton Department of Community Development 2. Brett Vincent, Assistant Attorney for the City of Bremerton 3. Dr/Ralph, City of Bremerton Department of Ecology Paul Wandling; City of Bremerf0n Department o f Public Works & Utilities 5. Keith Maehlum, for the Applicant ~ 6. Mark Kuhlman, Civil Engineer, Team4 Engineers ~ ~ ~ ~ ¥;'~ ,~,~'~ 7. Phil Olwell, Citizen 8. Sam McManus, Citizen _ .[.i )il )20[Jq [~:~!_ BF',Et~E~,TOtx: 9. Donald Flanig, Citizen 10. Jason Skifstaff, Citizen 11. Chris Thatcher, Citizen 12. Larry Taylor, Citizen Exhibits The following exhibits were admitted into the record at the open record hearing: 1. Exhibit 1: Staff Report 2. Exhibit 2: Attachment A: Application Attachment B: Comprehensive Plan Designation Map Attachment C: Shoreline Environmental Designation Map Attachment D: MDNS & Checklist Attachment E: Applicant letter requesting additional information Attachment F: Documents regarding cleanup of contaminated soils Attachment G: City ordinances regarding the zoning designation Attachment H: Court and Shoreline Hearing Board decisions relating to view corridor Attachment I: Neighborhood Meeting material Attactunent J: Geotechnical Report AttacNnent K: Shoreline jurisdiction site plan Attachment L: Site pictures Attachment M: Conditional Water & Sewage Availability letter Attachment N: Preliminary Storm Drainage Report Attachment O: City Engineer traffic analysis email Attachment P: City comments Attachment Q: Local and State Agency comments Attactunent R: Public comments received Attachment S: Notice Attachment T: Power Point Hard Copy Attachment U: Correspondence from B & A, Inc., dated June 15, 2004 Attactunent V: Email from Steve Erland Attachment W: Letter from Nadine Brans Attacbanent X: Comments from City Staff Attachment Y: Rezone MDNS from 1994 Attachment Z: City's Response to SEPA MDNS Appeal AttacNnent AA: Aerial View of the Site Attachment BB: Report on the Pier Attachment CC: ElS Reversal from 1994 Attachment DD: Comments from San McManus AttacNnent EE: Comments from Chris Thatcher Attachment FF: SEPA MDNS Appeal Attachment GG: City's Response to Mr, Thatcher's Comments AttacNnent HH: Additional Documents from Proposed 1994 Rezone Attachment II: Letter from Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, dated February 10, 2004 Findings, Col~c/ttsiol~s c~ Recommen&ttiot~ W. vcoff D*~elling Units, NO. BP04-0023] Page 2 Attachment JJ: Additional Notice Documents Attactunent KK: City's Response to SEPA MDNS Appeal, continued Attachment LL: Appellant's Answer to City's Response to SEPA Appeal Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing, the Hearings Examiner enters the following Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation: FINDINGS 1. The Applicant requests approval of a Preliminary Plat and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to subdivide 2.486 acres into 22 lots with residential dwelling units, t The subject property is located at the northeast corner of North Wycoff Avenue and 25th Street, Bremerton, Washington/ Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 1-2; Exhibit 2, Attachment B, Application, page 3. 2. The property was zoned Single Family Residential (SF2) in 1988. In 1993 a Mr. Haselwood filed a rezone application to develop the property as Single Family Residential (SF3). However, the site-specific rezone application was never acted upon because Mr. Haselwood withdrew his application. In 1996 the City of Bremerton's , Comprehensive Plan was updated and, as part of an area-wide rezone to accomplish consistency with the zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan, the property was rezoned SF3 by the Bremerton City Council. In 1997 an Emergency Ordinance was passed by the City Council in response to a decision by the Growth Management Hearing Board. At that time the property, again as part of an area-wide rezone, was rezoned by the Council as Single Family Residential Low Density (SF3), which is the current zoning designation and the zoning designation vested for this request. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 1, 7-8. Area-wide rezones are legislative actions that do not require individual notification of property owners. Such legal notices are generally published in the official newspaper. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8; Testimony of Mr. Grumbach; Exhibit 2, Attachment HH 3. The site was formerly used as a bulk fuel storage and distribution site operated by Unocal Oil. The storage tanks were removed by 1980 and the supporting structures were removed by 1989. Hydrocarbon contamination in the soil resulted from the fuel storage. State-required mitigation to cleanup the soils was completed and two reports, dated June 19, 1987, and March 7, 1989, concluded that the remaining levels of contamination were safely below the maximum allowed levels. The City contacted Neal Wood at the Washington State Department of Ecology who determined that there were no existing concerns about the safety of the soils. However, Mr. Woods directed that if high levels of contaminates are discovered during construction (indicated by strong odors or fumes), t By separate application, the Applicant also requests approval of an admhfistrative Shoreline Substantial Development permit which will be decided in a separate administrative decision. 2 The parcel's legal description is: a portion of government lot 7, section 10. township 24 no~lh, range I east, W.M., in Kitsap County, Washington (not a complete description). The parcel number is recorded as Tax Account Number I02401-4-029-2004. Findings, Conchtsio~s & Recommendatio~ Wycqff DIvelli~g Units, NO. BP04-00231 P~tge 3 :129 the Washington State Department of Ecology should be contacted. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 7. 4. The Applicant has proposed the PUD for development of the 22 dwelling units to allow reduction of the zoning side yard setbacks required by Code in the SF3 zone. The Bremerton Municipal Code has specific standards for a PUD that are set forth in Chapter 21.02 which address perimeter and interior setbacks; height restrictions; open space requirements; minimum lot size requirements; street and pedestrian circulation standards; and parking requirements. The proposed subdivision would contain 22 lots ranging in area from 1,564 square feet to 5,264 square feet. Perimeter setbacks would range from 15 feet to 25 feet. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 13, 15-16. The development, as proposed, meets the bulk and setback requirements for a PUD established in the Bremerton Municipal Code. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 11-16; Exhibit 2, Attachment GG 5. The subject property is currently undeveloped and contains a fir, cedar, maple, and alder tree canopy, and a relatively thick understory of small trees. The site also contains blackberry bushes, horsetails, ferns, and salmonberry bushes. Exhibit 1,StaffReport, page 3. 6. The subject property is currently served by public water and sanitary sewer services. Access to the site will made available through two ingress/egress points on 25th Street. Two off-street parking spaces per dwelling will be provided. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3; Testimony of Mr. Grumbach. 7. On site is an old pier. Renovation or removal of the pier is not part of the Applicant's proposal. Any action on the pier will require further administrative review. Testimony of Mr. Grumbach. 8. The Applicant would place a fence at the perimeter of the development that would be approximately 6 feet in height and constructed of wood, possibly cedar. Testimony of Mr. Maehlum. 9. The Applicant proposes using a direct discharge system for storm water. There would be no detention or retention pond for the storm water, but a water-enhancing bioswale would be installed as a means to treat the water prior to its release into the Port Washington Narrows. The Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife indicated that a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) pemait is required for discharge of ston= water directly into the Port Washington Narrows. The City of Bremerton Engineer must approve final ston~ drainage plans and an HPA must be issued prior to finalizing the PUD/Subdivision. Exhibit I, Staff Report, page 22; Exhibit 2, Attachment N; Testimony of Mr. Wand/lng 10. The subject property slopes steeply (greater than 40 percent) adjacent to Wycoff Avenue North. It slopes east downward at approximate 22 percent slopes. The eastern portion of the parcel is relatively fiat with the eastern edge of the site terminating in steep slope low marine bluffs between 3 and 12 feet high. The 40 percent slopes classified the site as containing Landslide Hazard Areas, Steep Slopes and an Erosion Hazardous Area Findings, Co~mlusions & Recommendation Wycoff Dwelling Units, NO. BP04-00231 Page 4 pursuant to BMC Section 21.22.100(b)(2), (3)(v), and (4)(ii). Such areas cannot be disturbed unless a geotechnical report supports modification of the standards pursuant to BMC Section 21.22.100(c)(2). Golder Associates prepared the Geotechnical Investigation of Project Site at 25th Street and Snyder Avenue N, dated April 5, 2004. An addendum to that report was dated May 26, 2004. The investigation found no geologic hazards that would preclude development of the site as proposed. Exhibit 1, StqfffReport, pages 3, 16; Exhibit 2, Attachment GG. 11. Approximately one half of the subject property is covered by the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) which contains a number of site development standards, including height restrictions to preserve view corridors. The view corridor was dete~Tnined to be from the nearest public street, 25th Street. The view corridor was calculated using only that portion of the property that is subject to shoreline jurisdiction. The entire parcel's width is 433 feet, rendering a view corridor of 151 feet. Such a view corridor would disallow development in 75.8% of the property in the shoreline jurisdiction, a restriction that is inconsistent with the intent of an urban residential environmental designation. As calculated from 25th Street, using only that portion of the parcel subject to shoreline jurisdiction, a minimum view corridor of 70 feet is required. The Applicant's proposed view corridor is 89 feet 6 inches. The proposed development does not impair views of the water from upland residential properties, given that the proposed height of the dwelling units would be elevated approximately 8 feet above the existing street grade. If the Applicant were to develop the uphill townhouses to the maximum allowed zoning height of 30 feet, the dwelling units would only be elevated 17 feet above the existing street grade. Exhibit1, Staff Report, page 8-11; Exhibit 2, Attachment H; Exhibit 2, Attachment T; Testimony of Robert Grumbach. 12. Pursuant to BMC 21.02.490, a minimum 20% of the total area of the PUD shall be dedicated as common open space. The proposed open space of the development would be located in two tracts that would be connected by an open space corridor between units 4 and 5, which would also be part of the common open space. The site plan shows a 25- foot perimeter setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), though only a 15- foot perimeter setback is required. The area between the 15-foot perimeter setback and the 25-foot perimeter setback is considered common open space. The total proposed common open space accounts for 23 % of the total area of the PUD (20.1% if the additional OHWM setback area is not included). At least two-thirds of the common open space in the site plan is "active" open space, as required by BMC 21.02.490(d)(3). Exhibit l, Staff Report, pages 14-15; Testimo~Lv of Mr. Grumbach; Exhibit 2, Attachment GG. 13. The allowable housing density in the SF3 zone, with 15% of the site designated as open space, is a maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre. The allowable housing density under a Planned Unit Development (PUD), with 20% of the site designated open space, is a maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre. The proposed 22 dwelling units on a 2.486-acre lot, with more than 20% designated open space, yields a housing density of 8.9 dwelling units per acre, which is permitted with the PUD. Exhibit ], Staff Report, page 13. Wycoff Dltellit~g U~ffts, NO. BP04-00231 Page 5 :132 14. As required by Section 5-19 of the Bremerton SMP, "improved public access" to the shoreline must be provided. The Director of the City of Bremerton Department of Community Development determined that the eastern segnnent of the public sidewalks located adjacent to 25th Street meets the requirement for improved public access, as it provides excellent visual access to the shoreline environment. Moreover, he deten~ined that the improved public physical access should not be extended to the waterfront because limiting disruptions to the marine bluffs is in the public interest and monitoring irresponsible behavior on the waterfront would be difficult for the property owners. As previously noted, permits pursuant to the state shoreline Act will be reviewed separately (See Fn. 1). Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 20; Testimony of Mr. Grumbach. 15. The City of Bremerton submitted the proposal to other state and local departments for review and comment. The City of Bremerton Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works & Utilities submitted two letters dated January 9, 2004, and January 27, 2004, in which it recommended approval of the PUD subject to compliance with sewer, street, lighting, and erosion control standards. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 23; Exhibit 2, Attachment M; Exhibit 2, Attachment P. The City of Bremerton traffic comments were submitted by email on May 19, 2004. In that analysis, Paul Wandling, a city official, reported no significant traffic impact resulting from the proposed development. At most, he noted, traffic would increase in the area by one vehicle every three minutes. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 23; Exhibit 2, Attachment O. 16. The Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFD)submitted a letter on February I 0, 2004, that recommended approval of the PUD, but listed several concerns. The project would require a Hydraulic Project Approval, to be issued by WDFD; bulkheads should not be permitted on the site; non-native plant species should be replaced with new native vegetation; and, personnel should be contacted at V~rDFD to determine whether a bald eagle management plan is necessary prior to the removal of any trees.3 Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 23-24; Exhibit 2, Attachment Q; Exhibit 2, Attachment II. An email submitted by Sandra Lange of the Washington State Department of Ecology on February 12, 2004, stated that the view corridor was adequate, given the odd shape and depth of the lot. Exhibit l, Staff Report, page 24.; Exhibit 2, Attachment Q. Finally, the Bremerton - Kitsap County Health District offered general suggestions relating to the use of non-hazardous fill materials. Those suggestions were submitted in writing on February 24, 2004. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 24; Exhibit 2, Attachment Q. 17. Several witnesses presented oral testimony at the hearing. While they supported the proposed development, all witnesses at the hearing expressed concern with aspects of the proposal. Their concerns were as follows: 93% of the land will be cleared; an Environmental Impact Statement should be completed to ensure the sustainability of the development,; all of the conditions set forth in the MDNS are required by statute and thus the Applicant is not required to expand on amenities; the ston'n water drainage system is questionable because the system may be nearing its capacity; the project will not be in 3 Upon review, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife affirmed that there is no need for a bald eagle management plan prior to the removal of trees. The eagles use the site only for perching. Textimo~): ~/'Mr. Grumbach. ~ycoff D}velli~g Units, NO. BP04-0023! Page 6 1~2 harmony with the neighborhood's character; the zoning of the area should remain SF2; traffic will worsen markedly as a result of the development; insufficient public access is proposed; a fence around the property will further isolate the parcel from the neighborhood; the proposed open space is insufficient; the shoreline setback was incorrectly calculated; the proposed view corridor is insufficient; and the PUD process is not in the best interest of the citizens. Each of these concerns was addressed in the Staff Report or at the heating. Testimony of Mr. Olwell; TestimotO, pf Mr. McManus; Testimo~.v of Mr. ?lanig; Testimo~y pf Mr. Sk~fstqfll? Testimon.)~ of Mr. Thatcher; Testimoro., of Mr. Taylor. 18. Pursuant to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (RCW 43.21C), the City of Bremerton was designated lead agency for review of environmental impacts caused by the proposal. Upon review of an environmental checklist and the requirements of city ordinances, the City's responsible official deten'nined that the proposal would not have probable significant environmental impacts. He issued a Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance (MDNS) on May 28, 2004. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 28; Exhibit 2, AttachmentD. A timely appeal of the MDNS was received by the City on June 11, 2004. In his appeal, and in his rebuttal dated June 22, 2004, Mr. Olwell asserts interalia that the public's involvement in the process was compromised; an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be required; the current zoning designation is incorrect; and that the lead agency failed to consider existing documents relevant to the parcel's environmental history. The MDNS appeal did not include a statement of standing or a signed state~nent that the facts of the appeal are true. Mr. Olwell's answer did include a signed statement that the facts of the appeal and of the rebuttal are true. Exhibit 2, Attachment FF: Exhibit 2, Attachment LL. 19. The City of Bremerton issued a written response to the MDNS appeal on June 15, 2004. In the response, the City answered that the zoning designation and all other factors of the proposed development are consistent with the City of Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan, the City of Bremerton's Shoreline Management Program, and all other regulations. Moreover, the City urged that the appeal failed to meet its burden of proof in that it claims violations of locaI and state laws and regulations without citing specific facts to support such allegations. The City requested that the Hearing Examiner dismiss the appeal. Exhibit 2, Attachment Z; Exhibit 2, Attachment 20. Notice of proposed land use and SEPA actions was posted on the subject property on February 9, 2004, published in The Sun on February 2 and 9, 2004, and mailed to adjoining property owners on February 3, 2004. A second notice of proposed land use and SEPA actions was posted on the subject property on April 30, 2004, published in the The Sun on April 30, 4004, and mailed to adjoining property owners on April 28, 2004.4 A notice of revised shoreline and SEPA applications was posted on the subject property on May 7, 2004, published in The Sun on May 7, 2004, and nqailed to adjoining property 4 A second notice of proposed land use and SEPA actions was required because the geoteclmical report of the site resulted in a revised site plan and the reduction fi-om 24 to 22 proposed dwelling units. Such significant changes required a second notice and a second comment period. Erhibit 1, Stctf./'Report. page 6. Findings, Conchtsio~ts & Recomme~dtltio~? [4~vcoff Dwelling U~it& NO. B£04-00231 Page 7 13~ owners on May 6, 2004.s Notice of public hearing was posted on the subject property on May 28, 2004, published in The Sun on May 28, 2004, and mailed to adjoining property owners on May 26, 2004. All notices were given in accordance with the City of Bremerton's notice requirements set forth in BMC 21.02.895. Exhibit 2, Attachment S. CONCLUSIONS .Jurisdiction Pursuant to Sections 2.13.070, 2.13.080 and 21.02.855 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC), the Hearings Examiner for the City of Bremerton has jurisdiction to hold open record pre-decision hearings on Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development applications and recommend action to the City Council. The recommendation may be to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. BMC 2.13.110. Criteria for Review - MDNS Appeal The Hearing Examiner is directed in BMC 21.02.935 to review land use and development decisions that are subject to appeal based on, in part, the following criteria: (g) Content of Appeal: An administrative appeal shall not be accepted unless it is written, accompanied by the required appeal fee, and contains at least the following information: (1). Appellant's name, address and phone number. (2). Appellant's statement describing his or her standing, as a party of record, to appeal. (3). Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal. (4). Statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based. (5). Statement of the relief sought, including the specific nature and intent. (6). A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the appellant's signature. (j) The appellant shall bear the burden of proving the administrative decision was not supported by substantial evidence. s A revised notice of shoreline and SEPA applications was required when the City learned that 1,000 yards of cut and 9,000 yard of fill would be removed during development. That infomaation was not available and needed to be included in the SEPA, resulting in revised shoreline and SEPA applications and an additional comment period. Exhibit ], Stctff Report, page 6. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation ~vcoff Dwelling Units, NO. BP04-0023! Page 8 134 Criteria for Review - Preliminary Plat To recommend approval of a Preliminary Plat, the Hearing Examiner must find that the application satisfies the criteria for a Preliminary Plat; is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and conforms to all applicable City development regulations, minimum standards, and design guidelines. BMC 21.02.885. The criteria for approval of a Preliminary Plat are found in Chapter 58.17 of the Revised Code of Washington. Pursuant to RCW 58.17.110(2), a Preliminary Plat application may not be approved unless: (a) appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. Criteria for Review - Planned Unit Development 1. BMC Sections 21.02.480 and 21.02.490 require a PUD to conform to the following general and specific criteria: General Standards (a) The location, design, and uses of the PUD shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Bremerton Shoreline Management Program, and with other applicable plans and ordinances adopted by the CIO'. (b) The PUD shall be integrated with its surroundings and designed to ha~wzonize with existing or proposed development in the neighborhood. In the case of a departure in character fi'om the surrounding land uses, the scale, intensily and design shall adequately reduce the impact of the development in such a way that the project will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. (c) The traffic generated by the PUD shall be accommodated sqflely and within the adopted Levels of Service for affected streets. (d) All development will be adequately served by existing or planned facilities and services. (e) The PUD will result in an attractive, healtl~ful, efficient and stable environment roi' living, shopping, workin& and leisure activities. (f) The development plan shall make adequate and appropriate provision roi' the preselwation of the environment, both natural and man-made, and the conservation of energy. Findings, Conclusions & Recommenclalion Wycoff Dwel/ing Units, NO. BP04 00231 Page 9 Specific Standards (a) Parcel Size: An area not less than one (l) gross acre in size may be considered for a PUD... (b) Perimeter and lnterior Setbacks: (1) ...,(/'the PUD includes a combination of zones, &e most restrictive setbacks shall appO~. Reduced setbacks may be considered when not adjacent to the perimeter of the PUD. (2) The perimeters of all PUDs one acre or larger in area shall maintain minimum fi'ont, side, and rear setbacks according to the height of the buildings, as follows: Height (in ft) Front Side Real- 0-25 20 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 25-35 25 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. Over 35 30 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. (3) To meet perimeter setback requirements, structures may be designed to step back as height increases. For example, the first 25fi. of a building may be constructed with a 20fi. fi'ont setback but additional height would require a greater setback. (4) Non-perimeter setbacks within the PUD shall be based on the required setbacks of the underlying zone buy may be modified through the PUD process to achieve project design objectives. (c) Height: Building heights in a PUD may be varied from the underlying zone district(s). However, building heights shall be compatible with the scale of the surrounding neighborhood to maintain privacy, retain scenic views, and ensure a reasonable balance of light and shadow on adjacent properties. (d) Open Space: (I) A minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the total area of a PUD shall be dedicated as common open space. Open space shall be provided for active as well as passive recreational activities, and for the preservation of existing natural site amenities whenever possible... (2) Open space and suppm-ting facilities intended for recreational use shall be designed and located to not adversely impact surrounding land use, especially exiting residential uses. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation Wycoff Dwelli,g Units, NO. BP04-0023! Page 10 (3) Open space and its intended uses shall be clearly designated on the site plan. At least two-thirds of the open space area shall be suitable for active recreational pm'poses. The City will base its acceptance of these areas on their dimensions, usability, location, slope, and physical improvements .... (e) Circulation (1) All streets and rights-of-way shall be dedicated, designed and constructed in accordance with the City's adopted street standards. (2) Interior roadways that do not provide access to individual lots, but that provide access to individual structures, apartment buildings, or manufactured homes on a single lot, are considered driveways, are not subject to street development standards, and their adequacy of design will be reviewed and decided through the PUD process. (3) A pedestrian circulation system shall be designed to assure that pedestrians can move safely and conveniently both on the site and between the site and nearby properties and activities, as appropriate. (4) All streets and parking areas shall contribute to the overall aesthetic design of the PUD, while minimizing traffic congestion and the amount of impervious surface area .... Conclusions Based on Findings - MDNS Appeal. 1. The appellant did not meet his burden of proof. The burden of proving that an administrative decision was not supported by substantial evidence is placed on the Appellant. In this case, the appellant did not supply a sufficient factual basis to meet his burden of proof. No evidence or testimony was submitted that proved environmental impacts that were not identified or mitigated during the SEPA process: Findings of Fact Nos. 18, 19. Conclusions Based on Findings - Preliminary Plat 1. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The City of Bremer/on Comprehensive Plan recommends PUDs in shoreline areas. Its goals and policies applicable to the proposal include the following: · Goal # 1 Urban Growth: "Encourage development in urban areas where adequate pztblic facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner." Supporting Policy (3): Accommodate new development with care so that Bremerton will continue to be a well-balanced "most livable city." Goal # 2 Reduce Sprawl: "Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-densiO, development." Findilig& Conchtsions & Recomlnendatio~ ~I(vcoff Dwelli~ig Units. NO. BP04-00231 Page 11 137 Supporting Policy (5): Promote the concept of development clustering to conserve energy, save land, lower public costs, reduce sprawl, and provide open space. · Goal # 4 Housing: "Encourage the availabiliO, of q£fordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a varieO, of residential densities and housing ~pes, and encourage prese~wation of existing housing stock. · Goal # 9 Open Space and Recreation: "Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks." Supporting Policy (3): Incorporate into new development proposals the provisions of the adopted Waterfront Access Plan and other plans and regulations that call for shoreline access improvements, pathways, or other forms of access or facilities linkage. HOUSING ELEMENT: Goal D (2) New Housing Development: "Provide a variety of housing types and densities to meet changing needs of Bremerton residents." Supporting Policy (3): Stimulate the production of new housing for all income, age, family type and ethnic groups. LAND USE ELEIv[ENT: The property is located in the Central Bremerton Land Use Plan (Element E, 8 (page 33)). There are no specific applicable policies to his property. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT: Part of the property is located within the 200-foot jurisdiction of Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program. The following goals and policies are relevant to development within the shoreline area: B: LANDS ADJACENT TO SHORELINES: Goal: "Encourage uses, densities and development patterns that are compatible with shoreline uses and resource values and that reinforce the policies of the Shoreline Management Act and Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program." Policy B-I: Consider the compatibility of proposed upland uses with those allowed in each adjacent shoreline environment and with the purpose and intent of the environment designation. Policy B-2: Minimize shoreline impacts from residential development on upland "view" property, i.e. storm water run-off, Wycoff Dwellb*g Units, NO. BP04-0023! Page 12 q38 septic drain field seepage, intensification of risks from geological instability, etc. Policy B-3: "Adjacent lands" policies shall be implemented through zoning, subdivision, short-plat and other land use ordinances, and through mechanisms such as the Capital Facilities Plan and budget. C: URBAN LANDS (Shorelines): Goal: "Protect both the economic viabiliO~ and resource valztes r?f ztrban shorelines." Policy C-l: Protect and preserve natural and/ or critical areas through the developed urban environment and recognize that Shoreline of Statewide Significance priorities also apply within our urban area. Policy C~6: Promote aesthetic and view protection through sign control regulations, appropriate siting and screening requirements, protection of view corridors, and the use of architectural standards. D: PUBLIC ACCESS: Goal: "Protect and enhance the rights of the general public to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline, while allowing controlled development consistent with the pt~blic interest." ~Goal: "Protect and enhance shoreline visual and ;ohysical access consistent with Shoreline Management Act and Public D'ust Doctrine principles." Policy D-l: Protect areas with unique and/or fragile geological or biological characteristics from inappropriate public access and use through access and use regulations. Policy D-3: Assure that development, uses and activities on or near the shoreline do not impair or detract from the public's access to the water or shoreline. Policy D-4: Enhance and preserve public views. Policy D-6: Preserve, maintain and enhance public access and views afforded by shoreline street ends, public utilities, and rights- of-way whenever feasible. Fi~di~gs, Co~cl~sio~s & Recommendatio~ Wycoff Divelli~g O)*its, NO. BP04-0023] Page 13 139 Policy D-9: hnplement shoreline public access policy primarily through applications of the City Comprehensive Parks Plan, the Shoreline Master Program, the Waterfront Access Plan, and urban renewal activities. G: HOUSING: Goal: "Permit residential development in shoreline areas and in the vicinity of other critical or sensitive lands only at densities that can be properl_v se~wed by needed utilities and roadwa),s and only ~&en within the "car~3dng capaci.ty" of the site or general location." Policy G-4: Encourage the use of Planned Unit Developments and clustering of development to help protect natural features, preserve open space, minimize physical impacts, and reduce the costs of utilities and roads. Policy G-5: Require adequate setbacks, buffers, and open spaces as needed for shoreline development to protect vegetation, natural features, views, and other aesthetic characteristics. The proposal will provide additional housing for the City of Bremerton in a location where city services already exist. The proposed development appears consistent with Bremerton's desire to continue to be a "most livable city" and with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Findings of Facts Nos. 1-4, 11-14, 19. 2. The proposal is consistent with identified zoning standards. The proposed subdivision will create 22 dwelling units. The project, as proposed, meets the bulk and setback requirements of the city code. Findings of Facts Nos. 1, 2, 4, 13. 3. With conditions, appropriate provision will be made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for all other relevant facts. Conditions of approval will mitigate traffic impact by requiring frontage improvements. The City conducted environmental review of the proposal and determined that it would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. City of Bremerton utilities will be available to each of the 22 dwelling units. The Applicant will preserve existing vegetation where possible and will take measures prior to clearing and construction to mitigate erosion impacts. The Applicant will provide public access to a shoreline overlook (sidewalk) that will enhance visual access to the shoreline area. Conditions of approval are necessary to ensure future frontage improvements are installed, the public access is constructed, and that the concerns of the public works department are addressed. Findings pf Facts Nos. 4, 6, 8, 10, 1], 14, 18. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation W_l,coff Dwe/ling Unit6, NO. BP04-00231 Page 14 4. The public use and interest will be served by the creation of 22 dwelling units complying with City of Bremerton zoning standards. The proposed plat will provide increased housing opportunities for residents of Bremerton in a manner consistent with the criteria for approval of preliminary plats. Findings q/'Fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 13, 19. Conclusions Based on Findings - Planned Unit Development 1. With conditions of approval, the location, design, and uses of the PUD will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Bremerton Shoreline Management Program, and with other applicable plans and ordinances adopted by the City. Clustering residential dwelling units is consistent with several goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program referenced previously in this report. A condition of approval is necessary to ensure adequate public access is provided. Findings of FactNos. 1, 11-14, 19. 2. The proposed PUD will be integrated with its surroundings and designed to harmonize with existing development in the neighborhood. The preservation of open space and the design of the dwelling units integrate well with the residential development found in the surrounding area. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 11-13, 19. 3. The traffic generated by the PUD can be accommodated safely and within the adopted Levels of Service for affected streets. North WycoffAvenue and 25th Street are each adequately equipped for moderate traffic flow and each is well below capacity for traffic flow. The proposed PUD will have only a minor impact on traffic in the area. Finding of Fact No. 15. 4. The proposed development will be adequately served by existing facilities and services. The subject property has City of Bremerton sewer and water available to it. Any residents o£the proposed PUD will have adequate services available to them. Findings of Fact No. 6. 5. The PUD will result in an attractive, healthful, efficient and stable environment for living, shopping, working, and leisure activities. One of the primary benefits of the proposed PUD is its proximity to the Port Washington Narrows. The type of development proposed is highly desired by a number of citizens due to its proposed attractive nature and proximity to urban amenities. Findings of Fact No. 1, 11-]4, 18. 6. The development plan will make adequate and appropriate provision for the preservation of the environment, both natural and man-made, and the conservation of energy. In addition to replacing non-native vegetation with native vegetation, the development will maintain the character of the shoreline and the natural slope of the parcel. The existing pier will not be altered. Findings pf Fact Nos. 7, 1 O, 1 I, 16, 18. 7. An area not less than one (1) gross acre in size may be considered for a PUD. The size of the subject property is 2.486 acres. Findings pfFact No. 1. Findings, Conclu3ions & Reconlmendation ~vcoff D~v'el/ing Units, 3?0. BP04-00231 Page 15 242 8. Perimeter and Interior Setbacks. All of the required perimeter and interior setbacks have been met. Findings of ?act No. 4, 19. 9. Building heights in a PUD may be varied from the underlying zone district(s). However, building heights shall be compatible with the scale of the surrounding neighborhood to maintain privacy, retain scenic views, and ensure a reasonable balance of light and shadow on adjacent properties. The height of the dwelling units is permitted under the requirements of the SF3 zone and is consistent with the requirements of the view corridor. Findings of Fact No. 11, 14, 19. 10. Open Space. The site plan includes 23 percent open space, of which more than two-thirds is designated as "active" open space. Such percentages exceed the open space requirements set forth in BMC 21.02.490. Findings qfFact. No. 12. 11. Circulation. The proposed PUD will include streets and rights-of-way that confomn to the City of Bremerton's adopted street standm'ds. Moreover, sidewalks will insure that pedestrian circulation is safe and convenient. The streets and sidewalks will contribute to the overall aesthetic of the development. Findings of Fact Nos. 4, 12, 14. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearings Examiner recommends approval of a Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development to subdivide 2.486 acres into 22 lots for the purpose of constructing dwelling units as described in the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planned Unit Development shall constitute a limitation on the use and design of the site to those uses, designs and standards that are specifically included in the Planned Unit Development. Such limitation shall remain in effect until the Planned Unit Development is constructed, or until the preliminary approval expires in which case the previous zoning automatically returns. 2. Two (2) off-street parking spaces per dwelling until shall be provided. 3. An open space guarantee, which ensures the retention of the open spaces and provides for permanent maintenance of the open space, is required per BMC Section 21.02.501 prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. 4. Removal of riparian vegetation within the Iow marine bluff is prohibited in order to protect the near shore habitat. This prohibition shall be recorded on the deed of title and/or face of the plat and Planned Unit Development as a condition running at the same time with the authorized land use. Proof of such restriction shall be demonstrated prior to issuance of building permits. 5. The clearing limits indicated on the TESC Plan received by the Department of Co~mnunity Development May 7, 2004 shall constitute the limits of vegetation removal. Any cleared Findings, Conclusion,s & Recommendation Wycoff Dwelling U)ffts, NO. BP04-0023! Page 16 :[42 vegetation within the shoreline areas 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark shall be replaced according to the conditions set forth in the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. 6. One street tree per twenty-five (25) lineal feet of street frontage shall be provided within the front yard perimeter setbacks along Wycoff Avenue and 25t1' Street. The tree-planting pattern shall be approved by the Department of Community Development prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development and shall be integrated into the overall design of the development. 7. A landscaping plan for the Planned Unit Development shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, submitted to, and approved by the City. The landscaping plan shall include the vegetation replacement according to the conditions set forth in the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance, street trees, and the landscaping of all required open space areas not addressed in the SEPA. 8. Required landscaping and vegetation replacement shall be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. 9. All construction shall be located such that the long-term stability of near shore habitat is protected and that a bulkhead or other shoreline protection is not necessary. The installation of a bulkhead or other shoreline protection shall be prohibited. This prohibition shall be recorded on the deed of title and/or the face of the plat and Planned Unit Development. 10. A minimum 30-foot wide public easement shall be provided waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark in accordance with the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. The public easement shall be recorded on the deed of title and/or face of the Planned Unit Development. Proof of such restriction shall be demonstrated prior to issuance of building permits. 11. Frontage improvements are required per Ordinance 4856. All improvements shall be according to the City of Bremerton Engineering Standards. hnprovements shall be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. A Right of Way Permit is required prior to construction. 12. The private street shall be developed according to City Engineering Street Standards. The street shall be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. 13. A final storm drainage plan must be approved by the City Engineer. Storm drainage facilities shall be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. 14. If Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife requires a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit, it shall be obtained prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. Any conditions set forth in the HPA shall be included as conditions for approving the Planned Unit Development. f4~vcoff D~,elling Units, NO. BP04-00231 Page 17 243 15. Water and sewer improvements shall be provided per the Conditional Water and Sewer Availability letter. A water main extension and a sewer main extension into the development are required and shall be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. 16. Addresses for the individual lots shall be obtained from the Public Works department and shall be indicated on the final plat. 17. All conditions set forth in the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance shall be complied with as a condition for approving the Planned Unit Development. Those conditions are: a. All authorized clearing shall be limited to the minimum necessary to accomplish construction. Clearing, grading, or filing of this site shall be limited to the period April 1 and October 1. Ali said site disturbances shall be marked in the field for inspection and approval by the applicant's geotechnical engineer and city building inspectors prior to alteration of the site. The face of the cut and fill on slopes shall be prepared and maintained to control against erosion· (Reference BMC 21.22.100(c)(1)) b. Soils used as borrow materials must be "clean", as defined in the Bremerton-Kitsap County Board of Health (BKCBH) Ordinance 2000-6 "Solid Waste Regulations." Clean is defined as the following: ...soils which are not a dangerous waste or problem waste. Problem waste includes the following: · ·.soils removed during the cleanup ora remedial action site, a dangerous waste closure, other cleanup efforts, or other actions which contain hazardous substances, but are not dangerous wastes; ...dredge spoils fi'om the dredging of surface waters of the state where contaminants are present in the dredge spoils at concentrations not suitable for open water disposal and the dredge spoils are not a dangerous waste and are not regulated by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (PL 95-217): or ... waste abrasive blasting grit or other materials used in abrasive blasting that my contain, but is not limited to, silica, utility slag or copper slag. Waste abrasive blasting grit does not include blasting grit that will be reused for its intencled pu~ose... c. The applicant must ensure either by process knowledge or by testing, that fill material is not contaminated. This would include the applicant's knowledge of the presence of industrial/commercial facilities, prior disposal activities, or other activities that may have contaminated the material to be used as fill. W3,coff Dwelling Unitx, NO. BP04-00231 Page 18 3.44 d. Only suitable materials shall be used as fill. Suitable fill does not include vegetative organic matter, demolition or construction wastes, or other debris, except as provided by the Uniform Building Code (1994). e. All construction-trenching activities conducted within 1,000 feet of an active or closed landfill should test for the presence of methane gas and take those safety or engineering precautions necessary for the protection of human health and the environment. f. The applicant shall use all appropriate measures to control roadway carry-on or fugitive dust from excavation activities or materials transportation activities necessary to protect public health and the environment. g. Disposal o£excavated soil shall be taken to an approved site. h. No fill, or other construction debris, shall enter the adjacent Port Washington Narrows. (Reference WAC 197-11-660) i. An~aoring or constructing of a bulkhead along any part of the shoreline shall be prohibited, except in the case of an emergency as determined by the City. (Reference SMP and WAC 197-1D660) j. Ali on-slope vegetation within the shoreline are that was not approved for clearing per Team Engineering TESC Plan (received May 7, 2004) and the geoteclmical report shall be retained to ensure slope stability and provide riparian habitat. (Reference SMP) k. The removal of vegetation within the shoreline 200-foot jurisdiction shall be restored to as near pre-project configuration as possible and replanted with native grasses, shrubs and/or trees. (Reference SMP) I. Any of the trees indicated for removal on the Team 4 Engineering TESC Plan and located within the 200-foot jurisdiction shall be replaced with the same or similar trees. The replacement trees shall be located within the shoreline area. (Reference SMP and WAC 197-11-660) m. A 15-foot minimum vegetative buffer is required at the top of the slope. The vegetation and trees may be replaced per the geotechnical recommendations, but the replacements shall consist of a variety of deep-rooting vegetation. (Reference BMC 21.22.100(c)(3)(iv)(2)) n. All recommendations set forth in the Golder Associates Inc. prepared Geotechnical Investigation of Project Site at 25th Street and Snyder Avenue N dated April 5, 2004, and the addendum dated May 26, 2004, shall be deemed conditions of approval and complied with. (Reference BMC 21.22.100(c)(3)(i)(5)) ~(vcoff Dwelli,g Units, NO. BP04-0023] Page 19 3.45 o. If any artifacts are uncovered, the Department of Community Development and the State Historic Preservation Office in Olympia (360) 753-4405 must be notified. 18. A final Planned Unit Development and plat meeting applicable development standards and conditions shall be submitted to the City for approval within two years of the date of preliminary plat approval pursuant to BMC Section 21.02.520(a). 19. Six (6) copies of the Planned Unit Development and plat (not Mylar) shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development for final compliance review. 20. The Community Development Director shall approve the final Planned Unit Development prior to finalizing the plat. 21. A copy of the recorded Planned Unit Development and plat shall be provided to the Department of Community Development before building permits are issued. Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner denies the SEPA MDNS appeal. Decided this ~rday of June 2004. H~reiSn gD?~°aI~lniler ;o r th e City of Bre-merton Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation ~4~vc~ff Dwelling U~its, NO. BP04-00231 Page 20 146 CITY OF BREMERTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT, CONCLUSIONS, FINDINGS & DECISION Requested Action: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for a Planned Unit Development to construct 22 attached single-family dwellings GENERAL INFORMATION File Number: BP04-00231 Applicant: Tiferet LLC, 4739 University Way, N.E. Suite 1607, Seattle, WA 98105 Contact: Mark Goldberg Assessor Account Number: 102401-4-029-2004 PROJECT SUMMARY 1. Current Zone Classification: Residential Low-density (SF-3) 2. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR) 3. Shoreline Environmental Designation: Urban Residential Environment 4. Critical Areas Designations: Geologically Hazardous Areas STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT SEPA Threshold Determination: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued May 28, 2004. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Location: Northeast comer of North WycoffAvenue and 25t~ Street 2. Lot Size: Approximately 2.486 acres (2.65 acres including water) 3. Surrounding Land Uses: Direction Zonmg ACti~ty North Residential Low-density Single-familyhomes (SF-3) South Residential Low-density Single-family homes, duplex 1 East Port Washington Water Narrows waterway West Residential Low-density Single-familyhomes, duplex (SF-3) 4. Topography: The west side has steep slopes (greater than 40 percent) adjacent to Wycoff Avenue North sloping east downward into about 22 percent slopes, the eastern 1/3 is relatively flat with the eastern edge of the site terminates in steep slope low bank marine bluffs between 3 and 12 feet high. 5. Development: Site is undeveloped with vegetation consisting of a Fir, Cedar, Maple and Alder tree canopy, and a relatively thick understory of small trees, blackberry bushes. Horsetails, ferns, salmonberry bushes are also located on the site. 6. Access: The proposed ingress/egress are from 25t~ Street. 7. Utilities: The site is served by public water and sanitary sewer services. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Determining Shoreline View Corridor The property's configuration is unique. It is a large comer lot with two from property lines and a shoreline as a third property line. Additionally it has about 200 feet of regulated shoreline area overlapping approximately half the front property line along 25t~ Street. In applying Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) view corridor requirements, the City determined that the view corridors could be applied fi.om 25th Street. Additionally, the City determined that the 200-foot measurement fi.om the ordinary high water mark that constitutes the shoreline jurisdiction would be utilized to calculate the view corridor rather than the entire parcel width. Utilizing the entire parcel would lead to the application of the shoreline site development standards to lands outside the designated authority of the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction. The City reached these determinations after evaluating the site and lands adjacent to the shoreline, reviewing court and Shoreline Heating Board decisions, and consulting with the City's legal department. The following is a summary of the analysis used to make these determinations. 1. The SMP, Site Development Standards Table 3-2 requires a minimum 30 percent view corridor for attached dwelling units. The table's Key 2 requires the view corridor to be maintained across the average parcel width. The SMP does not define average parcel width. 2 148 2. SMP, Table 3-2, Key 3 allows increases in height limits if the increase does not impair views of the water from residential properties upland of the nearest public street landward of the site, and additional view corridor is provided to offset the increase in height. 3. The State Supreme Court decision in 91 Wn2d 721 Weyerhaeuser Company v. King County (1979) held that "direct authority to regulate uses of land adjacent to shorelines is limited in the SMA (Shoreline Management Act), however to the function of land use planning." The City understands this to mean that the shoreline site development standards are applicable only within the 200-foot shoreline designation. 4. The Shoreline Hearing Board decision, SHB No. 02-027 & 02-028, Carl D. Alexander and Edwin E. Tuttle v. City of Port Angles held that structures that straddle the 200-foot jurisdiction line must be evaluated as one building subject to SMA; and upheld the City of Port Angles and Ecology's decision to approve shoreline permits that included different building heights on a site with lands inside and outside the shoreline jurisdiction (35-foot height within and 66-foot height outside) based on compliance with RCW 90.58.020. The City understands this to mean that a waterfront parcel can have the shoreline site development standards applied based on that portion of the site located within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction provided the views of the adjacent lands are considered. 5. RCW 90.58.020 protects the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and people generally. The City of Bremerton adopted view corridor requirements within its Shoreline Master Program as a means for implementing the state's intent. 6. The Bremerton SMP Chapter 4, View Protection, requires shoreline uses and activities to be designed and operated to avoid blocking, reducing, or adversely interfering with the public's visual access to the water and shorelines. APPLYING THE VIEW CORRIDOR 7. The City concluded based on existing site condition and the requirement regarding the nearest public street (SMP Table 3-2) that the view corridor should be applied from 25th Street. The orientation of the PUD is based on the access being from 25th Street. 8. The SMP allows heights 20 feet and above within the shoreline area provided they do not impair views of the water from residential properties upland of the nearest public street landward of the site. Upland properties are located to the south and west of the site. However, the nearest public street landward is 25th Street. 3 9. A site investigation showed that existing shoreline views are primarily from those upland properties south of 25th Street due to topography and the location of vegetation and trees on the site. The general public view access of the shoreline environment is best near 25th Street and Snyder Avenue. DETERMINING THE AVERAGE PARCEL WIDTH FOR VIEW CORRIDOR 10. The basic principle of the City of Bremerton's shoreline view corridor requirement is that taller buildings provide a wider view corridor (see footnote 5, SMP page 3-28). The purpose is to protect the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline environment and to have development designed in such a manner as not to adversely affect the public's visual access to the shoreline environment. 11. An analysis of the property's configuration produced an average parcel width of about 433 feet. This calculated into a view corridor requirement of 151 feet (433 X 0.35). Applying this size ora view corridor to the site would exclude development in about 75.8 percent of the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction, which is not consistent with the intent of an urban residential environmental designation. (This is more consistent with the Urban Conservancy, which prohibits most urban land uses within its shoreline designation.) 12. The SMP view corridor requirements do not anticipate circumstances where the 200- foot shoreline jurisdiction would not apply across the entire average parcel width. 13. A strict application of average parcel width to properties with lands inside and outside of the shoreline jurisdiction appears to conflict with the Washington State Supreme Court Weyerhaeuser Company v. King County decision because it effectively applies shoreline standards to areas outside the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction. An example of this point would be if the property had an average parcel width of 600 feet. The view corridor requirement would be 210 feet, which extends the view corridor outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. If this were the intent, per decision the Weyerhaeuser v. King County decision, the zoning code should include regulatory provisions for applying view corridor standards on adjacent lands to the shoreline jur/sdiction. 14. The City, in making its determination, is evaluating the view corridor as if two land segments existed instead of one. One segment is inside the shoreline jurisdiction and the other is evaluated as lands adjacent to the shoreline. The City believes this approach is consistent with Supreme Court decision and the Shoreline Hearing Board's Tuttle v. City of Port Angles decision, where different building heights on a property, which included shoreline areas, was upheld provided the visual access pursuant to the intent in RCW 90.58.020 was maintained. 15. The reasoning behind this approach is supported further in that the property could have been divided in this manner before the present application was submitted. The City is not requiting a short plat first because the short subdivision process would not 4 150 contributed anything substantive to the City's review of the proposal. Moreover, this property is a comer lot so the "nearest public right of way landward" is not Wycoff Avenue. It is 25th Street. The view corridor can be measured from 25th Street for upland property and public views. 16. In concluding that the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction would be used to determine view corridor requirements, the City is not neglecting consideration of the impacts to visual access of lands adjacent to the shoreline and upland properties, which will be reviewed in the analysis section ofth/s report. ANALYSIS: Criteria for Approval: WAC 173-27-150 outlines the criteria for approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Approval can be granted only when the development is consistent with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The agreement must be consistent with the development regulations set forth in the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Table 3~2 Site Development Standards. Technical Review: The applications and accompanying technical documents have been circulated to the applicable city departments. Comments on the Planned Unit Development were received and summarized in the comment section. Documents Reviewed: Planned Unit Development Site Plan, TESC Plans, PUD Storm & Grading Plan, vicinity map, shoreline permit submittal, Golder Associates prepared GeotechnicaI Investigation dated April 5, 2004 and addendum dated May 26, 2004, Preliminary Storm Drainage Report, BA Wetland Report dated June 15, 2004, Staff Site Investigation and photographs of surrounding properties, and SEPA Checklist prepared by the applicant and submitted January 8, 2004 and revised May 4, 2004. Applicable Shoreline Development Regulations 1. Approximately half of the property is located within a shoreline area as defined by RCW 90.58.030, which states those lands extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane fi'om the ordinary high water mark. 2. The following development within the Planned Unit Development is subject to requiring a shoreline substantial development permit. · Construction of Residential Dwelling Units 1 through 10 · Construction of Residential Dwelling Units 19 through 22 · Construction of private road and associated improvements and guest parking areas · Grading, clearing and fill activity 5 151 3. The shoreline areas of the property are designated Urban Residential environmental in the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. The intent of this designation is to provide areas, which are primarily residential or intended for residential use. The Shoreline Use/ Activity Matrix, Table 3-1, allows residential uses and activities located landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Urban Residential environmental designation. The SMP relies on the zoning code (Figure 140, Land Use Tables) to determine the type of residential uses allowed. 4. A surveyor delineated the Ordinary High Water Mark. City staff confirmed the delineation by conducting a site investigation. The definition set forth in RCW 90.58.030(2)(b) and the SMP was used in making this determination. 5. The proposed shoreline setback of the nearest residential structure is 89.6 feet. The Site Development Standards Table 3-2 requires a shoreline setback of 25 feet or 15 percent of parcel depth whichever is greater. Since the parcel width is oriented with 25th Street, the parcel depth is oriented with Wycoff Avenue. This produces a shoreline setback requirement of 38.4 feet (256 feet X 0.15). The Planned Unit Development's proposed shoreline setbacks will protect the shorelines by preventing the need to install a bulkhead or other shoreline armoring. The reason is that the setback significantly reduces the risk of erosion, flooding and accretion threatening ground stability of the development, which would trigger stabilization efforts that could affect the shoreline environment. 6. The Site Development Standards Table 3-2 allows a maximum building height of 25 feet measured from the average grade level to the highest point of a structure. The height limitation may be increased to the 30-foot height limitation set forth in the SF- 3 zoning designation provided (1) it does not impair views of the water from residential properties upland of the nearest public street landward and (2) it is offset by an increase in the view corridor per SMP, Table 3-2. 7. The site plan received May 26, 2004 indicated residential structure heights within the shoreline jurisdiction of approximately 30 feet. The residential structures on the adjacent lands have a height of 27 to 30 feet; as measured by the SMP (the zoning code uses a less restrictive method for measuring height). 8. Generally, a view corridor is required for development within 200-feet of the water. The Site Development Standards, Table 3-2, Key 2 and 3) requires a minimum view comdor across 35 percent of the average lot width for structure heights between 20 and 35 feet. The view corridor must be in one continuous piece. A 70-foot view corridor is required per the City's determination that the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction would be used for determining the shoreline average parcel width (200 feet X 0.35). A view corridor of 89.6 feet is proposed along the eastern edge of the property. 6 152 9. The City evaluated the impacts to view access on adjacent lands to the shoreline area and the upland residential properties consistent with Wn. App. 844, John C. Merkel v. Port of Brownsville (1973) and SMP requirements. After reviewing existing water views, the topography of the surrounding land and the height of the PUD residential structures, the City concluded the view corridor adequately protects the visual access for the public and upland residential properties. The following summarizes the rationale for this conclusion. a. An evaluation of the surrounding area shows that public visual access is primarily from the area near 25th Street and Snyder Avenue. This area is relatively flat and elevated about 16 feet above the water. The 70-foot view corridor, the open space and the setback of downhill residential structures are located within the flat area therefore protecting view access in the area most likely obstructed if development were to occur. b. The remaining upland properties located south of 25th Street increasingly elevate above the downhill residential structures since the topography of the neighborhood slopes down towards the water. c. The upland residential properties located west of Wycoff Avenue have obstructed shoreline views due to the dense vegetation and trees on the western side of the site. Additionally, the existing residences adjacent to Wycoff Avenue are elevated about 6 to 10 feet above the street grade. The proposed site plan shows the uphill residential structures within the PUD have a proposed height that elevates about 8 feet above the existing street grade. This means the views of the upland residents will not be significantly affected by the proposed development. In fact, these properties' views of the shoreline will probably improve with some cleating of the site. d. If the PUD uphill residential structures were built to the maximum allowed zoning height (30 feet), the maximum height of residential structures within the PUD would r/se about 17 feet above the existing street grade. The upland properties would continue to have views of the shoreline environment and therefore the proposed development would not significantly affect their views. In summary, the visual access from the upland residential properties is preserved because of the topography. The upper residential properties are located on slopes that elevate above the downhill residential structures. The lower residential properties are located nearest where the view corridor is provided; therefore preserving their views. 10. Chapter 4 of the SMP established general requirements that apply to all environmental uses or activities. The following "View Protection" regulations are applicable to the proposal. 7 153 1. Shoreline uses and activities shall be designed and operated to avoid blocking reducing, or adversely interfering with the public's visual access to the water and shorelines. 4. In providing visual access to the shoreline, the natural vegetation shall not be excessively removed either by cleating or by topping. 5. Development on or over the water shall be constructed as far landward as possible to avoid interference with views from surrounding properties to the shoreline and adjoining waters. STAFF COMMENT: The public's visual access to the water is primarily from 25th Street and Snyder Avenue. The applicant located the development as far landward as the design of the PUD would allow while maintaining compatibility with the single- family residential character of the neighborhood. The proposal includes removing existing vegetation and trees witkin the shoreline area, but will be required to replace much of it as a condition of approval. 11. SMP, Public Access Requirements, Table 4-1 requires general public access and improved public access for residential developments or planned unit developments of greater than four (4) lots/units. 12. Subsection 4-7, Public Access, Regulation (3) and (5) requires a public access easement along the waters edge. The size of the easement is a minimum 30 feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark. The easement will be required as a condition of approval and will be shown on the final site plan. 13. Section 5-19 of the SMP requires planned unit developments of five (5) or more waterfront lots/units to provide "improved public access" in a manner, which is appropriate to the site and the nature and size of the development for ail residents of the development and the public. 14. Subsection 4-7, Public Access, Regulation (4) and (5) state when improved public access is required, it shall consist of the following: · dedication of a public pedestrian access easement a minimum width of not less than 12 feet; · construction of a hard surface walkway a minimum width of five (5) feet; · attractively landscaped and maintained by the property owner; connected to adjacent future or existing walkways; · in areas where there is a bluff, the access may be located at the top of the bluff as long as it will connect with existing or planned access on adjacent properties; and STAFF COMMENT: The Director determined that the eastern segment of the public sidewalks located adjacent to 25th Street is acceptable for meeting the improved public access requirement. The sidewalk is located in the public fight-of-way and runs adjacent to the view corridor providing excellent visual access to the shoreline 8 154 environment. The Director also determined that the improved public access should not be extended down to the waterfront because it is in the public interest to limit disruptions to the mid to low bank marine bluffs and because of concerns from property owners about the difficulty of monitohng irresponsible behavior on the beach if improved physical access was required. 15. SMP Chapter 6, Subsection 6-2, Shore Modification, Regulation (9) requires vegetation management within the shoreline area including the following: a. All disturbed shore areas shall be restored to as near pre-project configuration as possible and replanting with native vegetation as much as possible. b. All planting provided shall be maintained. Maintenance shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner. STAFF COMMENT: The Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance contains mitigation requirements for replacement of vegetation. An approved landscaping plan for the Plarmed Unit Development and adequate provisions for its installation shall be required as a condition for final Planned Unit Development approval. 16. SMP Chapter 6, Subsection 6-27, Grading and Drainage require measures to be taken to minimize erosion and sedimentation into shoreline water bodies. City regulations and requirements set forth in the Golder Associates prepared geotechnical report adequately address grading and drainage on the site in a manner that will protect the shoreline including maintain/ng an existing vegetation strip along the top of the low bank marine bluff I7. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal for storm water drainage requirements. A preliminary storm drainage report and civil plans have been submitted. The Water Quantity Mitigation facility will consist of a storm conveyance system into bioswales designed to provide treatment for the discharge fi.om the 6 month, 24 hour, Type lA storm generated on all surfaces. After treatment, the storm water is discharge into the Port Washington Narrows. Comments received fi.om the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife indicated that a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit is required for discharge of storm water directly into the Port Washington Narrows. The City Engineer must still approve final storm and grading plans and the HPA obtained prior to finalizing the PUD/Subdivision. COMMENTS RECEIVED 18. CITY COMMENTS: : summa~ of comments Received Building No comments Engineering Department · All water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer utility service connections shall be completed per BMC Title 15 · Frontage improvements required per Ordinance 4856 9 155 · Provide adequate street lighting and pedestrian facilities internal to the development · Temporary erosion & sedimentation control plan is required prior to issuance of any grading permits. · Right of Way Permit required prior to issuance of any building permits · Utility Fees and Assessments shall be paid prior to working on utilities and occupancy approval Fire Ok. Cross Connection Control Ok. Traffic No concerns 19. LOCAL AND STATE AGENCY COMMENTS: Depat Lment of None Conununity, Trade and Economic Development Puget Sound Water None Qua/itc Action Team Suquamish Tribe None Depamuent ofFish & · A Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) appears to be required. Wildlife Recommend applicant seek early involvement of the department. Infiltration of storm water should be required unless it is demonstrated not possible · The proposal is within bald eagle territory. Large conifer on the site should be protected as perch trees not only for eagles, but osprey and heron. · Non-native invasive plant species have invaded and should be replaced with new native vegetation. · Discourages the construction of bulkheads. · The recommendations were made to be placed on any permits issued: o Any new construction should be located such that a bulkhead or other shoreline protection is not necessary o Native marine riparian vegetation in the designated open space should not be removed. If riparian vegetation is degraded, restoration of the native riparian vegetation should be required. Large conifer, alder or madrona should be retained on the remainder of the site as much as possible or restored if necessary o Increases in impervious surface should be treated in accordance with the Department of Ecology Storm water Manual. Infiltration of storm water is preferred choice rather than discharge into Puget Sound o Applicant should consult with Shelly Ament with WDFW to determine ifa bald eagle management plan is necessary before removing any trees Department of None 10 256 Transportation Department of Natural None Resources Department of None Transportation (Olympic Region Developer Services) Department of Ecology · The view corridors should be adequate given the odd shape and depth of the lot · Providing public visual access to the water is the goal of the Bremerton SMP Kitsap Transit None Bremerton - Kitsap Standard comments related to the fill used on the site and grading County Health District activity (See comment letter) KJtsap County None Department of Community Development 20. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED :s~mmary ~ COmiments (as of M/ay'27~ 2004) Phil Olwell · Believes the property is zoned SF-2 · Concerned that citizens were not told of the stop in the application process · Proper notification was not done for the original neighborhood meeting · View corridor percentages have not been met according to BMC. View corridor moved to Wycoff Avenue when impact and or largest lot line is on 25th Street · Intended use of PUD process in question as to this projects ability to provide affordable housing · Interior street doesn't conform to existing regulations and codes stipulated/required in the BMC · Setback for garages doesn't satisfy codes · Insufficient detail or verification of original environmental cleanups done to this old oil tank farm · Insufficient details on revised plan of cutting 1,000 yards of material and bringing in 9,000 yards of fill · Vegetation and large tree removals impact to Port Washington Narrows and wildlife · Planning Department's pre-determined expectation of Nonsignificance regarding the environmental impacts of this proposal a forgone conclusion · Concerned with the "appearance of fairness" to ali parties because it will change the neighborhood Marc Dallas · Concerned about the near total blocking of existing water and P.O. Box 1122 bridge views from improvements located on the west side of Tracyton, WA 98393 WycoffAvenue. 11 157 · Wants to know what the proposed finish grade on the west end and what the proposed maximum roof line height above the current street for buildings 11-16 · ADA curb ramp at the SW corner of 25th Street & Wycoff is dangerous for any wheel chair · Do not want to see a repeat of 2480 Snyder Avenue regarding variances · Concerns about storm water and wants to know if public works type problems will be addressed as part of the PUD project · Concerned about the 10,000 yards of earth being moved · Included 9 Best Management Practices (BMP) that should be made part of the record and findings Interested in what mitigation measures the city is considering for the project Charles Thatcher & · Has concerns about the proposed cutting of approximately 1,000 Christopher Oretsky yards of material 2518 N. WycoffAve - Concerns about the proposed clearing of trees · Wants to know where the 9,000 yards of fill will go and how it will Bremerton, WA 98312 affect elevations as well as building height and view corridor · Concerns about the vegetation removal including those in the critical area setbacks · Finds the revised plans unacceptable and inadequate because of the proposed view corridor · The proposed density is too high. · Depth of driveways is inadequate to provide for parking · 20-foot wide interior street cannot support parking and provide access for emergency vehicles · Concerned with the site-clearing plan and finds this in direct conflict with WDFW recommendations · Wants the trees WDFW recommends to be retained so Eagles, Heron and Osprey's have perching areas. Believes the Ospreys use the site for hunting and roosting · Does not believe the OHWM was located at the toe of the slope as the City stated it should be · Concerned about the proposed open space being divided into 3 areas · Concerned about setbacks and density · SEPA checklist does not list birds listed in the 1993/94 SEPA · Concerned about endangered species loosing the use of the site · Concerned about the traffic impacts and the issue of trespassing by 75 new people in the neighborhood Larry Taylor · Believes the project should not proceed as planned because 2480 Snyder Avenue o View corridor is based on the width along Wycoff, but applied to 25th Street Bremerton, WA 98312 o Cars in the driveways will block the sidewalk and half the street. Believes 10 foot driveways is to much of a modification o The interior setbacks are greatly modified to meet the open space requirements o The open space requirement of 20 percent is not being met. Believes the space between 4 and 5 doesn't meet the 12 158 requirement o The shoreline setback is wrong because the delineation of the rear lot line adjoins the OHWL. This makes the depth of the property run east and west and not the 15 percent of the north to south o This shoreline setback should also be considered as a perimeter setback o PUD standards say streets shall be to city standards and dedicated to the city. City standards say you must be able to public into a garage without blocking the street o The view corridor on the plan is for the end of the street. How can a view corridor be parallel to the water e If the view corridor can run parallel this one adds 39 feet to the mandated setbacks. It would also not meet the requirements for 30-foot building heights as the views from the houses in the middle of 25th would be blocked · The OHWM is not located according to Ecology's standards · The view corridor is not adequate according to the BMC · The open space requirement cannot be meet for bonus density after setbacks are subtracted · Proper notification was not done for the neighborhood meeting · Proper information was not provided for conceptual review per 21.02.360. No sketch map showing existing structures within 200 feet was done Eric & Kristina · Be included on all notice mailings Younger 2634 Stevens Drive Bremerton, WA 98312 Bob Eich]er · Concerned about the density because 24 units roughly doubles 2435 N. Wycoff the population of the block Brernerton, WA 98312 · Concern about only one means of entrance and egress · Commented about the 1994 rezone · Believes most of the neighborhood would support the proposal if it was 12-15 units LeRoy and Suzanne · Concerned about the overall impact of the addition of 24 units to Williamson the neighborhood 2806 26t~ Street · Wants consideration given to the density, zoning, shoreline access, lot sizes, play areas for children, views and square Bremerton, WA 98312 footage for residences · Wanted to know if any plans for public waterfront boardwalk and about the status of the existing pilings · Questions if there is adequate off-street parking · Wanted to knew if the site was adequately cleanup · Concerns about what trees will be left Sam & Linda · Has several objections to the proposal McManus o Density doesn't conform to the surrounding neighborhood 2454 N Wycoff Ave o Concerned about speed traffic and what measures will be taken to address this Bremerton, WA 98312 o Doesn't believe there is sufficient parking I 13 159 Frank Spaccarotelli · Stated the public fought previous efforts to develop the property 2640 Stevens Drive · Believes the property should remain FM1 and that 24 units is to Bremerton, WA 98312 many · Wanted the planning department to consider a delay so that he could gather signatures Mr. & Mrs. Fred · Owns property on 24t~ & Wycoff and feels it would be an ideal McFeely place for older or retired people · Believes there should be very careful screening rules E4920 Highway 302 Belfair, WA 98528 21. Notification was sent to properties within a 300-foot radius of the subject property Notification was provided as follows: Application received: January 8, 2004 Determination of Completeness January 30, 2004 Notice of Application* May 14, 2004 MDNS published May 28, 2004 *The time-period for issuance of the Notice of Application resulted from significant revisions to the site plan after comments were received and it was confirmed of an error in delineating the OHWM. FINDINGS: The City of Bremerton Department of Community Development makes the following findings in support of a recommendation. 1. An application for a preliminary plat and Plaimed Unit Development and shoreline substantial development permit were received January 8, 2004 and determined complete on January 30, 2004. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. The proposed development is specifically authorized under the Shoreline Use/Activities Matrix and the zoning land use tables (Figure 140). 3. The proposed Planned Unit Development will superimpose onto the underlying zoning. A residential Planned Unit Development helps protect the shorelines by clustering the development away from the shoreline. 4. The proposed development will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines. The proposed development clusters development away from the shorelines and the low bank marine bluff. 14 160 5. The proposed development will cause no significant adverse affects to the shoreline environment in which it is located. The development will preserve important trees for wildlife and hparian vegetation near the shoreline, and remove and replace nonnative vegetation further back from the shoreline. The Planned Unit Development's proposed shoreline setbacks will protect the shorelines by preventing the need to install a bulkhead or other shoreline armoring. The reason is that the setback significantly reduces the risk of erosion, flooding and accretion threatening ground stability of the development, which would trigger stabilization efforts that could impact the shoreline environment. 6. Consideration was given to visual access protection for lands adjacent to the shoreline and residential upland properties. The topography of the surrounding properties contributes to the view protection required under the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program and RCW 90.58.020. 7. Storm water requirements and erosion control measures are addressed in the preliminary storm water drainage report, in the geotechnical report and in the Conditional Water and Sewer Availability letter. 8. The public health, safety and general welfare of the City of Bremerton have been served in that comments from agencies and the public have been considered and addressed in relation to this application and conditioned below. 9. The Notice of Application was published in The Sun newspaper on May 7 and 14, 2004 and posted on the property on May 14, 2004. Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site, parties of record, and state and local agencies. CONCLUSION A review of the site plan, TESC plans, storm and grading plan, vicinity map, shoreline permit submittal, Golder Associates Geotechnical Investigation and addendum, the preliminary storm drainage report, BA wetland report, inspection of the site and the SEPA checklist, indicate that the proposal would comply with applicable Bremerton Municipal Code development regulations subject to the conditions set forth in the decision. These conditions shall be implemented in accordance with WAC I73-27- 150(d). DECISION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Bremerton Department of Community Development Director after considering the above findings APPROVES the Substantial Development Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction practices shall follow best management practices pertaining to erosion control to prevent any material from entering waters of the state. No fill or construction debris shall enter the adjacent Port Washington Narrows. 15 161 2. All storm water shall be handled utilizing best management practices. 3. At no point should any of the proposed structures be built waterward of the 38.4-foot shoreline setback. 4. Removal of riparian vegetation within the low marine bluff is prohibited in order to protect the near shore habitat. 5. The cleating limits indicated on the TESC Plan received by the Department of Community Development May 7, 2004 shall constitute the limits of vegetation removal. Any cleared vegetation within the shoreline area 200-feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark shall be replaced according to the conditions set forth in the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. 6. All construction shall be located such that the long-term stability of near shore habitat is protected and that a bulkhead or other shoreline protection is not necessary. The installation of a bulkhead or other shoreline protection shall be prohibited. 7. All conditions set forth in the preliminary approval of the Planned Unit Development shall be included as conditions of this permit. 8. No construction shall begin and is not authorized until twenty-one (21) days fi-om the date of filing by the Department of Ecology as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130. After reviewing the above-findings, conclusions, and conditions the undersigned hereby APPROVES with conditions the Substantial Development Permit for File BP04-00231, as described herein, for filing pursuant to Chapter 21.04 of the Municipal Code of Bremerton. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances or regulations applicable to this project. This approval meets the guidelines outlined in WAC 173-27-150. ~h~istopher 1~. Hugo, Director Date Department of Community Development APPEALS: The decision of the Land Use Official is final unless appealed to the Bremerton Administrative Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14) calendar days of the posting of this decision. All appeals must be filed before the deadline below to the Department of Community Development, 286 4th Street, Bremerton, WA 98337. Appeal Deadline: Tuesday, July 6, 2004, by 5:00 P.M. 16 162 CITY OF BREMERTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT, CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS Hearing Examiner Public Hearing June 15, 2004 Requested Action: Planned Unit Development and Subdivision to divide one lot into 22 lots and to construct 22 attached single-family dwellings in a shoreline area GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Land Use Action (See application in APPENDIX A) (a) Heating Examiner recommendation to the Bremerton City Council for a Preliminary Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (b) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit decided by the Community Development Director 2. File Number: BP04-00231 3. Applicant: Tiferet LLC, 4739 University Way, N.E. Suite 1607, Seattle, WA 98105 Contact: Mark Goldberg 4. Location: Northeast comer of North WycoffAvenue and 25m Street 5. Assessor Account Number: 102401-4-029-2004 PROJECT SUMMARY 1. Current Zone Classification: Residential Low-density (SF-3) 2. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR) (See Map AP?ENDIX B.) 3. Shoreline Environmental Designation: Urban Residential Environment (See Map APP£NDrX C.) 4. Critical Areas Designations: Geologically Hazardous Areas STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT SEPA Threshold Determination: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued May 28, 2004. (See SEPA APPENDD(D.) 1 163 SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Legal Description: 10241 E THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 7, SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTH LINE OF 25TH STREET FORMERLY EDWARDS STREET, BEING 20 FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE 25TH STREET AND 30 FEET EAST OF THE CENTER LINE OF WYCOFF AVENUE NORTH, AT ITS POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF WYCOFF AVENUE NORTH; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF WYCOFF AVENUE NORTH, 256 FEET; THENCE EAST TO THE GOVERNMENT MEANDER LINE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG GOVERNMENT MEANDER LINE TO THE MEANDER CORNER; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 10 TO A POINT EAST OF POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE WEST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (IT BEING THE INTENTION TO DESCRIBE BLOCK 18 AND THE VACATED ALLEY AND PORTION OF STREETS THAT BY LAW HAVE REVERTED TO THE SAID BLOCK 18 OF THE VACATED PLAT OF SHERIDAN) AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 12, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; ALSO TIDELANDS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHERE THE EAST LINE OF BLOCK 18 OF THE PLAT OF SHERIDAN (NOW VACATED) WOULD INTERSECT THE MEANDER LINE, RUNNING THENCE ALONG SAID MEANDER LINE NORTH 39°51'37.1 WEST 119.908 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT WHERE THE CENTER LINE OF SIMMONS STREET (NOW VACATED) WOULD INTERSECT SAID MEANDER LINE; THENCE NORTH 47°50' EAST 77.531 FEET MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 1 OF BREMERTON TIDE LANDS; THENCE SOUTH 31° EAST 122.123 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT WHICH IS NORTH 47°50` EAST FROM POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 47°50' WEST 58.706 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO POINT OF BEGINNING. (SAID TIDELANDS BEING A PORTION OF BLOCK 1 OF BREMERTON TIDE LANDS AS SHOWN ON THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS AT OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON). PARCEL I1: PORTIONS OF BLOCK 1, BREMERTON TIDELANDS, AS APPROVED FEBRUARY 28, 1913, AND FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS THE INTERSECTION OF GOVERNMENT MEANDER LINE AND THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SAID POINT BEING THE MOST SOUTHERLY POINT OF BLOCK 1 OF AFORESAID BREMERTON TIDELANDS; THENCE NORTH 39°51'37.1 WEST TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF SAID MEANDER LINE WITH THE EAST LINE OF BLOCK 18 OF THE PLAT OF SHERIDAN, NOW VACATED, SAID PLAT SHOWN OF RECORD IN AUDITOR'S OFFICE OF KITSAP COUNTY IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 12; THENCE NORTH 47°50'00 EAST 58.706 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 1, BREMERTON TIDELANDS; THENCE SOUTH 31°00'00 EAST TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 1; THENCE SOUTH 47°50'00 WEST A DISTANCE OF 51.354 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 2. Lot Size: Approximately 2.486 acres (2.65 acres including water) 164 3. _Surrounding Land Uses: Zonih ~ctivity Dir~ctibn g North Residential Low-density Single-family homes (SF-3) South Residential Low-density Single-family homes (SF-3) East Port Washington Water Narrows waterway West Residential Low-density Single-family homes, duplex (SF-3) 4. Topography: The west side has steep slopes (greater than 40 percent) adjacent to Wycoff Avenue North sloping east downward into about 22 percent slopes, the eastern 1/3 is relatively fiat with the eastern edge of the site terminates in steep slope bank low marine bluffs between 3 and 12 feet high. 5. Development: Site is undeveloped with vegetation consisting of a Fir, Cedar, Maple and Alder tree canopy, and a relatively thick understory of small trees, blackberry bushes. Horsetails, ferns, salmonberry bushes are also located on the site. 6. Access: The proposed ingress/egress are from 25th Street. 7. Utilities: The site is served by public water and sanitary sewer services. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PLANNING GOALS: The Comprehensive Plan goals help define the vision for Bremerton's future. The following Planning Goals are consistent with the Planned Unit Development application. · Goal # 1 Urban Growth: "Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and sera,ices exist or can be provided in an efficient manner." Supporting Policy (3): Accommodate new development with care so that Bremerton will continue to be a well-balanced "most livable city." · Goal # 2 Reduce Sprawl: "Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development." Supporting Policy (5): Promote the concept of development clustering to conserve energy, save land, lower public costs, reduce sprawl, and provide open space. 3 165 * Goal # 4 Housing: "Encourage the availabili~ of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. · Goal # 9 Open Space and Recreation: "Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks." Supporting Policy (3): Incorporate into new development proposals the provisions of the adopted Waterfront Access Plan and other plans and regulations that call for shoreline access improvements, pathways, or other forms of access or facilities linkage. HOUSING ELEMENT: Goal D (2) New Housing Development: "Provide a variety of housing types and densities to meet changing needs of Bremerton residents." Supporting Policy (3): Stimulate the production of new housing for all income, age, family type and ethnic groups. L~xrD USE ELEMENT: The property is located in the Central Bremerton Land Use Plan (Element E, 8, (page 33)). There are no specific applicable policies to this property. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT: Part of the property is located within the 200- foot jurisdiction of Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program. The following goals and policies are relevant to development within the shoreline area: B: LANDS ADJACENT TO SHORELiNES: Goat: "Encourage uses, densities and development patterns that are compatible with shoreline uses and resource values and that reinforce the policies of the Shoreline Management Act and Bremerton 's Shoreline Master Program." Policy B-l: Consider the compatibility of proposed upland uses with those allowed in each adjacent shoreline environment and with the purpose and intent of the environment designation. Policy B-2: Minimize shoreline impacts from residential development on upland "view" property, i.e. storm water mn-off, septic drain field seepage, intensification of risks from geological instability, etc. Policy B-3: "Adjacent lands" policies shall be implemented through zoning, subdivision, short-plat and other land use ordinances, and through mechanisms such as the Capital Facilities Plan and budget. 4 ~66 C: URBAN LANDS (Shorelines): Goal: "Protect both the economic viability and resource values of urban shorelines." Policy C-l: Protect and preserve natural and/ or critical areas through the developed urban environment and recognize that Shoreline of Statewide Significance priorities also apply within our urban area. Policy C-6: Promote aesthetic and view protection through sign control regulations, appropriate siting and screening requirements, protection of view corridors, and the use of architectural standards. D: PUBLIC ACCESS: Goal: "Protect and enhance the rights of the general public to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline, while allowing controlled development consistent with the public interest." Goal: "Protect and enhance shoreline visual and physical access consistent with Shoreline Management Act and Public Trust Doctrine principles." Policy D-l: Protect areas with unique and/ or fragile geological or biological characteristics fi'om inappropriate public access and use through access and use regulations. Policy D-3: Assure that development, uses and activities on or near the shoreline do not impair or detract from the public's access to the water or shoreline. Policy D-4: Enhance and preserve public views. Policy D-6: Preserve, maintain and enhance public access and views afforded by shoreline street ends, public utilities, and rights-of-way whenever feasible. Policy D-9: Implement shoreline public access policy primarily through applications of the City Comprehensive Parks Plan, the Shoreline Master Program, the Waterfront Access Plan, and urban renewal activities. G: HOUSING: Goal: "Permit residential development in shoreline areas and in the vicinity of other critical or sensitive lands only at densities that can be properly sen,ed by needed utilities and roadways and only when within the "carrying capacity" of the site or general location." 5 167 Policy G-4: Encourage the use of Planned Unit Developments and clustering of development to help protect natural features, preserve open space, minimize physical impacts, and reduce the costs of utilities and roads. Policy G-5: Require adequate setbacks, buffers, and open spaces as needed for shoreline development to protect vegetation, natural features, views, and other aesthetic characteristics. CITY OF BREMERTON SUBDIVISION PROCEDURES The City of Bremerton has not adopted a subdivision ordinance. The City relies on the requirements set forth in Chapter 58.17 RCW. The processing of a preliminary subdivision application is pursuant to BMC Section 21.02.855, which requires a Type IV City Council Decision after a Hearing Examiner open-record heating and recommendation. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Application Process The application submitted was originally for a 24-unit Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and environmental (SEPA) review. During the Notice of Application comment period, written comments received indicated the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) might have been marked incorrectly on the site plan. An investigation of the site confirmed the error on the site plan and identified the possibility of geologically hazardous areas (steep slopes) adjacent to North Wycoff Avenue. A geotechnical report is required when land is disturbed in geologically hazardous areas. The applicant was informed and the processing of the applications was stopped to allow the necessary information to be submitted. (See APPENDIX The City received the geoteclmical information on April 6, 2004 and an acceptable revised site plan on April 19, 2004. The revised site plan reduced the number of residential dwellings to 22 units. The City determined the changes significant and required a second Notice of Application with a new comment period. The City separated the processing of the PUD/ subdivision and the Shoreline Substantial Development permit in order to expedite the processing of the applications. While reviewing the revised plans, a discussion with the project's civil engineer consultant (Team 4 Engineering) revealed that an estimated 1,000 yards of cut and 9,000 yards of fill needed moving to prepare the site for construction of the road tract and residential structures. This information had not previously been available. A revision to the environmental (SEPA) checklist was required, which the City received May 4, 2004. A new comment period was required on the revisions to the SEPA checklist. The legal notice for SEPA was consolidated with the legal notice for the revised Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. 6 168 Previous Land Use on ProperD' (See Supporting Documents in APPENDIX F) The site was formerly used as a bulk fuel storage and distribution site operated by Unocal Oil. Kitsap County Assessor records indicated that fuel tanks on the site were removed by 1980 and the associated supporting structures were removed by 1989. Hydrocarbon contaminated soils were found on the site consistent with the previous fuel storage activities. The state required mitigation to cleanup the contaminated soils. GeoEngineers Incorporated prepared two reports on the cleanup efforts. The first report was the subsurface contamination study dated June 19, 1987 and the second was a final report dated March 7, 1989. In summary, the reports concluded that the site was clean and that remaining levels of contamination were safely below the maximum allowed levels of contamination. Staff contacted Neal Wood at the Washin~on State Department of Ecology about the previous cleanup of contaminated soils and to seek consultation about potential remaining contaminates. According to Mr. Wood, the property is not listed environmentally hazardous with the Depa~unent of Ecology. He also mentioned that the accepted safe levels of soil contamination were stricter at the time of the cleanup efforts than today. He had no concerns about the project at this time. However, if during construction high levels of contaminated soils are discovered, Ecology should be contacted. Mr. Woods said an indication of high levels of contaminates would be if strong odors or fumes were detected. At this time the cleanup efforts from the late 1980s are satisfactory and no testing or monitoring is necessary. SF-3 Zoning of the Site (See Supporting Documents in APPENDIX G) The Bremerton City Council approved Ordinance 4172 in October 1988 adopting a new Official Zoning Map for the City of Bremerton that designated this property as Single- family Residential SF-2 zoning. In the fall of 1993, applicant Mr. Charles Hasetwood, submitted a rezone application (File RZ-02-93) requesting a designation change of the property from SF-2 to SF-3 zoning. The application was for a site-specific rezone involving a single property. Since the application involved a quasi-judicial action, the procedural requirements at the time required mailing individual notification to property owners with/n 300 feet of the site. The rezone was part of the effort eventually to subdivide the property into 11 residential lots. The proposal was controversial, but the City Council conditionally =,granted the rezone by approving Ordinance 4480. The condition for approving the rezone included requiring a plat for a subdivision to be submitted to and approved by the City of Bremerton. The City received a subdivision application for the site, but the application later was withdrawn. City records indicate that the conditions of approving the rezone were never satisfied and the property remained designated as SF-2 zoning. During the mid-1990s, the city updated its Comprehensive Plan. As part of these efforts, the City Council approved Ordinance 4555 in May 1996, which adopted a new Official 7 169 Zoning Map for the City of Bremerton. The new' map designated the property as Single- family Residential SF-3 zoning. The adoption of the new zoning map was necessary in order to satisfy consistency requirements with the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance 4555 also repealed the 1988 Official Zoning Map and all subsequent amendments including Ordinance 4480. The City Council again took action on the Official Zoning Map in May 1997 by approving Emergency Ordinance 4591. Ordinance 4591 was a response to a decision by the Growth Management Hearing Board. Ordinance 4591 repealed Ordinances 4172, 4555 and all subsequent amendments thereto; and established a new Official Zoning Map for the City of Bremerton. The new map designated the property as Residential Low- density SF-3 zoning. There are no records of subsequent rezoning activity on the property. The City therefore concluded that the property currently is designated Residential Low-density SF-3 zoning. Public comments received raised concerns about why property owners were not notified during the 1996 and 1997 rezone actions. The 1994 action required a more comprehensive notification process because an individual initiated it as a site-specific rezone and the city regulations required such individual notification. The 1996 and 1997 rezone actions, however, were city-initiated area-wide rezones. Changes to zoning occurred throughout the city and not just one individual site. Area-wide rezones are legislative actions and do not require individual notification of property owners. Legal notices for legislative actions typically involve publishing in the official newspaper. Individual notices are generally expensive and therefore not usually utilized for legislative actions. Determining Shoreline View Corridor (See Supporting Documents in APPEND1X H) The property's configuration is unique. It is a large comer lot with two front property lines and a shoreline as a third property line. Additionally it has about 200 feet of regulated shoreline area overlapping approximately half the front property line along 25th Street. In applying Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) view corridor requirements, the City determined that the view corridors could be applied from 25m Street. Additionally, the City determined that the 200-foot measurement from the ordinary high water mark that constitutes the shoreline jurisdiction would be utilized to calculate the view corridor rather than the entire parcel width. Utilizing the entire parcel would lead to the application of the shoreline site development standards to lands outside the designated authority of the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction. The City reached these determinations after evaluating the site and lands adjacent to the shoreline, reviewing court and Shoreline Hearing Board decisions, and consulting with the City's legal department. The following is a summary of the analysis used to make these determinations. 8 171t 1. The SMP, Site Development Standards Table 3-2 requires a minimum 30 percent view corridor for attached dwelling units. The table's Key 2 requires the view corridor to be maintained across the average parcel width. The SMP does not define average parcel width. 2. SMP, Table 3-2, Key 3 allows increases in height limits if the increase does not impair views of the water from residential properties upland of the nearest public street landward of the site, and additional view corridor is provided to offset the increase in height. 3. The State Supreme Court decision in 91 Wn2d 721 Weyerhaeuser Company v. King County (1979) held that "direct authority to regulate uses of land adjacent to shorelines is limited in the SMA (Shoreline Management Act), however to the function of land use planmng." The City understands this to mean that the shoreline site development standards are applicable only within the 200-foot shoreline designation. 4. The Shoreline Heating Board decision, SHB No. 02-027 & 02-028, Carl D. Alexander and Edwin E. Tuttle v. City of Port Angles held that structures that straddle the 200-foot jurisdiction line must be evaluated as one building subject to SMA; and upheld the City of Port Angles and Ecology's decision to approve shoreline permits that included different building heights on a site with lands inside and outside the shoreline jurisdiction (35-foot height within and 66-foot height outside) based on compliance with RCW 90.58.020. The City understands this to mean that a waterfront parcel can have the shoreline site development standards applied based on that portion of the site located within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction provided the views of the adjacent lands are considered. 5. RCW 90.58.020 protects the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and people generally. The City of Bremerton adopted view corridor requirements within its Shoreline Master Pro,am as a means for implementing the state's intent. 6. The Bremerton SMP Chapter 4, View Protection, requires shoreline uses and activities to be designed and operated to avoid blocking, reducing, or adversely interfering with the public's visual access to the water and shorelines. APPLYiNG THE VIEW CORRIDOR 7. The City concluded based on existing site condition and the requirement regarding the nearest public street (SMP Table 3-2) that the view corridor should be applied from 25th Street. The orientation of the PUD is based on the access being from 25th Street. 9 8. The SMP allows heights 20 feet and above within the shoreline area provided they do not impair views of the water from residential properties upland of the nearest public street landward of the site. Upland properties are located to the south and west of the site. However, the nearest public street landward is 25th Street. 9. A site investigation showed that existing shoreline views are primarily from those upland properties south of 25th Street due to topography and the location of vegetation and trees on the site. The general public view access of the shoreline environment is best near 25th Street and Snyder Avenue. 10. The upland residential properties located west of Wycoff Avenue have obstructed shoreline views due to the dense vegetation and trees on the western side of the site. Additionally, the existing residences adjacent to Wycoff Avenue are elevated about l0 to 12 feet above the street grade. The proposed site plan shows the uphill residential structures within the PUD have a proposed height that elevates about 8 feet above the existing street grade. This means the views of the upland residents will not be significantly affected by the proposed development. In fact, these properties' views of the shoreline will probably improve with some clearing of the site. 11. If the applicant revised the uphill residential structures to be built to the maximum allowed zoning height (30 feet), the height of the PUD would r/se about 17 feet above the existing street grade. The upland properties would continue to have views of the shoreline environment and therefore the proposed development would not significantly affect their views. DETERMINING THE AVERAGE PARCEL WIDTH FOR VIEW CORRIDOR 12. The basic principle of the City of Bremerton's shoreline view corridor requirement is that taller buildings provide a wider view corridor (see footnote 5, SMP page 3-28). The purpose is to protect the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline environment and to have development designed in such a manner as not to adversely affect the public's visual access to the shoreline environment. 13. An analysis of the property's configuration produced an average parcel width of about 43'3 feet. This calculated into a view corridor requirement of 151 feet (433 X 0.35). Applying this size of a view corridor to the site would exclude development in about 75.8 percent of the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction, which is not consistent with the intent of an urban residential environmental designation. (This is more consistent with the Urban Conservancy, which prohibits most urban land uses within its shoreline designation.) 14. The SMP view corridor requirements do not anticipate circumstances where the 200- foot shoreline jur/sdiction would not apply across the entire average parcel width. 10 2[72 15. A strict application of average parcel width to properties with lands inside and outside of the shoreline jurisdiction appears to conflict with the Washington State Supreme Court Weyerhaeuser Company v. King County decision because it effectively applies shoreline standards to areas outside the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction. An example of this point would be if the property had an average parcel width of 600 feet. The view corridor requirement would be 210 feet, which extends the view corridor outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. If this were the intent, per decision the Weyerhaeuser v. King County decision, the zoning code should include regulatory provisions for applying view corridor standards on adjacent lands to the shoreline jurisdiction. 16. The City, in making its determination, is evaluating the view corridor as if two parcels existed instead of one. One parcel is inside the shoreline jurisdiction and the other is considered outside lands adjacent to the shoreline. The City believes tiffs approach is consistent with Supreme Court decision and the Shoreline Hearing Board's Tuttle v. City of Port Angles decision, where different building heights on a property, which included shoreline areas, was upheld provided the visual access pursuant to the intent in RCW 90.58.020 was maintained. 17. The reasoning behind this approach is supported further in that the property could have been divided in this manner before the present application was submitted. The CiD' is not requiring a short plat first because the short subdivision process would not contributed anything substantive to the City's review of the proposal. Moreover, this property is a comer lot so the "nearest public right of way landward" is not Wycoff Avenue. It is 25t~ Street. The view corridor can be measured fi.om 25th Street for upland property and public views. 18. In concluding that the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction would be used to determine view corridor requirements, the City is not neglecting consideration of the impacts to visual access of lands adjacent to the shoreline and upland properties, which will be reviewed in the shoreline analysis section of this report. ANALYSIS: GENERAL 1. BMC Section 21.02.855 sets forth preliminary Planned Unit Developments and Subdivision applications as a Type IV City Council Decision. The Hearing Examiner issues a written recommendation to the City Council after an open record pre-decision hearing. 2. BMC Section 21.04.110(c)(1) sets forth a shoreline substantial development permit as a Type II Administrative decision by the Community Development Director, which is being processed separately. 11 ANALYSIS OF ZONING & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 3. The intent of the SF-3 zoning is to accommodate single-unit homes in typical urban subdivision at an average density (without bonuses) of up to eight units per acre. It offers a smaller minimum lot size to enhance affordability and encourage higher densities through creative site planning and various zoning and density bonus incentives. 4. Pursuant to BMC Section 21.02.070 (Definitions), the proposed residential structures meet the definition of Dwelling, Single-unit Attached, which is two single-unit dwellings (houses) that are attached at a common side lot line with each dwelling located entirely on its own lot. This does not include row houses or other housing types having more than two attached units. 5. Figure 140 (Land Use Tables) lists Single-unit Dwelling - Attached (Zero Lot Line) as an outright allowed use in a SF-3 zoning district. 6. Pursuant to BMC Section 21.02.370, a neighborhood meeting was required prior to submission of the application. The City mailed notification for the meeting to property owners within 500 feet. The meeting took place on October 30, 2003 in the City Council Chambers at City Hall. The neighborhood well attended the meeting. Questions about traffic, development standards, parking, density and the rezone were raised. (See Neighborhood Meeting Documents in APPENDIX I.) 7. Pursuant to BMC Section 21.02.290 (Calculating Lot Area), the site is determined to be 2.486 acres (108,292 square feet) and not the 2.65 acres found in the Assessor's records. BMC 21.02.290 states that lot area shall include all areas within the exterior lot lines exclusive of water areas. The 2.65-acre size included the water area. Lot widths, depths and setbacks on shoreline lots are measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). 8. The following are determinations of the property lines pursuant to BMC Section 21.02.070 (Definitions). a. The Front Lot Line is defined as any property line that abuts a public street, private street or alley. The subject property is a comer lot with two front property lines located adjacent to Wycoff Avenue North and 25th Street on the west and south sides respectively. b. The Side Lot Line is defined as any lot line that is not a front or rear by definition, and any lot line that intersects a front lot line. By definition, the north property line and the east Ordinary High Water Mark meet this standard. 12 174 c. The Rear Lot Line is defined as the property line opposite or most distant from the designated front property line and that does not intersect any front lot line. Comer lots often have no rear lot line. In the case of waterfront property, the rear lot line is that which adjoins the ordinary high water line (OHWL). In this case, the east property line is the Ordinary High Water Mark and therefore meets the stricter definition for a rear lot line for determining zoning setbacks of the Planned Unit Development. 9. BMC Section 21.02.470(e) sets forth the maximum number of dwelling units allowed per gross acre (43,560 square feet in an acre) in a Planned Unit Development. A SF-3 zoned property, with 15 percent designated open space, is allowed a maximum density of 8 dwellings per gross acre. A Planned Unit Development, which increases open space area to 20 percent, may have a bonus increase in density to 10 dwellings per gross acre. The proposed density for this project is 8.9 dwellings per acre (22 dwellings/2.486 acres). 10. BMC Section 21.02.260 (Rounding of Fractions of Dwelling Units) allows 20 dwellings on the site if 15 percent open space is provided and up to 25 dwellings if 20 percent open space is provided. The Planned Unit Development is for twenty-two (22) dwellings therefore 20 percent open space is required to get the bonus density. 11. BMC Section 21.02.490 requires the PUD to conform to specific development standards. a. Perimeter and Interior Setbacks: (1) Structures are required to comply with a perimeter setback that on properties greater than one acre shall be per 21.02.490(b)(2). The proposed residential structure heights are between 24 and 27 feet. (2) The perimeter setbacks may be designed to step back as height increases. This means those residential structures under 25 feet require a lesser perimeter setback than those residential structures between 25 and 35 feet in height. The proposal does not include perimeter step backs for the different structure heights. The following summarizes the proposed perimeter setbacks. Lot Line Lot Line Requffed ProPosed Staff Definition Location Setback Setback i Comments Front West 20 to 25 feet 25 feet Ok South 20 to 25 feet 25 feet Ok Side North 10 to 15 feet 15 feet Ok Rear East 10 to 15 feet 25 feet Ok (3) Non-perimeter setbacks within the PUD are based on the underlying zone requirements, but may be modified through the PUD process to achieve project design objectives. 13 275 b. Height: Figure 130 provides a maximum 30-foot height limitation within SF-3 zoning. BMC Section 21.02.070 definition for Grade sets forth the measurement of zoning height to be from finished grade. Revisions to the conceptual building plans received May 26, 2004 indicated uphill residential structure to have heights of approximately 23 to 24 feet. The downhill residential structures have heights of approximately 27 feet. Note: those structures within the 200~foot shoreline jurisdiction must also comply with the height standards set forth in the Shoreline Master Program, which uses a more restrictive method for measuring height. c. Open Space: A minimum 20 percent of the total area of the PUD shall be dedicated as common open space. The minimum required open space for this proposal is 21,658.4 square feet (108,292 X 0.20). The following is an analysis of the proposed open space. (1) Per BMC Section 21.02.490(d)(1), open space cannot include, roads driveways and alleys; parking, loading and storage areas, perimeter setback areas, interior setbacks required to separate buildings or apply to individual lots; and small remnants of land that are not physically, visually, or functionally related to the project's overall sight plan. (2) The proposal includes 21,819 square feet of open space area, or 20.1 percent of the site. It should be mentioned that the site plan shows a 25-foot perimeter setback fi-om the OHWM. Th/s was per initial discussion with city staff. After reviewing the zoning definition, the OHWM is a rear property line requiring a lesser 15-foot perimeter setback. Analyzing the difference in setback requirements, the staff estimated 3,000 square feet of additional open space then indicated on the site plan. This means an estimated 23 percent of the property qualifies as allowable open space, which exceeds the 20 percent requirement. (3) The open space area is located primarily in two tracts; connected by a 1,019.5 square foot open space corridor between dwelling unit 5 and dwelling unit 4. This corridor is acceptable as open space because it physically connects to the larger open space tract and it functions as a corridor between the two open space tracts. (4) The open space requirement is broken down in the following manner. i. Active open space: a minimum two-thirds (2/3) of the open space is required to be active areas such as playgrounds, picnic areas sports courts, etc. The proposed open space area meets this requirement. ii. Passive open space: up to one-third (1/3) of the open space can include natural amenities not suitable for recreational purposes. Only the low marine bluff`area meets this definition. However, the majority of these features are located within the perimeter setback and not counted in the open space area. 14 176 d. Screening: Ail utility facilities, loading areas~ trash containers, and outdoor storage areas shall be screened from surrounding properties. The final plan shall address screening requirements. e. Architectural Theme: Structural elements, including accessory structures, are required to be integrated into a primary architectural theme carried through the development. The conceptual designs of the residential structures indicated the PUD has an integrated architectural theme. 12. BMC Section 21.02.510 requires an open space guarantee, which ensures the retention of the open spaces and provides for permanent maintenance of the open space and commonly owned facilities. 13. Figure 130 (lot requirements) sets forth the setback standards within the SF-3 zoning district as Front Yard = 15 feet (20 feet to garage), Side Yard = 5 feet and Rear Yard = 15 feet. 14. BMC Section 21.02.460 superimposes the PUD onto the underlying zoning and allows for exceptions to the lot requirements of the underlying zoning district, including modifications to lot size, setbacks, height and other similar requirements. 15. BMC Section 21.02.070 definition of Lot requires a minimum of 20 feet of frontage on either a public or private street. BMC Section 21.02.460 allows modifications to such standards. All of the lots have a minimum 20 feet of street fi:ontage except for Lot 10, which has an estimated street frontage of about 17 feet. 16. Proposed development standards for individual lots: ] 3,871.4 40% 15' 7" 27' 10" ** 6' 4" 2 2,114.5 46% 15' 7" 6' 6' 4" 3 2,187.9 44% 11' 11" 6' 12' 10" 4 1,882.6 51% 11' 11" 4' 9" 4' 9" 5 1,652.3 59% 4' 11" 4' 9" 4' 8" 6 2,194.8 44% 4' 11" 5' 8" 12' 8" 7 1,999.27 48% 8' 6" 7' 3" 7' 8 2,979.7 33% 8' 6" 8' 5" 19' 6" 9 2,155.9 38% 14' 11" 5' 18' 8" JO 3,108.8 26% 14' 11" 7' 11" 18' 8" ]] 4,679.7 17% 21' 9' 4" 38' 3" ** i2 2,941.0 28% 21' 3' 9" 27' 8" ** 13 2,725.4 30% 9' 6" 6' 1" 28' 5" ** 14 2,799.8 29% 9' 6" 6' 3" 28' 7" ** 15 2,853.2 30% 10' 6" 5' 10" I 27' 8"** 15 3.77 16 5,264.7 16% 10' 6" 27' 9" ** I 42' ** 17 3,649.2 26% 8' 27' 9" ** 7' 18 1,940.0 50% 9' 7" 5' 10" 7' 19 2,141.5 45% 5' 4" 9' 4" 7' 20 2,092.6 46% 7' 1" 15' 1" ** 7' 21 1,786.0 46% 4' 8" 5' 8' 9" 22 1,564.2 52% 4' 8" 27' 9" ** I7' 11" * Side Yard Setbacks do not include zero lot lines. ** Second Front Yard Setback The proposed lots are deemed satisfactory and consistent with the intent of Planned Unit Developments and the SF-3 zoning designation. 17. Off-street parking is required per Figure 670(a). Attached single-family dwellings require 2.0 parking spaces per unit. The proposed units each include two (2) off- street parking spaces to be located on the lower level. An additional six (6) off-street parking spaces are being proposed as extra parking. The PUD exceeds required off- street parking requirements. 18. BMC Section 21.02.700(b) states that no landscaping provisions are required for any residential development consisting of one or two-unit structures, except by Planned Unit Development, special use permit, or plans-in-lieu of the underlying zoning. 19. Consistent with BMC Section 21.02.340(c), which states one of the purposes of a Planned Unit Development is to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and minimize adverse effects on sensitive environmental areas, the City is requiring one (1) street tree for every twenty-five (25) lineal feet of street frontage be provided pursuant to BMC Section 21.02.700(a)(1)(iii). The tree-planting pattern shall be integrated into the overall design of the development and should be located within the front yard perimeter setbacks. ANALYSIS OF THE CRITICAL LANDS ORDINANCE (Chapter 21.22) 20. The property contains slopes that exceed 40 percent located on the western and eastern segments of the property. This classified the site as containing Landslide Hazard Areas, Steep Slopes and an Erosion Hazardous Areas pursuant to BMC Section 21.22.100(b)(3)(v), (4)(ii) and 21.22.I00(b)(2). The Costal Zone Atlas also lists unstable slopes on the property. 21. Landslide Hazard Areas and Steep Slopes and associated 50-foot buffer areas may not be disturbed unless a geotechnlcal report modifies the standards pursuant to BMC Section 21.22.100(c)(2). Golder Associates prepared Geotechnical Investigation of Project Site at 25th Street and Snyder Avenue N., dated April 5, 2004 and an addendum dated May 26, 2004 finding no geologic hazards that would preclude the development of the site as proposed. (See Geotech Report in APPENDIX J.) I6 178 22. The following are some of the highlights of the geotechnical engineer recommendations: · The major earthwork should be performed during the driest summer months. BMC 21.22.100 limits this to the period between April 1 and October 1. · Contingency for use of imported granular structure and other fill materials. · Provide either a bul 'khead to prevent erosion from wave actions along the east side of the site or 50-foot setback of structures. · Erosion control and construction drainage should be directed away from the shoreline. · Grading practices can be used to control surface runoff during construction. The site should be graded at all times to facilitate drainage and minimize the ponding of water. · Other recommendations included foundations, retaining walls, paved areas, foundation drainage, erosion construction, construction drainage, shoreline protection, steep slopes, and permanent slopes. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM STANDARDS 23. The shoreline areas of the property are designated Urban Residential environmental in the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The intent of this designation is to provide areas, which are primarily residential or intended for residential use. These areas are to maintain existing character and be consistent with that character in terms of open space, bulk, scale, and intensity of use within the guidelines of current zoning. 24. The SMP Shoreline Use/ Activity Matrix, Table 3-1, allows residential uses and activities located landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Urban Residential environmental designation. The SMP relies on the zoning code (Figure 140, Land Use Tables) to determine the type of residential uses allowed. 25. Approximately half of the property is located within a shoreline area as defined by RCW 90.58.030, which states those lands extending landward for two hundred feet in ail directions as measured on a horizontal plane fi-om the ordinary high water mark. (See Site Plan in APPENDIX K.) 26. The SMP, Site Development Standards Table 3-2, contains the minimum development standards within the Urban Residential environmental designation. These development standards apply only to those segments of the development located within or straddling the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction. 17 179 27. The SMP and requirements for a shoreline substantial development permit apply to the following residential structures within the Planned Unit Development. (See Site Plan in APPENDIX K.) Dwellings 1 through 10 Dwellings 19 through 22 Entire road tract and guest parking areas 28. The SMP, Site Development Standards Table 3-2, requires a shoreline setback of 25 feet or 15 percent of parcel depth whichever is greater. Since the parcel width is oriented with 25th Street, the parcel depth is oriented with Wycoff Avenue. This produces a shoreline setback requirement of 38.4 feet (256 feet X 0.15). The proposed shoreline setback of the nearest residential structure is 89.6 feet. 29. The SMP, Site Development Standards Table 3-2, allows a maximum building height of 25 feet measured fi.om the average grade level to the highest point of a structure. The height limitation may be increased to the 30-foot height limitation set forth in the SF-3 zoning designation provided (1) it does not impair views of the water fi.om residential properties upland of the nearest public street landward and (2) it is offset by an increase in the view corridor per SMP, Table 3-2. 30. SMP, Chapter 8 (Definitions) and WAC 173-27-030 define Average Grade Level as the average of the natural or existing topography of the portion of the parcel, which will be directly under the proposed building or structure. 31. The site plan received May 26, 2004 indicated residential structure heights within the shoreline jurisdiction of approximately 30 feet as measured by the SMP's more resthctive standards. 32. The SMP Site Development Standards, Table 3-2, Key 2 and 3) requires a minimum view corridor to be maintained across 25 percent of the average lot width for structure heights under 20 feet, and 35 percent of the average lot width for structure heights between 20 and 35 feet. STAFF COMMENT: A 35 percent view corridor in one continuous piece is required. A view corridor of 89.6 feet is proposed along the eastern edge of the property that includes the required 20 percent open space area. A 70-foot view corridor is required per the City's determination that the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction would be used for determining the shoreline average parcel width (200 feet X 0.35). The City evaluated the impacts to view access on adjacent lands to the shoreline area and the upland residential properties consistent with Wn. App. 844, John C. Merkel v. Port of Brownsville (1973) and SMP requirements. After reviewing existing water views, the topography of the surrounding land and the height of the PUD residential structures, the City concluded the view corridor adequately protects the visual access I8 180 for the public and upland residential properties. The following summar/zes the base for this conclusion. a. See pictures in APPENDIX L. An evaluation of the surrounding area shows that public visual access to the shoreline is primarily near 25th Street and Snyder Avenue. This area is relatively flat and elevated about 16 feet above the water. The 70-foot view corridor, the open space and the setback of downhill residential structures are located within the flat area therefore protecting view access in the area most likely obstructed if development were to occur. b. Visual access from the upland residential properties is preserved because of the topography. The lower residential properties are located nearest the view conSdor. The upper residential properties are located on slopes that elevate above the downhill residential structures. 33. Chapter 4 of the SMP established general requirements that apply to all environmental uses or activities. The following "View Protection" regulations are applicable to the proposal. 1. Shoreline uses and activities shall be designed and operated to avoid blocking reducing, or adversely interfering with the public's visual access to the water and shorelines. 4. In providing visual access to the shoreline, the natural vegetation shall not be excessively removed either by cleating or by topping. 5. Development on or over the water shall be constructed as far landward as possible to avoid interference with views from surrounding properties to the shoreline and adjoining waters. STAFF COMMENT: The public's visual access to the water is primarily from 25th Street and Snyder Avenue. The applicant located the development as far landward as the design of the PUD would allow while maintaining compatibility with the single- family residential character of the neighborhood. The proposal includes removing existing vegetation and trees within the shoreline area, but will be required to replace much of it as a condition of approval. 34. SMP, Public Access Requirements, Table 4-1 requires general public access and improved public access for residential developments or plarmed unit developments of greater than four (4) lots/units. 35. Subsection 4-7, Public Access, Regulation (3) and (5) requires a public access easement along the waters edge. The size of the easement is a minimum 30 feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark. The easement will be required as a condition of approval and will be shown on the final site plan. 19 181 36. Section 5-19 of the SMP requires planned unit developments of five (5) or more waterfront lots/ units to provide "improved public access' in a manner, which is appropriate to the site and the nature and size of the development for all residents of the development and the public. 37. Subsection 4-7, Public Access, Regulation (4) and (5) state when improved public access is required, it shall consist of the following: dedication of a public pedestrian access easement a minimum width of not less than 12 feet; construction of a hard surface walkway a minimum width of five (5) feet; ,, attractively landscaped and maintained by the property owner; connected to adjacent future or existing walkways; · in areas where there is a bluff, the access may be located at the top of the bluff as long as it will connect with existing or planned access on adjacent properties; and STAFF COMMENT: The Director determined that the eastern segment of the public sidewalks located adjacent to 25th Street is acceptable for meeting the improved public access requirement. The sidewalk is located in the public right-of-way and runs adjacent to the view corridor providing excellent visual access to the shoreline environment. The Director also determined that the improved public access should not be extended down to the waterfront because it is in the public interest to limit disruptions to the mid to low bank marine bluffs and because of concerns from property owners about the difficulty of monitoring irresponsible behavior on the beach if improved physical access was required. 38. SMP Chapter 6, Subsection 6-2, Shore Modification, Regulation (9) requires vegetation management within the shoreline area including the following: a. All disturbed shore areas shall be restored to as near pre-project configuration as possible and replanting with native vegetation as much as possible. b. All planting provided shall be maintained. Maintenance shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner. STAFF COMMENT: The Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance contains mitigation requirements for replacement of vegetation. An approved landscaping plan for the Planned Unit Development and adequate provisions for its installation shall be required as a condition for final Planned Unit Development approval. 39. SMP Chapter 6, Subsection 6-27, Grading and Drainage require measures to be taken to minimize erosion and sedimentation into shoreline water bodies. City regulations and requirements set forth in the Golder Associates prepared geotechnical report adequately address grading and drainage on the site. 20 182 ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS 40. Standard curb, gutter and sidewalk are required to be provided according to City of Bremerton standards as set forth in Ordinance 4856 along Wycoff Avenue and 25th Street rights-of-way. 5-foot wide sidewalks are proposed adjacent to the development and along the public rights-of-way. 41. BMC Subsection 11.12.130(e)(2) allows private streets that are part of a Plarmed Unit Development provided the street is designed and constructed to engineering standards. 42. The City's Engineering Standard 3001 (Roadway Classification) allows a street with less than 400 Average Daily Trips to be developed as a Local Access Two Way. Applicable street development standards are as follows: · Sidewalks on both sides; · On-street parking lane, which can be waived if off-street parking exceeds the zoning requirements; · Minimum two 1 O-foot wide lanes; · Curb and gutter on both sides; · 5-foot utility easements on each side; and · 5-foot bike lanes on designated bike routes and at the discretion of the City Engineer on all other streets. The CiD' Engineer has determined the PUD private street meets these requirements. The dedicated street is located on a 31-foot wide road tract. The road tract will be developed in the following manner: two 10-foot wide lanes, two 5-foot wide sidewalks and 6-inch curbs on both sides. The City Engineer has the authority to allow deviations to the road standards under BMC Section 11.12.030 and allows such regarding the sidewalk at the curved section of the road tract. 43. BMC 11.12.200 requires street lighting along all public streets. Street illumination in accordance with engineering standards is required at the intersection of a private street and a public street. No street lighting is required along a private street. The City Engineer has reviewed the civil plans and deemed them acceptable. 44. BMC Section 21.02.490(e) establishes the requirements for circulation. a. Subsection (1) requires all streets, and rights of ways to be dedicated, designed and constructed in accordance with the City's adopted street standards. STAFF COMMENT: BMC Section 21.02.070 (Definitions) requires private streets to be located on a road tract at least 20 feet wide. A 20-foot wide modified horseshoe designed private street, with 5-foot wide sidewalks on both sides, intersecting at two locations on 25th Street is proposed. Ownership and 21 283 maintenance of the private street will be the responsibility of the individual property owners. b. Subsection (3) requires pedestrian circulation. STAFF COMMENT: The interior sidewalks will provide pedestrian circulation within the development. The interior sidewalks will further connect into the public sidewalks adjacent to 25t~ Street providing safe pedestrian circulation inside and outside the development. c. Subsection (4) requires all streets and parking areas to contribute to the overall aesthetic design of the PUD while minimizing traffic congestion and the amount of impervious surface. STAFF COMMENT: The street pattern contributes to the aesthetic design of the private street reduces the impervious surface compared to development of a public street. The circulation route of the private street will help reduce congestion by providing two ingress and egress access points into the site. 45. The property is located within the City's utility service area. Water and sewer are available per the Conditional Water and Sewer Availability Letter. (See APPENDIX M.) Each unit is required to have a separate water service connection. Wastewater service requires a main extension into the development. Best management practices will be required and temporary erosion and sediment measures are required for storm water control measures on all building sites. 46. The City Engineer reviews the proposal for storm water drainage requirements. A preliminary storm drainage report and civil plans have been submitted. The Water Quantity Mitigation facility will consist of a storm conveyance system into bioswales designed to provide treatment for the discharge from the 6 month, 24 hour, Type lA storm generated on all surfaces. After treatment, the storm water is discharge into the Port Washington Narrows. Comments received from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife indicated that a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit is required for discharge of storm water directly into the Port Washington Narrows. The City Engineer must still approve final storm and grading plans and the HPA obtained prior to finalizing the PUD/Subdivision. (See Preliminary Storm Drainage Report in APp£NDrX N.) 47. The City Engineer reviewed anticipated traffic impacts of the proposal. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual (Residential Condominium/Townhouse), the proposed 22 attached single-family units are estimated to generate an AM Peak Hour of 15 vehicles and a PM Peak Hour of 20 vehicles. This means worst-case scenario the development will increase traffic by 1 car every 3 minutes. 22 184 Traffic access to the area is through Wycoff Avenue and Snyder Avenue. Both streets are classified as local collector and are free flowing with unrestricted movements. They have a Level of Service "A" as described in the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Given the anticipated traffic impacts, the City Engineer determined based on a qualitative assessment that this development will not "significantly" impact the current function and free-flowing nature of the existing transportation system. (See APPENDIX O.) COMMENTS RECEIVED 48. CITY COMMENTS: (See APPENDIX P) ~partment ; Building No comments Engineering Department · All water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer utility serwce connections shall be completed per BMC Title 15 · Frontage improvements required per Ordinance 4856 · Provide adequate street lighting and pedestrian facilities internal to the development · Temporary erosion & sedimentation control plan is required prior to issuance of any grading permits. · Right of Way Permit required prior to issuance of any building permits · Utility Fees and Assessments shall be paid prior to working on utilities and occupancy approval Fire Ok. Cross Connection Control Ok. Traffic No concerns 49. LOCAL .&ND STATE AGENCY COMMENTS: (See APPENDIX Q) SUmnmry of Comm ents Received : Department of None Community, Trade and Economic Development Puget Sound Water None Quality Action Team Suquamish Tribe None Department ofFish & · A Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) appears to be required. Wildlife Recommend applicant seek early involvement of the department. Infiltration of storm water should be required unless it is demonstrated not possible · The proposal is within bald eagle territory, Large conifer on the site should be protected as perch trees not only for eagles, but I osprey and heron. · Non-native invasive plant species have invaded and should be replaced with new native vegetation. 23 185 · Discourages the construction of bulkheads. · The recommendations were made to be placed on any permits issued: o Any new construction should be located such that a bulkhead or other shoreline protection is not necessary o Native marine riparian vegetation in the designated open space should not be removed. If riparian vegetation is degraded, restoration of the native riparian vegetation should be required. Large conifer, alder or madrona should be retained on the remainder of the site as much as possible or restored if necessary o Increases in impervious surface should be treated in accordance with the Department of Ecology Storm water Manual. Infiltration of storm water is preferred choice rather than discharge into Puget Sound o Applicant should consult with Shelly Ament with WDFW to determine if a bald eagle management plan is necessary before removing any trees Department of None Transportation Department of Natural None Resources Department of None Transportation (Olympic Region Developer Services) Department of'Ecology · The view corridors should be adequate given the odd shape and depth of the lot · Providing public visual access to the water is the goal of the Bremerton SMP Kitsap Transit None Bremerton - Kitsap Standard comments related to the fill used on the site and grading County Health District activity (See comment letter) Kitsap County None Department of Commurdty Development 50. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AS OF JUNE 2, 2004: (See APPENDIX R) Phil Olwell · Believes the property is zoned SF-2 · Concerned that citizens were not told of the stop in the application process · Proper notification was not done for the original neighborhood meeting · View corridor percentages have not been met according to BMC. View corridor moved to Wycoff Avenue when impact and or largest lot line is on 25th Street 24 186 · Intended use of PUD process in question as to this projects ability to provide affordable housing · interior street doesn't conform to existing regulations and codes stipulated/required in the BMC · Setback for garages doesn't satisfy codes · Insufficient detail or verification of original environmental cleanups done to this old oil tank farm · Insufficient details on revised plan of cutting 1,000 yards of material and bringing in 9,000 yards of fill · Vegetation and large tree removals impact to Port Washington Narrows and wildlife · Planning Department's pre-determined expectation of Nonsignificance regarding the environmental impacts of this proposal a forgone conclusion · Concerned with the appearance of fa mess to all parties because it wilt change the neighborhood Marc Dallas · Concerned about the near total blocking of existing water and P.O. Box 1122 bridge views from improvements located on the west side of Tracyton, WA 98393 WycoffAvenue. · Wants to know what the proposed finish grade on the west end and what the proposed maximum roof line height above the current street for buildings 11-16 · ADA curb ramp at the SW corner of 25m Street & Wycoff is dangerous for any wheel chair · Do not want to see a repeat of 2480 Snyder Avenue regarding variances · Concerns about storm water and wants to know if public works type problems will be addressed as part of the PUD project · Concerned about the 10,000 yards of earth being moved · Included 9 Best Management Practices (BMP) that should be made part of the record and findings Interested in what mitigation measures the city is considering for Ithe project Charles Thatcher & · Has concerns about the proposed cutting of approximately 1,000 Christopher Oretsky yards of material · Concerns about the proposed clearing of trees 251 $ N. Wycoff Ave · Wants to know where the 9,000 yards of fill will go and how it will Bremerton, WA 98312 affect elevations as well as building height and view corridor · Concerns about the vegetation removal including those in the critical area setbacks · Finds the revised plans unacceptable and inadequate because of the proposed view corridor · The proposed density is too high. · Depth of driveways is inadequate to provide for parking · 20-foot wide interior street cannot support parking and provide access for emergency vehicles · Concerned with the site-clearing plan and finds this in direct conflict with WDFW recommendations · Wants the trees WDFW recommends to be retained so Eagles, Heron and Osprey's have perching areas. Believes the Ospreys use the site for hunting and roosting · Does not believe the OHWM was located at the toe of the slope 25 187 as the City stated it should be · Concerned about the proposed open space being divided into 3 areas · Concerned about setbacks and density · SEPA checklist does not list birds listed in the 1993/94 SEPA · Concerned about endangered species loosing the use of the site · Concerned about the traffic impacts and the issue of trespassing by 75 new people in the neighborhood Larry Taylor · Believes the project should not proceed as planned because 2480 Snyder Avenue o View corridor is based on the width along Wycoff, but applied to 25th Street Bremerton, WA 98312 o Cars in the driveways will block the sidewalk and half the street. Believes 10 foot driveways is to much of a modification o The interior setbacks are greatly modified to meet the open space requirements o The open space requirement of 20 percent is not being met. Believes the space between 4 and 5 doesn't meet the requirement o The shoreline setback is wrong because the delineation of the rear lot line adjoins the OHWL. This makes the depth of the property run east and west and not the 15 percent of the north to south o This shoreline setback should also be considered as a perimeter setback o PUD standards say streets shall be to city standards and dedicated to the city. City standards say you must be able to public into a garage without blocking the street o The view corridor on the plan is for the end of the street. How can a view corridor be parallel to the water o If the view corridor can run parallel this one adds 39 feet to the mandated setbacks. It would also not meet the requirements for 30-foot building heights as the views from the houses in the middle of 25th would be blocked · The OHWM is not located according to Ecology's standards · The view corridor is not adequate according to the BMC · The open space requirement cannot be meet for bonus density after setbacks are subtracted · Proper notification was not done for the neighborhood meeting · Proper information was not provided for conceptual review per 21.02.360. No sketch map showing existing structures within 200 feet was done Eric & Kristina · Be included on all notice mailings Younger I 2634 Stevens Drive Bremerton, WA 98312 Bob Eichler · Concerned about the density because 24 units roughly doubles 2435 N. Wycoft' the population of the block Bremerton, WA 98312 · Concern about only one means of entrance and egress · Commented about the 1994 rezone 26 188 · Believes most of the neighborhood would support the proposal if I it was 12-15 units LeRoy and Suzanne · Concerned about the overall impact of the addition of 24 units to Williamson the neighborhood · Wants consideration given to the density, zoning, shoreline 2806 26t~ Street access, lot sizes, play areas for children, views and square Bremerton, WA 98312 footage for residences · Wanted to know if any plans for public waterfront boardwalk and about the status of the existing pilings · Questions if there is adequate off-street parking · Wanted to know if the site was adequately cleanup · Concerns about what trees will be left Sam & Linda · Has several objections to the proposal McManus o Density doesn't conform to the surrounding neighborhood 2454 N WycoffAve o Concerned about speed traffic and what measures will be taken to address this Bremerton, WA 98312 o Doesn't believe there is sufficient parking Frank Spaccarotelli · Stated the public fought previous efforts to develop the property 2640 Stevens Drive · Believes the property should remain FM1 and that 24 units is to Bremerton, WA 98312 many · Wanted the planning department to consider a delay so that he could gather signatures Mr. & Mrs. Fred · Owns property on 24TM & Wycoff and feels it would be an ideal McFeely place for older or retired people · Believes there should be very careful screening rules E4920 Highway 302 Belfair, WA 98528 51. BMC Section 21.02.480 requires a PUD to conform to the following general criteria. (a) The location, design, and uses of the PUD shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Bremerton Shoreline Management Program, and with other applicable plans and ordinances adopted by the City. STAFF COMMENT: Clustering low-density residential attached single-family dwellings is consistent with several goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Management Pro,am referenced previously in this report. The land use tables in the zoning code allow attached single-family dwellings in the Residential Low-density SF-3 zoning designation; and the Shoreline Use/Activity Matrix allow residential uses landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark in the shoreline Urban Residential environmental designation. (b) The PUD shall be integrated with its surroundings and designed to harmonize with existing or proposed development in the neighborhood. In the case of a departure in character fi'om the surrounding land uses, the scale, intensity and design shall adequately reduce the impact of the deYelopment in such a way that the project will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. 27 189 STAFF COMMENT: The preservation of open space and the design of the attached single-family dwellings inte~ate well with the single-family residential development found within the neighboring area. (c) The traffic generated by the PUD shall be accommodated safely and within the adopted Levels of Service for affected streets. STAFF COMMENT: the City Engineer reviewed the proposal for traffic impacts and determined that the anticipated traffic increase is negligible, and will not affect the fi-ee flowing conditions of Wycoff Avenue North or 25th Street. (d) All development will be adequately served by existing or planned facilities and services. STAFF COMMENT: Water and sewer are available to the site as referenced in the Conditional Water and Sewer Availability letter. (e) The PUD will result in an attractive, healthful, efficient and stable environment for living, shopping, wor!cing, and leisure activities. STAFF COMMENT: The design of the residential structures, the opening of water views and the protection of open space along the shoreline will provide a more livable neighborhood. (f) The development plan shall make adequate and appropriate provision for the preservation of the environment, both natural and man-made, and the conservation of energy. STAFF COMMENT: The PUD makes provisions for adequate open space and protection of the shorelines and critical areas as referenced in the report Geotechnical Investigation of Project Site at 25th Street and Snyder Avenue N., dated April 5, 2004 and addendum dated May 26, 2004, and attached conditions of approval. 52. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued May 28, 2004. Notice was posted on the property and published in The Sun newspaper on this date. 28 53. Notification was sent to properties within a 300-foot radius of the subject property (See APPENDIX S), Notification was provided as follows: Application received: January 8, 2004 Determination of Completeness January 30, 2004 First Notice of Application February 9, 2004 Second Notice of Application* April 30, 2004 MDNS published May 28, 2004 Notice of Hear/ng May 28,200 *The second Notice of Application resulted from significant revisions to the site plan after comments were received and it was confirmed of an error in delineating the OHWM. FINDINGS: The City of Bremerton Department of Community Development makes the following findings in support of a recommendation. 1. An application for a preliminary plat and Planned Unit Development and shoreline substantial development permit were received January 8, 2004 and determined complete on January 30, 2004. 2. The proposed plat and Planned Unit Development comply with applicable development standards set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, the Bremerton Municipal Code, Critical Lands Ordinance, Shoreline Master Program, and the land use and shoreline map, and further implmuents several goals and policies within said plans. 3. The proposed Planned Unit Development will superimpose onto the underlying zoning allowing exceptions to lot coverage, street frontage and individual lot sizes and setback requirements. The design of the attached single-family dwellings and layout of the Planned Unit Development integrate well with the single-family development found in the surrounding areas. The public interest is sm-ved by promoting residential development through land use clustering techniques within and lands adjacent to shoreline areas. 4. The proposed development will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines. The proposed development clusters development away from the shorelines and the low mar/ne bluff. 5. The proposed development meets the general criteria set forth in BMC Section 21.02.480. 6. The proposed development does not adversely affect the geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers as referenced in the Golder Associate's geotechnical report dated April 5, 2004 and addendum dated May 26, 2004. 29 7. The proposed development will cause no significant adverse affects to the shoreline environment in which it is located. The development will preserve important trees for wildlife and r/parian vegetation near the shoreline, and remove and replace nonnative vegetation further back from the shoreline. The proposed shoreline setbacks will prevent the need to install a bulkhead or other shoreline armoring. 8. Consideration was given to visual access protection for lands adjacent to the shoreline and residential upland properties. The topography of the surrounding properties contributes to the view protection required under the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program and RCW 90.58.020. 9. The traffic generated by the new development can be accommodated safely and within the adopted Levels of Service for Wycoff Avenue and 25th Street. 10. City water and sewer services are adequately available as referenced in the Conditional Water and Sewer Availability letter. 11. Storm water requirements and erosion control measures are addressed in the preliminary storm water drainage report, in the geotechnical report and in the Conditional Water and Sewer Availability letter. 12. The public health, safety and general welfare of the City of Bremerton have been served in that comments from agencies and the public have been considered and addressed in relation to this application and conditioned below. 13. The Notice of Application was published in The Sun newspaper and posted on the property on April 30, 2004. Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site, parties of record, and state and local agencies. 14. Notice of Hearing was published in The Sun newspaper and posted on the property on May 28, 2004. Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site and parties of record. 15. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued May 28, 2004 utilizing the Optional DNS process under WAC 197-11-355. The MDNS includes conditions for preserving and enhancing protections to the shorelines and grading activities. CONCLUSION If approved, subject to the following conditions, the preliminary plat and Planned Unit Development would comply with the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Master Program and applicable Bremerton Municipal Code development regulations. 3O 192 1. The Planned Unit Development shall constitute a limitation on the use and design of the site to those uses, designs and standards that are specifically included in the Planned Unit Development. Such limitation shall remain in effect until the Planned Unit Development is constructed, or until the preliminary approval expires in which case the previous zoning automatically returns. 2. Two (2) off-street parking spaces per each dwelling unit shall be provided. 3. An open space guarantee, which ensures the retention of the open spaces and provides for permanent maintenance of the open space, is required per BMC Section 21.02.510 prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. 4. Removal of riparian vegetation within the low marine bluff is prohibited in order to protect the near shore habitat. This prohibition shall be recorded on the deed of title and/or face of the plat and Planned Unit Development as a condition running at the same time with the authorized land use. Proof of such restriction shall be demonstrated prior to issuance of building permits. 5. The clearing limits indicated on the TESC Plan received by the Department of Community Development May 7, 2004 shall constitute the limits of vegetation removal. Any cleared vegetation within the shoreline area 200~feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark shall be replaced according to the conditions set forth in the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. 6. One street tree per twenty-five (25) lineal feet of street frontage shall be provided within the front yard perimeter setbacks along Wycoff Avenue and 25th Street. The tree-planting pattern shall be approved by the Department of Community Development prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development and shall be integrated into the overall design of the development. 7. A landscaping plan for the Planned Unit Development shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, submitted to, and approved by the City. The landscaping plan shall include the vegetation replacement according to the conditions set forth in the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance, street trees, and the landscaping of all required open space areas not addressed in the SEPA. 8. Required landscaping and vegetation replacement shall be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. 9. All construction shall be located such that the long-term stability of near shore habitat is protected and that a bulkhead or other shoreline protection is not necessary. The installation of a bulkhead or other shoreline protection shall be prohibited. This prohibition shall be recorded on the deed of title and/or the face of the plat and Planned Unit Development. 31 10. A minimum 30-foot wide public easement shall be provided waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark in accordance with the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. The public easement shall be recorded on the deed of title and/or face of the Planned Unit Development. Proof of such restriction shall be demonstrated prior to issuance of building permits. 11. Frontage improvements are required per Ordinance 4856. All improvements shall be according to the City of Bremerton Engineering Standards. Improvements shall be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. A Right of Way Permit is required prior to construction. 12. The private street shall be developed according to City Engineering Street Standards. The street shall be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. 13. A final storm drainage plan must be approved by the City Engineer. Storm drainage facilities shall be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. 14. If Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife requires a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit, it shall be obtained prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. Any conditions set forth in the HPA shall be included as conditions for approving the Planned Unit Development. 15. Water and sewer improvements shall be provided per the Conditional Water and Sewer Availability letter. A water main extension and a sewer main extension into the development are required and shall be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. 16. Addresses for the individual lots shall be obtained from the Public Works department and shall be indicated on the final plat. 17. All conditions set forth in the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance shall be complied with as a condition for approving the Planned Unit Development. 18. A final Plaimed Unit Development and plat meeting applicable development standards and conditions shall be submitted to the City for approval within two years of the date of preliminary plat approval pursuant to BMC Section 21.02.520(a). 19. Six (6) copies of the Planned Unit Development and plat (not Mylar) shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development for final compliance review. 20. The Community Development Director shall approve the final Planned Unit Development prior to finalizing the plat. 32 194 21. A copy of the recorded Planned Unit Development and plat shall be provided to the Department of Community Development before building permits are issued. END OF STAFF REPORT SIGNATURE OF STAFF PREPARING REPORT: Robert J. Grumbach, AICP Current Planner 33 -- WYCOFF AVENUE N. City of Bremerton Department of Community Development MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE PROPOSAL: Planned Unit Development/ subdivision to divide one lot into 22 lots and to construct 22 attached single-family dwellings; site preparation would include 1,000 yards of material to be cut and 9,000 yards of fill LOCATION: Nodheast corner of North Wycoff and 25th Avenue, Bremerton WA; Tax No. 102401-4-029-2004 FILE NUMBER: BP04-00231 PROPONENT: Tiferet LLC, Mark Goldberg Lead Agency: Department of Community Development The SEPA Responsible Official makes the following findings and conclusions based upon the staff review of the proposal, the completed environmental checklist, comments received in response to the Notice of Application and subsequent notices, and other information on file with the City of Bremerton, and the policies, plans and regulations designated by the City of Bremerton as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) pursuant to RCW 43.21C.060. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. An application was received for the proposal on January 8, 2004. A Notice of Application was issued on February 9, 2004. Subsequently, a second notice was issued after significant revisions were made to the site plan. Subsequent to this, a notice was issued on May 7, 2004 for revisions to the checklist after additional information was added regarding grading and fill activity. 2. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(2) (Minor New Construction), the proposed construction of five or more dwelling units, and any landfill or excavation of more than 100 yards requires environmental (SEPA) review and threshold determination. 3. The site contained contaminated soils therefore to bulk fuel storage being located on the site. The City reviewed two environmental documents prepared by GeoEngineers regarding the cleanup. The Department of Ecology was also consulted. The available information indicated that contaminated soils were removed and the site was clean. 4. Team 4 Engineering prepared civil engineering plans for the project, which were received May 7, 2004. The plans indicate about 93 percent of the site will involve grading and/ or clearing activity. This includes land disturbances in geologically hazardous areas and within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction. 5. A geotechnical analysis is required for any soil disturbances within geologically hazardous steep slopes (40 percent or greater) and for any soil disturbances within a moderate slope (25 to 39 percent) that exceed 45 percent of the area. This includes 50-foot associated buffer areas. 6. Golder Associates Inc~ prepared a Geotechnical investigation of Project Site at 25th Street and Snyder Avenue N dated April 5, 2004. An addendum dated May 26, 2004 was submitted in response to staff review. 7. The geotechnical investigation found no geologic hazards that would preclude the development of the site as proposed. The report included recommendations to mitigate potential adverse impacts. :]_97 8. Comments were received from local and state agencies regarding the environmental components of the proposal. Kitsap County Health District submitted conditions regarding the fill activity on the site. 9. Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) provided comments about wildlife and storm water management on the site. WDFW indicated that Blue Herons and Ospreys use the trees on the site for perching. However, perching does not constitute a protected wildlife habitat. However, WDSF recommended preserving or replacing trees within the open space that would continue providing some habitat for nature. 10. The Bremerton Shoreline Master Program under Chapter 6, Shore Modification, Regulation (9) requires all disturbed shore areas (areas within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction) to restore vegetation as near pre-project configuration as possible and replant with native grasses, shrubs, and/ or trees in keeping with existing bank vegetation. If native species cannot be obtained, acceptable substitutes may be used for stabilization purposes. 11. The proposal does not include the construction of a bulkhead or armoring of the shoreline. The nearest residential structure is setback 89.5 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark. 12. No significant historic or cultural resources have been identified within the proposed project site. CONCLUSION OF THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: The Responsible Official concludes that the proposal does not have a probably significant impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement is not required under RCW 43.21C. 030(2)(c), provided the conditions articulated below are met. This Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) is issued after using the Optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period. The mitigation measures contained herein are required as authorized under the Substantive Authority of SEPA, in accordance with WAC 197-11-660 and shall be implemented by the project proponent. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All authorized clearing shall be limited to the minimum necessary to accomplish construction. Clearing, grading, or filling of this site shall be limited to the period April 1 and October 1. All said site disturbances shall be marked in the field for inspection and approval by the applicant's geotechnical engineer and city building inspectors prior to alteration of the site. The face of the cut and fill on slopes shall be prepared and maintained to control against erosion. (Reference BMC 21.22.100(c)(1 )) 2. Soils used as borrow materials must be "clean," as defined in the Bremerton-Kitsap County Board of Health (BKCBH) Ordinance 2000-6 "Solid Waste Regulations." Clean is defined as the following: ...soils which are not a dangerous waste or problem waste. Problem waste includes the following: ...soils removed during the cleanup of a remedial action site, a dangerous waste closure, other cleanup efforts, or other actions which contain hazardous substances, but are not dangerous wastes; ...dredge spoils from the dredging of surface waters of the state where contaminants are present in the dredge spoils at concentrations not suitable for open water disposal and the dredge spoils are not a dangerous waste and are not regulated by Section 404 of the federal Clean WaterAct (PL 95-217); or ...waste abrasive blasting grit or other materials used in abrasive blasting that may contain, but is not limited to, silica, utility slag or copper slag. Waste abrasive blasting grit does not include blaeting grit that will be reused for its intended purpose... 2 :198 3. The applicant must ensure either by process knowledge or by testing, that fill material is not contaminated. This would include the applicant's knowledge of the presence of industrial/commercial facilities, prior disposal activities, or other activities that may have contaminated the material to be used as fill. 4. Only suitable materials shall be used as fill. Suitable fill does not include vegetative organic matter, demolition or construction wastes, or other debris, except as provided by the Uniform Building Code (1994). 5. All construction-trenching activities conducted within 1,000 feet of an active or closed landfill should test for the presence of methane gas and take those safety or engineering precautions necessary for the protection of human health and the environment. 6. The applicant shall use all appropriate measures to control roadway carry-on or fugitive dust from excavation activities or materials transportation activities necessary to protect public health and the environment. 7. Disposal of excavated soil shall be taken to an approved site. 8. No fill, or other construction debris, shall enter the adjacent Port Washington Narrows. (Reference WAC 197-11-660) 9. Armoring or constructing of a bulkhead along any part of the shoreline shall be prohibited, except in the case of an emergency as determined by the City. (Reference SMP and WAC 197-11-660) 10. All on-slope vegetation within the shoreline area that was not approved for clearing per Team Engineering TESC Plan (received May 7, 2004) and the geotechnical report shall be retained to ensure slope stability and provide riparian habitat (Reference WAC 173-27-140(2)). 11. The removal of vegetation within the shoreline 200-foot jurisdiction shall be restored to as near pre- project configuration as possible and replanted with native grasses, shrubs and/or trees. (Reference SMP). 12. Any of the trees indicated for removal on the Team 4 Engineering TESC Plan and are located within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction shall be replaced with the same or similar trees. The replacement trees shall be located within the shoreline area. (Reference SMP and WAC 197-11-660) 13. A 15-foot minimum vegetative buffer is required at the top of the slope. The vegetation and trees may be replaced per the geotechnical recommendations, but the replacements shall consist Of a variety of deep-rooting vegetation. (Reference BMC 21.22.100.(c)(3)(iv)(2)) 14. All recommendations set forth in the Golder Associates Inc. prepared Geotechnioal Investigation of Project Site at 25th Street and Snyder Avenue N dated April 5, 2004, and the addendum dated May 26, 2004, shall be deemed conditions of approval and complied to. (Reference BMC 21.02.100(c)(3)(i)(5)) 15. If any artifacts are uncovered, the Department of Community Development and the State Historic Preservation Office in Olympia (360) 753-4405 must be notified. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Hugo, Director Department of Community Development City of Bremerton 286 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 199 STAFF CONTACT: Robert Grumbach, AICP, (360) 475-5379 DATE OF ISSUE: May 28, 2004 DATE OF PUBLICATION: May 28, 2004 APPEAL DEADLINE: June 11, 2004 Christopher R. Hu~o~:{esponsible Official .~/ NOTE: Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075 and Ci~?"of Bremerton environmental regulations (BMC Chapter 21.12.210), decisions of the Responsible Official may be appealed. Appeals must be filed with the appropriate fees at the Department of Community Development located at the Bremerton Permit Center, 286 Fourth Street, Bremerton, 98337. Appeals must be filed by the date indicated above as "Appeal Deadline." If you appeal, you should be prepared to make specific factual objections. NOTE: The issuance of this DNS does not constitute project approval. The applicant must comply with all other applicable requirements of the City of Bremerton and the State of Washington. PERMIT CENTER (360) 47~5275 * F~ (360) 47~5278 WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checldist: The State Envirom~aental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the en. viranmental impacts of a proposal before mak'mg decisions. Aa environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify m~Pacts fi.om your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Ir~Wuctiottv for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your pxoposah Governmental agencies use this checklist to detemdne whether the environmental impacts ofyoor proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the enswer, or ifa question does not apply to your proposaL write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, sach as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all pa~.s of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help deaorihe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be ~gnificant adverse impact. Use of checMist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nooproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SOPPLEMENTnL SHEEr FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (pal~ D). For nonproject actions, the references in the cbecldist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. 2. Name ofappheent: ~{'~'~AC'~_~'~- ~ 3. Address end phone number of applicant and contact p?-rson: ~.~ , ~ .[CH. 1974 1- WAC--?. 53-64] 2131 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6. Proposed timing or schedule (include4 phasing, ffapplisable): 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activiej related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 9. Do you know whether applieatons are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. 10. List any gov~t approvals or pernats that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist 0mt ask you to describe cgrmin aspects of yom' proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific informafio~ on project descripOon.) WAC (5115198) Page 2 [Chapter 197-11-WA0 - P. 5 64] 202 k4~y, 4. 2004 li:32,alv! I~u., .s,- P, 2 TO B~ COMPLETED BY APFL[CANT ~sml p~t, includiwg a ~et ad~ss, if any, ~d ~ti~ tu~, and range, if would o~ur ov~ a ~ of a,~ prnvM~ ~u mgc or b~a~ of ~u ~i~s), ~ovi:de a lega.~ d~s~;dpfion, sim ulm, ~dn~ rap, a~ m~c m~, if ~muabty ~v~lu. ~i~ y~ ~iui ~t ~ plus mqu~d by ~c ag~, you are not ~d to d~limte ma~ ~ &~ phns submitt~ ~ ~y mg~d ~ ~ choking. L E~rth AG~N-( V USE O~LY ~' D~cfi~ ~he ~ ly~=, ~d ~p*mi~e q~mfi~ of my filling or g~ing WAC(5/IS/%} Page & c' , } u ,r . .... 283 TO BE cOMPLETED BY APPLICANT 12. Location of the proposal_ Give sufficient information fur a person to ondersmad the precise location of your proposed ~roject, including a s~eet address, if any, and section, township, and range, ff known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, ami topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plwas required by the agency, you arc not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. B~ F,~o~loersl.r~.~m'~rs EVALUATION FOR I. Earth AGENCY USE ONLY a. Genural description of the site.(circle,one) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slgpe)?. c. What g~n~ral t~pes of soils are £oond on ~e site (fur example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and ~ote any prime , _ I Vt ., --~,]~ - ' d.Are thure surface indications or history of unstable softs in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Describe the purpe~, type, and approximate quantifies of any filling or grading proposed, indicate source of fill. , g. I About wliat perce~t of tha site will be onv~d with imperious smffaces aner project cons~uction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? h. Proposed measures to reduce or coau-ol erosion, or other impacts to ~he earth, if WAC (5/15/98) Page 3 [Chapter 197-11-WAC P. 5- 64] 204 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 2. Air EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. What types of emissions to the air would result fi.om the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, od~s, industrial wood smoke) dm'ing construction and when the project is completed? If any, genea'ally descn'be and give approximate quanti6es if known. b. Are there any off-site sottmes of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or conh-ol emissions or other impaL'~s to air, if any: 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any san'face water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including yee~-round and seasonal stman~ saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, descrn'be type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, ~ adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please desca'ibe and attach available plans. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed fi-om surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affeeted. Indicate the souree of fill material. 4) Will the proposal require surface wamr withdrawals or diverfions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantifies if known. WAC (5/15/98) Page 4 [Chapter 197-I I-WAC P. 5--64] 205 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated vokm~e of discharge. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will ~vater be dischargod to grouod water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Desen'oe waste material that will be discharged into the ground fi'om septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the namber of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to c. Water nmoff(inclading stonnwater): 1 ) Describe the source of nmoff(including ston-a water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantifies, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? Ifso, descfibe. __ t 4, ,. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measm'es to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, ffany: WAC (5/15/98) Page 5 [Chapter 197ol i-WAC - P. 5--64] TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 4. Plants a. Che?k or circle types of vegetation found on the site: v' ~7~ deciduous wee: alder, maple, aspeax, other -- evergxeon Wee: fir, cedar, pine, other stn'ubs grass -- pastm-e -- wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullmsh, skunk cabbage, other -- water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoit, other -- other types of vegetation b. What kind and amoont of vegetmlon will be removed or altered? c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measm:es to preserve or eohance vegetation on the site, if any: 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: mammals: deer, bear, elk,'l:~m, gr, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, h~.iag, shellfish, other. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to he on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: WAC(5/15/98) Page 6 [Chapter 197-11-WAC- P. 5--64] 287 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 6. Energy tnd natural resources a. What kinds of ~rg3' (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. b. Would your project affect the potential 'use of sotar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. c. What kinds of energy conservation feaUnes are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control enorgy impacts, ifa. ny: 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of tim and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could oeet~ as a result uf this proposal? If so, describe. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control en~tal bealth hazards, i y: b. Noise 1)What types of Doise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, op~-a__ _tion, other)? 2) What types and tevels of noise would be oreated by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long4erm basis {for example: Iraffic, conslxucfion, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from,~e site- 3) Pr p ' ' pa y: WAC (5/15/98) Page 7 [Chapter i97-1 l-WAC P. 5---64] 208 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the eta'rent use of the site and adjacent properties? h. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. c. Descn'be any structures on the site. d. Will any slructures be demolished? lfso, what? e. What is the curreat zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "onvironmontally sensitive" area? If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or wo~ in the onn~pleted project? j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: DA 1. Proposed measures ~ ensure the proposat/s compatible with existing and projected lond uses and plans, if any: WAC (5/15/98) Page 8 [Chapter 197-11-WAC- P. 5- 64] 20g TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 9. Housing a. Approximately how many traits would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. b. Approximately how many anits, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. c. Proposed meastmes to reduce or conlxol housing impacts, if any: 10. Aesthefies a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antermas: what is the principal extarior building material(s) proposed? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obslvueted? c~ Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: a. What type of tight or glare will the proposal produce? What ~ime of day would it mainly h. Could ligh~ or glum from the finished proj~t be a s~f~-~Y h,~z~l or int~ff~ewith views? c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: WAC (5/15/98) Page 9 [Chapter 197-11-WAC P. 5--64] 210 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 12. Recreation a. What d~signeted and ixfformal r~mafi~al oppor tunifi~ am in th~ imme~liat~ yin'miry? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts ~a recreation, including ~creafion op- portunities to be provided by the project or applicam, if any: 13. Historic and cultural pre~rvation a. Are there any places or objects listed ou, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservatio~ registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any lmadmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural hnpormnee known to be on or nex~ to the site. c. Proposed measores to reduce or control n'npacts, if any: 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. b. ls site eurrantly served by public transit? If no{, what is the approxilnate distance to the n~arest transit stx~p? ¢. }]ow ma~¥ parld~g spaces would tl~ completed p-reject bare? Elow many wo~ld the project eliminate? d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or stmete, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). ~ WAC (5/15/98) Page 10 [Chapter 197-Il-WAC P. 5--64] 211 TO BE cOMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally descn'be. £ How many vehicular trips pet day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indieatel~benDentkvoltmaf4owouldoccur. , ~' ! , s, ~ _l -- t,t[ g. Propose~ measures to reduce or cn~trol ttans~:~Va~uon mapaets, fl' any: 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire pro- tection, police protection, health cer?, schoots, pther)? If so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or conlrol direct hnpacts on public services, if any~ 16. Utilities ~, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities ltxat are proposed for the project, the utility l~mviding the sm~4ce, and the general constmcrdon activities on the site or in the iramediate vicinity which might be needed. , e. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead Signature: ..........: t~.- mfi f~-"7~.-~-- ~---~- ................................................................................................................................. Dato Submitted: 7/......'"'~'7'7/'~--- ................................................................................................................................ WAC (5/15/98) Page I l [Chapter 197-11-WAC P. 5--64] 212 EXHIBIT "A" ORDER NO.: 32069924 PARCEL I: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 7, SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE I EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTH LINE OF 25TH STREET FORMERLY EDWARDS STREET, BEING 20 FEET NORTH OF THE CENTERLINE OF 25TH STREET AND 30 FEET EAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF ~NYCOFF AVENUE NORTH, AT ITS POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST MNE OF WYCOFF AVENUE NORTH; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF WYCOFF AVENUE NORTH, 256 FEET; THENCE EAST TO THE GOVERNMENT MEANDER ENE; -THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG GOVERNMENT MEANDER LINE TO THE MEANDER CORNER; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 10 TO A POINT EAST OF POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE WEST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (IT BEING THE INTENTION TO DESCRIBED BLOCK 18 AND THE VACATED ALLEY AND PORTION OF STREETS THAT BY LAW HAVE REVERTED TO THE SAID BLOCK 18 OF THE VACATED PLAT OF SHERIDAN) AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 12, IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; ALSO TIDELANDS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHERE THE EAST LINE OF BLOCK 18 OF THE PLAT OF SHERIDAN (NOW VACATED) WOULD INTERSECT THE MEANDER LINE; RUNNING THENCE ALONG SAID MEANDER LINE NORTH 39°51'37-1" WEST 119.908 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT WHERE THE CENTERLINE OF SIMMONS STREET (NOW VACATED WOULD INTERSECT SAID MEANDER LINE; THENCE NORTH 47°50, EAST 77.531 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 1 OF BREMERTON TIDELANDS; THENCE SOUTH 31 ° EAST 122.123 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT WHICH IS NORTH 47050, EAST FROM POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 47°50, WEST 58.706 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO POINT OF BEGINNING; (SAID TIDELANDS BEING A PORTION OF BLOCK I OF BREMERTON TIDELANDS AS SHOWN ON THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS AT OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON). PARCEL I1: PORTION OF BLOCK 1, BREMERTON TIDELANDS, AS APPROVED FEBRUARY 28, 1913, AND FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS THE INTERSECTION OF GOVERNMENT MEANDER LINE AND ... THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE... Page 1 213 EXHIBIT "A" Continued Order No.: 32069924 THE EAST UNE OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE I EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SAID POINT BEING THE MOST SOUTHERLY POINT OF BLOCK I OF AFORESAID BREMERTON TIDELANDS; THENCE NORTH 39o51'37.1" WEST TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF SAID MEANDER LINE WITH THE EAST LINE OF BLOCK 18 OF THE PLAT OF SHERIDAN, NOW VACATED, SAID PLAT SHOWN OF RECORD IN AUDITOR'S OFFICE OF KITSAP COUNTY IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 12; THENCE NORTH 47o50'00" EAST 58.706 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 1, BREMERTON TIDELANDS; THENCE SOUTH 31o00'00" EAST TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 1; THENCE SOUTH 47o50'00'~ WEST A DISTANCE OF 51.354 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. · . . END OF EXHIBIT "A" . Page 2 214 PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE ,~=,.~i,~,~r a~x.w. EO. l~x 3607 ORDER NO. -~D.O ~::~'~{~'~ ~ ~ N IMPORTANT: This is not a Plat of Su~ey. It is ~rnish~ as a convenience to locate the land indicat~ hereon w~h reference t0 streets and other land. No liabil~ is assum~ by reason of reliance hereon. Potion of Section Io ,Township2~ No~h, Rangel~a st, W.M. 028 . 029 - oo~_o~ ooz-°° 0 : i ~ 055 O J8~ <:' 0 5 7 oo~-oo 042 040 039 045 .~-:, 047 oo7-ot 053 00~) "~:"~: ~'~ 050 054 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF BREMERTON In the Matter of the Appeal of ) NO. BP04-00231 ) Phil Oiwell ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS of a Shoreline Substantial Development ) AND DECIS1ON Pen`nit Approval for a Planned Unit ) Development for Tiferet, LLC ) SUMMARY OF DECISION The decision of the Director of the City of Bremerton's Department of Community Development to approve the Shoreline Substantial Development Pen'nit application is supported by substantial evidence and is upheld. The appeal is DENIED. SUMMARY OF RECORD ~ p The City of Bremerton Department of Community Develo ment's Director published approval of Tiferet's (Applicant) application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit on June 22, 2004. Finding that the development would not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; that the development would not cause significant adverse impacts on the shoreline enviromnent; and that the public health, safety and general welfare had been se~wed, the Director approved the application, subject to eight conditions. Setting forth six allegations, Phil Olwell (Appellant) filed a timely appeal to the approval of the Shoreline Substantial Development Pen`nit. The Dtrectors dec,sm was supported by substantial evidence and is upheld. The appeal is denied. Hea~ An open record appeal hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Bremerton on July 20, 2004. Testimony: The following persons presented testimony under oath during the open record appeal hearing: 1. Keith Maehlmn, for the Applicant 2. Phil Olwell, Appellant 3. Larry Taylor, Neighbor 4. Chris Thatcher, Neighbor Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted as part of the official record at the open record hearing: lz~ the :?frttler qf the ,d?pe~d q/Phi! Olu'e/l, BP04-- 00231 B~fore the Hea 'i g Ex'ct~ l ' er for die C'itv o/ Bremertoll Page I c77 216 1. Exhibit A: City of Bremm'ton Department of Community Development Decision published June 22, 2004 2. Exhibit B: Administrative Appeal submitted by Phil Olwell on July 6, 2004 3. Exhibit C: City's Response to Appeal dated July 13, 2004 4. Exhibit D: Email from Lan'y Taylor dated June 22, 2204 5. Exhibit E: Phil Olwell's Response to the City dated July 20, 2004 6. Exhibit F: Letter from Phil Olwell dated July 20, 2004 7. Exhibit G: Shoreline Permit Submittal Checklist dated January 8, 2004 8. Exhibit H: Proposed Site Plan 9. Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map The Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings, Conclusions and Decision based upon the evidence admitted at the open record appeal hearing: FINDINGS 1. The City of Brernerton Department of Community Development's Director published approval of Tiferet's (Applicant) application for a Shoreline Substantial Developnnent Permit on June 22, 2004. Finding that the development would not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; that the development would not cause significant adverse impacts on the shoreline environment; and that the public health, safety and general welfare had been se~wed, the Director approved the application, subject to eight conditions. Exhibit A, StqffReport, pages 1, 14-16. a. All construction practices shall tbllow best management practices pertaining to erosion control to prevent any material from entering waters of the state. No fill or construction debris shall enter the adjacent Port Washington Nan'ows. b. All storm water shall be handled using best management practices. c. At no point should any of the proposed structures be built waterward of the 38.4-foot shoreline setback. d. Removal of riparian vegetation within the low marine bluff is prohibited in order to protect the near shore habitat. e. The clearing limits indicated on the TESC Plan received by the Department of Community Development May 7, 2004, shall constitute the limits of vegetation removal. Any cleared vegetation within the shoreline area 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark shall be replaced according to the conditions set forth in the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. h~ the Matter (~f the .4??col ~f Phil Ol~vc, ll, BPO4~ 0023 Before the! Heari~g £;rclmit~er fbr the Ci~r q/'Brememo~l Page 2 217 fi All construction shall be located such that the long-tenn stability of near shore habitat is protected and that a bulkhead or other shoreline protection is not necessary. The installation ora bulkhead or other shoreline protection shall be prohibited. g. All conditions set forth in the preliminary approval of the Planned Unit Development shall be included as conditions of this permit h. No construction shall begin and is not authorized until twenty-one (21) days from the date of filing by the Department of Ecology as defined in RCW 90.58. 140(6) and WAC 173-27-130. 2. The Applicant proposes to develop a 2.486-acre lot at the northeast comer of North Wycoff Avenue and 25th Street in Bremerton, Washington. The subject property is within the "Residential Low-Density" (SF-3) zone and is bordered to the west by the Port Washington Narrows. The Applicant proposes to build 22 attached single-family dwelling units on a lot that borders the shoreline, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required. Exhibit A, StqffReport, page l: Exhibit G, Shoreline Permit &tbmittal Checl~qist: Exhibit H, Proposed Site Plan: Exhibit 1, D'cinity Map. 3. Phil Olwell (Appellant) filed a timely appeal to the approval of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The appeal was filed on July 6, 2004, and sets forth six allegations. Exhibit B, Admit~istrative Appeal, pages 1-4. a. The subject property's zoning designation, SF-3, is incorrect. b. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was improperly issued. c. The subject property is improperly treated as two parcels. d. The approved view corridor does not comply with RCW 90.58.020. e. Public access to the beach is required. f. The proposed driveways and parking spaces in the development must be dedicated. 4. The City of Bremerton Department of Community Development responded to the Appellant's appeal. Exhibit C, Ci0, 's Response to Appeal, pages 1-4. a. Shoreline permit decisions are based on consistency with the policies, procedures and regulations set forth in the Shoreline Management Act and the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. A property's zoning designation is inapplicable to a shoreline permit. 1~? the M~ttter q/the Apl~eal o/P/lit Oln'ell, BPO& 0023! Before the H~,~trit~g Ex~tlllit~er [or the CiO' qf Bremerlo~ Page 3 qf 7 218 b. The Appellant previously appealed the Mitigated Deten~nination of Nonsignificance. The appeal was denied and cannot be appealed a second time to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Section 36.70B.060. c. The subject property is treated as one lot. The reference to "as if two parcels existed instead of one" was used to demonstrate that the shoreline master program site development regulations only apply to the portion of the prope~Xy within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction. d. The City determined the proper view corridor after evaluating lands adjacent to the shoreline, reviewing court and Shoreline Hearing Board decisions, and after consulting with the City's legal department. The Appellant alleges a general statement of violation of the view corridor without specifying facts illustrating how the view corridor fails to comply with the Shoreline Master Program. The issue of open space is not relevant to this appeal as it is deten~ined by zoning code, and not Shoreline Master Program, regulations. e. The subject property's unique configuration, the concern for the impacts that shore modification would have on the low marine bluffs, and neighborhood concerns for irresponsible activity along the beach resulted in the Director's deternaination that public visual access from sidewalks located adjacent to 25th Street were acceptable in meeting the improved public access requirement. Further, the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program does not require that improved public access be provided on private property. Rather it requires that improved public access be designed and operated to avoid blocking, reducing, or adversely interfering with the public's visual or physical access to the water and shorelines where feasible. A public easement is not required because the sidewalk improvements are located within a public right-of-way and a public easement would therefore be redundant. fi Street dedication is not relevant to this appeal as street development standards are set forth in the zoning code. If street dedication is construed as to be relevant to this appeal, Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Section 21.02.480(e) does not require dedication to be to the City. Since street dedications are a matter of responsibility for the maintenance of the street, the City construes this to mean that the dedication can be to the common ownership of the property owners who comprise the Planned Unit DevelopmeNt. Further, BMC 11.12.130(e) allows for private streets. bi the 3,:]ctttcr Of the ,4?l~ertl o[ Phil 01~ vii. BP04-- 0023 l Before the Hearit~g Evami~ter th; ~he Ci? i?f Breill~:rtoll Pc~ge 4 pr7 23.9 5. Notice of the Application was published in The Sun newspaper on May 7 and 14, 2004, and posted on the property on May 14, 2004. Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site, parties of record, and state and local agencies. Exhibit ,4, Stqff'Report, page 15. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC), grants the Hearing Examiner of the City of Bremerton jurisdiction to hold open record appeal hearings and decide appeals. BMC 2.13.070. Specifically the Bremerton Municipal Code grants the Hearing Examiner authority to hear appeals of Shoreline Substantial Development permit applications. BMC2. i3.080(e). When reviewing an appeal of an administrative decision, the Bremerton City Council restricts the authority of the Hearing Examiner to determining whether the administrative decision was supported by substantial evidence. BMC 21.02.935(j). Conclusions Based on Findings 1. The subject property's zoning designation is not relevant to this appeal. The particular zoning designation does not affect the outcome of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application. Moreover, as this issue was resolved in the Hearing Examiner's decision of June 28, 2004, in approving the Planned Unit Development, it is a resjudicata.~ The issue of zoning was previously adjudicated and since it has not changed substantially since that adjudication, it cannot be appealed again. Findings pf Fact No. 4. 2. The Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance cannot be appealed. While RCW 36.70B.060 allows an individual to appeal an environmental determination under the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 36.70B.060(3) limits the appeal of such a determination to one time. The MDNS was appealed during the preliminary plat application process for the Planned Unit Development and was denied in the Hearing Examiner's decision of June 28, 2004. It cannot be appealed again. Findings of Fact No. 4. 3. The subject property is treated as one parcel. In order to calculate the view corridor pursuant to the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Chapter 3-27 (Table 3- 2), the City used only that portion of the property subject to shoreline jurisdiction. If l"The doctrine of res judicata bars the resun'ection of the same claim in a subsequent action. The doctrine applies in a quasi-judicial administrative context and stands for the general proposition that 'a controversy should be resolved once, not more than once.' Res judicata wilt bal' a claim when a prior final resolution has a concm~-ence of identity in four respects with a subsequent proceeding: 'There must be identity of (1) subject matter; (2) cause of action; (3) persons and pmlies; and (4) the quality of the persons for or against whmn the claim is made.'" Dm'idson v Kit~ct, n County. 86 Wn. App. 673,680 11997) (citing Hilltop Terrr~ce Homeowner's .4.s.s )l v. Z~&tld County. 126 Wash.2d 22.30-32 ( 1995 )). It? the M~tter cyzhe ,4?peal e?Plli! Olwell, BP0'4--00231 Be. fore the Hearing Exami~ler for the Ci(~' ef Bremerroll Page 5 220 the entire parcel had been used in calculating the view corridor, a view corridor of 151 feet would have been required. Such a requirement would have disallowed development in 75.8% of the property in the shoreline jurisdiction, a restriction that is inconsistent with the intent of an urban residential enviromnental designation. As calculated from 25th Street, the nearest public street, using only that portion of the parcel subject to shoreline jurisdiction, a rninimum view corridor of 70 feet is required. The Applicant's proposed view corridor is 89 feet 6 inches. The proposed development does not impair views of the water from upland residential properties, given that the proposed height of the dwelling units would be elevated approximately 8 feet above the existing street grade. The subject property is considered one parcel of land. Findi,gs o/'Fact No. 4. 4. The approved view corridor does comply with RCW 90.58.020. In relevant part, RCW 90.58.020 provides, "In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent/kasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention ofdarnage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline." (emphasis added) The requirements of this provision are met, as the public and private interests are balanced through the establishment ora view corridor. Findings q/'Fact No. 4. 5. Physical public access to the beach is not required. Given the probable impacts that shore modification would have on the low marine bluffs and neighborhood concerns for probable irresponsible activity along the beach, the Director's determination that public visual access from sidewalks located adjacent to 25th Street was acceptable in meeting the improved public access requirement is consistent with the requirements and the intent of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Chapters 4-10 and 5-21. Allowing public visual access while restricting physical access to the beach is necessary for the health of the shoreline environment and is consistent with the intent of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Progrmn (BSMP). Furthermore, the BSMP does not require that improved public access be provided on private property. Rather it requires that improved public access be designed and operated to avoid blocking, reducing, or adversely interfering with the public's visual or physical access to the water and shorelines where feasible. It would not be feasible to allow public physical access to a beach that would require traversing private property and jeopardizing the health of the shoreline environment. Findings of'Fact No. 4. 6. Dedication is not required for the development's driveways and street. The dedication of roadways is not within the scope of a Shoreline Substantial Ill the .4Iatter qf the Al¥~eal q/'Phi/ Ohvvll, BPO~ 0023 l Bqfore the Hearing E.vaminer for the Ci~' ~f Bremert(;n Page 6 o5/7 222 Development Penmt application. Notwithstanding the fact of a wrongly appealed issue, dedication is often preferred in order to ensure the maintenance of streets, Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Section 1 l. 12.090 states that the City "may require dedication" of a right-of-way to mitigate traffic impacts. As the development's driveways and street will primarily be used by homeowners and guests of homeowners within the development, allowing dedication to the homeowners is acceptable. Findings r?/'Fact No. 4. 7. The Director's decision to approve the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld. In reviewing an administrative decision, substantial weight is given to an agency's legal interpretation, especially in areas involving the agency's special knowledge and expertise? Pursuant to the criteria listed in the Revised Code of Washington Section 36.70c. 130, an agency's decision will not be overturned unless the agency has "engaged in unlawful procedure or decision-making process, or has failed to follow a prescribed procedure;...[or] [t]he agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law? The Director's decision was based on evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Appellant, and several local and state agencies. His decision is consistent with the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act, as required by BMC 21.04.010. The decision is supported by substantial evidence. DECISION The Director's decision to approve the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld. Therefore, the appeal must be DENIED. to004 Decided this~ day ofAugus - · ' ~d~iner for the City of BremeNon ~- Pttget Soltnd Water Qt~alit~ Defa~lse FI d v Mltm'ci?ttlin' r4/'^'letrot¢olitrm Seattle. 59 Wash. App. 613, 617 (1990) (citing Provide~we Hosp. Of Everett v. Dept. e)'Socird & Herdth Setn'ice.~. l 12 Wash.2d 353, 360 (1989)). ~ Bellevt~e Farm O~'m'rs 363 (2000) (citing Batchelder v. Ci? O/Sertttle. 77 Wash. App. 154. 158 (1995)). I~ the Matter o/the ~4pt~eal Of Phil Ol~vell~ Before the HeiSting Krctmi~er fi)r thc Ci? o/ Bremerto~ Page 7 qf 7 222 RESOLUTION NO. ~q ~ ~ A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, approving the preliminary plat and planned unit development (File No. BP04-00231). WHEREAS, the City has received an application for a Preliminary Plat and a Planned Unit Development for a 2.486 acre parcel located at the northeast comer of North Wycoff Avenue and 25th Street from Tiferet LLC; and WHEREAS, On June 15, 2004, the Administrative Hearing Examiner held an open record heating on the applications pursuant to BMC 21.02.855; and WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Examiner has entered findings, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council dated June 28, 2004, for Council's acceptance and approval; and WHEREAS, a closed record heating was held on ,2004, to consider the Administrative Hearing Examiners findings, conclusions and recommendations; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Administrative Hearing Examiner attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" and approves the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development for North Wycoff Avenue and 25th Street (File No. BP04-00231) subject to the proposed conditions contained in Exhibit "A." SECTION 2. 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 ., 2004. DAREN NYGREN, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk R:\LEGAL\Resolutions\Community Developmen t\Wyco ff PUD doc 1 North Wycoff Preliminary Plat and PUD 223