HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/99 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
239 4TH STREET
BREMERTON, WA 98337
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
APRIL 21, 1999
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M.
A. General Council Business
CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M.
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Invocation
CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed below have been distributed to Council members in advance for study
and will be enacted by one motion. If separate discussion is desired on an item, it
may be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda at
the request of a Council member.
A. Minutes of Meeting - April 7, 1999
#AB99-069
B. Easement Grant to Cascade Natural Gas for Bremerton #AB99-070
Transportation Center Gas Line
4. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
6. MAYOR'S REPORT
7. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
8. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes)
o
PUBLIC HEARING - 6:00 P.M. or LATER
A. Continued Public Hearing and Resolution No. 2701,
Consideration of a One-Year Extension of Preliminary
Plan Approval for PUD 96-0002, Sinclair Landing
Commercial and Residential Portion of Development;
Applicant: The Commercial Group
#AB99-071
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. ~: MINUTES OF MEETING-APRIL 7, 1999 FOR AGENDA OF: APRIL 21~ 1999
ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY COUNCIL
ORIGINATOR:
DATE SUBMITTED:
MIKE SHEPHERD, PRESIDEI
APRIL 12~ 1999
2. ~: (comment on back 3. EXHIBITS:
if necessary)
MAY
OR
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
8. RECOM/4ENDATION:
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
DATE:
3DED
11. AGENDA BILL NO:
TAPE #1607
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 7, 1999
The regular 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, April 7, 1999,
at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Mike Shepherd presiding. Council members present
were Carlos Montgomery, Carol Arends, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen.
Council members Jim Reed, David Fart, and Lon Overson were absent. Also present were
City Attorney Glenna Malanca, Deputy Clerk Paula Johnston, and Council Assistant
Christine Grenier.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Shepherd and
invocation given by Reverend Cleveland Williams of Ebenezer African Methodist Episcopal
Church.
President Shepherd made the following announcements:
(1) City Council held a Pre-Council Study Session to discuss General Council Business.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - March 17, 1999
#AB99-062
#0075 MISICIU (McConnell/Montgomery) Motion to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented.
CLAIMS/CH ECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and
those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been
recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council.
#0105 M/S/C/U (Montgomery/Arends) On April 7, 1999, the Council does approve for
payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 229493 to 229694 in the
amount of $424,013.27; and Regular Payroll for the period ending March 31, 1999, in the
amount of $980, 097.96.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr, McConnell announced that metal spikes may be worn at Gold Mountain Golf Course
until May 1, 1999. For more information, call 415-5428. Also, there will be a District 1 and 2
Town Meeting on Thursday, April 15 from 7:00-9:00 P.M. at the Parks and Recreation Center
located on Lebo Boulevard. Mayor Lynn Horton will be attending.
TAPE #1607
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 7, 1999
Page 2 of 4
Mr. Law announced that Sammy Kahn's memorial service was held today where many
recalled his service to the community. The next District 3 meeting will be held on April 20,
1999 with special guest Sheriff Steve Boyer, at the Senior Center located on the corner of
Nipsic and E 13th Street.
Mrs. Arends announced that the "Clean-Up Week" for the City of Bremerton will be April
12-16 from 10:00 A.M.-6:00 P.M., and April 17 from 8:00 A.M.-4:30 P.M. Those items
accepted for pick up are limited to City residents and may be up to 8 feet in length. The
restrictions for pick-up are that no loads can be larger than a pickup truck or small trailer.
Olympic View Landfill will accept furniture, mattresses, and other "soft" items, while no
appliances will be accepted. The Olympic View Landfill will accept those items during the
week for half of the normal rate. For information on either Clean-Up Week or The Olympic
View Landfill, please call 478-5920. The School District Board of Directors will be meeting
on Thursday, April 15 at 5:30 P.M. at the School District Administration Office located on
Marion Avenue to discuss a Resolution to approve an education plan and a reduction in
force.
Mr. Montgomery announced that a combined District 6,7,8 meeting will be held in April with
the date to be announced at a later time.
Mr. Shepherd announced that the Evergreen Children's Theater will hold a sneak preview
benefit for the new puppet museum at Admiral Theater located on Pacific Avenue on
Sunday, April 11, 1999 from 3:00-6:00 P.M. The West Sound Arts Council will hold a grand
opening for the Gilded Age Collection April 9 from 7:00-9:00 P.M. located on 4th Street.
Habitat for Humanity will hold an orientation meeting on April 18 at 3:00 P.M. at the
Ebenezer African Methodist Episcopal Church located on Park Ave.
MAYOR'S REPORT
The Mayor announced that there will be an Armed Forces Pageant this evening at 7:00 P.M.
located at the Bremerton High School. A listing of events is available for Water Week, which
will take place August 28-October 3 and the registration deadline for Water Week events is
May 28. Further information can be obtained by calling (360) 943-3642.
The Mayor proclaimed the month of April 1999 as "Countdown to Earth Day 1999" in the
City of Bremerton. April 17 will be commemorated nationally as the 29th anniversary of the
founding of Earth Day. The annual statewide clean-up, recycling, and beautification events
are being sponsored in part by Kitsap County Department of Surface and Storm water
Management with the theme "Think Globally, Act Locally", to clean our environment. The
Clean-up will take place on April 17 at the First Street Dock from 1 lam- 2pm. Don Larson
received the proclamation and encouraged people to attend. Meeting sites will be located at
the end of 2nd Street near the boardwalk, Lion's boat launch located on Lebo Boulevard.
Other sites included the area near the Shipyard and Port Orchard near Annapolis.
TAPE #1607
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 7, 1999
Page 3 of 4
The Mayor proclaimed April 4-10,1999 as "Building Safety Week" in Bremerton.
For construction and building codes to be effective and enforced, cohesion and cooperation
must exist between buildings and officials and the people they serve. Through the efforts of
state and local building officials and their working relationships with the construction
industry, the administration of these health and life safety standards
is assured. Numerous groups are joining efforts to promote the use of building and
construction codes through the observance of Building Safety Week. The theme of the 1999
Building Safety Week will be "A Safer World Is On the Horizon". The Proclamation was
received by Judy Johnson. She encouraged the public to call 478-5211 or 478-5275 to
receive further information regarding Building Safety Week or other concerns regarding
current building projects.
The Mayor also announced there will be a welcoming of the USS Abraham Lincoln
tomorrow night at Legends, located at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT
None.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Louis Mentor emphasized that ferries are vital to Bremerton and offered the idea of Iow
interest loans to residents to fix bulkheads in order to eliminate the need for lawsuits and
injunctions against ferry service providers.
Buck Kinq presented a letter to the City Council and requested that the cable on the flag
pole at a waterfront park located on Trenton Avenue be fixed so that the P.O.W. flags may
be replaced.
Larry Dickerson offered an apology regarding last week's
Diamond. He emphasized that tenants, rental owners, and
responsible to provide for a peaceful neighborhood.
comments regarding Joe
property owners must be
John Becker announced that on April 8 at 7:30 AM at the Silverdale Community Center,
located on Silverdale Way, the Bremerton and Silverdale Chamber of Commerce in
conjunction with Puget Sound Naval Bases Association, are sponsoring a meeting with
Congressman Dicks and Congressman Inslee, who will provide an update on Congressional
issues.
Don Larson mentioned the process of urban renewal in the San Diego area and discussed
how project design can improve tourism and pedestrian access.
Roy Mclnnis apologized for comments that he made at a prior City Council meeting.
TAP E #1607
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 7, 1999
Page 4 of 4
9A - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON TIMBERLAND
MANAGEMENT FOR CABLE SALVAGE AND THINNING, #AB99-063
Washington Timberland Management (WTM) will provide logging plan, operator, operations
management, and marketing for highest value, on approximately 130 acres of second growth
timber within Water Utility forest land as specified by the Forestry Manager. Harvest
operations will consist of thinning to a residual stocking of approximately 120 stems/acre and
salvaging of diseased and/or dead timber as identified from GIS maps provided by the
Forestry Division and field identification provided by WTM. This action will further the
overall goals of the Forest Management Plan and will substantially contribute to the Water
Utility's revenue for 1999. WTM will be compensated by receiving 10% of the delivered log
price on harvested timber.
Bill McKinney discussed the history of other agreements similar to this agreement before
the City Council. Prior salvage projects have generated $3.5 million dollars. As of today,
70,000 trees have been planted. The prospective salvage and thinning project includes 130
acres and $240,000 dollars is expected to be the return on this project.
Mr. Mont.qomery asked how the Endangered Species Act listing would affect the harvest.
Mr. McKinney responded that there are 50-100 foot buffer zones around streams that are
located in the areas of the thinning project. Therefore, the project would not be affected by
the Endangered Species listing which applies to projects in the proximity of salmon bearing
waters.
#1400 MISICIU (Montgomery/McConnell) Motion to authorize the Mayor to execute the
attached professional services agreement.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 6:15 P.M.
PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk
MIKE SHEPHERD, Council President
City of Bremerton
PJ/MS/cg
C: Normal Distribution
File
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Easement Grant to
Cascade Natural Gas for
Bremerton Transportation Center
Gas Line
FOR AGENDA OF: April 21, 1999
ORIGINATING DEPT: Parks & Recreation
ORIGINATOR: Jim Spencer
DATE SUBMITTED: April 14, ~999
2. ~: (comment on back 3. if necessary)
City Attorney . .
PW&U Director ×~/~
Fiscal/Budget ~t..~~3 '~'~
Operations
4. S~RY STATE~NT ~D REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Easement
Kitsap Transit Letter
Cascade Natural Gas is requesting an easement grant across the parking
lot adjacent to the boardwalk from 2nd Street to the Bremerton Transportation
Center for underground gas lines. This land parcel is not included in Parks
Protection properties so Parks Commission review is not required prior to
bringing this issue before City Council. This easement description will be
superseded at a later date with a surveyed description once the gas line has
been installed.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to approve the easement grant to Cascade Natural Gas for
underground gas lines across the parking lot adjacent to the boardwalk from
2nd Street to the Bremerton Transportation Center.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Parks Director
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Parks Director
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED
DATE:
DISAPPROVED
3ED
11.
AGENDA BILL NO:
2. CLEARANCE COM~4ENTS (cont.~:
4. SUM1WARY STATEMENT (cont.):
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
City is obligated through the Memorandum of Understanding with Kitsap
Transit to provide necessary easements for Bremerton Transportation Center
construction.
IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES, ~QUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES
N/A
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
City: Bremerton
County: Kitsap
ORIGINAL
ERg: 1070-107-56657
The undersigned CITY OF BREMERTON, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"), for
and in consideration of Ten Dollars (St0.00), and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, convey, and warrant to CASCADE NATURAL GAS
CORPORATION, a Washington corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Grantee"), a temporary construction
easement over the following described property of the Grantor:
Property Description:
GOVERNMENT LOT 3 OF SECTION 13 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 1 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 24
NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST W.M. AND ADJOINING TIDELANDS.
Temporary Easement Location
A strip of land 10 feet in width having 5 feet on each side of the centerline of Grantees' facilities as constructed,
to be constructed, extended, or relocated within Grantors' property described above.
This temporary construction easement shall be superseded by a permanent easement once construction hereunder
has been completed. Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof shows an approximate location of
Grantees' proposed facilities. Grantee will obtain a survey of showing the location of the facilities.
The Grantee agrees to hold the Grantor harmless from any loss, cost, or damage resulting from the Grantee's
negligence in connection with the coustruction, operation or maintenance of the pipeline and the Grantor agrees to
hold the Grantee harmless from any loss, cost, or damage caused by the Grantor, its agents, invitees, or licensees
or from any breach of this agreement. Grantor agrees to cooperate with Grantee to obtain all necessary permits,
licenses and governmental action so that Grantee may enjoy the full use and benefit of a permanent easement.
This temporary easement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives,
successors, and assigns of the parties hereto and shall terminate upon recording of the permanent easement.
Upon entry onto the property in the exercise of this temporary construction easement, the surface of the ground shall
be substantially restored to it's condition prior to commencing work or as nearly thereto as is reasonably possible.
In consideration of the specific agreements to be performed by the parties hereto and written in this agreement,
the parities bind themselves to the terms and conditions stated herein. No verbal representations or agreements
shall be binding upon either party.
In witness whereof, the undersigned have executed this temporary easement this day of
,1999.
State of Washington )
County of Kitsap )
On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the
of the City of Bremerton, the municipal corporation that executed the
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be of the free and voluntary act and deed of said
corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
Given under my hand and official seal this __ day of
, 1999.
Notary Public for:
Residing at:
My Commission Expires:
CITY OF BREMERTON, Grantor
BY:
LYNN S. HORTON
Mayor
DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL:
JIM SPENCER
Parks Department
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
GLENNA MALANCA
City Attorney
RECEIVED FOR FILING:
KATHLEEN L. ivlcCLUSKEY
City Clerk
~-09-1999 1 '~: 23A1'4 CNG SEA 2~ C:~ 41a~9 F,. 2
January25,1999
Mr. Mike Dun
Cascade Natural Gas
6313 Kitsap Way
Bremerton, WA 98312
KITSAP
TRANSIT
Re:
Natural Gas Supply Line
Bremerton Transportation Center
Dear Mr. Dun:
In November 1998, at our request, the natural gas line starting from Wa.qhinglon Street to the Bremerton
Ferry Terminal, other 1" Street Businesses and the Port of Bremerton Marina complex was disconnected
and capped. Capping was required because of the demolition work in pro~ess to prepare the site for the
new Bremerton Transportation Center (BTC). A new gas pipeline is required to service this new facility,
a future three story retail building and to reconnect the Pon of Bremerton Marina to nmmal gas
Attached for your use in planning a reute and obtaining an easement from the City to install a new Natural
Gas line we have enclosed the following information:
1. Drawing Job No. 21-3627-01 "Power Location" showing the location of the power and
telephone conduits servicing the future BTC.
2. Part of drawing P - 2.2 showing the location of the gas meter to be installed for the BTC only.
A separate meter will be installed at this same location for the future three-story retail
building
3. Drawing CP203 that shows some of the other utilities in the Area. This Drawing is not
complete for the area adjacent to 2~ Street.
We recommend that the pipeline be installed from 2"d Street to the site to avoid interference with new BTC
construction and'to reconnect the marina. The pipeline will nm through the city parking lot, which has
been rented by. Kitsap Transit. This parking lot is the active bus operations area servicing the ferries during
BTC construction. Any work in this area must be closely coordinated with KT bus operations. The earlier
this project can be completed, the easier it will be to provide access for the installation crew. We request
that Cascade natural Gas ex-pedite the completion of this project.
If you need any other data please call me at 360475-0238.
Sincerely. ,~ ~
H. Donald Laford. ~2cM
Agencies Project Manager
Cc:
Wendy Clark/KT
Bill Geil/HSWCC
Steve Toms/Port of Bremerton
Randy Witt/city of Bremenon
File
234 South Wycoff
Brernerton, Washington 98312-4199
[.qRfT) .q77-70178 W~h.eif~. ' www /df.e~nfr~n.wif ora
ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB J:
W. Eugene Sampley, Director of Public Works and Utilities
Tom Knuckey, Senior Engineer
April 12, t999
Response to Questions in Letter from Mr. Paul Drnjevic dated
March 24, 1999
Question No. 1 - How much work was done on this system after September
14, 19987
By September 14, 1998, the rough site grading was complete along with
installation of the detention pond, and neady all site piping. The CCF Building
base slab, e~er.~dp_r (masonry) w_all__s, interior (wood stud and gypsum wall board)
w~lls, and roof were installed. Installation of mechanical equipment inside the
building was underway, and submittals for most of the equipment had been
approved and the equipment was on-order. The remaining work to be done was
as follows:
Sitework
· Final grading, asphalt paving and installation of bollards
· Hydroseeding
Building
· Paint concrete base slab and stemwalls
· Texture and paint the gypsum wall board, and install trim
· Install doors and glazing
· Stucco the exterior gable ends of the facility, and paint gables and trim
· Install control room and lavatory cabinets and fixtures
· Install grating and handrails
March 24, 1999
City Council
City of Bremerton
239 Fourth St.
Bremerton, WA
98337
2515 E. 2Znd St.
Bremerton, WA
98310
Bremerton City Council Members:
On or about September 14, 1998 Bremerton City Council passed a
resolution to cease implementation of the fluoridation equipment until
after the ballot results of the special election in February 1999.
Apparently the fluoridation system work proceeded and the system was
installed entirely (all equipment, piping, etc.). This appears to be in
direct opposition to the resolution which City Council passed.
Was it the plan of City Council to stop all work and all spending as
implied by the resolution, or was the plan to continue spending money
and continue work?
If it was the intent of City Council to stop spending and stop work
on the fluoridation system, who then authorized the continuation after
City Council advertised to the Citizens of Bremerton and everyone to
cease implementation of fluoridation until after the election7
Regardless of who authorized the continuation, please answer the
following questions.
1. How much work was done on this system after September 14,
19987
2. How much money was spent purchasing and continuing installation
of equipment and or piping after September 14, 19987
This information is being requested under the Freedom of
Information Act.
Paul Drnjevic '
i~ity Council-:~F~e: C~iJ~en Request f~r ,.~.
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Gene Sampley
City Council
Thu, Mar 18, 1999 2:19 PM
Re: Citizen Request for Info
There is no written agreement. It was part of a presentation made to the Council in support of a rate
adjustment request about three years ago. At that time the administration agreed that we would do
everything we could to keep future annual rate adjustments at 3% or inflation, whichever is greater. Rich
Hanna would have the proforma used to convey that information.
rqy
>>> City Council 03/18 11:07 AM >>>
At the City Council meeting last night, during discussion on item "9A - Review of Conditional Approval
of Mediation Resolution between PSA and City of Bremerton", the Mayor referred to an Agreement
from three years ago, where it was outlined that utility rates would not be raised, other than cost-of-living
adjustments, which would average about 3% per year.
John Becker has requested a copy of this Agreement. Where can I get a copy? Thank you... Lori (5280)
CC:
Rich Hanna, The Mayor
April 21, 1999
251 5 E. 22nd St.
Bremerton, WA
98310
City Council
City of Bremerton
239 Fourth St.
Bremerton, WA 98337
Bremerton City Council Members:
First I wish to congratulate President Mike Shepherd on his
letter to the Editor in the Sun. Quite clearly the anti-fluoridation
folks did not defeat the school levy. It was the people outside the
City. The anti-fluoridation folks were in favor of the levy.
The article which accused the anti-fluoride folks for failure
was on the front page of the Sun. Mr. Shepherd's letter should also
have been on the front page.
On March 24, 1999 I gave a letter to City Council with 4
questions on the fluoridation system equipment and work.
On April 2, 1999 someone signed Mr. Sampley's name as
"Signing For" Mr. Sampley, on a letter indicating they expect to
respond before April 19, 1999. I guess "respond" is a crucial word
to the letter, because it didn't say they would "answer" the
questions.
On April 17, 1999 I received a non-answer 'Engineering
Department Memorandum' of Tom Knuckey to Mr. Sampley, passed to
Lori Smith, City Council Secretary, with a short cover letter signed
by Christine Grenier, Council Assistant. To me that
letter/memorandum is a disgrace to the City and seems to fit in the
vein of a city official referring to some voters as "crummy voters",
and indicates that City Government will ignore the constituents or
try to confuse them. I hope this isn't what was intended. I have no
way of knowing if this letter was reviewed or seen by anyone on
City Council. And I think the answers should be coming through City
Council, not directly from Mr. Tom Knuckey, unless you want that.
The following is paraphrasing from my March 24, 1999 letter
with comments about the letter from the city (I am including a copy
of my letter because the questions were not answered. Please re-
read my letter.).
question 1 concerned City Council's intent of their Sept. 14,
1998 resolution to cease implementation. This question is not even
addressed.
question 2 asked who authorized continuation of the work.
This question is not even addressed.
.question 3 asked how much work was done after September 14,
1998. For this there is very confusing information presented. Is
this an attempt at gross confusion? Actually, the information
doesn't address the question.
question 4 asked for the amount of money spent on purchase
and continuing installation of equipment and the system after
September 14, 1998. Again the information presented is confusing.
I hope City Council intends to answer these questions clearly
and to the point by April 2_7, 1999 - more than a month after my
letter.
Paul Drnjevic
March Z4, 1999
City Council
City of Bremerton
239 Fourth St.
Bremerton, WA
98337
2515 E. 22nd St.
Bremerton, WA
98310
Bremerton City Council Members:
On or about September 14, 1998 Bremerton City Council passed a
resolution to cease implementation of the fluoridation equipment until
after the ballot results of the special election in February 1999.
Apparently the fluoridation system work proceeded and the system was
installed entirely (all equipment, piping, etc.). This appears to be in
direct opposition to the resolution which City Council passed.
Was it the plan of City Council to stop all work and all spending as
implied by the resolution, or was the plan to continue spending money
and continue work?
If it was the intent of City Council to stop spending and stop work
on the fluoridation system, who then authorized the continuation after
City Council advertised to the Citizens of Bremerton and everyone to
cease implementation of fluoridation until after the election?
Regardless of who authorized the continuation, please answer the
following questions.
1. How much work was done on this system after September 14,
19987
2. How much money was spent purchasing and continuing installation
of equipment and or piping after September 14, 19987
This information is being requested under the Freedom of
Information Act.
Paul Drnjevic
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: CONTINUED FOR AGENDA OF: Auri! 21, 1999
PUBLIC HEAi~ING/RESOLUTION # ~70~ DEPT. OF ORIGIN: DECD - Planning
ACTION: One Year Extension of Pre] ]minar¥ ORIGINATOR: Jon Holan
Plan Approval for PUD 96-0002, DATE SUBMITTED: April 15, 1999
Sinclair Landing - Commercial/Residential Portion of Development
APPLICANT: The Commercial Group
LOCATION: P.O. Box 10145 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
2. C~~CES: (CQ~ent on back if necessary) 3. E~IBITS:
D ECD Director :
City A ttorney~ /L~
CC Resolution No.
Staff Report & AttacN_menns
~DOCUHENTS WILL BE AVAILABLE
MONDAY, APRIL 19~ 1999)
ENDORSEMENT ./NO i2?TION
APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
co cIL P S DENT
o
SUM~Y STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Council muse decide if the applicanE's request for a one Eime one ',fear
extension for submission cf 5he Final Dian for PUD 96-0002,
Co.~umercia!/Residen~ia! Por~i.cn of Deve!opmen~. The applicant mus! show
~:~a~ progress is being mas= and ~nar -'r is very ~ike!y =~-- --~=; ~
will be = '~ -~ed wi'' ' ,~l~=
_ ~uo::~=~ Enzn .... extended Eime period.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
P~ESPONSiBLE OFFICIAL: Jon Ho!an
ENFORCEb~NT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLE D
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED D I SAPPROVE D
DATE:
9A
8. AGENDA BILL NO.:
9. CLEARANCE CO~4ENTS:
10.
IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
Failure to approve the extension by April 21, 1999 would result in the
expiration of Preliminary PUD 96-0002.
11.
IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
Additional staff resources will be required to review the PUD's Final
Plan.
12 . RE SEARCH SOURCE S:
Zoning Ordinance
File
ATTACHMENT TO:
In re
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON
S]~ICLAIR LANDING PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
Commercial Group, Applicant.
PUD 96-0002
Resolution 2701
The Bremerton City Council, having heard this matter in open session and being otherwise
fully advised, finds, concludes, and resolves as follows:
FINDINGS
This is an application pursuant to BMC 21.02.520 for an extension of time limit for action
on a preliminary plan for a PUD. The PUD at issue is commonly known as Sinclair
Landing.
The Council opened a public hearing with proper notice on 24 March 1999. At this
he~aring it was noted that staff required additional time to prepare a report. The hearing
was continued to 21 April. On 21 April the Council reopened the hearing and accepted
into the record and reviewed the application, the staff analysis and recommendation, and
evidence from citizens, including testimony.
Under a master development agreement, the PUD has two, distinct portions with two
separate developers: 1) the Bremerton Transportation Center, of which Kitsap Transit is
the developer, and 2) the balance of the PUD, of which Commercial Group is the
developer. This application and this resolution deal only with the latter.
The Council approved the Preliminary Plan on 27 March 1997. No Final Plan has been
submitted.
The record does not support a finding that Commercial Group has made the required
progress on the proposal, especially on the elements expressly set out in the conditions of
the Preliminary Plan.
The record does not support a finding that it is very likely a Final Plan would be submitted
within the one-year extension period requested.
CONCLUSIONS
The Preliminary Plan would expire 21 April 1999 unless either a Final Plan were submitted
or an extension granted pursuant to BMC 21.02.520(a).
Commercial Group has timely filed for an extension.
Commercial Group has not shown that it has made progress under the Preliminary Plan
nor has shown that it is very likely that a Final Plan will be submitted with the one-year
extension requested here.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Commercial Group's application for an extension is
denied.
Dated this day of April 1999.
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
MIKE SHEPHERD, Council President
ATTEST:
PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk
Date: April 21, 1999
To: City Council
From: Phil Berry, Director of Community and Economic
Development
Subject: Time Extension for Preliminary PUD 96-0002, The
Commercial Group
Background: Section 21.02.520(a) allows the City Council to extend a preliminary approval on a
planned unit development (PUD) for a period of one year upon a showing by the applicant that
progress is being made and that it is likely that a Final Plan will be submitted within the extended time
period. The Commercial Group made a request for a time extension on the Preliminary PUD 96-0002.
On March 24, 1999, the City Council opened the public hearing to consider extension and concurred
with the staffrecommendation to continue the matter until April 21, 1999 to allow The Commercial
Group the opportunity to address the issues raised in the March 24 staff report (see Attachment A).
Analysis: At the time of the writing of this report, The Commercial Group has not submitted any
information or analysis to address the issues raised in the March 26 staff report. The organization did
submit a letter dated April 9, 1999 (see Attachment B). In that letter, they argue that based on
Condition 19 of the Preliminary PUD approval, the Final PUD can be submitted by the end of 1999.
Further, they contend that the Council has within its authority to extend the filing time for the Sinclair
Landing PUD from March 26, 1999 to the end of 1999 as an integral part of its initial approval. In its
letter, they cite a passage from the March 24 staff report to confirm the Final PUD submittal date.
The staff`report reference to the Final PUD approval cited in the letter was in context of determining
at what date the City Council could emend the Preliminary PUD approval if the extension was granted.
However, Section 21.02.520 (a) states in part:
"Within a maximum of two (2) years following City Council approval of a Preliminary
Plan, the applicant shall file a Final Plan for all or part (if phased) of the Planned Unit
Development. If the Final Plan is not filed within two years (from Preliminary PUD
approval), the right to proceed under the Preliminary Plan shall expire."
Based on this requirement, the City Council does not have the discretion to extend the approval of the
Preliminary Plan to the end of 1999. Since the original Preliminary PUD approval was on March 27,
1997, the applicant must obtain a time extension on the Preliminary Plan approval to preserve the
permit.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the time extension request since
the applicant failed to show, based on the criteria identified in the March 24 staff report, that progress
being made and that it is very likely that the Final Plan would be submitted within the extended time
period.
JON HOLAN
ATTACHMENT A
Date: March 24, 1999
To: City Council
From: Phil Berry, Director of Community and Economic
Development
Subject: Time Extension for Preliminary PUD 96-0002, The
Commercial Group
Background: The City Council on March 27, 1997 adopted Resolution 2588 (see Attachment 1)
approving Pre 'hminary Planned Unit Development Number PUD 96-0002, known as Sinclair Landing.
The proponent at that time was the Sinclair Landing Association. The PUD was for the development
of commercial retail and office, and residential development as well as the development of a
transportation facility known as the Bremerton Transportation Center (BTC). The overall
development covers approximately 22.5 acres with the commercial/residential portion comprising
21.41 acres and the BTC coveting 1.21 acres. (Note: There is some overlap in acreage because a
portion of the commercial/residential component of the PUD, the Commuter Retail Building, is
located in part of the area for the BTC.)
On March 18, 1998, the Sinclair Landing Association, the City of Bremerton, The Commercial Group
(developers of the commercial/residential portion of the PUD), Kitsap Transit, and Port of Bremerton
entered into the "Sinclak Landing Master Development Agreement" (see Attachment 2). As part of
that agreement, Sinclair Landing Associates assigned that portion of the PUD pertaining to the BTC
(excluding the Commuter Retail Building) to Kitsap Transit. The remaining portion of the PUD was
assigned to the Master Developer, which is The Commercial Group (see Section V.C. PUD on page
8 of the Agreement).
According to Section 21.02.520 (a) of the Bremerton Municipal Code, within two years of Council
approval of the Preliminary PUD the applicant shall either file a Final Plan for the PUD or the Council
may approve an one year extension on the preliminary. Since no Final Plan has been filed on the
commercial/residential portion of the permit, The Commercial Group is requesting a one year
extension on the Preliminary PUD (see Attachment 3). A similar request is being made by Kitsap
Transit for the other portion of the PUD. It should be noted that Condition 19 of the PUD approval
indicates that the Final Plan for Phase 1 of the PUD must be submitted by the end of 1999. The
Assistant City Attorney has indicated that the extension request, if approved, is a modification of the
permit approval and would extend the first phase submittal to March of 2000.
The applicant contends that an extension of the Preliminary PUD approval is unnecessary (see
Attachment 4). They contend that Paragraph F of the recitals in the Sinclair Landing Master
Development Aggreement modified the phasing of the PUD to include only the Bremerton
Transportation Center (BTC) as the only portion of the first phase. As discussed below, the approval
of the Preliminary PUD included the BTC and other retail/commercial components. The applicant
also contends that the Final PUD for the BTC has been met and they as co-applicants have completed
the Final PUD for PUD 96-0002 and not only for the BTC.
Preliminary PUD 96-0002
Time Extension Request - The Commercial Group
March 24, 1999
Page -2-
First, the requirements of the zoning ordinance takes precedence and must be met. As mentioned
above, the ordinance requires that within two years after the Preliminary PUD approval, either the
Final Plan be submitted or the City Council grant a one year time extension on the.preliminary.
Second, Staff believes the applicant's interpretation of the Master Development Agreement is in error
and that the Final Plan has not been submitted. Recitals of an agreement merely states certain facts
surrounding the agreement but is not part of the terms of the agreement itself'. This is illustrated in
the agreement after Recital F when it states, "Now, Therefore, the parties agree as follows:." Staff's
review of the Master Development Agreement indicates that there are no provisions within the terms
of the agreement that modifies the approved phasing schedule under the original PUD application.
As a result, the PUD phasing has not been modified by the agreement.
Further, The Commercial Group is not a co-applicant on the BTC. As mentioned above, the Master
Development Agreement identified two different parties to be responsible for different portions of
the PUD. This is the reason that two different extension requests are being considered by the
Council. Regarding the issue of the final PUD approval on the BTC, as indicated in the staff report
on that extension request, Kitsap Transit has prepared many of the elements required for the Final
Plan. However, the Final Plan has not yet been submitted and is the reason Kitsap Transit is
requesting the time extension. As a result of the above situation, staff maintains that, pursuant to the
requirements of the Bremerton Municipal Code, the applicant needs to request an extension on the
Preliminary PUD approval if the PUD is to remain active.
ANALYSIS:
Standards of the Extension Approval: Section 21.02.520 (a) states that, "The City Council may
approve a one year extension of the time [of the Preliminary Plan] upon a showing by the applicant
that progress is being made and that it is very likely that the Final Plan will be submitted within the
extended time period." The following is a discussion of The Commercial Group's request for the time
extension in relation to the two standards for approving the extension.
Progress is Being Made: The Commercial Group has taken some initial steps in developing the
commercial/residential portion of the PUD. The applicant has submitted a Project Description to the
City Council as part of its responsibilities under the Master Development Permit. Further, according
to materials submitted with the extension request, The Commercial Group has been actively seeking
tenants and partners to finance the project. In addition, the applicant has met with property owners
within the PUD project area to engage their involvement. Further, The Commercial Group has
engaged design and economic consultants as well as a general contractor and land appraisers to move
the project forward. To this end, The Commercial Group indicates it has expended $ 746,000 to
pursue the implementation of the PUD.
Preliminary PUD 96-0002
Time Extension Request - The Commercial Group
March 24, 1999
Page
However, The Commercial Group presented the Project Description to the City Council on
September 23, 1998 and February 3, 1999. As a result of this review process, The Commercial
Group was required by the City Council to provide to the City:
- Future tenant commitments as recommended by the City's Financial Analyst;
- Responses to reasonable inquiries and verification requests by the City's Financial
Analyst;
Arrangements for sufficient Public Attractions;
Detailed construction estimates;
Updates on their efforts to purchase necessary properties within the project area;
and
- Acceptable parking for the Marina.
To date, the applicant has not provided any information to indicate how they have met or are meeting
these requirements as part of its demonstration of making progress on the PUD.
It should be noted that the shoreline approval process is intended to be phased. To date, the only
portion of the Preliminary PUD which has received shoreline approval is identified as Phase A/B and
includes the Commuter Retail Building and the BTC. As a result, there has not been any shoreline
permit approval for any of the proposed commercial/residential development portion of the
Preliminary PUD including the waterfront park and waterfront esplanade. The City Council can
consider this situation in making its determination that progress has been made by the applicant. Staff
did not consider this issue since there is no requirement that the shoreline approvals must precede
Final Plan submittal. Further, the shoreline permits for the commercial/residential portion of the
development could be requested at any time without necessarily delaying the PUD process.
Final Plan Likely to be Submitted: According to the Municipal Code, the Final Plan includes:
Any modifications to the underlying zoning standards which were part of the Preliminary
PUD approval;
Final detailed engineering plans on:
- Drainage,
- Grading,
- Trash collection,
Preliminary PUD 96-0002
Time Extension Request - The Commercial Group
March 24, 1999
Page -4-
- Fire hydrants,
- Waste disposal systems,
- Water systems,
- Electrical systems,
- Street improvements, and
- Other necessary public improvements.
Necessary agreements to assure installation of all improvements;
Any needed Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to provide for ongoing maintenance and
repair of all private service facilities held in common.
The Final Plan may be submitted for the entire PUD or phases as adopted by the Preliminary PUD
approval. Phase 1 includes the Bremerton Transportation Center, the Commuter Retail Building
which is in the same development area as the BTC, four other commercial buildings, a parking
structure, a waterfront park and waterfront esplanade. Excluding the BTC, this initial phase of the
development includes:
193,360 square feet of retail space
141,118 square feet of office space
59,763 square feet of miscellaneous space (museum and health club)
99 room hotel
714 parking spaces
The Preliminary PUD approval also specifies that signatures from all affected property owners are
required as part of the Final Plan application.
As indicated above, the applicant must demonstrate that it is likely that the Final Plan can be
submitted within the time extension. Thus, the applicant must show that it is feasible to obtain
affected property owners' signatures, and submit final detailed engineering plans and any covenants
and restrictions in one year. The commercial/residential development requires no zoning ordinance
modifications and such amendments would not be needed for the Final Plan submittal.
The applicant did indicate in a project time line submitted with its request that the Final Plan would
be submitted by February 14, 2000 (line 8 of the timeline). However, there is no other information
provided to demonstrate that this date can be met.
SEPA: A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued for this project on
December 4, 1996. Since this request is for the extension of the original project, the MDNS is
adequate for this proposed request. Further, staffwould also note in support of this determination
Preliminary PUD 96-0002
Time Extension Request - The Commercial Group
March 24, 1999
Page -5-
that there has not been any substantial change in the environment where the facility is being built and
no substantial new information has been discovered since the approval of the Preliminary PUD.
In addition, it should be noted that this determination takes into account recent issues related to ferry
wake impacts on beach homes in Rich Passage. However, staff'finds that this is not an issue related
to this particular permit extension since the ferry operations are currently occurring and will continue
to occur regardless of the development of the commercial/residential project. While a successful
implementation of Sinclair Landing would generate additional ferry passengers, the wake issue, if it
is found to be an impact, is the responsibility of the Washington State Department of Transportation
through operational and/or vessel design modifications.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
With this complex project, there are a variety of factors that can enter into making these
determinations. Due to the short time frame for the time extension request, there has not been
sufficient time to identify the relevant criteria. Thus, staffrecommends that the City Council continue
this matter to April 21 to allow sufficient study time to address the issues raised in this staff'report.
During this period, the Council may identify other factors or criteria for The Commercial Group to
address in demonstrating progress and likelihood that the Final Plan can be submitted within one year.
JON HOLAN
Planning Manager
ATTACHMENT B
April 9, 1999
Mike Shepherd
City Council President
City of Bremerton
239 4" Street
Bremerton, WA 9833 7
Via; FAX
Re: Time extension for PUD 96-0002, Sinclair Landing
Dear Mike;
1he purpose of this letter is to advise the City that we assert our rights pursuant to the
terms of Candition 19 of the PUD. AS iterated previously, The Commercial Group [TCG]
believes there is no n~-'ad to request an extension of the Sinclair Landing PUD at the
present time. On the other hand, to satisfy the concerns of the City of Bremerton as
expressed in the letter of February 3, 1999, TCG agreed to supply additional information
and request an extension in an effort to reach an accommodation on this issue.
Nevertheless, it must be painted out that the City Council, in its initial approval of the
PUD on March 26, 1997 [Resolution No. 2588], specified in clear and unambiguous
languacje ~ the applicant had until the end of 1999 to submit a final PUD proposal
for the initial phase of the project:
Phase 1: 1997 throuqh 1999 - Buildings 1,2,3, 4, and 5; 15 & 16 & 12 (Emphasis
added)
The Cily's Director of Community and Economic Development has confirmed this paint,
In his letter to the City Council dated March 24, 1999, he states, 'it should be noted that
Condition 19 of the PUD approval indicated that the Final Plan for Phase I of the PUD
must be submitted by the end of 1999.* (Emphasis added)
The Bremertan Municipal Code, Section 21.02.520(a) provides that within two years of
Council's approval of the preliminary PUD, or, aiterr~zfltvely, the Council may approve a
one year extension of the filing requirement.
As the Council is empawered under the Cade to extend the filing time for up to one
year, clearly it was within its author~ to extend the filing time for the Sinclair Landing PUD
from March 26, 1999 to the end of 1999 as an integral part of its initial approval.
1
04/09/99
Sinclair [angling T~me Exteasion Request
TH[ I IIMMEHI IHI
RO. Box 10145, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 V: 206-855-9423 F: 206-855-9438 e-mail: rmcgrea188@aol.com
The fact that the Council's action was not st~K~ifically characterized as an "extension" is
irrelevant. As confirmed by Mr. Phil Berry, the intent of the City Council to permit filing of
the final Sinclair Landing PUD until the end of 1999 is clear. To hold that the Council
acted illegally is unnecessary and inappropriate. This is particularly lTue considering a
third parly, acting in reliance upon this approval, has spent considerable time and
money preparing for the submission of the Final PUD.
The C~y of Bremen'on is urgently requested to r~s~ss this issue and confirm that TCG
I"~s until Decenlz~r 31, 1999 to file a Final PUD Plan for the first phase of the Sinclair
Landing Project.
Sincerely, . ,.,, ,~
I~an
Managing Director
.cc
Mayor Hod'on
Glenna Malanca, City Attorney
Phil Berry, Director of DC;ED
Richard Hayes, Executive Director K[l'sap Transit
Robert Schneidler, President of SLA
Richard Brandenburg, Executive Director of Poff of Bremerton
2
04/09/99
Sinclair Landing Time Extension Request
April 1,5, 1999
Mayor Horton
Cily of Bremerton
289 4~ SITeet
Brernerton, WA 98837
Re: Letter mailed April 12, 1999 concerning MDA Requirements & FebnJan/3,
1999 Performance Issues
Honorable IVlayor;
The timing of your letter and timeframe for our response seems a little peculiar. I
thought the only issue before the City Council was whether to extend the PUD. Could
you please clarify what is being discussed, and when and if, we will be given an
opportunity to defend aumeives?
Returning to the subject of your letter, it includes a few characterizations of events
surrounding the Master Development Agreemem (MDA] with which I sffongly disag~.
For Instance, the second paragraph of your letter recounts an Inaccurate description of
both the MDA negotiations and the ~'rtent of the language canceming the Equity Letter
requkement in the MDA. 1he following statement in y~ur letter is incorrect:
'The nego~ on this issue were clear: ~ Mayor was insistent that TCG
establish its ability to commence the Project, and lhcrt there be a tight timeline
for the Project to be under way" (sp.].
Neither you n~ the C~ Attorney ever conveyed anything about a 'tight timeline" to
~commence the P~'o.'lecl' to us, At the time the IVIDA was being crafted the principals
of TCG knew enough ~bout the difficulty of developing in Brernertan that a discLJssior~
about a "tight timeline" would have boon considered laughably absurd. If this was your
goal wiw' didnff you put in ~.nguage that the .p~ of the Equity Letter is for TCG to
establish its ability lo meet a '11cJi ,-t, timeline" to "commence the Project. In fact, the
openir:;I senter~ce o~ paragraph VIII C. describes the purpose of the Equity Letter and
the other Milestones as simph/:
"To facilitate ~ economic ana~is ct the I~oject while proceeding with Project
//~nning ,and design,'
~ ~,uity Letter ~'e provided trom the R. K. Getiy Company fulfills ti'~ conditior~ of the
MDA. ~ letter is ff, m'n a local de~Joper knov~~ about the developrnent
conditions in Bremefton, an owner of an Outlet Mall, and o qu~lifled an,J experienced
investor willing to invest his money u~ler the financial terms of the Pro Forma una~
!
Si~lclai~ L~g Ting Exgnsion
P.O. Box 10145, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 V: 206-855-9423 F: 206-855-9438 e-mail: rmcgrea188@aol.com
review by CB/staff at the time. Not only is this a valid EquB/Letter for the intended
purpose, but the combination of local knowledge and ownership of an Outlet Mall
makes the willingness of this firm to invest extremely persuasive 'in the City's "economic
analysis of the Projecl" (see Paragraph VIII C. of the MDA).
You are l~4nq~ to reinterpret the purpose of the Equity Letter. TCG has clearly and
completely fulfilled the conditions of the EquB/Letter Milestone.
Before leaving the EquB/Letter topic left me clarify that this type of document in
development parlance is simply the introductory letter. This is not an EquB/Loan
Commitment which is a legal binding document. As another example, I am going to
attach an EquB/Letter [Exhibit "A"] I received ~his week-end so you can appreciate the
simplicB/of preliminary correspondence used in the business world. We all try to avoid
the legal mumble-jumble until the last possible moment.
Next, let me go to the third paragraph of your letter that addresses the parking garage
deal structure. Remember last summer when you, the CB/Attorney, CB/Treasurer, City
Bond Counsel and TCG principals attended a meeting at CIBC Oppenheimer in Seattle
with their national lending executives. In that meeting Rich Hanna described the City's
financial position. CIBC Oppenheimer executives determined a City "guarantee" would
be inadequate to finance the parking garage without a "co-signer." CIBC
Oppenheimer agreed to lend the funds to finance the parking garage pursuant to the
terms of the MDA, but only if the CB/obtained the participation of the State of
Washington to "guarantee" the payment under the terms of the MDA. We all left that
meeting with the understanding the City would pursue such a relationship with the State
of Washington.
Let me simplify the parking garage deal structure, and see if we can reach an
understanding on this issue. First, put aside thoughts about the annual payment
formula. Just concentrate on two facts: first, the City is purchasing the parking garages
from TCG by making 25 annual payments; second, CIBC Oppenheimer is lending
money to TCG to build the garage. Now put yourself in the shoes of CIBC
Oppenheimer. CIBC Oppenheimer says to themselves, "That sounds fine, but what if
for example, the CB/gets served with an injunction by Puget Soundkeepers that freezes
revenues which were intended to make the annual garage payments?' CIBC
Oppenheimer considers, "We must have a guarantee from the CB/, but wait a minute,
the CB/does have enough cash. We want a guarantee from a bigger fish like the
State of Washington." The purpose of the MDA "guarantee" is the same as any
guarantee. It is simply to provide funding if there is some unforeseen hic-cup. At the
conclusion of the meeting, CIBC Oppenheimer told us that they have done this before,
and would be willing to help CB/staff structure an Agreement with the state of
Washington.
2
04/19/99
Sinclair Landing Time Ex'tension Request
We have previously provided everything required by Paragraph II. B. of the MDA and
Agenda Bill #98-212. Please refer to my letter of March 3, 1999 for a summary of our
responses. Some of the answers are in the numerous documents we have provided to
you over the past 1 2 months. If you are having difticutty finding a particular piece of
information we would be delighted to help you find it. As a note of fact, the City can
not unilaterally terminate, revoke, or cancel our rights under the MDA without the
"mutual agreement" of the other parties to the MDA [Paragraph VIII. E. 5.). Are we really
spending our time in a worthwhile manner?.
We have reached a paint where the Land Acquisition Plan we provided last year needs
to be updated. This update of the Land Acquisition Plan for the "Public Features" will be
attached as Exhibit "B".
In addition, I am going to attach a spreadsheet analysis of the cost to bring the current
buildings in the PUD zone up to code. This document will be attached as Exhibit "C".
The significance of this document is that there is virtually no value to any building in
Bremen'on except for a couple owned by Bremer Trust. This is critical to an
understanding of how to value downtown Bremerton real estate, In other words, the
value of downtown Bremerton real estate is simply the value of the land, because the
cost to upgrade buildings will be more expensive than building new. This is how the
market value of Bremerton real estate should be determined.
As further evidence about properly values, I am going to attach a sales brochure for a
retail center in Tacoma. This item will be attached as Exhibit "D". This retail center has
some similarities with the area of downtown Bremerton in the Sinclair Landing PUD.
Both developments are commercial projects, equal in area and price. Presumably,
they should be similar. Let me summarize the differences in order of importance to a
real estate investor:
Cfiteda T~con'~ Race Downtown Bremen'on
Location
Cost
Population (1 mile ring)
HH Income (1 mile ring)
Daily traffic by site
Percentage leased
Effective Rental Rate
Age of buildings
Free parking
Cost to bring up to code
Area
Adjacent to Tacc~ma' Mall on I-5 Next to'ferry terminal
$27,500,000 $26,000,000
13,804 13,492
$51,228 $25,492
172,000 cars 23,000 cars
100% 60%
$15.00 $6.00
10 years 60-70 years lypically
1,268 stalls None
$0 $25,500,000
23.19 acres 24 acres
3
04/19/99
Sinclair Landing Time Extension Request
Tacoma Place is priced to be competitive in the national real estate market.
Downtown Bremerton must be similarly priced it it is to attract real estate investors. 1
think even the most unsophisticated person can see that Bremerton is not priced at a
realistic market level. When you honestly look at Bremeron the conclusion you reach is
that the location is sorely lacking in sufficient HH income to support a commercial
center, there is not sufficient drive-by traffic, the buildings are only slightly more than half
leased, the rental incame daes not justify the sales price, the buildings are old and
require substantial upgrades and finally there is no free commercial parking. Clearly,
Tacoma Place is the better investment. Any experienced real estate investor will
compare Bremerton property values with similar properties and like markets to
determine if it is a gcx:)d investment. They will look at the Tacoma Places ot the world
and determine which is the better investment.
Finally, I am going to attach two Exhibits, E and F, that demonstrate the level of tenant
and lender interest in the project. Both these Exhibits demonstrate the level of work and
commitment to the Sinclair Landing project by The Commercial Group LLC.
From the progress we have made to date, I can state with absolute assurance that the
Sinclair Landing Project can become a realB/, but only if it is unburdened of unrealistic
expectations, The number one unrealistic expectation is that there is a "quick fix", The
number two unrealistic expectation is that without the leverage of a CB/parking garage
to reduce unit land costs development is even possible. Redevelopment of Bremerton
is a very complex and difficult process, but the Sinclair Landing model is both viable
and feasible.
Sincerely,
Randy McGreal
Managing ~)irector
,CC
Glenna Malanca, CB/Attorney
Phil Berry, Director of DCED
Richard Hayes, Executive Director Kitsap Transit
Robert Schneidler, President of SLA
Richard Brandenburg, Executwe Director of Port of' Bferrfertan
4
04/19/99
Sinclair Landing Time Extension Request
Exhibit A
April 17, 1999
Mr. Randy MeG-real
~ Dkector
The Commercial Group
PO Box 10145
Bainbridge Island; WA 98110
De~ l~m~dy:
This letter serves as notice that I have identifit~d three tamies, cipher individuals,
funds, and/or in--cs t~ have cxprems~ imer~ in funding the Sinclair Landing
project.
Mr. Budd Moms, a merc~umt banking prof~ional in the stye of Florida, lms shown the
d~[ to one of his t'~al estate trust contacts, who h~u indicat~t interest per facsimile dated
April 16, 1999, and inquired-about several aspects of'the project.
Please respond accordingly as soon as possible to the questions and I will forward them
to Bud&
Look forward to speaidng with you soor~
Sincerely,
Randy Lewis
EquityNet Research
Exhibit B
Land Acquisition Strategic Plan B,
!!! Confidential
Unfortunately, the Land Acquisition Strategy we presented in June 1999 has not been
successful. There are two reasons for this failure: first, some property owners did not wish
to become Equity Investors in the Sinclair Landing project because of the risk involved;
second, other property owners offered a cash sale were unwilling to sell their property at
a cost even close to a market rate. Cansequently, we think it is time to go on to Plan B
as we have previously discussed. This document will briefly outline Plan B.
PRIVATE LAND ACQUISITION
Once issues concerning the PUD extension and Development Program Milestone are
approved by the City of B~emerton in a satisfactory way to The Commercial Group we
will prepare Cash Purchase and Sale Agreements for all properties that do not have
according to the Sinclair Landing PUD a proposed parking garage structure underneath
them.
The terms offered will be indust~ standard. All Cash Purchase and Sale Agreements will
only be contingent upon all property owners within the PUD zone agree to terms.
PUBLIC LAND ACQUISITION
We were hopeful that we could come to terms with many of the property owners that
currently own the property necessary for the MDA parking garages. This has not bccn
possible for the reasons dated above. It is therefore necessary for the City of Bremerton
to acquire the property for the public parking garages as dated in MDA Paragraph VI.
A.:
'The City shall be responsible for the acquisition of all the public properly rights
required in connection with the development of the Sinclair Landing Project."
For sake of clarification this includes all the property within Blocks 2 [not including
property within the BTC], 3, 8 and 9. Once the City acquires the property TCG will step
in and reimburse the City for their land acquisition costs. Obviously, this requires a
Callateral Agreement between TCG and the City that must be prepared.
I
04/19/99
Sinclair Landing
Land Acquisition Strategic Plan B.
Exhibit C Pa,eel No.
PROGRAM SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED RENOVATION COSTS
List BIk Site GBA Bsmt, Abatement $isemic Needs SprinklersMeets Glazing Needs Cost to Price
Pa~_~cel No. No. No, Lot(s) Address Description (SF) (SF) (SF) Rc,~rd Re,ltd Roof Re~]rd ADA Reclrd HVAC CURRENT BUILDING DESCRIPTION Up, rede SF
Building 120-Enetai Plaza &Naval
~uesoem('ranonta-Fraiche Cup. Bremerton
~-hamber of Commerce, Kitsap Transit,
National Benefit Advisory, Naval Muesenm)-
Building exterior-Horizonlal 1x6 wood end
stucco on sit. eat aide, rear Of building is Ix6
3~7~18 002-004 0009 5 2 4.-7 11~ Washington Weir L & D 13,50312,00~ 6,000 Yes Yes Yes Partial No No Partial horizontal siding. $530,725 DO $29 48
The Sinclair Building is on the Historical
regisby-2-stol'y w/daylight basement. Exterior
is brick o~ 3-sides w/horizontal wood siding
on waler side. Exsisflng wlndow'~ are single
glazed double-hung. Brick needs repointing
3718-003-006-0005 t 1 3 7-8 232 Washington Ave. Watertront Partners-Brain 8,712 10,260 3,420 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Partial and roof leakstl $530,726.0~ $38.80
Building was built in 1963 and currenUy
houses Dental offices. Exterior in gond
371B-004-001-0008 t 3 4 1-3 400 Washingtan Ave Hanie¥/Protaau/Lamb 27,4427,236 Yes Yea Yea Exsisting No Yes No shape. Interiors contain GWB, 2x4 lay-in tile, $322,311 00 $44.54
4-Stray brick apartment building built 1926.
-004-005-0004 27 4 5-6 424 Washington Ave Bale Walter F& Phyllis A 9,147 8,436 Yes Yea Yes Yes No Yea Yes Needs roof, windows, elevator, sprinklers, $714,281 DO $8467
Roxy Theater built in 194l, also contains
Jorgen Nelson Jeweler. Exteri~ Of bldg ia
poured-in-place concrete & glazed tile
3716 006-006-0008 . 6__~_4 6 6-7 268 4th St Heine M & C. 6,O9~ 9,180 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yea Yes ~vainscoat. $538,033 00 $58.6C
The Car Muesum was built in 1940. Bldg ia a
;)ad, al 2-stray bldg w/combination of poured-
In-piece concrete & concrete block with
37 lB-006-0! 2-0000 65 8 $ 2-17230 4Ih SI. Weir L. & D. 19,16~28,74~ Yes Yea Yes Yes No Yes Yes single glazed steel sash windows. $971,572.DO $3379
Built in 1941.3-story renovated office bldg.
3718-007-001-0001 102 7 1-4 302 Pacitic AveConnnily Michael 12,196 No Yes Yes ? No N° No YeP/nice apace. Dk as is ok as is
Built In 3930, Renovated office nice
apace.Vstucco exteriro ov~ concrete
37 ! 8 DO?-005.000? ! 03 , ~ , 5 264 Burwall St Connoll¥ Michael 3,049 3,960 No Yes Yes ? No No No blsok,w/~ermope~e w~ndows.Roof ok. ~k as ia ok as ia
Built in 1920. Renovated ~'tce nice
space.Vstucco exte~lro over concrete
37___18-007-006-0006 104 7 6 262 Burwell $l. Connotl¥ Michael 3,049 3,000 No Yes Yes ? No No No bicok,w/tflemlopene windows.Roof o.k. ok aa ia ~k as ia
Built tn 1933. CASTLE APARTMENTS.Very
go~cl shape, 2-story brick w/daylighti
basement,w/single glazed aluminum
31 IS-DO?-DOT-OO05 105 7 7--9 256 Burwell St Haynes Janlce Et Al 6,969 7,192 2,484 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yea Yes wtndowsRonf ok. $350,584.00 $48.74
Built in 1948. Tear Down, NITE SHIFT
TAVERN Terra-Col/a tile and brick over
37.._~18 O07.00g*0003 34_ 7 9 242-246 Bur'~vell St Bu~don Bemord E 5,227 .9. ~4~6 4~743 Yes Ye~ Yes Ye~ No Yes Yes ,rood. Needs eve~/Ihing. $547,34800 $57.7(~
'Built in 1905. Tear Down. Evergreen
Upholstery, Stucco over wood. Needs
3718.007-011-0009 49 7 11 238 Burwell St ~Nelch James T& Joanna K 3,045 3,150 540 Yes Yea Yea Yea No Yes Yea evar~hlng $293,156.0(; $79.44
Built In 1921. CITY HALL BUILDiNG.2-stary
w/paPal basement. Does'/meet ADA ,but has
elevator. Extark~ skin is Terra-cots tile
007.014.00064 7 14,15,22-~? 239 4th St Cit~ of Bremertom 26r128 Yes Yes No Yea No Yes No wi~in~[Ita ~[llazed aluminum windows. Roof ok. ? ?
Pago 1
Parcel No.
List BIk Site GBA Bsmt. Abatement Sisemic Needs Sprinklers, Meets Glazing Needs Cost to Price
Parcel .No. No. No. Lo!rs} Address Description , {$F) {SF) {$F) Reqrd Reqrd Roof Reqrd ADA RecFd HVAC CURRENT BUILDING DESCRIPTION U~rade
BuiE in 1919. Rab~nis B~ls.2-s~ b~ck
bl~. Re~il on I st fir, A~en~ on 2nd fir.
3718-007~16-~4 33 7 16 17 12~ Bu~e~l St Diamond J~l 3,049 6,6~ Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Ye~ N~ds ev~i~. Brick n~s re-~infl~. $4~.562.~ $69.47
~ in 1~. Tear ~, Ta~ S~ ~ to
Rabbis ~.2-sto~ s~cco bldg Re~il
o~ 1st fir. Apa~ment~ on 2nd fir. Needs
3718-007016010353 7 16-17 214 Bu~ell SI Diamond Joel 1~,~8 2,862,, Ye~ Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes evenly. $171,854.~ ~,~
~ilt in 1~7. 245
w/~al beretta ok,Bremedon
Ptinfl~ in ba~t. E~ skin is Tena-
co~ tile w/single gl~ed aluminum
~ndo~.R~f ~, n~e ma~e I~.
37~8~7-028-~ 1~ 7 28-29 245 4th SI Laine Michael 6,~8 30.~ 6,0~ Yes Ye3 No Yes Yes Ye3 Yes terf~o fl~s $998,~.~ $2729
w/paPal ~s~ent pi~e of junk. Tear
~7~6-~7-030-~ 107 7 ~-31 255 ~ S~ Sodan~ Rear Estate 6,~8 1~,3~ 6,1~ Y~ Ye~ Y~ Yes No Yes Yes s~km d~n. R~ ~ks. , ~7~367.~ $41
BuiE in 1~0. 1.~o~ w~a~menl.
[~o~t~ ~ Ni~ bldg. E~efio[ skin m
st~co wlss~p~-in wnil ~nd~.
Interiror finbhes are 2x4 lay-in ceiling, car~t,
3718-~7-032-~4 1~ 7 32-33 263~[hSt ConnollyMicheel 6,~ 16,~2 ,. 6,3~ No No No No Y~ No NO ~prinklem~rou~ ~AC. okasis okasis
BuiE in 1~7.2-~to~ w~se~nt. R~enfly
~ renovated ve~ Nice bldg. E~er~r skin is
stucco w/sstopp~-tn ~il ~nd~
nted~or finishes a~e 2x4 lay-in ceiling, car~t
3~18-~7-034-~2 109 7 ~-35 275 4th St Connolly Michael ~ 6,0~ 15,~ 5.1~ No N~ No No Yes ,, No No !sprinklers ~rou~ho~ ~AC. ok as is ok as is
BuiE In 1920.2-~to~ wlpadial ~sement
pi~e of junk. Tear ~is sucker do~. E~eriof
skin Is s~cco w/single glaz~ aluminum
3718-007-036-~ 110 7 36 281 4th St ~eir Louis J 3,04S9,~ 3,~ Yes ~es Yes Yes No Yes Ye~ wind~R~f leaks ~d. $~7,~2 ~ $4565
Built in 1921 Die~ Bldg. 3-s/o~ wlpadial
basement E~eHor skin is stucco w/single
glazed aluminum ~ndo~.R~ leaks ~d.
3718-~7-037-0~9t 1 ~ 7 37-39 285 4th St Die~ Building Inc 9,147~ ~ 9,270 Yes Yes _ Yes Yes No Yes Yes BremedonEn~re ~d fl~Savi~s~cant.& Trust ~dg, 2-st~ $1.~9.044.~ $47.02
bldg, 1si fir o~ces r~en~y re~a~. 2nd
fir tefra~o, ~s elector, bldg e~efior-
bdck,lerrac~.~ de~il~, hislorlcal
37 ~8-~8-~1-~ 9 8 1-4 :~202 Pacifm AveReese W. & R. 4.791~0,~8~225 No Yes Yes Yes Maybe ~o, No sku~re. $334,~2.~. $32.49.
..... ~ Penny Bldg 2-sto~ ~ basement. 2nd
sto~ Is ~rking d~k. 12'-0 ' from ceiling to
2x4gfid 4'~ from gdd lo ~ of d~k,
3718-~8-~1-01083 ~ 1-14 No Site AddressConnolly Michael 692~ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes D" d~p ~ns. 24'-0 x 28'~ bay s~cin~. $3,180,~.~
Em~rom Res~fant-single sto~ bldg, ~
3718-~-017-~1 ~ 6 17 221 Washingtoq ~ve Pete~son Nell J 3,049 2 870 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes [tame ~ stucco
Bremer Bldg/~ug Fox Travel-2-sto~ (L~ks
~ike 3-sto~ E~ e~erlor) termopanes ha~
3~18-~9-~-~7 16 9 1-2 1 ~ Paci~c Ave Ryan Tim Pro.dies 6,098 18,~ 6,~ Yes Yes ~es Yes No Yes Yes ~een rekofiffed, le~&plaster, 2x4 ~yin tile, $1 ,~7,4~.~ $41.97
~estsound Bank. Pr~es~ck skinand
gan~e ~in~oat w/single glaz~ wi~,
~-~9 003-~5 10 9 1~ Pacfic Ave Btemer J. I E 14.810 2,135 No Yes Yes No No
3-7~
6,~
Yes
Yes
$416~72.~
$47.27
Sing~ sto~ stu~o bldg(ne~ to Mc~nalds)-
~3718-~-01g-~7 42 9 19-20 l~Washin~ton Ave Naka~a~ Yoko Trustee3,~9 3,240 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TEAR ~WN $1~,~.~ ~52.~
Page 2
Parcel No
List BIk Site BBA Beret. Abatement $isemic Needs SprinklersMeets Glazing Needs Cost to Price
ParcetNo. No. No. Lot(s) Address DescripUon (SF} (SF[ (SF} Reqrd Reqrd Roof' Reqrd ADA Reqrd HVAC CURRENT BUILDING DESCRIPTION Upgrade SF
3718-OO9-O21-~O3 30 9 21 .<)0 1st St. McO<mltd's Cofp<xation871 945 , No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No McD<malds Restura~
3~18-009-O22-0002 43 9 22 204 1st St ~riedman J S 3,049 3,120 Yes__ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TAVER~4-1-STORY TEAR DOWN
I New sto,'efront system-HS Wrights
3718-009-023-0001 _22 9 23-24 208-212 1 st St.imantzakle John A/Polaris 3,09~ 5,044 Yes Yes Ye~ Yes Yes No Yes :empofa~/office for parkin~ stnJctui'~ proiect.
~.heer s Tavem-2-story brick bldg,let llr-
~avem, 2nd flr-apa~"~enbl, Ihormopanes on
3718-009-025-0009 , 40; 9 25 218-220 let St :ederer RaymondlJo¥ce 3,04S 9.000 3,000 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes 2nd floor only-TEAR DOWN $602,643 O0 $50.22
·. , !Ne son Bu Idfng-(Wlndsor House &Bemies '
Coctalls) 3-story bldg brick alld stucco,lath
and Plaster.has thermopane windows-Tear
'222 224 tat StFriedman Properties LLC 3,04g 10,26C 900 Yes Yes Yes
3718-009-026-..0~8 21 9 26 ! - Yes No Yes Yes Down $736,845.00 $6602
-- 1
broken-up into separate tenants---TEAR
3718 014.005-0003 82 14 5 6 646 Burvvell S!. OietZ Building inc. 6,098 1,92(] 960 Yes Yes No Yes i~io Yo:~ Cooling only DOWN Tear Down Tear Dowr
' ' r - Les Schwab Tire sto~e. I -sto~y concrete
3718 014-010-0006 85 14 10-14 626 Burwetl SI Shaub Sanord Et UX 1.3~939 6,672 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes s~ructure, con~minated soiL.TEAR DOWN ]'ear Down Tear Dowr
2-story wood/concrete/block parking
structure Potenial 4x20 wood beams to be
3716-014,-014-0002 86 14 14-15 604 Bur,veil StShaub Sartord Et LI~( 4,791 2.75(3 No ,, yes Yes Yes No NIA Exhaust s~lva~led ,Teal Dow~ Tear Dow;
~.18-014~016-0000 87 14 16-17 538 Buiq~vall St. Sorlanos Real Estate6,098 12,154 ,,, No. Yes N/A Yes NIA N/A N/A 2-$tof~ concrete structure. Diamond parking ? ?
Single eto~y brick and concrete bldg w/blue
.f18-014-018-0008 88 14 18-19 532 Burwell St.Sorlanos Real Estate6,098 12.000 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes canop)',Sorieno'sRealEstate $384,100.00 $32.00
37~1~-014-020-0004 8,9 14 20-21 524 Bufwell Bt.S~lenos Real Estate 6,098 12 360 Yes Yes No . Yea Yes Yes Yes $389.650.00 $31.54
Single story bt~illding built in 1974. (Christian
Science Reading Room,Pub/Eatery)
3718-014-(~22-0002 90 14 22-25 301-311 Pacit~cAva Navy Yard lnv Co. 12,63212,000 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Comblnatlen wood end brick starefrontl $384,100.0~ $3200
2.story building w/panel basement &
mezzanine. Stucco/concrete tile skin. metal
[hermopane
lath/plaster w/2x41ay-in tile. Retail 1st
3718-014-026-0008 91 14 26.29 509 Pacific Ave5orianosRealEst~le 12,632, 29,050 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Partial ~lr,ofticesabove. $990,445.00 $3,4.94
-- Bui8 in 1918 Soriano's Bldg. ~?-sto~y w/parttal
~nezzanine and basement. Exterior skin is
stucco&concrete tile, metal thermopece
retrofil in wood sash, capitals/dentals at
3718-014-030-0002 ~ !4 30 509 4th St Sorianos Real Estate1~742 1,545 Yes Ye~ Yes Yes No Yes Yes parapit.
Built in 1918 O~e Accord Christian ~entar,
3718-014.030-0101 93 14 30-3! 523 4that Soriancs Re;~l Estate 4,791 4,635 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Tear Down. Exterior is drTvit. $150,684.00 $32.50
Built in 1920 Brinkerhoff's Appliance, Tear
Down. Exterior Is concrete tile w/stucco
3718-014-032-0000 94 14 32 527-.533 4th StSorianoa RealEstate 3,46412,7001 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yea Yes storefront. $117,096.001 $43.36
I -- Built in 1921 Evergreert Trophy 2-stery, Tear
Down. Re4ail on 1st floor and vacant space
on 2nd Ilr. Exterior is concrete tile w/exposed
3718-014.035-0007 96 14 35 547 4th St. Dawkina Morris 3,049 7,98~ 3.09(: Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes aggregat? storefront. $399,299.00$50.03
Page 3
~4k,~ uc
i~r
F~. ~erdak,
Phiia~lphia
CaSa
Aura
Aul~a
Begum
C~e
C~
C~ch Repub~c
Ge~v
Hon~ Kon~
Hu~'
Indone*h
M~co
The Ne~eria~
New ~
Norm l~d
P~pp~es
Po~d
Repub~c of l~l~d
Sco~d
Singa~re
South ~cz
Spmn
~nd
Turkey
Vie~m
Exhibit D
Mr. Randy McCn'eal
Commercial Group
P.O. Box 10145
Bainbridge Is. WA 981 l0
Re: Tacoma Place Shopping Center Investment Opportunity
Dear: Mr. McGreal:
Enclosed is an offering brochure on Tacoma Place, a retail investment opportunity.
Place is a HomeBase, Gart Sports anchored retail center located on the 72"d Street
interchange of Interstate 5 in Tacoma, Washington.
Tacoma
HomeBase had 1998 sales of $1.47 billion and has a stock holder's equity of $359 million.
Gart Sports/Sportmart is the second largest sporting goods retailer in the U.S. with combined
1997 sales of $700 million. Other national and regional tenants include: Radio Shack, Taco
Bell, Starbucks, Applebee's, Olive Garden, Dairy Queen, Red Lobster, Zoopa and Shah's.
The property has tremendous Interstate 5 visibility, with over 1,600 lineal feet of frontage
and 1-5 traffic counts of 172,000 cars per day. It has a history of very high occupancy and is
currently 100% leased. The offering price is $27,500,000, a 9% capitalization rate. The
property has a long term loan in place of approximately $19,500,000 at 7.99% interest, 30
year amortization, providing a cash-on-cash return of 9.5%. The loan is pre-payable for the
all-cash buyer.
Tacoma Place is a 100% leased, highly visible shopping center located at one of the major I-5
interchanges in the Puget Sound region. It offers the investor a strong yield in a captive,
stable market.
Please call me if you would like further information on this excellent investment opportunity.
Sincerely,
Paul Sleeth
COLLIERS MACAULAY NICOLLS I~Nq-EtLNATIONAL
r,". t x. ION STREET. >r ITE 5~(,7 · 5E.*,~!'LE. ~% ~-.':
?H~NE: (206) 223-0866' FAX: (2Ct,) 2231427
RETAIL
INVESTMENT
OPPORTUNITY
Located on a major I-5
interchange (172, 600 cars
per day) Tacoma Place has
tremendous visibilirp with
over 1,600 lineal feet of
j~eeway j%nrage an~[ bene?rs
jarom i~s surroundi.g dense
population. Buil; i. 1988,
this 231,686 square foot
center is 100%/eased aha'
historically we~/occz~pied.
EXCLUSIVE
SALES AGENT
Paul $/eerh
(206) 223-0866
CMN inc.
Street, Suite 5300
gton 9810 l
www. colliers.com
Exhibit E
List of firms interested in
Sinclair Landing
A~il 19, 1999
Hotel Group
Reebok
Greg Norman Shop
Rockport
Van's Shoes
Kinde~are
ESPN Zone
Co Ho Caf~
Half Price Books
Dick ClarKs American Bandstand
Dave & Busters
Fraiche Cup
Starlight Cinemas
Edwards Theatres Circuit
Mel's Drive-in
Pyramid Breweries
Anthony's Restaurants
History Channel
Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory
Johnny Rockets
Crunch Fitness
Blockbuster
Cole-Haan
Movado
Woolrich
Nike
Springmaid/Wamsutta
Walgreens
Rite Aid
Bartels
Associated Grocers
Albertson's
Brooks Brothers
Eddie Bauer
The Gap
Bugle Bay
Big Dog
Nautica
Nine West Group
Exhibit F
List of firms interested in providing financing for
Sinclair Landing
A~i119, 1999
CIBC Oppenheimer
Credit Suisse First Boston
Bank of America
U, S, Bancorp
Wells Fargo
GMAC Commercial Mortgage
Key Bank
GE Capital Real Estate
Center Financial
Carpenter's Union
Operating Engineer's Union
lNG Bafings
R. K, Gelly Company
Discovery Themed Entertainment
Entertainment Property Trusts
EquityNet
Starwood Capital
KITSAP TRANSIT
April 21, 1999
Mayor Lynn Horton and Bremerton City Council
City of Bremerton
239 4t~ Street
Bremerton, WA 98310
Re: Sinclair Landing Planned Unit Development (PUD) extension request
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
Kitsap Transit, after considerable discussion with city attorneys and planning staff, is withdrawing
its request for the transfer of the Commuter Retail Building (CRB) rights to the Kitsap Transit
element of the PUD. The key issue in our minds was the shoreline permit, which we have already
obtained and which we would not lose with the loss of the PUD.
Instead, the parties to the Master Developer Agreement (MDA), including Kitsap Transit, the
City, The Commercial Group (TCG), Washington State Ferries and the Port of Bremerton, will
re-negotiate a carry-on agreement comprised of what is left of the MDA after the loss of the PUD
plus a few related side issues necessary to accomplish the permitting and construction of the CRB.
'The focus of the continuation agreement will be on the CRB, which Kitsap Transit believes the
developer, TCG, still has the right and capabilities to accomplish. However, to go forward with
the CRB, the development team; TCG and its members, would have to supply hold harmless
agreements on all previous issues.
In discussion of the CRB to this point, it has been identified by all parties that the critical need is
long-term parking, which cannot be provided in Kitsap Transit's HOV garage because of
commitments, in grants received to construct it, to retain that facility for transit usage. Resolution
of the long-term parking issue will therefore probably require purchase by the developer of some
additional portion of the city's parking lot. This provides an opportunity for all parties to work
together to develop a Kiss 2q Ride facility at the same time. A Kiss 2q Ride facility would be a
shared responsibility but would meet the terms of another agreement between Kitsap Transit and
the City of Bremerton to develop such a facility prior to completion of the overall project.
It is Kitsap Transit's expectations that these discussions would be able to proceed expeditiously,
once they do not have the cloud of the PUD over them.
Richard M. Hayes
Executive Director
234 South Wycoff Brernerton, Washington 98312-4199
Phone: (360) 479-6962 FAX: (360) $77-7086 Webs/to: www. kitsaptransit, org
Memorandum
CC:
F rom:
Date:
Re:
Bremerton City Council
Mayor Lynn Horton
Glenna Malanca, City Attorney
04/19/99
The Commercial Group PUD Extension Application and Master Development Agreement
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine Considerations
A public hearing is scheduled for Wednesday night, April 21, on The Commercial Group request for
an extension of the Sinclair Landing PUD. The Council's role at the public hearing is to determine
whether a one-time one-year extension of the Preliminary PUD should be granted to The Commercial
Group. Under BMC 21.02.520, the Council may approve the request for an extension if the applicant
shows that progress is being made and that it is very likely that the Final Plan will be submitted
within the extended time period.
Wednesday's hearing is a quasi-judicial proceeding which is subject to Chapter 42.36 RCW. he
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Issues relevant to the requested extension have been the subiect or'
numerous discussions, media coverage, staff input and documents generated by both proponents and
opponents of the requested extension. Most of the Ex-parte communication has been necessitated by
the common issues between the PUD status and compliance requirements of the parties' Master
Development Agreement executed effective March 18, 1998.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires the substance of any Ex-pane communications wSth
proponents or opponents to be disclosed by a public announcement of the content of the
communication. Additionally the opponent's and proponent's right to rebut the substance of the
communication should be announced prior to the public hearing. Anyone attempting to disquaii~.' a
Council Member must object prior to the decision of the Council. RCW 42.36.090 also provides that
even upon objection by a part5.', enough council members to constitute a quorum shall be allo~¥ed to
vote upon full disclosure of the basis of disqualification. This provision is known as the Doctrine of
Necessity.
The most important step to take at this juncture is appropriate disclosure and announcement at r_he
commencement of the public hearing at the Wednesday Council Meeting. Attached is a proposed
announcement for each Council Member to tailor to their circumstances. My direct line is 415-5497
if you have any questions or need help with your announcement.
To: Glenna Malanca
From: Knute Rife
Re:' Commercial Group PUD
Date: 19 April 1999
Wednesday evening the Commercial Group's portion of the Sinclair Landing PUD expires
unless the Council grants an extension. There is a proposal to grant an extension, not in favor of
the Commercial Group, but in favor of the City. We have no authority to do this.
A PUD preliminary plan is arises from a particular application and is approved for a
particular applicant. BMC 21.02.380 and 410. The preliminary plan is a development ri~mht held
by that applicant. BMC 21.02.520(a). The applicant is then obligated to file a final plan within
two years, or the preliminary plan expires. Id. The Council may approve a one-time, one-year
extension of the preliminary plan upon a showing by the applicant that it has made profess under
the preliminary plan and that it is very likely a final plan will be submitted within the extension
period.
In the present matter, Commercial Group is the applicant. Commercial Group owns the
development right and must apply for any extension, which it has done. Commercial Group must
make the twin showing of progress and likelihood. This means that Commercial Grouo must have
made progress and that Commercial Group has demonstrated likelihood, which would essentially
require that either Commercial Group or an entity under Commercial Group's control would be
filing a preliminary plan. If Commercial Group makes its case, it may receive an extension; if not,
then not.
An applicant holds the fights under a preliminary plan. An applicant may apply for an
extension of those rights, and if the applicant makes a case, the applicant may receive an
extension. An applicant may assign its rights, but the assignee would then be the applicant. There
is no provision for extending a PUD for the benefit of any party other than an applicant.
Knute Rife
Assistant City Attorney
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEM]ENT
As required by RCW 42.36.090, I am placing on the record of this
public hearing the substance of written and oral communications
concerning the decision of action before us tonight. Because of the
City Councils' responsibilities relating to the Master Development
Agreement executed by The Commercial Group and the Ci~ of
Bremerton, and others, effective March 18, 1998, I have read
materials provided by City staff and The Commercial Group. Some
of these materials that related to progress under the Master
Devel6pment Agreement also are relevant to the matter before us
tonight. There have been various City Council open meetings during
which issues relevant to tonight's proceeding have been disclosed and
discussed. Quotes from all parties have been contained in newspaper
articles over the past year. Study sessions and meetings with the
Mayor and small numbers of Council Members have occurred in
furtherance of responding to Master Development Agreement
administration. Alternative development possibilities have been
discussed due to issues related to the Master Development
Agreement. All communications referenced and detailed in this
announcement have limited relevance to the decision before the
Council tonight due to the then unknown nature of the verification
and documentation that would be provided by The Commercial
Group in support of its application for an extension. That information
is contained in the record before us tonight.
Anyone may rebut, during the course of the public hearing, the
substance of any and all communications disclosed by this
announcement and specific disclosures of each Council Member.
Does any Council Member have a further disclosure in addition to the
communications I have announced?
Date: April 21, 1999
To: City Council
From: Phil Berry, Director of Community and Economic
Development
Subject: Time Extension for Preliminary PUD 96-0002, The
Commercial Group
Background: Section 21.02.520(a) allows the City Council to extend a preliminary approval on a
planned unit development (PUD) for a period of one year upon a showing by the applicant that
progress is being made and that it is likely that a Final Plan will be submitted within the extended time
period. The CommerCial Group made a request for a time extension on the Preliminary PUD 96-0002.
On March 24, 1999, the City Council opened the public hearing to consider extension and concurred
with the staffrecommendafion to continue the matter until April 21, 1999 to allow The Commercial
Group the opportunity to address the issues raised in the March 24 staff report (see Attachment A).
Analysis: At the time of the writing of this report, The Commercial Group has not submitted any
information or analysis to address the issues raised in the March 26 staff report. The organization did
submit a letter dated April 9, 1999 (see Attachment B). In that letter, they argue that based on
Condition 19 of the Preliminary PUD approval, the Final PUD can be submitted by the end of 1999.
Further, they contend that the Council has within its authority to extend the filing time for the Sinclair
Landing PUD fi.om March 26, 1999 to the end of 1999 as an integral part of its initial approval. In its
letter, they cite a passage fi.om the March 24 staff report to confirm the Final PUD submittal date.
The staffreport reference to the Final PUD approval cited in the letter was in context of determining
at what date the City Council could extend the Preliminary PUD approval if the extension was granted.
However, Section 21.02.520 (a) states in part:
"Within a maximum of two (2) years following City Council approval of a Preliminary
Plan, the applicant shall file a Final Plan for all or part (if phased) of the Planned Unit
Development. If the Final Plan is not filed within two years (from Preliminary PUD
approval), the right to proceed under the Preliminary Plan shall expire."
Based on this requirement, the City Council does not have the discretion to extend the approval of the
Preliminary Plan to the end of 1999. Since the original Preliminary PUD approval was on March 27,
1997, the applicant must obtain a time extension on the Preliminary Plan approval to preserve the
permit.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the time extension request since
the applicant failed to show, based on the criteria identified in the March 24 staff report, that progress
being made and that it is very likely that the Final Plan would be submitted within the extended time
period.
JON HOLAN
Date: April 21, 1999
To: City Council
From: Phil Berry, Director of Community and Economic
Development
Subject: Time Extension for Preliminary PUD 96-0002, The
Commercial Group
Background: Section 21.02.520(a) allows the City Council to extend a preliminmy approval on a
planned unit development (PUD) for a period of one year upon a showing by the applicant that
progress is being made and that it is likely that a Final Plan will be submitted within the extended time
period. The Commercial Group made a request for a time extension on the Preliminary PUD 96-0002.
On March 24, 1999, the City Council opened the public hearing to consider extension and concurred
with the staff recommendation to continue the matter until April 21, 1999 to allow The Commercial
Group the opportunity to address the issues raised in the March 24 staff report (see Attachment A).
Analysis: At the time of the writing of this report, The Commercial Group has not submitted any
information or analysis to address the issues raised in the March 26 staff report. The organization did
submit a letter dated April 9, 1999 (see Attachment B). In that letter, they argue that based on
Condition 19 of the Preliminary PUD approval, the Final PUD can be submitted by the end of 1999.
Further, they contend that the Council has within its authority to extend the filing time for the Sinclair
Landing PUD fi.om March 26, 1999 to the end of 1999 as an integral part of its initial approval. In its
letter, they cite a passage from the March 24 staff report to confirm the Final PUD submittal date.
The staff report reference to the Final PUD approval cited in the letter was in context of determining
at what date the City Council could extend the Preliminary PUD approval if the extension was granted.
However, Section 21.02.520 (a) states in part:
"Within a maximum of two (2) years following City Council approval of a Preliminary
Plan, the applicant shall file a Final Plan for all or part (if phased) of the Planned Unit
Development. If the Final Plan is not filed within two years (from Preliminary PUD
approval), the right to proceed under the Preliminary Plan shall expire."
Based on this requirement, the City Council does not have the discretion to extend the approval of the
Preliminary Plan to the end of 1999. Since the original Preliminary PUD approval was on March 27,
1997, the applicant must obtain a time extension on the Preliminary Plan approval to preserve the
permit.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the time extension request since
the applicant failed to show, based on the criteria identified in the March 24 staff report, that progress
being made and that it is very likely that the Final Plan would be submitted within the extended time
period.
JON HOLAN
Dat~:
Bremerton City Council
Mayor Lynn Horton
Glenna Malanca, City Attorn
04/19/99
The Commercial Group PUD Extension Application and Master Development Agreement
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine Considerations
A public hearing is scheduled for Wednesday night, April 21, on The Commercial Group request for
an extension of the Sinclair Landing PUD. The Council's role at the public hearing is to determine
whether a one-time one-year extension of the Preliminary PUD should be granted to The Commercial
Group. Under BMC 21.02.520, the Council may approve the request for an extension if the applicant
shows that progress is being made and that it is very likely that the Final Plan will be submitted
within the extended time period.
Wednesday's hearing is a quasi-judicial proceeding which is subject to Chapter 42.36 RCW, the
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Issues relevant to the requested extension have been the subject of
numerous discussions, media coverage, staff input and documents generated by both proponents and
opponents of the requested extension. Most of the Ex-parte communication has been necessitated by
the common issues between the PUD status and compliance requirements of the parties' Master
Development Agreement executed effective March 18, 1998.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires the substance of any Ex-parte communications with
proponents or opponents to be disclosed by a public announcement of the content of the
communication. Additionally the opponent's and proponent's right to rebut the substance of the
communication should be announced prior to the public hearing. Anyone attempting to disqualify a
Council Member must object prior to the decision of the Council. RCW 42.36.090 also provides that
even upon objection by a party, enough council members to constitute a quorum shall be allowed to
vote upon full disclosure of the basis of disqualification. This provision is known as the Doctrine of
Necessity.
The most important step to take at this juncture is appropriate disclosure and announcement at the
commencement of the public heating at the Wednesday Council Meeting. Attached is a proposed
announcement for each Council Member to tailor to their circumstances. My direct line is 415-5497
if you have any questions or need help with your announcement.
To: Glenna Malanca
From: Knute Rife
Re: Commercial Group PUD
Date: 19 April 1999
Wednesday evening the Commercial Group's portion of the Sinclair Landing PUD expires
unless the Council grants an extension. There is a proposal to grant an extension, not in favor of
the Commercial Group, but in favor of the City. We have no authority to do this.
A PUD preliminary plan is arises from a particular application and is approved for a
particular applicant. BMC 21.02.380 and 410. The preliminary plan is a development right held
by that applicant. BMC 21.02.520(a). The applicant is then obligated to file a final plan within
two years, or the preliminary plan expires. Id. The Council may approve a one-time, one-year
extension of the preliminary plan upon a showing by the applicant that it has made progress under
the preliminary plan and that it is very likely a final plan will be submitted within the extension
period. Id.
In the present matter, Commercial Group is the applicant. Commercial Group owns the
development right and must apply for any extension, which it has done. Commercial Group must
make the twin showing of progress and likelihood. This means that Commercial Group must have
made progress and that Commercial Group has demonstrated likelihood, which would essentially
require that either Commercial Group or an entity under Commercial Group's control would be
filing a preliminary plan. If Commercial Group makes its case, it may receive an extension; if not,
then not.
An applicant holds the rights under a preliminary plan. An applicant may apply for an
extension of those rights, and if the applicant makes a case, the applicant may receive an
extension. An applicant may assign its rights, but the assignee would then be the applicant. There
is no provision for extending a PUD for the benefit of any party other than an applicant.
Knute Rife
Assistant City Attorney
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
As required by RCW 42.36.090, I am placing on the record of this
public heating the substance of written and oral communications
concerning the decision of action before us tonight. Because of the
City Councils' responsibilities relating to the Master Development
Agreement executed by The Commercial Group and the City of
Bremerton, and others, effective March 18, 1998, I have read
materials provided by City staff and The Commercial Group. Some
of these materials that related to progress under the Master
Development Agreement also are relevant to the matter before us
tonight. There have been various City Council open meetings during
which issues relevant to tonight's proceeding have been disclosed and
discussed. Quotes from all parties have been contained in newspaper
articles over the past year. Study sessions and meetings with the
Mayor and small numbers of Council Members have occurred in
furtherance of responding to Master Development Agreement
administration. Alternative development possibilities have been
discussed due to issues related to the Master Development
Agreement. All communications referenced and detailed in this
announcement have limited relevance to the decision before the
Council tonight due to the then unknown nature of the verification
and documentation that would be provided by The Commercial
Group in support of its application for an extension. That information
is contained in the record before us tonight.
Anyone may rebut, during the course of the public hearing, the
substance of any and all communications disclosed by this
announcement and specific disclosures of each Council Member.
Does any Council Member have a further disclosure in addition to the
communications I have announced?