Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/99 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 239 4TH STREET BREMERTON, WA 98337 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA APRIL 28, 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 14, 1999 #AB99-072 CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 6. MAYOR'S REPORT 7. LEGISLATIVE REPORT o PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) NEW BUSINESS A. Water System Comprehensive Plan and Professional Services Agreement #AB99-073 10. PUBLIC HEARING - 6:00 P.M. or LATER A. Continued Public Hearing and Resolution 2700, Approval of a Special Use Permit for two Group Residential Facilities - Class I; Applicant: Inland Empire Residential ;~'~v"- Resources; Location: 1006 & 1008 9th Street ¢) ~ B( ,~-Public Hea ' and Ordina First Re '-on ~ ~'tk~'~ J~ Jextm~nename~-uuu1 v ~.' P,,ub~ H ~en sive~Nai~end me~ ~,~. (~,:\q,k, ul CPA -98=.0.G1' and Resolu-ti'Off'No. 2702 ~" #AB99-068 #AB99-074 #AB99- O75 KITSAP COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6~4 DIVISION STREET MS-36, PORT ORC~IARD wASHINGTON M386,-4862 BRUCE FREE. LAND, OI~CTOR (360) 337-7181 PAX (380) 337-4925 HOME PAGE - wWw.wm.gov/kit~='l~ April 28, 1999 Bremcrton City Council 239 4th Street Br~mcrton, WA 98337 Honorable Council Members; This letter is in regards to the public hearing schexlulexl for this evening regarding thc proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 98-001 and Resolution No. 2702 - #AB99-075. Please consider this letter as Kitsap County's testimony regarding this issue. 'Fhe May 1998 Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan designates the Port Blakely site v~st of Kitsap Lake as Urban Indue'iai Reserve with a joint plmsning or,lay. This Plm~ was rcc~mtly validated by the Central Puget. Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. The issues that wcr~ remanded to the County did not address the designation of this property. As such, the County's designation of this property has been found to bc in compliance with the goals of the Growth Mmmgemm~t Act. 'l'h¢ proposed b~forc you to cltange the land usc map from "Urbaa $oim Planning AreaffLight industrial" to "Light Industrial/Business Park" is inconsistent with the County Land Use designation for this property. The County, City, Suquamish Tribe and the prolr~xty ova~er arc jointly participating in the development of a subar~ plan for this site. As such, we b~licvc that it is pr~aatu~ to be considcrinl~ thc amendment tlmt is now before you. The proposed City Council Resolution No. 2702 includes a statement that the proposed amendment has been sent to Kitsap County for review and comment. Kitsap County did receive a letter dated November 25, 1998 from the City requesting comment on the Port Biakely amendment. KJtsap County did not comment at tlmt time due tea verbal maderstanding from City staffthat this issue would be pulled from consideration pending completion of the ongoing joint plmmiug cflbrt. Thank you in advance for taking this comments into con~'ideration in your decision making process, Bruce Freeland, Director 6¢: Kitsap County Board of Commissioners Sue Tanner Phil Ben-y ~OLL FRE~ FROM: BAINBRIDGE IS. ~42-2001 OLALLA TAX & LICENSE DIVISION 239 4th Street · Bremerton, Washington 98337 · (36t'B 478-5311 · FAX {360) 478-5200 April 26, 1999 Donna Gardner 1743 4th St Bremerton WA 98337 Dear Ms. Gardner: Thank you for sharing your residential parking concerns with the City Council and my office. We have reviewed how Diamond is monitoring residential neighborhood parking and would like to offer solutions that will work for everyone. As you are aware, there is a state law that prohibits long-term parking on public streets. After 72 consecutive hours any vehicle is subject to citation if not moved. This law stems from the historical position that public right-of-way is not to be privately reserved in any manner, while the City cannot circumvent this law, we can remain sensitive to the parking difficulties of residents in neighborhoods that are impacted by commuter parking. Diamond will continue to respond to complaints of vehicles parked for extended periods in the right-of-way. They will not monitor properly permitted vehicles that are parked on their designated block. v/The City would like to remind residents that the 72-hour rule is state law and should be followed./ For those residents who are planning extended vacations and have no alternative for parking their vehicle elsewhere, a call to the City Clerk's office notifying the City's residential parking contact, Judy Ricci, of the impending extended parking usage will suffice. Ms Ricci will then advise Diamond. She can be reached at 478-5267. Equal Opportunity Employer '~' Page 2 April 26, 1999 Donna Gardner As the City's parking enforcement contractor, Diamond must be prepared to answer complaints and enforce local and state laws consistently and fairly. With the change in enforcement technique described above, we think residential parking areas will benefit from continued active monitoring of commuter and abandoned vehicles on neighborhood streets where parking is limited. At the same time, residents should benefit from a parking enforcement approach that recognizes their necessity to park on the streets where they live. Sincerely, Paul a~ Deputy City Clerk PGJ/med cc: Mayor Lynn Horton City Council Members Diamond Parking AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: MINUTES OF MEETING -- APRIL 14, 1999 FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: APRIL 28, 1999 CITY COUNCIL MIKE SHEPHERD, PRESIDE~ APRIL 22, 1999 comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: ENDORSEMENT MAYOR __ INFORlW_ATION__ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRES~~ITTAL: .... COUNCIL PRESIDENT STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTI6N~. 4. SUMMARY 8 . RECOMMENDATION: o RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE: DED 11. AGENDA BILL NO: 9~' O7~ TAPES #1608 & 1609 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 14, 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 14, 1999, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Mike Shepherd presiding. Council members present were Jim Reed, Carlos Montgomery, Carol Arends, David Farr, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Council member Lon Overson was absent. Also present were City Attorney Glenna Malanca, Deputy Clerk Paula Johnston, and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Shepherd and invocation given by Reverend A.L. Baunsgard of Hillcrest Assembly of God. President Shepherd made the following announcements: (1) City Council held a Study Session prior to the meeting to discuss general Council business, followed by a Study Session from 5:05 to 5:25 to discuss "Urban Growth Boundaries, Economic Development, and Cost Sharing"; (2) The Study Session originally scheduled April 21, 1999 to discuss "Comprehensive Plan Updates" has been cancelled, and will be discussed at the City Council Work-Planning Session scheduled for May 10, 1999 from 5:00 to 9:00; and (3) Items "10A - Resolutions" and "9A - New Business" will be relocated on the Agenda tonight, and heard after Item "7 - Legislative Report". CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - March 24, 1999 #AB99-064 B. Minutes of Meeting - March 31, 1999 #AB99-065 #0015 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Montgomery) Motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. #0040 M/S/C/U (Montgomery/Arends) On April 14, 1999, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 229720 and 229739 through 229942 in the amount of $1,042,226.19. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Montgomery announced Districts 6, 7, & 8 would hold a combined meeting Thursday, April 22, 1999 at the Bremerton School Administration Building located 134 N. Marion, 7:00 to 9:00 P.M. Bremerton Police Officer Dave Hughes from the Canine Unit, along with "Quasar" will be in attendance, as well as Mayor Lynn Horton. Mr. Farr discussed the Study Session held prior to the Council meeting on the topic "Urban Growth Boundaries, Economic Development, and Cost Sharing" with Sherril Huff-Menees and Mary McClure. TAPES #1608 & #1609 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 2 of 6 He commended them for their work, and believed the end result of what they are attempting to accomplish, will be better communication between the citizens of the County and elected government officials. Mr, Law reminded citizens to attend the next District 3 meeting will be held next Tuesday, April 20, 1999, 7:00 - 9:00 P.M. at the Senior Center located at 13th & Nipsic. New Kitsap County Sheriff Steve Boyer will be the special guest speaker. Mr, McConnell announced a District l& 2 "Town Meeting" tomorrow night at the Sheridan Park Community Center, 7:00 - 9:00 P.M. Mayor Lynn Horton will be in attendance. President Shepherd announced the "First Friday Art Walk", with related activities, was a phenomenal success, and added the Vintage Clothing exhibit would be in Bremerton another couple of weeks. He reported on his participation at a breakfast-conference presentation last week with Congressmen Jay Inslee and Norm Dicks to discuss the future of military activities and economic forces in the City of Bremerton as well as all of Western Washington. Lastly, he elaborated further on Mr. Farr's comments regarding the Study Session held earlier. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Horton attended the Change of Command ceremony of Rear Admiral Center, which was well attended. She sadly reported that Reverend Cleveland Williams has been reassigned to a Church in Seattle. She stated his departure will "leave a hole" in the community, but wished him well. LEGISLATIVE REPORT Mr. H.H. Buck King. Jr., Commander of VFW Post 239, voiced his concerns at the April 7, 1999 Council meeting, regarding the poor condition of the American Flag and P.O.W. Flag that fly at Bachmann Park. Jim Spencer, Interim Director of the Parks Department notified Don Hock, Facilities Supervisor, who made arrangements for the City's bucket truck on March 31, 1999 to replace both flags and also repaired the retainer ring on the pole. Mr. Spencer stated he fully appreciates the serious symbolism associated with the flag, and recognizes the need to display it properly. He appreciated the offer of free flags from Mr. Buck, and will take him up on his offer the next time the City needs to replace any flags. 10A - RESOLUTION NO. 2699. APPROVAL OF APPLICATION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE PARK PLACE BUILDING, #AB99-071 The General Services Administration has declared the Park Place Building at 808 Burwell surplus government property and available for disposal. The attached Resolution approves application to the Department of Justice for use as a Criminal Justice Center. The property will be surplused at no cost to the City, Mayor Horton stated the City has the need for another City Hall building to "reunite" a number of departments under the same roof, including the West Precinct, Police Department, and Municipal Court. The City could then add an additional building on the property already owned by the City, which is behind this building. She believes this method would be more cost efficient, since the current building housing City Hall needs a new roof at a cost of $100,000, as well as other issues. This Resolution will keep the City's options open. Public comment - none. TAPES #1608 & #1609 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Farr complimented the Mayor on "her vision", and felt this was a smart move. Mr. Reed clarified City would be required to spend the "value" of the building to the Government ($350,000) for rehabilitation. He stated he did not believe this was a good location, and that it was also not good to rehab old "dumps". He believes the City could do better. Mayor Horton responded that the City has funding available to do a minimally sized building, but not the funding to build a brand new building of this size from scratch. This building would provide the City an option to get into a newer building, with a new wing at far below the cost of a new building, and provides a compromise to what the City has now. Mr. Law stated he would much rather the City of Bremerton have control of the building than to have it go to an agency that may not be directed towards the benefit of the City. #0763 M/SIC (Montgomery/Arends) Motion to approve Resolution No. 2699 supporting Application to the Department of Justice for acquisition of the Park Place Building. Vote on motion: In Favor: Law, Farr, Arends, Montgomery, McConnell, Shepherd Opposed: Reed, Olsen Motion carried. 9A - APPOINTMENT OF RICHARD NEVILLE TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION - #AB99-066 It is recommended Richard Neville fill the vacancy on the Civil Service Commission. Mayor Horton provided a brief history of Mr. Neville's experience, and highly recommended him for this appointment. #0850 M/SIC (FardMontgomery) Motion to confirm the appointment of Richard Neville to the Civil Service Commission. Vote on motion: In Favor: Farr, Arends, Montgomery, Reed, Olsen, McConnell, Shepherd Abstained: Law Motion carried. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Jeff Alavado, Supervisor of the Glenn Jarstad Aquatics Center, invited the public to the 6th Annual "April Pools Day" on Saturday, April 17, 1999 at 1:30 P.M. to promote water safety. Jim Hokeston, WestSound Arts Council, provided information on upcoming art events. Don Larson, congratulated the City on winning the "Vision 2020 Award"; and invited the public to attend the Sinclair Inlet Clean-Up and Marine Fair this Saturday, April 17, 1999. TAPES #1608 & #1609 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 4 of 6 11A - PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION NO. 2700, APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR TVVO GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES - CLASS 1; APPLICANT: INLAND EMPIRE RESIDENTIAL RESOURCES: LOCATION: 1006 & 1008 9TM STREET, #AB99-068 Council must decide if the applicant's Special Use Permit Application (SUP99-0001) meets the necessary tests and criteria required for approval of the Group Residential Facility - Class ! use. President Shepherd explained this was a quasi-judicial hearing, and read the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine", with all Council members remaining seated. Mr. Shepherd stated he participated in public meetings on two different occasions, met with different individuals, and talked with parties both for and against this issue several times. He stated he was not prejudiced in any way, for or against, this project. Jon Holan, Planning Manager, provided a brief history on what has transpired with this project to date. He believed the major issue tonight would deal with traffic circulation, due to portions of this site being used for access by several property owners over the years. Therefore, staff recommends that a condition be added to the Resolution stating the barrier-free space be located in the middle of the parking field, rather than on the side, as proposed, to improve access into the site. Four photographs were shown to provide an overview of the site from 9th Street. Ronald C. Templeton, Attorney representing the adjacent property owner, the Calnan family, asked the Council to 1) Defer the actual issuance of the permit until Kitsap Superior Court has an opportunity to determine the extent of the Calnan's historical easement rights over the property in the action now pending between the Calnan's, Inland Empire, and Communitas; and 2) Insist the applicant comply with the zoning ordinance. He then presented in-depth information to explain the position of the Calnan family, and their reasons for opposing this project in this location, which included the issue of res judicata and density. Public comment was provided by the following_, in favor of this Application: Darryl Reber, Executive Director of Inland Empire; Alan Petersen, Director of Service Coordination for Communitas; Mike Blacknall, ARC President and Parent; Vera Kole_oraf, parent of potential resident; and ~:tJ;[,~_l.8~J~, Service Coordinator with Communitas; and Brett White, Director of Communitas. Ruth Natividad and Roy Mclnnis asked why an amendment to the plans could not be made, so a compromise could be reached. Dave Wood, Contract Lobbyist at State Legislature, primarily for disability issues, reported that on Friday, the State Senate passed a Capital Budget which included $5 million out of the housing trust fund for the specific purpose of developing housing for developmentally disabled people. He stated this type of housing is extremely important, and couldn't understand why the City of Bremerton is slow reacting to these needs. TAPE #1609 Joe McCarthy, Attorney representing Inland Empire Residential Resources and Communitas, the two applicants for the proposal, began by submitting a memo concerning the facts and legal issues, in TAPES #1608 & #1609 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Apdl 14, 1999 Page 5 of 6 addition to a supplemental memo addressing the technical issues on density raised by Mr. Templeton, which were entered into the record. Ms. Malanca stated the record consists of the materials that came with the staff report and materials gathered through the permitting and application process, and the testimony tonight. Mr. McConnell expressed his concerns about the current litigation on this issue, and felt the Council should defer any decision on the matter until the Court has adjudicated it. Ms. Malanca recommended that Council hear all testimony, then close the hearing without making a decision tonight. Mr. McCarthy referred to the transcript of the "March 16. 1999 Planning Commission Meeting" to support the staff's conclusion and recommendation that this Special Use Permit is not subject to the doctrine of res judicata. He continued to describe the project, and the need to provide the best service to the clients. He discussed the Community Development Department's role, and the misinformation received by their staff in the beginning of the permit process. He concluded by stating the issues are 1) Does this project, as proposed, have significant adverse environmental consequences, and 2) Is it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He confirmed that Jon Holan, City Planning Manager, addressed these issues very clearly in his testimony and in the staff report, and recommended approval. He discussed the Calnan's two arguments, 1) density; and 2) the lawsuit. He stated this was a Special Use Permit for a group residential home, and the Zoning Ordinance excludes group homes from the density standard. He confirmed the fact that the Calnan's have filed a lawsuit, but he did not believe that approving the permit tonight would impact the other issues involved, which would be resolved by the court. Dan Calnan acknowledged that this was a great program, however he opposed this project due to his belief the proposed structure is too big for the lot. He also stated his family has an ownership interest in the property, and did not participate in the application. He believed Council did not have the right to grant the permit without all of the owners entering into the request. Comment was closed to the public, and open to the Council. Mr. Mont_oomery referred to Chapter 21.02.070 of the B.M.C., and concluded this was a Single Family Dwelling with an Accessory Dwelling, which means a Special Use Permit was not needed. He further stated that Bremerton has more Iow-income housing than any other area of the County. Mr. Holan elaborated further on the issues brought up at the Planning Commission. At that time, staff had communicated their interpretation that Density was not the issue. Per the definition in the Zoning Ordinance, Density does not apply to a Group Care Facility, it requires a Special Use Permit. The City Council is then required to make five findings to support or deny a particular project, such as whether it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Reed offered his observation that the issue before Council was to approve a Special Use Permit for a Group Home. He could see both sides of the issue, however, he would rather not be spending time on an issue, where pending litigation could change the outcome. 15-minute recess was taken to replace the video. TAPES #1608 & #1609 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 6 of 6 Knute Rife, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that the pending litigation concerned a neighbors' rights of access across the subject property. The Superior Court action should not be considered relevant as far as this determination, since the City does not have a role in the litigation. If there is an approval, and there is potential harm, the litigants have their remedy through the court action. Mr. Holan clarified that a third condition was left out of the Resolution by an oversight. It adopted a staff recommendation of recording a covenant prior to occupancy that any change in use from a Group Residential Care Facility require review and approval by the City of Bremerton to ensure compliance with applicable development requirements. Mrs. Arends was concerned with inadequate parking space, even if the residents don't drive. There will be visitors from staff, family, and friends, and provisions should be made. She questioned whether the sight could be enlarged to accommodate more parking and recreational space. Mr. Reber stated he looked at every available site, and this one was chosen because it met all their needs, and described the park across the street. They had to look at cost, and purchasing adjoining property was not possible. Mr. Farr clarified the requirement for Council action was to decide if the applicant's Special Use Permit application meets the necessary test and criteria required for approval of the Group Residential Facility Class ! use, and summarized the five criteria to be considered. He stated both the Planning Department staff and the Planning Commission have gone though each of these questions, and answered yes to them. #3258 M/SIC (Arends/Farr) Motion to continue this Public Hearing for the Special Use Permit for two Group Residential Facilities - Class I for two weeks, to April 28, 1999. Vote on motion: In Favor: Arends, Reed, Olsen, McConnell, Law, Farr, Shepherd Motion carried. Opposed: Montgomery With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:17 P.M. MIKE SHEPHERD, Council President City of Bremerton P J/MS/Is C: Normal Distribution File PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: WATER SYSTEM PLAN -- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, 1NC. FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: April 1999 Public Works & Utilities K. Cahall/Water Resources April 28, 1999 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back ifnecessary~a~. ~ 3. EXHIBITS Director, Public Works/Utilities ~~ -? -./Z-' - City Attorney ~ ?)'~:7 ;4-4-~/~;ssio~nal Services Agreement City Treasurer -'- ~,~.' '- ~?--"? ~..._Scope of Work Council Budget & Finance Commi~'2~'.~~r--e'C~u-~g_e,t and Schedule Operations Committee ~'~'&.~....~~.--~/ Director, Econ & Community Der2~ ENDORSEMENT .X' 1NEORMATIO~q ?-'" ~APPRC~ED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: MAYORZT~c,,7 ~-~-. Z/~r~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The City of Bremerton is required by the Washington State Department of Health to update its Water System Plan every six (6) years. The next update is due in t 999. The City is also required by Environmental Protection Agency to perform an analysis of its chlorination facilities in 1999. Qualified consulting firms ~vere 8. RECOMMENDATION: That City Council approve the professional services agreement with Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. for $191,496 and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement, subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PublicWorks & Utilities Director Water Resources Manager PULLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE TABLED 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED D DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: OLd'" O ~/~ 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 4. SUM3qARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - CONT'D invited to submit their qualifications. Economic and Engineering Services. Inc. (EES) was determined to be the most qualified to assist the City in meeting these requirements. The total project cost is $191,496 and is included in the 1999-2000 Public Works and Utilities Budget under Water Resources. 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The City would be out of compliance with both State and Federal regulations. The City would be subject to administrative orders and possible water hook-up moratorium if these plans are not completed in an appropriate or timely manner. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: The 1999-2000 Public Works and Utilities Budget has included costs for development of these plans. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES Chapter 246-290-100 WAC Water System Plans Clean Air Act Section 112(r) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Water System Plan Update THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Bremerton, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as" EES"). WlTNESSETH: 1. SCOPE: Consultant agrees to provide engineering services for the preparation of the City of Bremerton Water System Plan Update, Risk Management Plan, and Operation and Maintenance Plan, as further described in the Scope of Work, attached hereto, and incorporated by this reference as Exhibit "A". Notice to proceed will be given for tasks 100, 300, and 400. Written authorization from the City will be required to proceed on tasks 200 and 500. 2. TERM: Contract shall commence on the date of this agreement and will terminate on December 31, 2000, unless otherwise extended by the City. 3. COMPENSATION: City shall pay EES compensation as follows: Total fees under this Agreement shall not exceed One hundred ninety-one thousand, four hundred and ninety-six Dollars ($ 191,496). Charges for services shall conform to the fee schedule attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. EES shall submit regular statements describing the services rendered with a breakdown for work completed as authorized under this Agreement. The City, upon receipt of the completed statement, shall promptly process said claim for payment. If the description of services on the Proposal designates additional services which may be requested by the City, said additional services will be paid for by the City at the rate set forth in the Proposal, which sum may exceed the "not to exceed" amount set forth above. However, said services will only be performed, and compensated by the City after the City has directed such performance in writing. 4. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES: The parties understand and agree that EES is a firm skilled in matters pertaining to water system planning and will perform independent functions and responsibilities in the area of its particular field of expertise. EES and its personnel shall act as independent contractors and not employees of the City. As such they have no authority to bind neither the City or control employees of the City, contractors, or other entities. Within the performance of these duties, EES shall work under the direction of the PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -1- Pro-Serv.Agt - 6/26/98 Director of Public Works and Utilities. 5. INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE: EES agrees to provide for State industrial insurance coverage for its personnel as required by State law. 6. LICENSE AND TAXES: EES shall possess a current Bremerton Business License and any regulatory license required to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. B & O taxes shall be paid when due and EES, by this Agreement, assigns any payments due under this Agreement to the City Clerk for payment of such taxes which have been declared delinquent. 7. INSURANCE AND HOLD HARMLESS: Prior to and during the performance of the work covered by this Agreement, EES shall provide the Risk Manager for the City of Bremerton with evidence that it has obtained and maintains in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement a policy of professional liability insurance, providing coverage of at least $500,000.00 against professional liability for errors and omissions in connection with the work to be performed by EES under this Agreement. Risk Manager shall be provided thirty (30) days' written notice of any cancellation of said professional liability insurance. EES shall, at all times, be solely responsible for the acts or failures to act of its personnel which occur or arise in any way out of the performance of this Agreement. EES agrees to save and hold the City, its personnel and officials, harmless from all costs, expenses, losses, and damages, including the cost of defense, incurred as a result of any acts or omissions of EES personnel relating to the performance of this Agreement. 8. GENERAL CONDITIONS: a. Reports and Information - EES, at such times and in such forms as the City may require, shall furnish the City such reasonable periodic reports and documents as it may request pertaining to the work or services undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, the costs and obligations incurred or to be incurred in connection therewith, and any other matters covered by this Agreement. EES will maintain accounting records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices to substantiate all invoiced amounts. b. Entire Agreement - This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and both parties acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or oral, that have not been fully set forth in the text of this Agreement. There are attached hereto and incorporated by reference as part of this Agreement Exhibits "A' and "B'. c. Amendments - The parties hereby further agree that this Agreement cannot be amended or modified without the written concurrence of both parties. d. Notices - Any notices required to be given by the City to EES or by EES to the City shall be in writing and delivered to the parties at the following addresses: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -2- ?ro-Ser,~.Agt - 6/26/98 City Clerk 239 Fourth St. Bremerton, WA 98337 Gregory Kirmeyer Engineering and Economic Services, Inc. PO Box 1989 Bellevue, WA 98009 e. Waiver - Failure to insist upon strict compliance with any terms, covenants or conditions of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of such, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of such right or power at any time be taken to be a waiver of any other breach. f. Compliance with State, Local and Federal Laws - EES agrees to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws in performance of all services under this Agreement. g. Applicable Law; Venue - This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and, in the event of dispute, the venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in Kitsap County Superior Court. h. Attorney Fees - The substantially prevailing party in any litigation arising hereunder shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, including appeals, if any. 9. NONDISCRIMINATION: EES shall not discriminate in employment or services to the public on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status or disability, except employment actions based on a bona fide occupational qualification. 10. TERMINATION: This Agreement may be terminated by either party for convenience upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party, or for cause if either party fails substantially to perform through no fault of the other and does not commence correction within five (5) days of written notice and diligently completes the correction thereafter. Upon such termination, City will be entitled to reports showing the status of all matters upon which EES is advising the City as of the effective date of termination. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT --3-- Drc-Ser','.Agt - 6/26/98 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year indicated. Date: BY: Date: DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL: CITY OF BREMERTON BY: LYNN S. HORTON. Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: GLENNA MALANCA, City Attorney RECEIYED FOR FI'LING: KATHI, EEN L. M¢CLUSKEY, CITY CLERK PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -4- Pro-Serv.Agt - 6/26/98 Final --April 5, 1999 Exhibit A City of Bremerton Draft Scope 'of Work Water System Plan, Operation and Maintenance Plan, Disinfection Evaluation Introduction The Washington State Administrative Code 246-290-100, administered by the Department of Health, requires the City of Bremerton to update and submit a Water System Plan (WSP) every six years. Bremerton's most current plan was approved in 1993 and a draft update is due by October, 1999. The Federal Clean Air Act regulations require Bremerton to perform a Risk Management Plan for sites such as McKenna Falls, which store greater than 2,500 pounds of chlorine on-site. This Scope of Work has been developed to assist the City of Bremerton (City) ~vith updating its WSP and to perform other work tasks related to ~vater utility operations and maintenance. The project has been divided in to five tasks as summarized below: Task 100: Task 200: Task 300: Task 400: Task 500: Water System Plan Update Operations and Maintenance Plan Disinfection Evaluation Project Management Supplemental Services Tasks will be conducted in the order most conducive to producing coherent work products. Task 100 Water System Plan Update The Scope of Work provided below addresses all required components of a WSP, according to Washington State Department Of Health (DOH) Water System Planning Handbook. It is our understanding that the information contained in the City's previous WSP (1992) can be used as needed to prepare this update. Task 101: Task 102: Task 103: Establish Coordinated Schedule and Priorities Establish Basic Planning Data Review Water Quality and Treatment Strategy, City of Bremerton Scope of Work I Final--April 5, 1999 Task 104: Task 105: Task 106: Task 107: Task 108: Review Source of Supply and Source Protection Strategies Conduct System Analysis Review Operation and Maintenance Programs Develop Improvement Program and Review Financial Impacts Prepare Water System Plan Document for Submittal to DOH Task 101 Establish Coordinated Schedule and Priorities Objectives: · Identify issues of importance to the City Establish lines of communication · Establish City/Consultant roles · Develop work schedule Approach: The Consultant will meet with City staff to review the draft Scope of Work. The initial meeting will be held to address critical milestones, objectives, initial information requirements, and functional lines of communication. A tentative ~vork schedule will be prepared based on this initial meeting. It will confirm responsible parties (i.e., Consultant or City) for development of each section of WSP, tentative dates for future coordination meetings, deadlines for project deliverables, decision points, and review procedures. This work schedule will indicate the date of submittal of the draft and final plans, based on the City's target deadline. The schedule will incorporate the City's compliance with the Department of Health (DOH) requirements, as well as requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan (GMA) or any other local or regional agencies identified by the City. Deliverables: Scope of Work, Work Plan, and Schedule. Consultant Responsibilities: · Attend kick-off meeting with City · Prepare draft and final Scope of Work, schedule, budget City Responsibilities: · Identify key issues, milestones, and deadlines City of Bremerton Scope of Work 2 Final--April 5, 1999 · Verify participating City staff and project roles · Assist with development of work plan and schedule · Review deliverables Task 102 Objective: · Describe Water System and Establish Basic Planning Data Provide description of existing system components, service area, and agreements. Develop basis for evaluating the existing water system and its ability to meet future needs. Confirm projected growth trends and demand projections within retail service area. Approach: This task will be conducted primarily by the City. A portion of this task will utilize work already conducted by the City, such as development of the Service Area Boundary Map and resolution of service area agreements. 102.1 System Description The City will review their existing system and provide descriptions of system ownership and management, existing facilities, existing and future service area, and service area agreements and policies. Updates of the previous WSP will be provided by the City. 102.2 Research and Evaluate Existing Data The City will review their previous WSP (1992) and other studies conducted by/for the City to establish the City's Planning Data for the WSP. 102.3 Confirm Service Area and Demand Projections Historical and projected growth trends, land use, zoning restrictions, and development densities consistent with the recommendations in approved GMA documents will be utilized by the City to update demand projections. The City will also update the existing Service Area Map and service area agreements. Historical water use records will be evaluated and reviewed to update seasonal, average day, and peak daily ~vater use trends for the system, and, to the extent possible, by customer class. Non-revenue ~vater will also be evaluated. City of Bremerton Scope of Work 3 Final--April 5, 1999 The updated water demand projections will be provided to the Consultant and used as input to the water system hydraulic analysis and for the calculation of future source and storage deficiencies during the 6- and 20oyear planning horizons. Demand projections will be summarized by retail customer class and wholesale customers, including the projected effects of future conservation efforts. Deliverables: The City will provide updated sections of the previous WSP that relate to system description, planning data, design criteria, and basic water needs for the future. Consultant Responsibilities: · Identify water rate impacts on updated demands provided by the City. · Review updated sections provided by the City and incorporate into draft WSP. City Responsibilities: · Update 102.1. · Review 1998. · Review · Review applicable sections of Chapter 3 of existing WSP as described in Task water use records by month and by customer class for the years 1992- previous WSP and other studies to establish Planning Data. historical and project growth trends, land use, zoning restrictions, etc. to update demand projections. · Update service map and service area agreements. · Provide Service Area Boundary Map. List other water systems within boundary, descriptions of satellite systems presently served or which potentially be served, and existing service area and intertie agreements. · Prepare deliverable the may Task 103--Review Water Quality and Treatment Strategy Objective: Ensure that requirements of e~sting and proposed regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) are met. Approach: A portion of this task will utilize work already completed by the City such as the Coliform Monitoring Plan and Organics/Inorganics Monitoring Plan. City of Bremerton Scope of Work 4 Final--April 5, 1999 103.1 Evaluate Water Quality Data Review existing monitoring plans and water quality data to ensure compliance with SDWA requirements. 103.2 Identify New Regulatory Requirements The Consultant will identify any new aspects of SDWA Amendments which apply to the City. This includes, but is not limited to the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, Disinfectants and Disinfection By-products Rule, Public Notification, Operator Certification, Consumer Confidence Reports, etc. New monitoring requirements will be identified and a monitoring plan will be developed. Additionally, the Consultant ~vill identify potential implications of the upcoming Endangered Species Act that are applicable to the City and ~vill affect WSP recommendations. 103.3 Comprehensive Regulatory Compliance Plan A Comprehensive Regulatory Compliance Plan (CRCP) will be developed to help the City understand and comply ~vith monitoring obligations. The CRCP ~vill address monitoring locations, parameters, scheduling, waivers, and laboratory certification. Deliverables: The Consultant will prepare a Task Report that addresses compliance and recommendations associated with monitoring and treatment requirements of the SDWA. Consultant Responsibilities: · Review existing water quality data and monitoring plans · Provide system description (source ~vater, treatment, storage, etc.) · Describe current compliance ~vith SDWA and financial impact · Identify ne~v aspects of SD~VA Amendments applicable to the City and identify system improvements · Identify new aspects of the Endangered Species Act that will affect WSP recommendations · Develop monitoring plan(s) for new SDWA Amendments · Develop draft and final CRCP City Responsibilities: · Provide existing Coliform and Organic/Inorganic Monitoring Plans for revie~v City of Bremerton Scope of Work 5 Final ~--April 5, 1999 · Provide source water treatment, distribution system water quality data, and water quality-related customer complaint data for review · Review deliverable Task 104 Review Source of Supply and Source Protection Strategies Objective: · Review Conservation Program development and implementation · Conduct Source of Supply analysis · Review Water Right evaluation Approach: 104.1 Conservation Plan The City will update the existing Conservation Plan. The Consultant ~vill review the updated plan based on regional guidelines and the most recent Departments of Health and Ecology "Conservation Planning Requirements" documents. Suggested improvements ~vill be identified. 104.2 Source of Supply Evaluation A Source of Supply analysis is required of all systems that will be pursuing water rights within ten years of approval of their Vv'SP as defined by the water demand forecast. If additional water rights are determined to be necessary, the consultant will conduct an analysis of the following alternatives: Enhanced Conservation Measures, Water Right Changes, Interties, Artificial Recharge, Reuse, and Treatment. The City's Water Reuse Plan (already completed) and the Water Rights Evaluation (currently in progress) will be reviewed and incorporated. Firm yield calculations will be developed by the Consultant for the Union River supply based on existing hydrologic records such as stream flows and precipitation data. A water supply reliability analysis will also be conducted. Data needs will vary depending on the degree of reliability requested. For example, to evaluate the yield required to meet peak day demands, daily stream flow data may be required. The desired level of certainty associated with the Firm Yield Analysis will need to be determined by the City so that appropriate funds can be allocated to conduct the analysis. City of Bremerton Scope of Work 6 Final--April 5, 1999 104.3 Water Right Evaluation The City's Water Right Analysis is currently under development. It will be completed by the City and referenced in the WSP. 104.4 Source Protection Strategies The City's Watershed Control and Wellhead Protection Plans previously developed will be referenced in the WSP. Deliverables: An updated Conservation Program will be developed by the City. A Task Report will be prepared by the Consultant, presenting the findings of the Source of Supply Analysis. Consultant Responsibilities: · Review updated Conservation Plan and suggest improvements · Review Water Right Evaluation and Water Reuse Plan · Conduct Source of Supply Analysis if additional water rights within 10 years · Conduct Firm Yield analysis for Union River supply · Prepare Task Report presenting findings of analyses City Responsibilities: Provide all existing stream flo~v and precipitation data for the Union River watershed. Update Conservation Program. Complete ~,Vater Right Analysis. Review and comment on Task Report. Task 105--Conduct System Analysis Objective: Determine if existing system facilities are capable of supplying sufficient quantity of water to meet existing and projected demands. City of Bremerton Scope of Work 7 Final ---April 5, 1999 Approach: 105.1 Hydraulic and Storage Analysis 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Identify average day demand (ADD), ma~mum day demand (MDD), and ma~mum instantaneous (MID) and incorporate into the e~sting Cybernet hydraulic model: a) High Demand Users: Review existing billing cycle data and identify high demand users to be evaluated independently. Identify ADD, MDD, and MID for each high demand user. b) For remaining users in each billing cycle, identify an average ADD, MDD, and MID to be assigned to all remaining nodes. This evaluation will be performed separately for each billing cycle. Identify dirunal curves and incorporate into the existing Cybernet hydraulic model. Identify critical nodes for the City to obtain system operating flows and pressures to be used in calibrating the model. Assign the newly developed demands to nodes and using the field data obtained, calibrate the model. All modeling to be over 24-hour extended period simulation scenario basis. Determine future 6-year and 20-year ADD, MDD, and MID and calibrate model for each. In cooperation with the CiW, the Consultant will conduct a minimum of one fire flow scenario for each major pressure zone using peak day demands under current, 6-year, and 20-year demand conditions. Additionally, peak day demand scenarios ~vill be run without fire flo~v for the entire system. Fire Flow/duration requirements will be obtained from the local fire department to evaluate the system's hydraulic and storage capacity requirements. An annotated water pressure contour map for each scenario will be provided. 105.2 System Improvements and Maintenance The City and the Consultant ~vill develop a list of improvements in Task 107 to be evaluated and modeled. Items to be addressed when identi~qng deficiencies are: source, storage, conveyance, and residual pressure during fire flow scenarios. A total of 50 scenarios will be estimated/modeled. 105.3 Water Treatment Based on the existing and projected demands, the City's chlorination and corrosion control facilities will be analyzed to ensure sufficient capacity. City of Brernerton Scope of Work 8 Final---April 5, 1999 Descriptions of the type of treatment processes, treatment rates, and facility conditions ~vill be developed. 105.4 Review Distribution Facilities Design and Construction Standards The Consultant will review the City's performance standards, sizing criteria, and construction methods and materials associated with distribution storage facilities, booster pump stations, transmission and distribution system mains, pipe linings, and tank coatings to ensure that the City's standards are in compliance with DOH design guidance. Review procedures, policies for outside parties, and construction certification and follow-up procedures ~vill be addressed. Deliverables: The Consultant will prepare a Task Report presenting the results of the hydraulic, storage, and water treatment analyses under the appropriate design scenarios and at the projected future demand. A Task Report summarizing and evaluating the City's design and construction standards will also be prepared by the Consultant. Consultant Responsibilities: · Develop demand allocation using billing information from "meter areas" and allocating demands uniformly to all nodes with an meter area. · Allocate selected high demands to appropriate nodes. · Create diurnal curve for use with extended period simulations from generic examples (e.g. AWWA, DOH). · Calibrate model provided from City with revised demand allocation. · Run simulations described in task 105.2 City Responsibilities: · Provide Cybernet 3.1 hydraulic model and assist ~vith updating and calibration. Develop modeling scenarios, assist with model transfer, use, and interpretation. · Provide billing rate (meter readings) and meter area boundaries. · Provide field test information for calibration purposes. · Provide design and construction standards and associated policies. · Review Task Reports and provide comments. Task 106 Review Operations and Maintenance Programs Objective: · Assure development of a program for proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the City's water system. City of Bremerton Scope of ~Vork 9 Final ---April 5, 1999 Develop a document that outlines the primary functions of the system. Develop document that will serve as basis for Operations and Maintenance Plan to be developed separately. Approach: This task ~vill be conducted by both the City and the Consultant. The City's existing SOPs, emergency response, operations, maintenance, and contingency plans will be updated by the City and reviewed by the Consultant. With assistance from the City, a reference tool for the system operator will be developed. The following elements will be addressed by either the City or the Consultant, as listed below. All elements developed by the City with be reviewed by the Consultant. The Consultant will use this portion of the WSP to form the basis of the Operations and Mair~tenance Plan to be developed as a separate document. · Water System Management and Personnel - City · Operator Certification- City · System Operation and Control - City · Water Quality Regulatory Compliance Program - Consultant · Preventative Maintenance- City · Emergency Response Program - City · Safety Procedures - City · Cross-Connection Control Program - City · Records and Reports- City · Valve and Hydrant Maintenance - City · O&M Improvements - Consultant · Customer Complaint Response Program- City Where possible, the 1992 WSP ~vill be updated. Deliverables: Updated sections of 1992 WSP or ne~v sections, prepared by either the City or Consultant, as listed above. Consultant Responsibilities: Prepare sections as designated above. Review sections prepared by the City. Compile updated sections into one deliverable. City Responsibilities: · Update/prepare the sections as designated above. City of Bremerton Scope of Work 10 Final--April 5, 1999 · Assist Consultant with updating the Operations and Maintenance Improvements section by providing SOPs, records, system map, operator certification information, manufacturer's specifications, material safety and data sheets, plus other information as requested. · Review sections and provide comments. Task 107--Develop Improvement Program and Review Financial Impacts Objective: Incorporate system needs identified in previous chapters into an overall improvement program. Approach: 107.1 Capital Improvement Program Based upon the assessment of water quality conditions and source, storage, and hydraulic capabilities of the existing system versus current and projected demands from information provided by the City, needed improvements to the City's system will be identified. The City will provide a copy of the existing CIP and a list of all known and anticipated system deficiencies for revie~v. Deficiencies identified in Task 105.1 will be added to this list which will £orm the basis of the CIP. The City and the Consultant will collectively review the list and identify select scenarios to be evaluated and modeled. 'Where possible, a minimum of two alternatives will be developed and evaluated for each of the major deficiencies. An annotated pressure contour map ~vill be provided for each alternative recommendation. The recommended improvements will be included in a phased Capital Improvement Plan that will be prioritized according to criteria recommended in both the DOH Water System Planning Handbook and those criteria recommended by the City. The Consultant will provide the City with a computerized listing of capital improvements. All projects will have their time of need approximated, and designated in current cost indexing values, which will assist in budgeting and management decisions at a later date should flexibility be required to accelerate or delay projects for reasons unkno~v.n at the time of Plan completion. The improvements will be prioritized by both the Consultant and the City. City of Bremerton Scope of ~Vork 11 Final--April 5, 1999 107.2 Financial Programs for Capital Improvements and Administrative Procedures A capital improvement cost estimate will be presented for each recommended project. Project costs will also be allocated to probable categories of revenue sources, i.e., funded by existing customers and rates by long-term debt; by developer extension fees and system development charges; by grants/low interest loans; or other funds. The current financial status of the City will be evaluated to assess the capability of financing recommended capital construction and operating projects. The Consultant will provide recommendations regarding the proper mix of debt/equity in financing the twenty-year capital improvement sched- ule. Estimates of overall rate impacts will be developed by the Consultant. Deliverables: The Consultant will develop a Task Report presenting the CIP both graphically and in a spreadsheet for inclusion in the City's WSP. An assessment of the City's financial status will be presented and Rate impacts will be developed. Consultant Responsibilities: Review existing CIP and list of known and anticipated deficiencies provided by the City. · With City, review list and identify scenarios for modeling. · With City, develop a minimum of two alternatives for each major deficiency. · Develop annotated pressure contour map for each alternative recommendation. · Provide computerized list of capital improvements including timing, and cost indexing values. · Prioritize improvements with the City. · Develop Task Report with findings. City Responsibilities: · Assist with identification of capital improvements. · Assist with development ofprioritization criteria. · Provide existing CIP and list of known and anticipated deficiencies for review. Provide information on past and present financial status. · Provide recommendations regarding financing options. · Review and comment on Task Report. City of Bremerton Scope of Work 12 Final--April 5, 1999 Task 108 Water System Plan Preparation Objective: To prepare an updated Comprehensive Water System Plan that meets all State and Federal requirements. Approach: 108.1 Comprehensive Water System Plan Preparation A Comprehensive Water System Plan will be prepared that satisfies all the requirements of DOH, including Chapter 248-54 WAC. Task Reports developed for the previous tasks will be compiled into a Draft Report, incorporating all comments made by the City. In addition, the draft report will be reviewed with D©H and other applicable agencies to ensure compliance with the State and federal requirements. 108.2 Environmental Document The City, with the assistance of the Consultant, will complete an environmental checldist to fulfill the requirements of the SEPA criteria. If environmental documents are needed, a revision to the Scope of Work and budget estimate will be submitted for consideration by the City. 108.3 Supportive Documents The City will coordinate all required and recommended supportive documents for reference or inclusion in Appendices. The City will be the lead agency responsible for meeting SEPA requirements. Deliverables: Draft and Final Comprehensive Water System Plans. 40 locking slant D 3-ring binder copies of the Final WSP ~vill be prepared by the Consultant, using labeled section tabs. Every effort will be made to include ~oTaphical and tabular representations of information. Any documents prepared in color will be formatted such that black and ~vhite reproductions can still be clearly read and categories can be distinguished. A maximum of four figures will be prepared and reproduced in color. The Consultant will provide the City with the digital copy of all work produced by the Consultant in a format jointly agreed upon at the beginning of the project. If no format is established, the Consultant will use Microsoft Word 6.0. The Consultant will develop a stand-alone Executive Summary that includes graphics. The City will be responsible for developing the Appendices. City of Bremerton Scope of Work 13 Final ~pril 5, 1999 Consultant Responsibilities: · Compile Task Reports into draft report. · Provide 6 copies of draft report to the City for review. · Assist City with SEPA requirements. · Address City and DOH comments on draft report. · Prepare 40 copies of the final report · Develop stand-alone Executive Summary City Responsibilities: · Identify all parties and agencies that need to review Draft Report. · Review Draft Report and comment. · Complete environmental checklist to fulfill SEPA requirements. · Compile comments and provide one set to the Consultant. · Develop appendices. · Provide copies of necessary miscellaneous documents such specifications, agreements, etc., to be included in appendices. Task 200 Operations and Maintenance Plan as construction This Task ~vill require ~vritten authorization from the City to proceed. Objective: To prepare a stand-alone document that describes the City's ~vater system operation and maintenance activities and philosophies for use in carwing out daily activities. Approach: A foundation for the Operation and Maintenance Plan ~vill be developed under Task 106 of the WSP. Once Task 106 is complete, the remaining items that need to be addressed for the Operation and Maintenance Plan will be identified. At that time, a more detailed Scope of Work can be developed. The first step in developing the Operations and Maintenance Plan will be to revie~v existing plans prepared by other utilities in the region. Next, the programs evaluated in Task 106 of the WSP plus additional programs requested by the City will be evaluated and summarized. Topics that will likely be addressed in the Operations and Maintenance Plan include: City of Bremerton Scope of Work 14 Final--April 5, 1999 · Description of Sources · Description of System Components · Reservoirs · Pump Stations · PRVs · SCADA System · Treatment Facilities · Pipelines · Pressure Zones · Description of Existing Programs · Emergency Response · Cross Connection Control · Water Quality Monitoring · Wellhead Protection · Customer Inquiries · Safety Procedures · Monitoring · Routine Operations · Routine Maintenance · Policies and SOPs · Public Education · Distribution System Design Specifications · Record Keeping and Reporting · Recommended Programs and Improvements · Maps/photos of components It is anticipated that Consultant will develop an Operations and Maintenance Plan that has two primary components: 1) One~time only operation and maintenance activities that should be performed to move the system efficiency to an optimal level; and, 2) On-going activities that should be incorporated into a distribution system philosophy of providing an adequate volume of water at an adequate pressure while maintaining the highest level of water quality. In large part, our approach ~vill be founded on the City staffs kno~vledge about its system operating procedures. EES can present strategies and function as the springboard to develop written procedures, but ultimately City staff need to concur and use these procedures to train new staff and carry out their duties. Developing written procedures will be an iterative process, with EES preparing "Drafts" and the City providing comments and implementing the results. It might even be useful to revisit the procedures after one year and make adjustments based on use by field crews. We suggest using a 3-ring binder for the Plan to facilitate use by field crews, photocopying, and inserting updates. City of Bremerton Scope of Work 15 Final--April 5, 1999 Task 300 Disinfection Evaluation/Risk Management Plan The purpose of Task 300 is to evaluate the City's water chlorination facilities for conformance with accepted and required practices for reliability, safety, and emergency response. The focus will be the largest chlorine facility, McKenna Falls. The Consultant will assist the City with evaluations and the preparation of documentation to comply with the EPA's Risk Management Program. Objectives: · Evaluate the seven existing chlorination facilities for conformance ~vith accepted and required practices for reliability, safety, and emergency response. Identify and evaluate options for tl~e method of chlorination at the chlorine facilities and develop recommendations for improvements that address these issues for each facility. Prepare an Emergency Response Plan for the McKenna Falls facility and other documents necessary for a Risk Management Plan that complies with EPA requirements. General Approach: EES/Weston will evaluate the City's ~vater system chlorine Facilities for efficiency, reliability, safety, emergency response, and compliance with the EPA's new Risk Management Program (RM Program) and then develop recommendations For the appropriate implementation steps and documentation that address these issues. The recommendations for reliability, safety, and emergency response at the McKenna Falls facility will be incorporated into an Emergency Response Plan. Because it appears that the amounts of chlorine gas currently stored at the McKenna Falls facility exceeds the threshold level under the RMP rules, EES~Veston will assist the City with preparation of a Risk Management Plan (RM Plan). To tailor the ~vork product to the findings of the evaluation and the needs of the City, Task 300 is divided into the follo~ving subtasks. Task 301--Facility and Chemical Inventories Approach: A thorough inventory of the existing conditions and operational practices at the City's chlorine facilities will be performed. City of Bremerton Scope of Work 16 Final --April 5, 1999 Consultant Responsibilities: · A tour of the facilities to identify equipment installed, amounts used, and operational practices. · Evaluation of operational records and water quality data. · Examination of as-built drawings of the facilities. chemical types and The findings of the McKenna Falls facility inventory will be incorporated into a stand-alone Emergency Response Plan that can also be included in the section of the Water System Plan (Task 100). City Responsibilities: · Schedule a tour of the chlorination facilities with the consulting team. · Provide operational records, water quality data, and copies of available as-built drawings for the facilities. · Review and provide comments on the letter documenting the inventory findings. Deliverable: A letter report to the City that documents the findings of the inventory and addresses the City's need to comply with the RM Program. The letter will include photos of key components of the facilities. Task 302 - Evaluation of Chlorination System Improvements for Efficiency and Reliability Approach: Identify options for improvements to the chlorine facilities that address efficiency and reliability, including options for gas chlorine, sodium hypochlorite and on-site generation. Consultant Responsibilities: · Establish goals for ~vater quality and chlorination system efficiency and reliability. · Identify feasible options for improvements to the chlorination systems that could meet the established goals. Perform evaluations of the expected efficiency and reliability of the chlorination process options in relation to accepted practice, regulatory requirements, and the City's water treatment and supply goals. City of Bremerton Scope of Work 17 Final--April 5, 1999 Based on the evaluation of options, determine the best type of chlorination system for the long-term at each chlorine treatment facility. A 1-day workshop ~vith City staff and EES will be held to review the findings and recommendations and facilitate the decision process. If it is determined that a gas chlorine system is the best long-term approach the McKenna Falls facility, identify specific areas where capital/equipment improvements are required and/or recommended for incorporation into the CIP (Task 100). Prepare planning level cost estimates of gas chlorine system improvements and a preliminary implementation schedule. Provide recommendations for modifications/improvements in O&M at the McKenna Falls facility. Incorporate the evaluations, recommendations, and cost estimates into the Subtask 302 technical memorandum. If the City determines that a sodium hypochlorite system is the best long-term approach for the McKenna Falls facility, develop the basic requirements for the process system and the facility modifications associated ~vith the system. Identify and recommend short-term modifications to improve the efficiency and reliability of the e~sting gas chlorination system. Prepare planning level cost estimates and a preliminary implementation schedule for inclusion in the CIP (Task 100). Incorporate the evaluations, recommendations, and cost estimates into the Subtask 302 technical memorandum. For six chlorine facilities other than McKenna Falls. identi~~ specific areas ~vhere capital/equipment improvements are required and/or recommended for incorporation into the CIP (Task 100). Prepare planning level cost estimates of chlorine system improvements and a preliminary implementation schedule. Provide general recommendations for modifications/improvements in O&~I at the facilities. Incorporate the evaluations, recommendations, and cost estimates into the Subtask 302 technical memorandum. City Responsibilities: · Clarifications on the operations records and water quality data for each chlorine facility, as requested. · Input and clarification on goals for ~vater treatment and chlorination efficiency and reliability. Make a decision for the most appropriate type of chlorination system at each chlorine facility based on the evaluations performed. Participate in a 1-day decision workshop. · Review and provide comments on the draft Subtask 302 technical memorandum. CiG, of Bremerton Scope of ~. ¥ork 18 Deliverables: l) Task 303 - Operator Safety and Emergency Response Consultant Responsibilities: · Final---April 5, 1999 Five copies of the draft Subtask 302 technical memorandum that documents the evaluations and recommendations for chlorination system efficiency and reliability improvements. One photo-ready copy of the final Subtask 302 technical memorandum. Evaluate the existing chlorine facilities for operator safety and emergency response in relation to local and national fire and safety code requirements. Identify and establish the City's specific goals for operator safety and emergency response at the chlorine facilities. Identify specific areas where improvements or changes are required and/or recommended. Prepare an Emergency Response Plan for the McKenna Falls facility that can be incorporated into the O&M Plan and/or used as a stand-alone document. It is assumed that the McKenna Falls facility Emergency Response Plan can be used as the model for the preparation by City staff of Emergency Response Plans for the six other chlorine facilities. City Responsibilities: · Clarifications on existing operational practices and emergency response procedures, as requested. · Input on safety issues of concern and agree on goals for safety and emergency response. · Revie~v and provide comments on the draft McKenna Falls facility Emergency Response Plan. · Prepare Emergency Response Plans for the six other chlorine facilities. Deliverables: 1) Five copies of the draft Emergency Response Plan for McKenna Falls. City of Bremerton Scope of Work 19 Final--April 5, 1999 2) One photo-ready copy of the final Emergency Response Plan for McKenna Falls. Task 304 - Prepare Documents for RM Program Compliance Approach: If the inventory of the chlorine facilities (Subtask 301) confirms that the McKenna Falls facility must comply with the RM Program, EES/Weston will prepare key documents to enable the City to comply with the RM Program. Consultant Responsibilities: · Development ofa RM Program, which includes: 1. Hazard assessment 2. Prevention program 3. Emergency Response Program · Submittal of a RM Plan, which includes: 1. An off-site consequences analysis 2. A list of major hazards 3. A summary of the prevention program 4. A five-year accident history 5. A description of the Emergency Response Program The findings and recommendations from Subtasks 301,302, and 303 will be used in the development of the RM Plan, as applicable. City Responsibilities: · Information on the existing accident prevention / safety program McKenna Falls facility, as requested. · Information on accident / incident history for the past five years (if any). · Review and comment on the draft RM Plan. for the Deliverables: 1) 2) Five copies of the draft RM Plan. One photo-ready copy of the final RM Plan. City of Bremerton Scope of Work 20 Final--April 5, 1999 Task 400--Project Management Objective: To ensure that the WSP is developed according to the schedule and budget agreed upon between the City and the Consultant, and that all necessary issues are addressed. Approach: The Consultant's Project Manager will plan to attend two meetings with DOH, and three additional meetings as requested by the City such as meetings with the staff, special committees, or Council during the adoption process. The Consultant's Project Manager will hold monthly telephone conference calls with the City. This task will also cover time associated with budget tracking, invoicing, and coordinating subconsultants. Monthly invoices will be prepared that provide a brief description of work conducted during the billing period and percent of each task that is complete. Task 500 Supplemental Assistance Task 501 Additional Services and Technical Assistance Technical assistance on other issues not included in the Scope of Work including but not limited to: · Water Quality Analyses, · Cryptosporidium Inactivation Compliance Strategy, · Treatment Evaluations, · Pilot And Laboratory Evaluations, · Field Work Associated With Stream Gauging And Monitoring, · Data entry associated with stream flows and precipitation records, and · CAD Support. Written authorization from the City will be required prior to proceeding work on any of the above issues. City of Brernerton Scope of Work 21 Exhibit B City of Bremerton Budget Water System Plan, O&M Plan, Risk Management Plan Estimated EES Hours (Note: Based on 1999 Billif~g Rates) Lead Agency Principal Sr. Assoc. Eng. VI Eng. III Support I Tot. Task Labor Total Task City EES $ 128 $ 107 $ 92 $ 77 $ 45 Hours ($) 100 Water System Plan Update 101 Establish Schedules and Priorities 102 Establish Basic Planning Data 2 32 0 4 38 $ 3,380 102.1 Syslem Descriplion x 102.2 Research and Evaluate Existing Data x 102.3 Conlirm Service Area and Demand Proiections x 103 Review Water Quality and Treatment Stragegies 2 48 32 2 84 $ 7,226 103.1 Evaluate Water Quality Data x 103.2 Identifl/New Regulatory Requirements x 103.3 Develop Comprehensive Regulatory Compliance Plan x 104 Review Source of Supply and Source Protection S/ragies 8 24 60 50 2 144 $ 13,052 104.1 Conservation Plan x 104.2 Source o! Supply Evatualion x 104.3 Waler Right Evaluation x 104.4 Source Protection Stralegies x 105 Conduct System Analysis 6 180 32 80 4 302 $ 29,312 105.1 Hydraulic and Storage Analysis x 105.2 System Improvments and Mainlenance x 105.3 Waler Trealmenl x 105.4 Review Distribution S~/stem Design and Construction Slds. x 106 Review Operations and Maintenance Pro~lrams x 16 40 56 $ 5,392 107 Develop Improvement Program and Review Financial Impacts X 24 40 72 136 $ 12,896 107.1 Capital Improvemeot Program x 107.2 Financial Programs x 108 Water System Plan Preparation 32 40 96 40 60 268 $ 22,988 108.1 Plan Preparalion x 108.2 Supportive Documents x Labor Hours 74 300 308 274 72 1,028 Total WSP Labor Cost $ 94,246 Total WSP Direct Costs $ 6,000 Total Cost $ 100,246 200 Operations and Maintenance Plan 201 Description of Sources x 8 8 $ 616 202 Description of System Components x 4 4 $ 368 203 Description of Programs x 8 8 $ 736 203.1 Emergency Response Program 203.2 Cross Connection Control Pro§ram 203.3 Waler Quality Moniloring 203.4 Wellhead Protection 2035 Coslomer Inq~.~iries Exhibit B City of Bremerton Budget Water System Plan, O&M Plan, Risk Management Plan Estimated EES Hours (Note: Based on 1999 Billing Rates) Lead Agency Principal Sr. Assoc. Eng. VI Eng. III Support Tot. Task Labor Total Task city EES $ 128 $ 107 I$ 92 $ 77 $ 45 Hours ($) 204 Satety Procedures x 2 4 6 $ 582 205 Routine Operations x 4 18 8 30 $ 2,700 206 Routine Maintenance x 4 11 15 $ 1,440 207 Policies and SOPs x 2 4 4 10 $ 932 208 Distribution System Design Specifications X 4 4 $ 428 209 Record Keepin~l and Reportin~l x 4 4 $ 368 210 Recommended Pro,rams/Improvements x 2 6 8 8 24 $ 2,250 211 Prepare O&M Plan x 6 8 24 36 32 106 $ 8,044 Labor Hours 10 28 85 64 32 219 Total OMP Labor Cost $ 18,464 Total OMP Direct Costs $ 1,599 Total Cost $ 19,964 300 Disinfection Evaluation 301 Facility and Chemical Inventory x 8 32 4 44 $ 3,500 302 Evaluation of Chlorination System Improvements x 4 44 96 8 152 $ 12,972 303 Operator Safety and Emer~lency Response Plan x 6 18 16 40 8 88 $ 7,606 304 Prepare RM Plan x 2 8 72 16 24 122 $ 10,048 Labor Hours 12 78 88 184 44 406 Total RMP Labor Cost $ 34,126 Total RMP Direct Costs $ 1,000 Total Cosl[ $ 35,126 400 Project Management for WSP, OMP, and RMP 40 120 160 $ 16,160 Meetings Invoicing Project Coordinalion 500 Supplemental Services (Written Authorization Required) $ 20,000 Total Cost for WSP, OMP, RMP, and Supplemental Services $ 191,496 City of Bremerton Water System Plan, O&M Plan, Risk Management Plan Schedule lOO 101 102 lO2.1 lO2.2 lO2.3 103 103.1 103,2 103,3 104 Task Water System Plan Update Establish Schedules and Priorities Establish Basic Planning Data System Description Research and Evaluate Existing Data Confirm Service Area and Demand Projections Review Water Quality and Treatment Strategies Evaluate Water Quality Data Identify New Regulatory Requirements Develop Comprehensive Recjulatory Compliance Plan Review Source of Supply and Source Protection Strategies Jan Feb 1999 Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept 104.1 104.2 104.3 104.4 105 105.1 105.2 Conservation Plan Source of Supply Evaluation Water Right Evaluation Source Protection Strategies Conduct System Analysis Hydraulic and Storage Analysis System Improvements and Maintenance I 105.3 105.4 106 107 107.1 107.2 108 108.1 108.2 Water Treatment Review Distribution System Desic~n and Construction Standards Review Operations and Maintenance Programs Develop Improvement Program and Review Financial Impacts Capital Improvement Program Financial Programs Water System Plan Preparation Plan Preparation Supportive Documents WS Workshop Final Repod in 2000, after DOH review Draft Deliverable ~ Draft Final to DOH 0 Telephone Progress Report Water System City of Bremerton Plan, O&M Plan, Risk Management Plan Schedule 200 201 2O2 2O3 2O4 2O5 2O6 2O7 2O8 2O9 210 211 300 301 3O2 3O3 3O4 400 500 Task Operations and Maintenance Plan Description of Sources Description of System Components Description of Programs Safety Procedures Routine Operations Routine Maintenance Policies and SOPs Distribution System Design Specifications Record Keeping and Reporting Recommended Programs/Improvements Prepare O&M Plan Disinfection Evaluation Facility and Chemical Inventory Evaluation of Chlorination System Improvements Operator Safety and Emergency Response Plan Prepare RM Program Project Management for WSP, OMP, and RMP Meetings Invoicing Project Coordination Supplemental Services Jan Feb Mar Apr 1999 May /S 0 Telephone Progress Report June July Aug Sept WS Workshop Begin O&M Plan in 2000, after complei[ion of WSP July 2000 Draft Deliverable ~ Draft Final AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Con%\n= < PUBLIC HE aING/RESOLUTION # J O0 ACTION: Special Use Permit for two Group Residential Facilities-Class I FOR AGENDA OF: A~ri! !~; 19q9 DEPT. OF ORIGIN: DECD - Planning ORIGINATOR: Jon Holan~ DATE SUBMITTED: February 26, 1999 APPLICANT: 3nland Empire Residential Resources LOCATION: 1006 & 1008 9th Street 2. CLEARANCES: DECD Director : ~~~necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: CC Resolution No. Notice of Public Hearing. Memos to City Council. PC Minutes (3/16/99). PC Findings of Fact & Conclusion. Special Use Permit Application. Letters of Complaint. ENDORSEMENT 3~ 'I'N~OR~TION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: MAYOR ~-~,~_~ J, ~,~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Council must decide if the applicant's Special Use Permit Application (SUP99-0001) meets the necessary tests and criteria required for approval of the Group Residential Facility - Class I use. 5. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the Special Use Permi:t for two ~r~up Residential Facilities- Class I. 6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jon Holan ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 7. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE AGENDA BILL No.: 9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: The applicant would be unable to use the properties for the Group Residential Facilities for six developmentally disabled adults. 11. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Additional staff resources might be required to review final revised plans and permits. 12. RESEARCH SOURCES: Zoning Ordinance File Site Visits Relevant State Laws IoA City Hall 239 4th St. Bremerton, WA 98337 Attn: Mike Shepherd Dear Mr. Shepherd, I am writing you in concern of the "Special Use Permit" currently being debated before you in reference to the property at 1006 and 1008 9th street. As a neighbor of this property, we have no problem with Inland Empire building a structure at this site. Our only concern is the magnitude of the structure. According to Mr. Jon Holan, Building Department Director, the "Special Use Permit" (SUP) currently under consideration will override the density requirements of this property. Mr. Holan states "that this project would exceed the density standards if it was a single family dwelling with ADU. (Page 50 Planning Commission meeting 3/16/99) Item #4 in the SUP criteria states "Will the proposal be compatible with adjacent uses and surrounding neighborhood", we think not. This building is out of character for the neighborhood, has little or no yard, and will tax our already crowded parking concerns. At a previous meeting on the H.O.M.E. application for Inland Empire/Communitas, you had said our neighborhood supported this project, yet no person from the neighborhood has stood up to support it. The only support is coming from outsiders. We are your constituents. Please represent us by voting no on this issue. Sincerely, City Hall 239 4th St. Bremerton, WA 98337 Attn: Mike Shepherd Dear Mr. Shepherd, I am writing you in concern of the "Special Use Permit" currently being debated before you in reference to the property at 1006 and 1008 9t~ street. As a neighbor of this property, we have no problem with Inland Empire building a structure at this site. Our only concern is the magnitude of the structure. According to Mr. Jon Holan, Building Department Director, the "Special Use Permit" (SUP) currently under consideration will override the density requirements of this property. Mr. Holan states "that this project would exceed the density standards if it was a single family dwelling with ADU. (Page 50 Planning Commission meeting 3/16/99) Item #4 in the SUP criteria states "Will the proposal be compatible with adjacent uses and surrounding neighborhood", we think not. This building is out of character for the neighborhood, has little or no yard, and will tax our already crowded parking concerns. At a previous meeting on the H.O.M.E. application for Inland Empire/Communitas, you had said our neighborhood supported this project, yet no person from the neighborhood has stood up to support it. The only support is coming from outsiders. We are your constituents. Please represent us by voting no on this issue. CiTY COUNCIL OFFICE City Hall 239 4th St. Bremerton, WA 98337 Atto: Mike Shepherd Dear Mr. Shepherd, I am writing you in concern of the "Special Use Permit" currently being debated before you in reference to the property at 1006 and 1008 9~ street. As a neighbor of this property, we have no problem with Inland Empire building a structure at this site. Our only concern is the magnitude of the structure. According to Mr. Jon Holan, Building Department Director, the "Special Use Permit" (SUP) currently under consideration will override the density requirements of this property,. Mr. Holan states "that this project would exceed the density standards if it was a single family dwelling with ADU. (Page 50 Planning Commission meeting 3/16/99) Item #4 in the SUP criteria states "Will the proposal be compatible with adjacent uses and surrounding neighborhood", we think not. This building is out of character for the neighborhood, has little or no yard, and will tax our already crowded parking concerns. At a previous meeting on the H.O.M.E. application for Inland Empire/Communitas, you had said our neighborhood supported this project, yet no person from the neighborhood has stood up to support it. The only support is coming from outsiders. We are your constituents. Please represent us by voting no on this issue. ~OF BJ¢~, OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY 239 4th Street · Bremerton, Washington 98337 · (360) 478-5345 · FAX (360) 478-5161 · E-mail: legal@ci.bremenon.wa.us MEMORANDUM CONFIDENTIAL ATI'ORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION To: City Council From: Knute Rife Re: Inland Empire group facility Date: 19 April 1999 I have now had an opportunity to review the materials presented at the 14 April hearing. Several concerns were voiced by both the public and the Council. I address each in mm. Additional cases cited. I have reviewed the cases cited by the Applicant. They do not change the positions planning staff and counsel have already taken. Conversion. Should the Council approve the project, it may condition the Applicant's ability to convert the buildings to other uses, such as duplexes. Group Residential Facility_ status. The proposal has been classified a Group Residential Facility-Class I-Small. On-site staffare not required to quali~ for this stares. The definition only requires that on-site staffbe included in the resident count to determine if a facility is Class I-Small or Class I-Large. Even if on-site staffwere required, the Director has made a determination of similarity pursuant to BMC 21.02.150(b), a determination driven by and concurred in by the Planning Commission. The record. The Council is building its own record. The Planning Commission did not have a hearing and so built no record. Issues. The five criteria for approval are set out in BMC 21.02.905(d) and have been discussed in the staff report in the record. These are the issues before the Council. The Council must use the facts in the record to decide these issues. We believe it would be best for the Council to have a deliberation session with legal counsel before the hearing. We are available at the Council's convenience. Knute Rife ....... Assistant City Attorney Equal Opportunity Employer BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON ) INLAND EMPmE RESIDENTIAL ) RESOURCES, ) ) Applicant. ) ) SUP 99-0001 Resolution 2700 The Bremerton City Council, having heard this matter in open session and being otherwise fully advised, finds, concludes, and resolves as follows: 10. 11. FINDINGS This is an application for a special use permit for two Group Residential Facilities-Class I at 1006 and 1008 Ninth Street, within the Central Bremerton Residential (CBR) Zone. The Council held a public hearing with proper notice on 14 April 1999. At this hearing the Council accepted into the record and reviewed the application, the staff analysis and recommendation, materials collected by the Bremerton City Planning Commission at its 16 March 1999 meeting, and evidence from citizens, including testimony. The application is for two group living facilities for individuals with developmental disabilities, one facility per lot, forming a unified complex. The application provides for services and utilities. The occupants will not drive and will need accessible parking. Parking demand will therefore be less than that needed for average group residential facilities, but spaces must be larger. The application provides for a reduced number of spaces while providing oversized spaces for accessible van parking. There is no evidence of the application causing significant environmental impacts. The neighborhood is predominately single family residential with a park to the northwest of the property. The application is compatible with these uses. There is an unmet local demand for the services the application would provide. The Planning Commission previously heard an appeal of a building permit involving this development. The Planning Commission there was a procedural flaw in the permits by characterizing the application as single family residences instead of group facilities. The Planning Commission therefore vacated the permit and remanded with the option of resubmitting the application with proper characterization of the project. The residents will not constitute a family under the land use code. Neither will they constitute a household, as by definition group facilities do not provide for households. There is an action pending in Kitsap County Superior Court, Cause No. 99-2-00357-0, concerning certain neighbors' fights of access across the subject property. PAGE 1 of 3 4. 5. o CONCLUSIONS The application complies with the Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Ordinance lists Group Residential Facilities-Class I as an SUP in the CBR Zone. The application meets applicable development standards and regulations. The application satisfies all other applicable criteria and design guidelines. The application furthers the general weffare. The Planning Commission did not decide the building permit appeal on the merits. Additionally, the previous heating and the present one are factually and legally dissimilar. The previous decision is not res judicata for the present hearing. The density provisions of the Zoning Code apply only to dwelling units. Group facilities do not constitute dwelling units as defined by the Code, and therefore the density provisions do not apply to group facilities. The City Council does not have the authority to contradict a ruling of the Kitsap County Superior Court. Tt~I~FORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Council approves the application on the following conditions: a. The project must comply with all applicable codes; b. Barrier-free van parking spaces must be provided per code, and the spaces shall be located in the middle of the parking area to provide adequate room for vehicular access. c. The project must comply with any ruling arising from Kitsap County Superior Court Cause No. 99-2-00357-0. d. The Council is not approving any dwelling units in this permit, and conversion of the project to any use involving dwelling units, such as duplexes, will require additional review and approval. e. The Applicant shall record this Permit with the Kitsap County Auditor. The SLIP shall lapse one year from Notice of Final Approval unless applicant takes the following action: filing with the Department of Community Development complete building permit applications for the project. Dated this day of April 1999. BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL Mike Shepherd, President PAGE 2 of 3 ATTEST Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk PAGE 3 of 3 CITY OF BREMERTON · 239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 NOTICE OF PUBLIC Bremerton City Council The Bremerton City Council will conduct a public hearing on the following item during its regular meeting on Wednesday, April 14, 1999 which will begin at 6:00 PM in the City Council Chambers of the Bremerton City Hall, 239 4* Street, Bremerton, WA_ SUP99-0001 - Special Use Permit for two Group Residential Facilities - Class I on adjacent lots at 1006 and 1008 9th Street. Applicant: Inland Empire Residential Resources Ail interested persons may appear and provide testimony on the matter. The Department of Economic and Communi~ Development, located at 286 4a~ St., Bremerton, WA 98337, will received written comments and other exhibits on the above item up to 5:00 PM on the day of hearing. Written comments and other exhibits may also be submitted to the Council prior to the close of the public hearing. Staff reports and copies of pertinent materials can be obtained from the Department of Economic and Community Development. Staff reports will be available by 5:00 PM on April 7, 1999. Call James Coombes at (360) 478-5845 for additional information. Equal Opportunity-Employer ~r Memo From: Jon Holan, Department of Community and Economic Development To: City Council Date: April 14, 1999 Subject: Additional Considerations regarding the Special Use Permit for Inland Empire Residential Resources (SUP99-0001) that were discussed at the Planning Commission Meeting on March 16, 1999. On March 16, 1999 the Bremerton Planning Commission passed a motion recommending that City Council approve this application for Special Use Permit. However, there were two issues raised by the Commission to be considered at the public hearing with Council. Res Judicata - Mr. Ronald Templeton, attomey for the adjacent property owner, the Calnan family, raised the issue that the doctrine res judicata applies to this project application. He noted that res judicata would apply in this situation because once an applicant's project has been denied, that project should not be allowed to be reimroduced again for approval. At their January 12, 1999 Public Hearing, the Planning Commission rescinded the two issued building permits being appealed by the Calnan family (APL98-0015). Each permit had been issued for a single-family residence with an accessory dwelling unit attached at the same address as this application. In rescinding the building permits, the Planning Commission agreed with the appellant that these two residences were not single-family homes, but group homes that fell under the requirements of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) use category of"Group Residential Facility - Class F' and required a Special Use Permit. Staffhas reviewed this matter with the Assistant City Attorney. Therefore, this subsequent Special Use Permit application for two Group Residential Facilities - Class I is not revisiting the same building permits and not subject to the doctrine of res judicata. Density - The Planning Commission's decision on the building permit appeal in January found that the project is a group residential facility rather than a series of single-family residences. Staff views a group residential facility as a differem type of use than a single-family dwelling unit. Density is determined by the number of dwelling units per acre. A dwelling unit consists of one family or household. The definition of household in the Zoning Ordinance excludes group homes from that definition. Since the definition of household does not typically include group care facilities, staff believes that the density standard does not apply to a group residential facility. This is further substantiated by the Zomg Ordinance definitions. [BMC 21.02.070 Definitions] Density. is defined in part as "a measure of residential concentration, usually expressed as the number of dwellings per acre of land." Dwelling Unit is defined as "a living space or combination of rooms designed to provide independent year-round living facilities for one family or household, constructed to the minimum standards of the UBC or HUD Code, and with provisions for sleeping, eating and sanitation." Household is defined as "All persons, regardless of age, sex, or family relationships, that reside as a single unit in a dwelling intended for single household occupancy. Such group quarters facilities as dormitories, boarding houses, nursing homes or similar accommodations typically do not provide facilities for households." OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY 239 4th Street · Bremerton, Washington 98337 · (360) 478-5345 · FAX (360) 478-5161 · E-mail: legal@ci.bremerton.wa.us To: /lames Coombes From: Knute Rife Re: IERR Date: 5 April 1999 At the meeting before the Planning Commission, the opponents to the ]ERR group home raised two issues: density and res judicata. Neither applies to this proposal. Applicants are requesting a SUP for a Group Residential Facility-Class I, as defined by BMC 21.02.070. Opponents allege the proposal violates the density requirements of BMC Tire 21 App., Figure 090. Figure 090 restricts the number of dwelling units (DUs) per acre. §070 defines "dwelling unit" as space designed to provide independent living for one family or household. The individual rooms are not independent living spaces, and the combination of rooms and people that would constitute an independent living space would not constitute a family, but rather a random and shitting collection of residents. It would not constitute a household either, as group quarters are typically excluded from the definition of "household" in §070. "Dwelling unit" is a planning concept that typically does not apply to group facilities, and so density provisions would not apply either. Res judicata (Latin for "matters adjudicated") is a judicial doctrine to prevent relitigation of cases. If a new case is identical to a previous case (which was decided on the merits) in the following four areas, it will typically be barred by res judicata: 1) subject matter, 2) cause of action, 3) persons and parties, and 4) the nature of the persons for or against whom the claim is made. Civil Service Commission vs. City_ of Kelso, 137 Wn.2d 166, P.2d (1999). The last two elements are not at issue because the identical parties are involved. The previous case involved here is the earlier decision by the Planning Commission, acting on an appeal of the issuing of two building permits. First, there is a question whether the earlier decision was a final decision on the merits. If it was not, then res judicata would not apply. At the earlier hearing, the Planning Commission ruled that, contrary to the permits, the proposal was not two single family residences but rather a group facility. The Commission effectively vacated the permits and remanded the matter to DCD for further processing pursuant to the Commission's ruling. This, then, would appear not to have been a finai decision on the merits. Second, the subject matter would not appear to be identical. Granted, the proposed buildings are the same, but they are now presented not as two houses but as a single group facility. This is a significant factor in analyzing the final point, identity of cause of action. A building permit and a SUP are not the same. An appeal of the former and an initial review of the Equal Opportunity Employer IERR Memo Page 2 of'2 latter are even more disparate. The issues are differem and the burdens are different, and so the evidence presented and arguments made are different. There would not appear to be an identity of cause of action. Res judicata should not apply. OLENNA MALANCA, CITY ATTORNEY Knute Rife, Asst. City Attorney Draft Al[inures for Approval Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 I. Roll Call Those present were: Chairman Dingfield, Commissioner Griggs, Commissioner Stone and Commissioner Wolfe. Commissioners Adams, Boyd and Robinson were absent. Quorum certified. H. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dingfield at 5:39 p.m. III. Approval of the Agenda Motion by Commissioner Stone to approve the agenda as presented. Seconded by Chairman Dingfield. Agenda approved. II: Pubfic ~¥ieeting A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda): None. B. Hearing: None C. Meeting: Special Use Permit for the construction of two group residential facilities Class I, in separate attached dwelling units (Inland Empire Residential ~ File #SLrp99-0001) located at 1006 and 1008 9th Street. Chairman Dingfield informed those in attendance that this was a public meeting and that the City Council would be holding the public hearing for this permit. The Planning Commission is gathering information by reviewing what the Planning Department has prepared, obtaining information from the applicant, heating information from the public, then discussing among the Commissioners and making a recommendation as a part of the planning agency to the City Council for their use during the public hearing process. She then asked Mr. Holan to present the staff report. Mr. Holan introduced the newly hired Assistant City Attorney, Knute Rife and noted that he would be attending Commission meetings to provide any legal guidance. Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page I of 13 StaffReport: Mr. Holan stated that the Special Use Permit application by Inland Empire Resources is to construct on two existing adjacent lots on 9th Street between Warren Avenue and Broadway Avenue, two residential care facilities which are adjacent to each other. The surrounding area is predominantly single family residential, with a park located northwest of the property. This was presented first as a building permit for two single family residences with accessory dwelling units, which the Commission determined to be inappropriate through the appeal process and that the application should have been processed as a residential care facility. The use most closely fits that of a Group Residential Care Facility. It would provide living accommodations on the first floor of each unit for three individuals that have developmental disabilities, and one additional individual on the upper floor of each facility. The upper floor living area will give the facility the ability to serve two individuals not currently in the Communitas service program. This type of facility is allowed in the CBR zone with a Special Use Permit. In order to comply with building requirements for a Group Residential Care Facility, the facilities are designed to provide barrier free access on the main floor, and barrier free access to bathrooms on both the main floor and second floor. In addition, there is a barrier free van parking space parking also provided. The zoning ordinance requires two off-street parking spaces per single family residence and one additional space for accessory units. This proposal would provide two barrier free van spaces and three standard parking spaces. With a Special Use Permit, parking can be considered for the particular use. The residents of this facility do not drive vehicles. Parking would mainly be for staff members that will not be residing at this location and also for vans providing services to residents. Adjacent property owners to the north and east have used this property for assisting their access into their property. There are also three properties north of the site that obtain access from a driveway extending perpendicular fi-om the alley. Any development of the site itself would preclude access to the property that property owners to the east have use of. Planning staff believes there was not a basis for denying the proposal, since a denial on this basis would preclude any reasonable use of the property itself. Mr. Holan addressed some specific issues that have been raised during previous discussions with the Planning Commission and City Council (addendum to staff report - copies provided at the meeting). A Tenant Support Service Provider will be providing services to the residents and would be onsite in each facility in the morning to assist the residents getting ready for work, and again at night to assist with dinner and bedtime. The Planning staff does not anticipate that there would be a great deal of traffic as a result of the Tenant Support Provider. He noted that a single family residential unit, based on traffic studies, generates approximately 10 trips per day. This application is the equivalent to two singie family residences with a single family use, with the possibility of up to 20 daily trips in the alley. With regards to security, the applicant has indicated that there will be staff.available on a 24-hour basis (by phone or pager). The Communitas facility is approximately two blocks from the proposed project. Communitas has indicated they will increase their involvement with the Block Watch Program, and the police department stated that this area is no more dangerous than other areas. Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 2 of 13 Staff has recommended that a condition be added that a covenant or some other type of instrument be recorded prior to occupancy that if there is any change in use from the Group Residential Care Facility, it would require review and approval by the City of Bremerton to ensure compliance with applicable development standards. Mr. Holan commented that the City may be receiving more than their fair share of affordable housing units, and that there should be a fair share distribution of affordable housing throughout the county. Staff determined that since there has been no policy direction adopted by either the City or the Regional Council, they did not base any recommendation on this fair share affordable housing issue for this particular application. However, the Planning Commission may wish to consider this in its deliberation of the Communitas proposal. Based on the contents of the staff report, the five criteria for approval of a Special Use Permit would be met by this particular proposal and as a result the staff, subject to conditions, does recommend that this project be adopted. Joe McCarthy, Attorney for Inland Empire, stated that Inland Empire is a non-profit organization with a mission of providing housing for low income persons and persons with disabilities. They are working in conjunction with Communitas, however, Inland Empire owns the land and is building the structure. Communitas will be providing services to the residents. There are two single family homes that are attached, and they each have an accessory dwelling unit on the second floor. The plan is to have three individuals living on the first floor of each home, with one individual living upstaks in each home. The individuals that will be residing in this home are currently living on their own in the community in their own apartments. The goal is to provide them with affordable rent. All of these individuals are currently earning below 30% of the median income and the rent they pay consumes approximately 70-90% of their monthly income. The building itself fits within all development guidelines. They have applied for a Special Use Permit and believe they have met all five of the criteria. He commented on the condition proposed by the Planning staff regarding a change in use, and noted that the financing for this project requires for it to be used for this purpose (low income housing for developmentally disabled people) for 50 years. Commissioner Stone asked if the occupants in the Accessory. Dwelling Units (ADU) were going to be developmentally disabled people or low income people. Mr, McCarthy responded that it is the mission of both organizations to serve the developmentally disabled. The financing requires that the units be rented to developmentally disabled, and it is their plan to do that. Commissioner Wolfe asked Mr. McCarthy if he had had an opportunity to review the letter from htr. Ronald Templeton re: Calnan/Inland Empire Residential Resources that had been provided to the Commissioners and others in attendance at this meeting today, specifically regarding res judicata. Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 3 of 13 Mr, McCarthy commented Inland Empire did not appeal the Planning Commission's decision because they felt it would be easier to go through the Special Use Permit process. The Planning Commission did not make a decision on the ADU issue. They are currently applying through a new process with community participation. He stated that Mr. Templeton has raised the argument that Inland Empire cannot reapply for a building permit because the Planning Commission has denied the building permit and they are forever bared from seeking another one, citing the doctrine of res judicata. Mr. McCarthy notes that res judicata applies to law suits and it states that when a decision is made by an official, that decision is binding on the person against whom it was made and that person can't seek to re-litigate that issue in a subsequent proceeding. Mr. McCarthy does not believe this particular application applies because they are not in a law suit, this is only the permitting process. This is a quasi-judicial meeting today, a public meeting for information, and no decision will be made. Call to the Public - Public In Favor of this Application Vera Kolegraf, mother of one of the proposed residents, commented that in the past 44 years they have seen a change in attitude and acceptance of people with disabilities and their different housing options. People with disabilities have fights just as any other citizen. She thanked those in favor of this project. Gary, Wilson, Communitas, stated that four other parents were going to come to this meeting but are currently in Washington, D.C. doing some work with the A.R.C. The message they sent through him was that they would like to see more opportunities for affordable housing for their children. Lee Ishom, the A.R.C. of Kitsap County. Mr. Ishom noted that the ARC fully supports opportunities for developmentally disabled persons. He stated that a decision was made in a Connecticut case, that whenever 1-6 developmentally disabled come together under one roof, that house shall be considered a home. Call to the Public - Public In Opposition of this Application Mr. Ronald Templeton, Attorney for the Calnan's, stated that the concerns of the Calnan family is not the identity of the residents in this project, but the impact that it has on their historical means of access. He believes that during the appeal of this project in January, Commissioner Robinson outlined the history of the ADU provision, and that the majority of the Commissioners had voted to support the appeal of this project. The appeal was sustained. He believes that the doctrine of res judicata does apply. The issues were before this commission, the principal thrust of their argument before was density problems, and the appeal was sustained. He noted that res judicata would apply in this situation because once an applicant's project has been denied, they should not be allowed to come back several times and subject members of the Commission to a re-review of the same issues that had been heard previously, and should not subject the neighbors to coming back and pointing out the defects in the project. Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 4 of 13 Mr. Templeton noted that Inland Empire has not altered their proposed building whatsoever. He believes this project should be identified as four dwelling units. The application indicates that the structure is two single family residences with attached ADUs. Current zoning restricts this area to 18 units per acre and until that zoning ordinance is amended, that is the rule by which we are all governed. He believes this is a multi-unit structure and is prohibited in a CBR zone. Mr. Templeton stated that there is currently an action pending to confirm the Calnan's easement rights. He believes that they are fully vested under the law, since they have used the north 35 feet of that property for ingress/egress for over 41 years. With regards to parking, this project would require six parking spots. The parking requirements also state that the Director may authorize a reduction in the number of required parking spots due to the resident's ability to drive. Mr. Templeton referred to a letter provided by Communitas dated June 10, 1998 indicating there would be a total of eight individuals living in these four units, stating the individuals would be supported by the Intensive Support Program for 8.61 hours per day. The 8.61 hours is per individual per day. When you multiply 8.61 by eight individuals, there is 51.66 hours per day of required staffing pursuant to their contract. He believes this would indicate that two full time staff would be required on site, which would require two parking spots. Commissioner Wolfe asked what is the status of the action pending regarding the issue with historical means of access for the Calnan's easement fights. Mr. Templeton responded that he had filed a summons complaint listing as defendants Inland Empire and Communitas, seeking the title of prescriptive easement over the north 35 feet of the property and confirm that record. The summons and complaint were filed on February 5, 1999, and were subsequently served on Inland and Communitas. The next step will be a trial date. Commissioner Wolfe asked Mr. Templeton if' he believed the project exceeds the maximum density standards. Mr. Templeton responded affirmatively. Nancy McKelvy, resident at 1018 9th Street, asked how much land there is from the front door of this project to the sidewalk. She does not believe there is enough outdoor area for the residents to use. She is also concerned about the properties pro.,cimity to Warren Avenue and the amount of traffic on that road. Ken Fick, resident of 816 Warren Avenue, stated that he is against this project because it is too small ora lot. He indicated that parking is very difficult in this area, as after 7:00 a.m. you cannot find parking in front of your own home. He feels the Calnan's have been wrongly portrayed as being discriminating to disabled people. He stated that he would be interested to see other projects that Inland Empire has constructed. Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 5 of 13 Applicant's Response: Darryl Reber, Executive Director of Inland Empire (Spokane), stated that Inland Empire has been certified as a Bremerton Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). Their main goal .is to create affordable housing for individuals with disabilities. They have developed 19 separate properties for this purpose, with the help of the state through the Community Trade and Economic Development Department (CTED). There is $160,000 of CTED funds appropriated for this project. Inland Empire is subject to housing quality standard review on an annual basis, and the service providers are reviewed annually for provider and housing quality standards. Their intention is to make an investment in the Bremerton community. Joe McCarthy commented in response to the res judicata issue, he believes the Planning Commission told Inland Empire/Communitas to reapply through the Special Use Permit process. Inland E/npire has done this now and they should be allowed to go through with their project. Regarding density, he felt that decision was not conclusive at the last meeting and that the Planning staff.was looking for guidance. He also felt that the ADU ordinance is not clear with the density requirements. The Comp Plan indicates that ADUs should be encouraged and allowed in all new and existing residential structures in all residential zones. Mr. McCarthy does not feet that this structure should be considered a multi-unit structure because it is being built on two lots. He stated that this structure is two separate buildings that could be sold separately and are legally distinct. He does not believe the Calnan's have a case regarding prescriptive easement, and indicated that Inland Empire would not build this structure until this issue has been resolved. He said it is not relevant to the Special Use Permit, it is a private party dispute, and they need the permit to move forward. The Director has recommended a reduction of one of the parking spaces and Mr. McCarthy states this can be done, as the parking requirements are excessive given the resident's ability to drive. Safety concerns are appreciated, but he does not feel they are relevant or part of the Special Use Permit process. Commissioner Stone asked for clarification on the funding for the residents and how they qualify. Joe McCarthy responded that Inland Empire is building this project with money provided by CTED, the Bremerton CHDO, and private financing. The residents that will be living in this facility will be receiving services from Communitas, which is paid by the State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) through the service pro~Sder program. Communitas currently has a contract to serve six people (potential tenants that have been identified). With the creation of two more affordable units, Communitas has the ability to obtain more funding for two more people. Although these two individuals are not currently being served by Communitas, when the housing becomes available for them through this project, then they can be added to the contract. Commissioner Griggs asked how long this project would be financed, since this had to be used as a group home for 50 years. Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 6 of 13 Joe McCarthy answered that CTED has money in the Housing Trust Fund which provides low interest loans to low income/affordable housing projects. People compete every year for these dollars. This is a loan that has to be repaid unless you keep it affordable to the appropriate residents for 50 years. If you continue to do this, you do not need to pay it back. He feels that since most organizations that receive these type of loans are non-profit, they do not have the ability to pay them off and they continue to be used for their original purpose. Commissioner Wolfe feels that the City did a very poor job with this project in terms of the resources they provided (before Jori Holan was hired). He feels the information has been inconsistent or non-existent. This issue is more controversial and emotional that he had thought earlier. Since there is a pending legal case with this, he feels that deepens the controversy. Joe McCarthy said he does not believe the Calnan's pending claim against Inland Empire is relevant to the i3ermit issue because this is a Special Use Permit. With regard to the ADU issue, he does not feel this should be an issue in terms of how the ordinance needs to be interpreted. He feels the density issue has to be interpreted to be consistent with the Comp Plan. Commissioner Stone asked for clarification as to why they chose to have an ADU as opposed to just having a two story home with two people on each floor. Joe McCarthy responded that they needed an ADU to make the project work financially. By having that bedroom separate they can charge a little bit more rent for it. If the bedroom was included downstairs they would not be able to charge as much rent and the project doesn't pencil that way. He feels it is necessary to create the housing for people at this income level. Darryl Reber, Inland Empire, stated that the ADU also gives them different housing models over the 50 years of the loan. They are committed to housing developmentally disabled individuals, but not everyone with developmental disabilities needs wheelchair accessibility or is involved in the Intensive Tenant Support service system. There is another catego~ in DSHS and their service component that is called Regular Tenant Support. These are individuals who have disabilities, (either ambulatory or may be working in the community) and thev may need help with one activitv of daily living. This separate apartment allows that person to have the same type of independence that most of us enjoy. Gary Wilson, Communitas, commented that some people don't want to live with others. They are able to live independently. This is giving people a choice. This was not initially called a ~oup home because they are trying to move people out of group home facilities, where six to eight people had been living together, and give them more choice on how they live. The particular individuals that will be living in this particular project, have gone through a process of deciding that they can live together or individually. These are six people who would like to live together, more of a family-like housing opportunity for them. These individuals are living in individual apartments in the community and Communitas is required to provide 8.61 hours of service to each individual. In many cases they can provide this same service to the same individuals by having reduced staffing. Their goal is to be able to reduce staffing and provide the same services, in order to provide additional services to the disabilities community. Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 7 of 13 Allen Peterson, Communitas, stated that they are currently supporting 36 individuals residentially. They would like to downsize the group homes because they believe people can have a higher quality of life in smaller living arrangements. Commissioner Stone stated that Bremerton has one of the lowest per capita tax bases in the state, and wondered if Inland Empire has done any studies on affordable housing. It appears that Bremerton has more than its share of affordable housing. Joe McCarthy, commented that housing is more affordable in Bremerton because the median income is lower. He does not believe that there is any evidence that Bremerton has more people who are getting cheaper rent than they deserve, in fact people here need affordable housing because the median income is lower than places like Bellevue. The fair share issue arises under the Growth Management Act (GMA) as a planning issue for the City itself and for the City in it's intergovernmental relations with the County and the other jurisdictions with the county. The G~MA requires the City to accept its fair share of low income housing as a statutory mandate. The issue of how much can be very hotly contested when you are enacting your Comp Plan and Zoning Ordinances. This project is going to serve those people at the lowest end of the spectrum. There is not enough housing in Bremerton for people who make 30% less of the median income. Commissioner Stone noted that this project is admirable, however, his concern is that since we do have Iow property values already, we are not going to raise those values by concentrating Iow income properties here. He stated that we should think of the economic base of the City itself. Since Inland Empire is building this as a 501 C3 and is more than likely removed from the tax rolls, so it will not make a contribution to the City. The income that is being brought into the Citv from this project is already here. Darryi Reber stated that King County probably has the largest percentage of people with disabilities that need affordable housing. Clark County, Pierce County and Snohomish County also have a higher percentage than Kitsap County. Commissioner Wolfe asked if there was a lot of competition for contractors like Inland Empire throughout the state. Dar~l Reber responded that as far as purchasing property, he competes with everyone. As far as non-profit housing developers that specialize in developmentally disabled housing issues, there are probably three or four that specialize in this field. There are other housing developers that will integrate one to two apartments into a 50-unit apartment building. Inland Empire is one of the few service providers specializing in the field of special needs developmental and disabled housing. Joe McCarthy commented that the Kitsap County Consolidated Plan for 1996-2000 indicates that supportive housing is available to 162 people currently in the County, although there are 750 people who need it. Commissioner Stone stated that he would like to know what percentage of those people are in Bremerton. Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 8 of 13 Joe McCarthy, responded that he does not have the breakdown of what areas in the county these individuals are from. Gary Wilson, stated that Communitas has housing in Poulsbo, Port Orchard, Silverdale and in Bremerton. He believes the housing is scattered throughout the peninsula fairly equally. Dick Kolegraf, father of one of the proposed residents, commented that in 1979 or 1980 KPHA (now known as Communitas) had received a $1,100,000 loan from HUD and built four group homes and two half-group homes. Three are six bedroom and one is a five bedroom. The one in Bremerton is located on Garland Lane. They do not own the land. They brought people out of institutions to live in these homes. Some of these individuals would live there for a while and then move on to Intensive Tenant Support. The state would then have another person to take their place in the group home. KPHA could house people in emergency situations. The house remains in good condition. Ken Fick asked if he could receive a list of the properties that Inland Empire has built in the state. l)arryl Rebar noted that a property portfolio was provided to the Department of Economic and Community Development in the ori~nal application packet and is a matter of public record. Closed to the Public Jori Holan stated that in regards to Accessory Dwelling Units, single family residential units, etc., the Commissioners dealt with those issues on the appeal. At that time they had made the determination that it was not a single family dwelling unit, but that it was a Group Residential Facility. As a result, Inland Empire has filed a Special Use Application for a Group Residential Facility (not a single family residence with an ADU). The issue before the Commissioners tonight is whether or not a Residential Group Facility is appropriate for that particular location. With respect to the density issue, the interpretation was made that the density requirement for the site should have applied to an ADU, since those are design standards for ADUs that would be applicable to that. Those issues go away when the project is a Group Residential Facility because that definition does not make reference to the development standards. The reason it requires a Special Use Permit is because you have five findings, one of which is to define whether or not this is appropriate for that particular residential area. From staff's perspective, they are looking at this as whether or not the proposed use is appropriate for that residential area (parking, intensity of the use, etc.). Furthermore, when looking at the definitions within the Zoning Ordinance regarding residential units, Group Residential Facilities are typically not included as households. As a result, the notion that a Group Residential Facility is in fact a residential unit does not apply based on their definition. These are two separate and distinct activities. Mr. Holan felt that a lot of the tonight's discussion with regards to the density issue, particularly as it relates to ADUs in single family dwelling units, is not relevant because of the decision the Commissioners had previously made on the appeal that it was not a single family residence. Commissioner Griggs thanked 1Mr. Holan for the clarification on that and asked if the project was still considered a single family dwelling with an ADU, would it exceed the density requirements. Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 9 of 13 Mr. Holan responded that this project would exceed the density standards if it was a sin~e family dwelling with an ADU. The staff report indicates that if there is a change in use from the Group Residential Facility, particulary as a single family unit, that the City will have concerns from a density standpoint. Commissioner Wolfe commented that at the last meeting there was some question as to the legal review of the permit application. He asked if the City Attorney's office had an opportunity to review the Special Use Permit. Mr. ltolan said that they had received a copy of the staff report, but they have not reviewed the Special Use Permit application. Knnte Rife, Assistant City Attom. ey, stated that he had reviewed the staff report but that there is no permit yet and there won't be until such time as the application is reviewed and approved by the City Council. Commissioner Wolfe asked if the legal office had any comments with regards to the staff report. Mr. Rife stated that there was none at this time. Joe McCarthy commented that the residents that have chosen to move into this facility already live in Bremerton. He wanted to clarify that this project is not bringing more low income individuals into Bremerton. This project is designed to help serve the existing population. Commissioner Stone asked the City Attorney to comment on the res judicata issue. Mr. Rife cormnented that he had reviewed Mr. Templeton's information that was presented at this meeting, but he had not had the opportunity to review the proceeding and the decision on the appeal that the Planning Commission made in January. He would need to review that information before he would be able to comment further. Res judicata is fact specific. There have been t~vo different representations of what happened at the January hearing. Chairman Dingfield asked Mr. Rife to review all the documentation prior to the City Council meeting, as these issues will be discussed at that hearing. Mr. Templeton stated that he does not agree that the denisty issue should now disappear because they are dealing with a Group Residential Facility. His interpretation is that this is four separate dwelling units. If you call it a Group Residential Facility, it is not allowable to have an ADU. He believes there remains a density issue because there are four separate dwelling units. Chairman Dingfield stated that the Commission has been wrestling with the ADU issue and will continue to do so during the Zoning Ordinance review. Other cities do not even have an ADU ordinance. She appreciates the flexibility that the arrangement this Group Care Facility will offer individuals with developmental disabilities. She feels the Commission will need to look at this further, because our society becomes more enlightened about how people can learn differently and live more productively in a society, instead of institutionalizing people. This kind of flexibility can Planning Commission Meeting March 16.1999 Page 10 of 13 offer people a lot of opportunities that they may not otherwise have. She also noted that the City Council is wresting with the fair share housing issue because there have been other applicants that have come through and the Council is making a very public statement that says Bremerton is willing to do its part, but other cities in the County and the County itself are going to have to step up to the plate also. Commissioner Stone commented that the Planning Commission will need to address the economic affect of their decisions. This is a unique city in which a rather large portion is not tax supported, but they contribute to the infrastructure need. He is not opposed to the 501C3 organizations, but the fact remains that these properties are taken off the tax rolls. Commissioner Griggs stated that the City can require a Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT). He indicated that a lot of HUD projects do this. Chairman Dingfield stated that she agrees with these points, but she also feels that at some point there is a policy line that might be more appropriately taken up by City Council. Mr. Flolan stated that it would be appropriate for someone to make a motion for this application, rather than adopting a specific resolution. Commissioner Wolfe stated that he does not feel that the Planning Commission could recommend anything at this point without hearing from the City Attorney's office (res judicata and density issues). He supports this project and he would like to see it go forward, however, he feels the legal office needs to address these issues. Chairman Dingfield noted that the purpose of this public meeting is to bring forward all of those issues to the applicant, to the public and to the planning department itself so that these issues can be brought up. When the application is heard at City Council, all of the issues can be addressed in the actual formal public hearing. Knute Rife stated that he does not believe this a res judicata issue at this meeting, as it is not a quasi-judicial proceeding. If there is a res judicata issue, it is something that the City Council will have to deal with. He does not feel that it should stand in the way of a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Wolfe asked Mr. Rife if he felt there was a density issue. Knute Rife responded that he does not feel that the density issue necessarily stands in the way of the Planning Commission sending its recommendation to the City Council, given that you note to the City Council that you have identified in open session that there is a potential density issue that they are going to have to address. Commissioner Wolfe asked Mr. Rife if he felt there was anything that would interfere with the Planning Commission making a recommendation Planning Commission Mccting March 16, 1999 Page 11 of 13 Mr. Rife stated that the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission together form the Planning Agency. The Planning Agency is acting as a fact finding stafffor the City Council. The Agency is not putting together a formal record for the Council, rather they are giving the citizenry a chance to voice concerns, support, etc. Based on that, the Agency would forward their findings to the City Council together with identification of any major issues that they will need to address. Commissioner Wolfe asked Mr. Rife if these are matters of record when they go to the City Council. Mr. Rife indicated that the City Council could include these issues, but they would have to be specifically noted. Any decision Planning Commission makes tonight is not on the record. Commissioner Stone asked if the Commission should approve the Resolution that was in the staff' packet, adding the change in use subject to findings of legal council. Chairman Dingtield noted that it is apparent to the Planning Department, Planning Commission, the applicant, and to proponents/opponents of the applicant that there are specific issues that the staff and legal council will have to address so that City Council has as much information as possible to make their decision The Commission should give them a sense of how they feel about~, {'(k'¢" ~'~' · this application and make a recommendation knowing that there are still issues to be resolved before the City Council has their public hearing Commissioner Stone made a motion to adopt the recommendation in the staff report, ~ adding a third condition (recording of a covenant prior to occupancy that any change in ,] use from a Group Residential Care Facility require review and approval by the City of// Bremerton to ensure compliance with applicable development requirements. This was ~ seconded by Commissioner Griggs. Commissioner Wolfe asked if it would appropriate to add the Planning Commission's concerns in the resolution. Mr. ltolan stated that the Commission might state to the Council that through public review the Planning Commission has identified two issues with regards to res judicata and the applicability density requirements for this particular project, and these should be considered by the Council in their deliberations. Chairman Dingfield asked for a vote from the Commissioners for the additional wording to the resolution. Chairman Dingfieid, yes; Commissioner Griggs, yes; Stone, yes; Wolfe, yes. Motion passes. ~: Business Meeting Approval of Minutes: A motion was made by Commissioner Stone and seconded by Commissioner Griggs to approve the minutes of the February 16, 1999 meeting. Motion passed. Planning Commission Mccting March 16, 1999 Page 12 of 13 B. Directors Report: Mr. Bolan stated that the City Council will be reviewing a proposed extension to the Sinclair Landing Planned Unit Development (PUD) at their March 24, 1999 meeting. C. Old Business: None. D. New Business: None. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. k7. Adjournment Respectfully submitted by: Jon Holan, Secretary Approved by: Joan Dingfield, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 13 of 13 Iht City of Bremcrton i~ an £~nder City of Bremerton Special Use Permit Application Fee: $510.00 Administrative Decision City Council Decision ***Please provide 5 copies of Application and site plan*** Special Use Permit - BMC 21.02.905 A Special Use Permit may be approved for a land~_,,~,G 2EPARTMSNT that is not specifically listed in the Land Use Tables of Chapter V as and "Allowed Principal Use" or an Accessory Use", and for uses that are listed as "SUP" (Special Use Permit required). Instructions Please complete the following application with as much detail as possible about your proposal and submit it along with the application fee. The application must be complete before and processing can occur. Applicant: Address: Inland Empire Residential Resources 7807 E. Sprague Avenue Phone Number: Spokane, WA 99212-2936 Facsimile (509) 926-0462 (509) 926-0553 Contact Person (if different than applicant): Gary Wilson Address: Communitas Phone Number: 920 Park Avenue Bremerton, WA 98337 (360) 337-7231 Title Holder (if different than applicant): Address: Site Address (location): Tax Assessor's Parcel #: Phone Number: 1006 & 1008 Ninth Street 3743 0003 0003 0007 Zoning Designation: CBR Page ] of I Parcel Size (property dimensions): Each lot is 30' x 100', 3000 total S.F. Legal Description (attach extra sheet if necessary): Lots 3 and 4, Block3, Dietz's addition to the town of Bremerton, according to Plat recorded' in Volume 2 of Plats, pages 57, in Kitsap County, Washington. Special Use Requested: Inland Empire Residential Resources is applying for a Special Use Permit for the construction of two single family homes with attached ADUs. Although, City of Bremerton guidelines defining Class I - l& 2 and Class II - 1 &2 group care residences clearly indicate the project in questions falls into neither category, given that individuals residing there will receive tenant support to ensure an independent living arrangement, it is apparent that a SUP is necessary to ensure the development of this project. The closest special use designate would be Group Residential Facility - Class I as defined by the City of Bremerton zoning ordinance. Proposal (please describe in as much detail as possible the nature of the development): IERR is the current owner of two (2) contiguous 30'x 100' lots located 1006 and 1008 Ninth Street in the City of Bremerton. Through the preconstruction conference process, it has been determined that the two (2) single family residences with accessory dwelling units on a zero lot line will be permitted with the current zoning of these parcels. These second story units do not exceed the allowable gross floor area of 40% of the principal dwelling unit as required under Zoning Ordinance Interpretation ZOI-01-97 for accessory dwelling units. IERR has developed building plans for this site and retaining bids from several local contractors. Ron Burley Construction of Port Orchard has been selected as the General Contractor for the project. Burley Construction is a minority owned construction company. Upon completion of this project, three (3) individuals with developmental disabilities will reside in each side of the main floor of the single-family homes. These individuals are currently living in market rate rental apartments in Bremerton and each person is paying rent in excess of 50% of their income. Communitas a Bremerton based Tenant Support Service Provider is currently providing and will continue to provide support services to the residents through their contract with the Department of Social and Health Services. The second floor accessory dwelling units will provide Communitas the opportunity to serve two (2) individuals currently not in the system and therefore unserved. The location of the project is close to public transportation, shopping, medical services and Communitas' main office at 920 Park Avenue. IERR is requesting that the parking requirements reflect the need to ensure accessibility for handicap parking. This would require allotting more parking space for handicap parking and limiting the spaces needed for individual cars. Because of the nature of the client group that will reside there, this will not present a problem. None of the individuals who will reside there drive or have vehicles. Criteria for Approval: Page 2 of 2 Your requested Special Use Permit can be approved only if all of the following criteria can be answered "YES". Is the proposal consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and either designated "SUP" in the Zoning Ordinance, or is being processed as an "Unlisted Use"? Yes- the proposal is consistence with the City's Comprehensive Plan as defined by Goal # 4 which is to encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. Also is defined by the B.C.P. a key objective in the CBD is to build higher levels of density and to establish a new identity and land use mix that will work effectively to bring the area back to prosperity. o Will the proposal comply with all applicable development standards and requirements, including the availability of all needed utilities and services? Yes - all requirements as defined by applicable development standards including the proper availability of utilities and services have been met. Will the proposal, along with any mitigation measures or other conditions of approval, avoid significant adverse environmental consequences? Yes - this project poses no adverse environmental consequences. 4. Will the proposal be compatible with adjacent uses and surrounding neighborhood? Yes - current neighborhood use is a mix of single-family homes and rental properties. o Does the proposal comply with all other criteria or design guidelines that are applicable to the specific use or type of development? Yes - IERR applications were received for review on July 9, 1998. The plans were subject to the required development standards and provisions of the Bremerton Municipal Code and the State Uniform Building Code. Page 3 of 3 Please provide below (or on a separate paper) detailed explanations or other information that will assist in the review of your request and that will help show that your proposal meets the above criteria. IERR, in partnership with The Communitas Group, has responded to a market need in the community of Bremerton that reflects the Bremerton Community Plan, by developing a housing project designed for a specific group of individuals with disabilities who are currently residents of Bremerton. First, we would like to provide you with an overview of the two (2) organizations that are involved in project development at 9th Street and Warren Avenue. Second, we will show market demand for affordable special needs housing and how it relates to the requested City of Bremerton CHDO funding and our belief in why this project is of great value both for the individuals impacted and the community. IERR is a Washington State non-profit 501(C)(3) corporation formed in 1990 and directed by a board of real estate professionals, bankers, parent's, guardians and service providers to the developmentally disabled. IERR is a certified as a CHDO by the State of Washington, City and County of Spokane, City of Bremerton and the State of Idaho. A CHDO is a nonprofit organization with a defined service area at least as a large as a neighborhood, whose stated purpose includes the provision of decent affordable housing. A CHDO must have capacity and experience to carry out activities with HOME funds, including acquisition, rehabilitation, and new construction of rental or low-income homeowner housing. Since its creation, IERR has developed, owns and manages 19 scattered site properties in Vancouver, Grandview, Spokane, Seattle and King County. IERR is currently involved in the development of projects at Longbeach, Snohomish County and Issaquah, Washington, as well as in Victoria, British Columbia Canada. Since 1994, IERR's portfolio of properties has grown from one single-family house occupied by three individuals to 35 rental units occupied by 87 individuals with development disabilities. The financing package which includes Washington State Housing Trust Fund dollars by contractual agreement requires a fifty (50) year commitment to affordability for our target population. IERR uses only legal documents approved by Washington Department of Real Estate, adheres to the Fair Housing Act. IERR has worked closely with the City of Bremerton, Planning Department to ensure that the plans were subject to all required development standards and provisions of the Bremerton Municipal Code and the State Uniform Building Code. Communitas is a not-for-profit organization, which has been in the Bremerton community for 20 years. Previously, Communitas was known as Kitsap Peninsula Housing Association. In the past three years, the direction of Communitas has shifted from being strictly a provider of services to an organization that plays an intermediary role in the creation & implementation of comprehensive community development strategics for socially based businesses and non-profit agencies. Page 4 of 4 Based at 920 Park Avenue in Bremerton, The Communitas Group has an active portfolio of non- governmental organizations and business entities. This includes Unison; a community-based managed service provider for individuals with developmental disabilities, with approximately 100 employees in Bremerton and throughout Kitsap County. Communitas injects a yearly payroll of over three (3) million dollars in the greater community of Bremerton and serves over 60 individuals and families. IERR, in partnership with The Communitas Group, has responded to a market need in the community of Bremerton by trying to develop a housing project designed for a specific group of individuals with disabilities who are currently residents of Bremerton (albeit in inadequate but high-priced apartments). The clear demand for special needs housing can be best explained by the Kitsap County Consolidated Plan, for the period of January 1996 through December 2000. As defined in the "Housing Market Analysis" sub chapter entitled Development Disabilities: Developmental Disabilities: The Division of Developmental Disabilities currently serves 750 clients throughout the County. There are no reliable estimates of the unserved developmentally disabled population at large. The Division has seen caseloads increase steadily in recent years. Three trends are responsible for much o£the growth. First, the state of Washington recently established a policy to seriously downsize the resident habilitation centres, a move termed "Project Option". Secondly, there has been an influx of clients moving into the area from out of state. Thirdly, caseloads are growing as many clients are moving out of family homes when they reach 18 years of age, when the parents retire, or when the parents are no longer available to provide the needed support as they age. Affordability and accessibility are the two primary housing issues for the developmentally disabled population. Approximately 95% of the Division's clients are low income and dependent on SSI. The low benefits [which they receive] (usually $462 per month) qualifies them to receive public housing assistance. However, there are long waiting lists for such assistance. Even when a Section 8 voucher or certificate is awarded, the disabled are not always able to find housing that accepts Section 8 tenants and is handicap accessible. The majority of the clients can only afford to live independently if they share an apartment with someone. Supportive housing is available to only approximately 162 of the County's 750 clients. The remaining 588 are considered 'unserved' and must wait for an opening. Page 5 of 5 A more direct community indicator is that the Unison client base in the past two years has increased 20%. Upon completion of this project, 8 individuals who are currently living in market rental housing, each paying rent in excess of 50% of their income will decrease their housing cost to the accepted standard of 30% of income. For individuals whose average income is only $512 per month, this is a substantive increase in their standard of living. The proposed project- £mancing package is based on the construction bids, land costs, and other related project expenses. This project also fulfills the City of Bremerton's first two housing goals as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Goal #4: Housing states: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. 1. Provide a range of housing opportunities in healthy living environments for all members of our Bremerton community. 2. Establish livable neighborhoods with a mix of household types in every Bremerton neighborhood. 3. Help make the American dream of home ownership possible for as majority of Bremerton residents. Applicant's Statement I hereby certify that the statements contained herein are correct. I understand that conditions of approval may be required to adequately protect the zone or neighborhood within which the subject use is located, and I agree to abide by those conditions. I understand that the decision on this application may be appealed and possibly overturned. I also understand that an approved Special Use Permit is subject to future review and possible revocation by the City Council for any violation of terms or limitations. I understand that approval of this Special Use Permit may be appealed and possibly overturned by the City Council. I have read, un~d'~rstand, and agree with all of the above statements. Applicant Date · The City of Bremerton does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, or disability in the provision of services, in programs or activities, or employment opportunities and benefits. Page 6 of 6 t ',T)I St' PS -- 10111 PS Illl 51. laL PS ZONES: fl II1('111"1 St'-l', PYAI:~ D SF-I SF-2 SF-3 DR MF CBR M R PO NB SC nC BP IP IG MX SMU Residential Residential Resident/al Residential Residential Residential U. esidemial Professional Office Neighborhood Bnsicmss Charleston Dislrict General Business Shopping Center 13usiness Core Business Park Industrial l~m'k Industrial General Mixed Usc Shoreline Mixed Use f.ow-dcnsily (1-3 DU/ucre) Low-dcnsily (I -8 DUlacre) Low-density (3-8 DU/acre) I.ow-density (3-8 DU/acrc) Medium-density (8-18 DU/acrc) Medim'n-densily (8-18 l)U/acre) [[igh-dcnsily (8-1,1 DU/acrc) Effective dat~ of latest ame_ndment~: Oct. 29, '1997 iii' ii I_[_~_IILI II.L_: URD ZONING MAP ,V_7~ Memo From: 3'on Holan, Department of Community and Economic Development To: Planning Commission Date: March 16, 1999 Subject: Addendum to Staff Report for Special Use Permit for Inland Empire Residential Resources (SUP99-0001) The purpose of this addendum is to address several issues not covered in the Staff Report previously distributed with the Commission packet. Several of these issues were mentioned at earlier meetings of the City Council and Planning Commission. The affordable housing issue has been added since there have been discussions on this matter. Tenant Support Services - The issue was raised as to the specific type of staff services and how that service would impact the neighborhood. Upon completion of the construction of this project, Communitas, a Bremerton based Tenant Support Service Provider, will be providing support services to the residents through a contract with the Department of Social and Health Services. Part of that tenant support contract requires Communitas to be accessible by pager for emergency purposes on a 24-hour a day basis. This does not mean the tenant support must be onsite 24 hours a day, just that they are accessible. There is no plan for staff members to live onsite. They are contracted to provide 8.61 hours to these individuals per day and that time is adjusted according to individual needs. One staff person is intended to meet several tenants' hours. Various services include assistance with personal hygiene or helping them balance a checkbook. Typically, a staff member is onsite in each facility in the morning to assist residents getting ready for work, and onsite again in the evening to assist at dinner and bedtime. This level of tenant support is not anticipated to generate much traffic. Thus, staff does not believe that the neighborhood will be adversely affected by staff services or staff movement to and from the property. Security - There was a concern raised about the safety and potential security of the developmentally disabled residents onsite. Staff will be available if any security needs should arise. When there is no staff onsite, there is staff available 24-hours a day by phone or pager. Communitas' office is located at 920 Park Avenue, just two blocks from the facility. Additionally, Communitas has made a long-term commitment to increase their involvement with Block Watch programs. Further, the Police Department has stated that the area is no more dangerous than other areas. It does not appear that security will be a problem with this facility. Emergency Vehicles - There was a question about the impact of and accessibility for emergency vehicle traffic at the site. Access for emergency vehicles is available on 9t~ Street within 20 feet of the front door. There is also barrier-fi'ce van parking space behind the facility, off the alley. Impact to neighborhood traffic does not appear to be any greater than that of two typical single- family units. Discontinuation of the Group Residential Facilities - The question was raised as to whether a condition should be placed on the property to address possible change in use. Potentially, the facility could be sold and convened to another permitted or conditionally permitted use allowed in the CBR zoning district. If sold, it may be possible that a permitted use, such as single-family residences, not requiring any structural modifications could be established without any further review by the City. If the facility was used strictly as residences rather than a group care facility, the City's density standards would be exceeded. Thus, staff recommends that a condition be added that a covenant be recorded prior to occupancy that any change in use from a group residential care facility requires review and approval by the City of Bremerton to assure compliance with applicable development requirements. Affordable Housing - The City of Bremerton has historically supported a substantial number of low income families. According to the 1990 Census, 49 percent of Bremerton's families and households have incomes below 80 percent of the county median and were considered "low-income" (Source: City of Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan, page 13). The 1990 Census also reveals that Bremerton had the lowest median household income in Kitsap County at $22,610. As a result, Bremerton, particularly West Bremerton, has been a primary source of affordable housing units in the County. According to the Multiple Listings Service for Kitsap County, West Bremerton had an average residential price of $98,200 for 1998 and has historically maintained the lowest average residential prices for each year since 1981. By comparison, no other portion of Kitsap County in 1998 had average residential prices of less than $128,900 (East Central Kitsap). The same is generally true with rental rates. For studios, one and two bedroom units, the average rental rate in Bremerton for Fall, 1998 was the lowest when compared with Kitsap County as a whole, Port Orchard, Poulsbo and Silverdale (source: Dupre and Scott Apartment Advisors, Inc.). It had the second lowest average rental rate at $722 for 3 bedroom/2 bath units (Port Orchard was the lowest at $647). This data suggests that the City of Bremerton may tend to attract affordable units for low income families and persons. Other factors such as availability of transit and other services as well as proximity to jobs also tend to reinforce this desirability, particularly for facilities serving special populations. This situation raises the argument that Bremerton may likely receive more than its fair share of affordable housing units. Further, it brings into question whether new facilities such as this proposal should be located in another community in the county in order to provide a fair share distribution of affordable housing. Affordable Housing Item Number 2 of the Kitsap County-wide Planning Policy adopted in 1992 indicates that there should be fair share distribution of affordable housing throughout the county. It also presents a process to determine this fair share housing obligation through the Kitsap Regional Council. To date, this process has yet been completed. Since there has been no policy direction on the fair share housing issue adopted either by the City or by the Regional Council, staff did not base any recommendation on this issue for this particular application. However, the Planning Commission may wish to consider this issue in its deliberation of the Communitas proposal. CITY OF BREMERTON BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS, AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING: PREPARED BY: James Coombes SUMMARY 1. Applicant: e Inland Empire Residential Resources 7807 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane, WA 99212-2936 Location: Tax Assessor's Lot No.: Attachments: 0 0 0 1006 & 1008 Ninth Street 3743-003-003-0007 SUP Application Site Plan & Floor Plan Zoning Map Comprehensive Plan Map: Medium-Density Residential (MDR) Zoning: Central Bremerton Residential (CBR) FINDINGS Property & Development: Two existing and adjacent vacant lots 30 feet by 100 feet each on the north side of 9th Street between Warren Avenue and Broadway Avenue. A 14 foot alley borders the north property line of the lots. Surrounding Land Uses: Predominantly single-family residential neighborhood with a park located to the northwest of the property. Requested Special Use Two Group Residential Facilities - Class I, each occupying one principle dwelling unit and each with an accessory living unit on the second floor. Each facility is separate on individual lots, but are physically attached. There would be four (4) persons living at each of the two properties for a total of eight (8) persons living in the entire proposed project. A total of six (6) of the proposed residents would be persons with developmental disabilities. The remaining two (2) residents would be persons who do not currently have access to provided assistance. All of the residents would receive less than market rent and other assistance through Cornmunitas, a Bremerton based Tenant Support Service Provider who is currently under contract with the Department of Social and Health Services. Analysis Use - The use described in the application most closely fits that of the Zoning Ordinance definition of a Group Residential Facility - Class I. Both facilities propose providing living accommodations on the main floor of each unit for three individuals who have developmental disabilities and one additional individual on the upper floor of each facility. The upper floor living areas will give the facility the ability to serve two individuals not currently in the Comrnunitas' service program. A Group Residential Facility - Class I is allowed in this CBR zone with a Special Use Permit. The facilities are designed to provide barrier-free access to the main floor and barrier free access to the bathrooms on both the main floor and the second floor. Barrier-free van space parking is also provided. Parking - The Zoning Code requires two off-street standard parking spaces per single- family residence plus one additional space for an accessory unit. The proposed use would provide two barrier-free van spaces and three standard parking spaces. With a Special Use Permit or Special Exception Permit, parking can be considered for the particular use. 2 The developmentally disabled individuals residing in the facilities 'do not drive vehicles. There is a reduced need for parking required for a single-family residence with an accessory unit. There are two 16 feet by 20 feet barrier-free van spaces provided as well as three standard parking spaces measuring 8.5 feet by 17 feet 11 inches minimum. Development Standards - The two proposed Group Residential Facilities would meet the building setback requirements for the CBR zone. A 5 foot side yard setback is required for unattached units. Zero Lot Line Attached units require a 10 foot side yard setback on the unattached side. A 10 foot front yard building setback is required and a 15 foot rear yard setback. Allowable height for the CBR is 30 feet. The proposed project height average is 20 feet with a height of 30 feet at the peak. Maximum allowable lot coverage is 50 percent. The proposed building coverage is approximately 1392 square foot for each 3000 square foot lot which is 46 percent coverage. Circulation - Primary pedestrian access is the entrance on 9t~ Street. Vehicular access to the site and off-street parking is off the alley on the north side of the property. Parking is also allowed in front of the property along 9~h Street. The alley right-of- way width is 14 feet. The paved surface is approximately 10 feet. The property owner to the north has a built wall at least to the edge of the alley. [Exhibit A] Adjacent property owners to the north and east have established a habit of crossing the northern portion of the property to negotiate the alley. One neighbor backs his vehicles out of his carport, onto the property, and then turns into the alley. [Exhibit B] Another neighbor to the east crosses the property with his vehicle to access the alley. [Exhibit C] There are also three properties north of the site which obtain access from a driveway extending perpendicular from the alley. Vehicular traffic emanates from these three properties by way of the driveway and may swing wide onto a small portion of the subject site. [Exhibit D] The historical use of the site for access brings up the potential issue of prescriptive rights which cannot be resolved through this permit review process. Notwithstanding this issue, any development of the site would potentially impact circulation. If single-family homes were to be built on the site, the garage for these homes could be built at the edge of the alley. This would create a greater restriction on circulation for those properties to the north than the proposed use. The care facilities would leave 22.5 feet of parking area available for maneuvering if no cars are parked. Based on City standards of 18 feet depth for a standard parking space and 20 feet depth for a van space, parked vehicles would still leave a minimum of 2.5 to 4.5 feet of maneuvering area adjacent to the alley. Any required van parking space must be located in the middle of the site's parking area to ensure that an adequate radius is provided for a van turning into the property. A condition has been added to address this issue. Regarding the property to the east, any development of the subject site would preclude the access the property owner to the east now enjoys. Staff believe that this should not be a basis for denying the proposed use since it would preclude any reasonable development of the subject site. Comment Survey: The application was routed to Departments for review and comment. comments were received: various City The following Enclineednq Dept.: Each lot shall have a separate water meter and sewer lateral. Building Dept.: A Group residential Facility is classified by the Building Code as a Group LC occupancy. The structures must be designed in accordance with UBC (WAC 51-40-313) Section 13, in addition to UBC Chapter 11, Regulations for Barrier-Free facilities. Fire Marshal: Final inspection required. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Bremerton Zoninq Ordinance 21.02.905 SPECIAL USE PERMITS, [dj "Criteria for Special Use Permits" states that approval of a Special Use Permit may be granted only if all of the following are true: Is the proposal substantively consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and either desiqnated "SUP" in the Zoninq Ordinance, or is beinq processed as an "Unlisted Use"? YES. The Group Residential Facility - Class I use is substantively consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan encourages a variety of compatible uses within this area. The Plan designation for this general area is Medium-Density F~esidential which would not be compromised by this use. = Will the proposal be consistent with all applicable development standards and requirements, includinq the availability of all needed utilities and services? YES. Meets applicable zoning standards for group care facilities and provides barrier-free access consistent with building code requirements. Further, the applicant must comply with all applicable development standards including State and City building, health, and fire safety codes. A condition has been included to address this issue. All necessary utilities and services are available to serve the anticipated site requirements. Will the proposal, along with any mitigation measures or other conditions of approval, avoid siqnificant adverse environmental consequences? YES. It appears no significant adverse environmental consequence will occur as a result of this use. The proposed Group Residential Facility - Class I use would be required to conform to all applicable codes. Will the proposal be compatible with adiacent uses and surroundinq n,,ei.qhborhood? YES. The Group Residential Facility - Class I use would be compatible with adjacent uses and surrounding neighborhood. The intensity of the use for the five individuals living in each of the two Group Residential Facilities would typically be less or no greater than that of two single- family units. Development of the property will impact the adjacent property owners' use of the property for vehicular access to the alley. However, the proposed use would typically have less of an impact on access than permitted single-family residential development. 5 Does the proposal comply with all other criteria or desi.qn .quidelines that are applicable to the specific use or type of development? YES. The proposal will comply with all other criteria or design guidelines associated with this type of use. Barrier-free access and van space parking is provided. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed use is needed in the community and is in the public interest. o The proposed use does meet the necessary tests and criteria required for approval of a Special Use Permit. RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the findings, we conclude that the request for a Special Use Permit to allow a Group Residential Facility - Class I use of four (4) adult clients at 1006 9th Street and four (4) adult individuals at 1008 9th Street does meet the necessary tests and is recommended'for approval, as shown on the attached site plan and floor plan and subject to the following conditions: 1. The projects must comply with all applicable codes. Accessible barrier-free van space parking must be provided per code and said spaces shall be located in the middle of the parking area to provide adequate room for vehicular access. 6 Peter A. Malty Ronald C. Templet. on March 16, 1999 MATTY & TEMPLETON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3212 NW Byrcn Stree: Siiverdale, WA 98383 (360) 692-64'5 Fax: (360) 692-1257 Bremerton Planning Commission 239 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Re: CalnarEInland Empire Residential Resrntrces Dear Commission Members: I write this letter on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Robert Calnan and their son, Timothy Calnan, in opposition to the Special Use Permit sougttt by Inland Empire Residential Resources for property located at 1006 and 1008 Ninth Street in Bremerton. The Calnans live east of and immediately next door to Inland's property. mo The Proiect Has Already Been Rejected Bv The Planning Commission. On January 12, 1999, the Bremerton Planning Commission sustained the Calnans' appeal of the issuance of building permits to Inland. Inland chose not to appeal the Planning Commission's decision, and the decision has now become final. Notwithstanding the fact that it's project has already been denied, Inland, nevertheless, has submitted an application for a Special Use Permit. Because Inland has not modified the building in any respect, the prior decision of the Planning Commission is res judicata and the subject application must be summarily dismissed. Res judicata is a legal doctrine designed to prevent re-litigation of issues already decided by a fact finder. Here, the Planning Commission did not merely remand the matter back for an SPU application; rather, the Planning Commission determined the subject property did not comply with the BDC. Unless or until Inland materially alters it's plans, it may not continue to seek approval of the same plans the Planning Commission has already rejected. B. Inland Bears The Burden Of Proof: It Must Demonstrate The Project Meets All The City's Regulations. Under BDC 21.02.885, Inland bears the burden of demonstrating the project meets the City's regulations. This includes the burden of establishing the proposal conforms to all applicable City development regulations, minimum standards and design guidelines. BDC 21.20.905 governing the issuance of Special Use Permits specifically Page 2 Bremerton Planning Commission March 16, 1999 requires that the proposal comply with all applicable development ~andards. The Proposal Violates The Densiw Requirements Of The Bremerton Development Code Inland cannot meet it's burden of establish/ng that the proposal con.forms to all development standards because the project does not conform to the density requirements of the BDC. The starting point in the analysis of any development is to insure the proposal conforms to the "Zone Summary" and "Lot Requirements" Tables. Pursuant to BDC 21.02.120, the "Zone Summary Table" sets forth a brief description and intent of each zone and its "minimum standards". Under BDC 21.02.130, the "Lot Requirement Table" provides a summary of the basic lot development requirements for all major zones. Pursuant to the Zone Summary and Lot Requirements Tables of the BDC, the maximum allowable residential density in a CBR zone is 18 dwelling units ("DUs") per acre. To meet this standard, not less than 2,420 square feet of land is required for each proposed dwelling unit (43,560 sq. ft. + 18 units = 2,420 sq. ft./DL~. Inland proposes to build a total of four (4) dwelling units. To meet the required density requirements, Inland needs a total area of 9,680 square feet (12,420 sq. ft. X 4). Since Inland's two lots total only 6,000 square feet, the subject property simply does not comply with Bremerton's minimum lot requirements. Inland argues that the density requirements of the BDC should not apply to accessory dwelling units. Inland claims this result is dictated by the housing element of the City's Comp. Plan because Policy 7a savs that accessory, units shouid be ~lowed in connection with single family dwellings in all residential zones. Inland's argument begs the question. The BDC contains a clear direction as to the ma~mum allowable density in each zone. The BDC expresses this density in terms of allowable dwelling units per acre. In order to avoid the clear, uneauivocal and unambiguous density requirements contained in the Zone Surm-nar¢ and Lot Requirements Tables, one would have to find that an "accessory. dwelling unit" is not in fact a "dwelling unit". While the drafters of the BDC could have chosen to exemr~t )dDUs from the density requirements of the BDC, they did not do so. Nor is this omission a mere oversight. Planning Commission member, Bill Robinson was responsible for drafting the ADU Page 3 Bremerton Planning Commission March 16, 1999 portions of the BDC. Mr. Robinson advised the Planning Commission on January 12, 1999 that the draifers of the BDC specifically intended that ,MZ)Us be included in the lot density calculations. Inland claims that ifADUs are subject to the BDCs density requirements, ADUs could never be built in Bremerton. Inland's claims are wrong. ADUs can be added to any single family residence so long as the lot size is of a sufficient size to accommodate two dwelling units. If this project were allowed to proceed, Bremerton may as well simply repeal it's density requirements. The subject proposal opens the door for developers to build four-plexes under the ~maise of two zero-lot line single family residences with attached ADUs. This is contrary not only to the plain and unambiguous definitions contained in the BDC but the intent as expressed by the drafters of the subject ordinance. The Project Constitutes A "Multi-Unit Structure" Which Is Prohibited In A CBR Zone. Inland proposes to build what is clearly a four-plex. A comparison of Communitas' letter of October 22, 1998 and it's current Special Use Permit application bears particular scrutiny. In it's October letter, in an effort to avoid the conclusion that Inland was building a "Group Residential Facility", Communitas claimed the project was designed to accommodate "eight individuals who are currently living in market rental housing". It claimed that it had identified "6 individuals targeted for 8 units. At this point we do not have the other two units targeted to specific tenants". Having been forced to concede it must obtain a Special Use Permit, Inland now tells us that six "individuals with developmental disabilities will reside [on the main floors of the two downstairs units]", while "the second floor accesso~' dwelling units will provide Communitas the opportunity to serve two (2) individuals currently not in the system and therefore unserved". What is clear, is that Inland is building a four-plex; the two downstairs units will house 6 individuals who qualify for State funding through the Intensive Tenant Support programs. The two remaining upstairs units are available for rental to the community at large. BDC 21.02.070 defines a "multi-unit structure" as a structure containing three or more dwelling units. Under BDC 21.02.140 and Figure 140, a multi-unit structure is expressly prohibited in a CBR zone. Page 4 Bremerton Planning Commission March 16, 1999 The Project Is Not Compatible With Adiacent Uses And The Surroundin~ Neighborhood. a. The Buildin~ Encroaches Onto And Interferes With The Calnans' Easement For over forty (40) years, the Calnan family has used the northerly 3 5 feet of the subject property for ingess, egress and parking. Th/s historical right of access has clearly risen to the level of a vested prescriptive easement. An action to confirm those prescriptive fights of public record is now pending in Kitsap County, Superior Court Cause No. 99-2-00357-0. The CiW simply cannot approve a project that encroaches onto and interferes With the Calnans' easement rizhts. Nor should these rights be iightly ignored. The Calnans simply cannot reasonablv access their proper'o.' without the continued use of their historical access rights. The Pror~osed Parkin_o Is Deficient. While it is not clear, the Applicant is apparently proposing a total of four (4) handicapped accessible par'king stalls for the four units. Under the BDC, the required minimum number of off-street parking stalls for two single family residences and two ADUs is six. In this particular case, the parking requirements should not only not be decreased. they should be increased. According to the Applicant's own supporting materiais. eight unrelated individuals wdll be residing on site. Pursuant to it's contract with the State, Communitas must provide intensive t:venty-four hour supervision and support for six of the ITS tenants. In order to satisfy it's obligation with the State, Communitas must pro'¢ide not less than 51.66 hours, per day, of direct staffing for the ITS tenants. T,his means that at any given time, more than two staff members must be on site. These starT, cour21ed with the two upstairs non-ITS tenants. coupled with the number of visitors one would ex=ect would visit 8 unrelated individuals demonstrates that the Applicant simply has not provided sufficient parking to accommodate the proposal. Page 5 Bremerton Planning Commission March 16, 1999 Conclusion The Calnans respectfully request that the subject application be denied. /~tfully submitted, ONALD C. TEMPLETON RCT/da cc: clients