Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/14/99 AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 14, 1999 PRE-COUNCIL SESSION' 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. · General Council Business CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. · Pledge of Allegiance · 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. No Items 4. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 6. MAYOR'S REPORT 7. LEGISLATIVE REPORT 8. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) 10. NEW BUSINESS A. Professional Services Agreement for Bridge Design ORDINANCES ~ A. Ordinance~:f.' 4657 (Second Reading), Vacating a Po~,~of Harlow Drive Right-of-Way B. Ordinance No. 4658 (Second Reading), Vacating a Portion of Terrel Drive Right-of-Way #AB99-132 #AB99-125 #AB99-126 IO (CONTINUED ON BACK) 11. Co Ordinance No. 4659 (Second Reading), Vacating a Portion of Taft Avenue Right-of-Way Ordinance No. 4660 (Second Reading), Vacating a Portion of Ford Avenue Right-of-Way Ordinance No. 4661 (Second Reading), Vacating Alley at West Line of Ivy Green Cemetery PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6:00 P.M. or Later A. Public Hearing and Resolution No. 2712, Appeal of a SEPA Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for a 56-acre Timber Harvest Permit on City Land Zoned SF-1 located West of Anderson Hill Road Bo Public Hearing for Special Use Permit to Change an Existing Non-Conforming Use Sign Shop to an Auto Repair; Applicant: Jonathan Chang; Location: 1533 Shorewood Ddve I~''-~' #AB99-127 #AB99-128 #AB99-131 #AB99-133 #AB99-134 12. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING T AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL !. SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL SER\qCES AGREEMENT for BRIDGE DESIGN FOR AGENDA OF: July !-[ !999 ORIGL~ATLNG DEPT:~ ubhc' x3;'. ork~'~k t_~.r ,:~ ORIGINATOR: Fore.fy Manager DATE SUBMITTED: July 5. 1999 2. CLEARANCES (comment on b : 3. EXllIBITS: Director PW&U /d/~;~' .~~ Professional Sewices a~greement City Attorney City Engineer ' City. Treasurer ~-~ Operations Committee ~~~7~ . F,~al & Budget Comnnttee ENDORSEMENT ? INFOR1VLa~TION MAYOR '2;z'~ / ' / ~ ' / SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: documents C to include plans, smcifications and estimatesl for renlacement of an emsting log stringer bridge with a desi aned the control structure for the on~ses of ins~clioa maintenance and remir omrations The eMs;i~g lng sIhnger h~d~e iq (continued on page 2~ 8. RECOMMENDATION: established administrative ~..r~olicies and r~rocedures _-RESPONSIBLE OFF!CLkL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXP!RA .T!ON DATE: REYTE%' DATE: PLrLLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVE D DIS.APPROVED DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL, NO: q{~ '~ 13& 3. CLE~-R~NCE COMMENTS: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION (continued from pa~e 1) in reD' poor condition and is unsafe for heax~r vehicles. The engin~.,Sng se,'Mces provided by this agreement w-ill supply required information and documents to proceed ruth hydraulics permitting and con~mction. Replacement is mhectuled for October of this year. Cost of professional serxSces provided ~' this a?ee~ment is not to exceed g ! 6.500 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Replacement of existing bridge will not take place. Essential access to vital ~-ater supply operations ~5!1 not be available. 6. IMPACT ON ST_&FFING. BUDGETS, FACILITIES. EQUIPMENT _43~D OTIIER RESOURCES: Staffing: Budget: Facilities~quipment: Included in 1999 Budget. ._ ~, ........ an.. ,~'x~,.,,en, nfl ast, ,,c ..... ?s~em '7. RESEARCH SOURCES: En~neering and Forestry Di~Ssions PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WATERSHED RAILCAR BRIDGE THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Bremerton, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Art Anderson Associates (hereinafter referred to as Anderson Associates"). WITNE S SETH: 1. SCOPE: Art Anderson Associates will provide survey, geotechnical, design, construction documents (plans, specifications and estimates) and permit assistance for the removal of an existing wood bridge and construction of a new railcar bridge on the Lower Casad Dam Road over the Union River. A detailed scope of work is incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 2. TERM: Contract shall commence on execution of this agreement and will terminate on June 30, 2000, unless otherwise extended by the City. 3. COMPENSATION: City. shall pay Art Anderson Associates compensation as follows: Total fees under this Agreement shall not exceed Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($16,500). Charges for services shall conform to the fee schedule attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. Art Anderson Associates 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 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 Art Anderson and Associates is a firm skilled in matters pertaining to Civil Engineering and will perform independent functions and responsibilities in the area of its particular field of expertise. Art Anderson and Associates 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, Art Anderson Associates shall work under the direction of the Forestry Manager. 5. INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE: Art Anderson Associates agrees to provide for State PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -1- WATERSHED RAILCAR BRiDGE ART ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES d. Notices - Any notices required to be given by the City to Art Anderson Associates or by Art Anderson Associates to the City shall be in writing and delivered to the parties at the following addresses: City Clerk Art Anderson Associates 239 Fourth St. 148 First St. Bremerton, WA 98337 Bremerton, WA 98337-1899 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. fi Compliance with State, Local and Federal Laws - Art Anderson Associates 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: )~t ~nderson Associates 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. TER_MINATION: 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 Art Anderson and Associates is advising the City as of the effective date of termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have ex~uted this Agreement the date and year indicated. /, ss;iT s Date:"'~- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -3- WATERSHED RAILCAR BRIDGE ART ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES 4 Date: DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL: CITY OF BREMERTON BY: LYNN S. HORTON, Mayor W. EUGENE SAMPLEY, P.E., Director of Public Works and Utilities APPROVED AS TO FORM: GLENNA MALANCA, City Attorney RECEIVED FOR FILING: KATFILEEN L. M¢CLUSKEY, CITY CLERK PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -4- WATERSHED RAILCAR BRIDGE ART ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF SERVICES BREMERTON WATERSItED RAILCAR BRIDGE DESIGN SERVICES: TASK 1 SURVEYING SERVICES: Subtask lA Subtask lB TASK2 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY: Art Anderson Associates and AES Consultants, Inc. will provide a topographic survey of the project area at a 2-f contour interval. The topographic mappings shall include the existing streambed and line of vegetation, existing bridge abutments, existing roadway delineation and topographic contours to approximately 100-ft. horizontal distance to either side of the stream centerline. BASE MAP PREPARATION: Art Anderson Associates will provide the necessary base map drawing needed for design development, construction documents and to obtain the necessary permits. The base map shall interface with City of Bremerton datum (horizontal & vertical) and include verification of easements and topographic features mentioned above and provided on electronic media format (AutoCAD Release 14). Subtotal Task 1 $1320.00 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES: Subtask 2A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Art Anderson Associates will provide the necessary Geotechnical Report to sample and identify insitu soil conditions within project area. Geotechnical services will include explorations, boring logs, reporting and plans / specifications review for abutment foundation design purposes. It is assumed excavation equipment for the soil explorations will be provided by the City. Subtotal Task 2 $1,000.00 TASK3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT: Subtask 3A PROJECT MANAGEMENT/COORDINATION: Art Anderson Associates will provide the necessary project management and coordination during the Design Development and Construction Document Phase of your project. Services include management and coordination between the city, jurisdictional bodies and the project design team. Subtotal Task 3 $800.00 WATERSHED RAILCAR BRIDGE Professional Services Agreement Art Anderson and Associates Page I TASK 4 CIVIL DESIGN SERVICES: Subtask 4A DEMOLITION & TEMPORARY EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN: Subtask 4B Art Anderson Associates will prepare the Demolition and Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TE/SC) Plans for project site. The demolition plans will depict the removal of the existing wood bridges and abutments. Associated erosion control notes and details will be prepared in accordance with the Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. BRIDGE PLAN & PROFILE: Art Anderson Associates will prepare construction document Bridge Plan and Profiles for project site. The drawings will depict the general bridge layout, staking dimensions for the abutments and the railcar bridge deck and re- grading of the existing the gravel roadways. Subtotal Task 4 $1,500.00 TASK 5 BRIDGE ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES: Subtask 6A BRIDGE ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES: Art Anderson Associates will prepare the structural calculations and details associated with the new bridge abutments and connection details in association with the Skip Gibbs Company 89-ft. flatcar bridge concept. Services to include but not limited foundation design, structural plans, structural details and lateral (seismic & wind) and vertical (~avity) load analysis/calculations. Subtotal Task 5 $5,800.00 TASK 6 SPECIFICATIONS/COST ESTIMATE: Subtask 6A SPECIFICATIONS: Art Anderson Associates will prepare the Project Manual required tbr this project. Specifications will be prepared using the CSI standard format and will include Washin~on State Prevailing Wage Rates for this Public Bid project. Subtask 6B COST ESTIMATE: Art Anderson Associates will prepare a preliminary construction cost estimate for the project. The estimate will be prepared to confirm the viability of the proposed budget. Subtotal Task 6 $2,680.00 WATERSHED RAILCAR BRIDGE Professional Services Agreement Art Anderson and Associates Page 2 TASK7 PERMIT ASSISTANCE Art Anderson Associates will assist the City in obtaining permits for construction of the bridge. This assistance will be on a time and materials basis. Art Anderson Associates will not work on this activity without authorization of the City. Subtotal Task 7 $ 800.00 TASK 8 BUDGET ALLOWANCE A budget allowance is established to provide for services beyond the scope of this contract. These services may include bid support, construction assistance or as built documentation. Art Anderson Associates will not work on this activity without authorization from the City. Subtotal Task 8 $2,000.00 SCHEDULE Art Anderson Associates will provide the following deliverables on the dates shown below: 50 % Plans July 19, 1999 90 % Plans. Specification & Estimate August 9, 1999 Final Plans, Specification & Estimate August 23, 1999 DELIVERABLES Art Anderson Associates will provide the following deliverables: 50% Plans 90% Plans 90% Specifications and Estimate 100% Plans 100% Specification and Estimate 3 copies on 22" x 34" paper plan size sheet 3 copies on 22" x 34" paper plan size sheet 3 copies 1 copy on 22" x 34" Mylar (stamped) I copy on 11" x 17" paper 1 copy on electronic media, AutoCAD Release 14 1 paper copy (stamped) 1 copy on electron media, MS Word 97 WATERSHED RAILCAR BRIDGE Professional Services Agreement Art Anderson and Associates Page 3 EXHIBIT B -- BREMERTON WATERSHED RAILCAR BRIDGE FEE SCHEDULE FCB003-01 DESCRIPTION Principal/ Senior Senior Cad Clerical Sub- Task Proj. Mgmt. Architecht Engineer Designer Consultant Subtotal Services Topographic Survey & Base Map 0 0 0 0 0 1320 Preparation Total Hours 0 0 0 0 0 Rateel $ 80.00 $ 80.00 $ 80.00 $ 45.00 $ 40.00 Total Dollars $0 $0 $0 $1,320 S1,320t IGeotechnical Services Geotechnical Report 0.5 1 0 Total Hours 0.5 11 Rates $ 80.00 $ 80.00 $ 80.00 Total Dollars $40 $0 $880 0 0 10 10 80.00 Project Management Project Management/Coordination Total Hours Rates $ $ 80.00 $ 80.00 Total Dollars $800 $0 $0, Civil Desi( n Services Demolition & TESC Plan 0 Bridge Plan & Profile 0 0 8 Total Hours 11 0 11 Rates $ 80.00 IS 80,00 $ 80.00 S80!'t $0 S880 Total Dollars pB r~dn:.e DE~tga ', ;12; i~ag, cDj: it igonn: e rv ' c es 6 Specifications 81 ~ 41 Total Hours 81 41 Rates $ Total Dollars 6A 6B 7 CSI / Prevailing Wage Rate Specifications Cost Estimate Total Hours $ Rates $ Total Dollarsl Permit Assistance 80.00 I $ 80.00 $ 80,00 S6401$0 $3,28O S21 01 20 1.00 ~ 01 8 3t 0 80.00i $ 80.00 $240! $0 10! 0 80.00 $ 80.00 S800 $0 20 0 8O.OO $ 8O.OO $1,600 $0 $4,200 $0 28 $ 80.00 $2,240 sot S1.000 lO $0 $80O 0 0 16! 24 $0 S1,5001 $0 $0 $0 0 2 0 2 45.00 $ 40.00 $0 $80 0 0 0 0 45.00 $ 40.00 sol $0 45.00 $ 40.0 $540 $0I 40j 21 401 2J 45.00 $ 40.00 $1.800 $801 0, O) 45.00 $ 40.00~ $0 $200 0 0 45.00 $ 40.00 $0 $0 0 10 45.00 $ 40.00 $0 $400 $2,340 $760 Total Hours 0~ 0~ 911 S5.8001 25 36! SOl S2.680J 0 0 10 $ 80.00 $0 Rates Budget Allowance Total Dollars Total Hours Rates Project Totals Total Dollars Sub-total: AAA Labor ISub-total: Other Direct Labor J Miscellaneous plottin~j and check printing I Discs, binders & electronic media Sub-total: Direct Expense.. Grand Total for Bremerton Watershed Railcar Bridge Services Fees $ 80.00 $0 S800, 3°l S2,000 $0 $0 S7,280 $14,580 S1,320 $500 $1,320 $100 $1,920 $16,500 - AGENDA BILL - BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE # 4~,,5~t VACATING A PORTION OF HARLOW DR. RIGHT OF WAY 2. CLE _ARAI)tC ~ (Comment on back I/ ~ nec' ~Y) Dir-ed~v '~ ~bti ~~Utilities ': / Council Fiscal & Budget Committee Council Operations Committee FOR AGENDA OF: July 7, 1999 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & ORIGINATOR: R. Witt, City Engineer. DATE SUBMITTED: July 1, 1999 3. EXHIBITS: 1. Ordinance ENDORSEMENT~[iINFORMATION l] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: MAYOR x_ ..... ' ~'" ~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The City of Bremerton has proposed the vacation of a triangular portion of Harlow Drive abutting Kitsap Way. On May 26, 1999 Council passed Resolution #2705 setting a hearing date of July 7, 1999 for this proposed vacation. In accordance with Washington State Law all the postings and notifications have been made. Less than 50% of the abutting property owners have submitted written objections to the City Clerk's office. The action before the Council is to approve, disapprove, or modify this vacation of a portion of Harlow Drive. 5. RECOMMENDATION: PULLED Il TABLED Il COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: Pass Ordinance ~ ~Z?- 2nd reading 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED~DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] / \ IOA (OVER) 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: ~- I~' l0 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 3. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The City will keep all maintanance and liability issues associated with the management of this City right-of-way. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES: Staffing: Administration of the program will remain at the current level Budget: No impact Facilities/Equipment: No impact. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: Filed for Record at Request of: When Recorded Return to: Name: Bremerton City Clerk Address: 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, Washington 98337 Document Title: Ordinance No. Reference Number of Document Assigned or Released: Not Applicable Grantor's Name: City of Bremerton Grantee's Name: Not Applicable Abbreviated Legal Description: A portion of Right-of-Way for Harlow Drive abutting Kitsap Way situate in southeast quarter of Section 8, Township 2_4 North, Range 1 East, W.M., Kitsap County, Washington. (Map of area is Exhibit "A") Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: N/A ORDINANCE # ~ AN ORDINANCE Vacating the triangular portion of Harlow Drive lying south of Kitsap Way having a 130 foot length along the westerly right-of- way of Harlow Dr and 100 foot length along Kitsap Way right-of-way. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton initiated the vacation process of the portion of the undeveloped right-of-way; and WHEREAS, notice has been posted and published according to law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the portion of the right-of-way set forth herein is not needed for present or future use and should be vacated to allow the abutting property owners to maintain the parcel, now therefore, THE CITY OF BP, EMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Vacation. The following right-of-way is hereby vacated to the adjoining property owners. That portion of the triangular portion of Hartow Drive lying south of Kitsap Way having a 130 foot length along the westerly right-of-way of Harlow Dr and 100 foot length along Kitsap Way right-of-way, situate in southeast quarter of Section 8, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., Kitsap County, Washington Section 2. Reservation of Easements. This vacation shall have no affect on public utility easements or private easements which have been established within the rights-of-way subject to this vacation ordinance. Easements are reserved for all public utilities which have been established within the right-of-way subject to this vacation ordinance. Section 3. Effective date. This vacation shall become effective ten (10) days from passage and publication. APPROVED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ,1999. day of PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this , 1999. · day of MIKE SHEPHERD, Council President APPROVED this day of ,1999. LYNN HORTON, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk Ol f ~ OFFICE OF CITY CLERK :.~IGNATURE July 5, 1999 Arleen Sura 9305 NW Wildcat Lk Rd Bremerton, WA 98312 (360) 830-4350 City of Bremerton City Clerk 239 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98312 Attn: Paula Johnston Re: Vacation of Right of Way abutting property at 66-35 Harlow Drive lying south _of Kitsap Wa,~/having a 130 foot length along the westerly right-of-way of Harlow Dr and a 100 foot length along Kitsap Way (your letter dated 16 June 1999 regarding Resolution #2705) Dear Ms. Johnston: In response to the Right of Way vacation adjacent to my property I object to this vacation. This objection is submitted in accordance with State Law (RCW 35.79) prior to the July 7 1999 hearing. Sincerely, Arleen A. Sura RECEIVED DATE '-)'~'"~?~ME~ ~" ;.'~ ~,,.JGI~ATU RE - Julv 5, 1999 City of Bremerton City Clerk 239 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98312 Attn: Paula Johnston Re: Vacation of Right of Way abutting propertj at 6635 Harlow Drive(your letter of June 16, 1999, Resolution #2705) Dear Ms. Johnston: In response to the Right of Way vacation adjacent to the property at 6635 Harlow Drive lying south of Kitsap Way having a 130 foot length along the westerly right-of-way of Harlow Dr and a 100 foot length along Kitsap Way; I object to this vacation. Sincerely, James E. Sura 9305 NW Wildcat Lk Rd Bremerton, WA 983 l 2 ~' '~ 9 ~60-8_~0-4 70 AGENDA BILL -- BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE # 4~ff_~ VACATING A PORTION OF TERREL AVE. RIGHT OF WAY 2. CLE,ARAI~, CFTC: (Comment on back D~ of ~ ~blic ¥~zrks,& Utilities Ci~ ~rk Council Fiscal & Budget Committee Council Operations Committee FOR AGENDA OF: July 7, 1999 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & Uti!s, ORIGINATOR: R. Witt, City Engineer. DATE SUBMITTED: July 1, 1999 3. EXHIBITS: 1. Ordinance# ENDORSEMENT~j INFORMATION [ ] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: MAYOR -.~ .... COUNCIL PRESIDENT &,~,:..~,.-~ ~ ~' ' 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The City of Bremerton has proposed the vacation of a portion of Terrel Avenue between 6'' Street and Burxvell Street. On May 26, 1999 Council passed Resolution #2705 setting a hearing date of July 7. 1999 for this proposed vacation. In accordance with Washington State Law all the postings and notifications have been made. Less than 500,,0 of the abutting property owners have submitted written objections to the City Clerk's office. The action be]tore the Council is to approve, disapprove, or modify, this vacation of a portion of Terrel Avenue. 5. RECOMMENDATION: Pass Ordinance : 4-~ on 2nd readinq 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED [] TABLED [l COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [1 AMENDED [1 lOB (OVER) 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: qq- 1~ ~ I? 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 3. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The City will keep all maintanance and liability issues associated with the managemem of this City fight-of-way. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES: Staffing: Administration of the program v-ill remain at the current level Budget: No impact Facilities/Equipment: No impact. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: Filed for Record at Request of: When Recorded Return to: Name: Bremerton City Clerk Address: 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, Washington 98337 Document Title: Ordinance No. Reference Number of Document Assigned or Released: Not Applicable Grantor's Name: City of Bremerton Grantee's Name: Not Applicable Abbreviated Legal Description: Right-of-Way abutting Lots 1-13, Block 3 and Lots 1- 13, Block 2., plat of 1st Addition to Charleston, as recorded in Volume 4 of plats, Page 57, records of Kitsap County, Washington. (Map of area is Exhibit "A") Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: N/A ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE Vacating the north 390 feet of 36 foot wide undeveloped Terrel Avenue located south of 6th Street. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton initiated the vacation process of of the 36 feet wide portion of the undeveloped right-of-way; and WHEREAS, notice has been posted and published according to law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the portion of the right-of-way set forth herein is not needed for present or future use and should be vacated to allow the abutting property owners to maintain the parcel, now therefore, THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Vacation, The following right-of-way is hereby vacated to the adjoining property owners. That portion of Terrel Avenue abutting Lots 1 - 13, Block 2 and Lots 1-13, Block 3, plat of 1 st Addition to Charleston, as recorded in Volume 4 of plats, Page 57, records of Kitsap County., Washington, situated in the Southeast quarter of Section 15, Township 24 N., Range 1 East, W.M., Kitsap County, Washington. Section 2. Reservation of Easements. This vacation shall have no affect on public utility easements or private easements which have been established within the rights-of-way subject to this vacation ordinance. Easements are reserved for all public utilities which have been established within the right-of-way subject to this vacation ordinance. Section 3. Effective date. This vacation shall become effective ten (10) days from passage and publication. APPROVED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this , 1999. day of PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ,1999. day of MIKE SHEPHERD, Council President APPROVED this day of , 1999. LYNN HORTON, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk ~O £U£WELL June 16, 1999 Signa Schultz 342 N. Lafayette Bremerton, WA 98312 RECEIVED OF C_E Re: Vacation of Right of Way abutting your property. Dear Signa Schultz The City of Bremerton has initiated the vacation process for the right of way (ROW) adjacent to your properties at Kitsap County Tax Assessor//3733-002-007-0007, #3733- 002-006-0008, and 3~42 N. Lafayette Avenue. The specific ROW proposed for vacation is that portion of Terrel Avenue lying south $f6th Street having a 390 ft length and 36 ft width and lying in the Plat of Charleston 1~ Addition, recorded in Volume 4 of plats Page 57, records of Kitsap County, Washington. A map of the area is attached along with Resolution #2705 setting the hearing date. At the City Council meeting on May 26, 1999 Council passed Resolution #2705 to set a heating date for consideration of this vacation. The date for this hearing will be July 7, 1999 in Council chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, WA. Time of the hearing will be 6:00 PM or later. According to State Law (RCW 35.79), if rift2,.' percent of the abutting property, owners file written objection to the proposed vacation w4th the City Clerk, prior to the time of hearing, the City. shall be prohibited from proceeding with the resolution. If you object to this vacation, please submit your writ-ten objection to the City Clerk pr/or to the July 7, 1999 hearing. Mail to: City Clerk 239 40` Street Bremerton. WA 98312 Arm: Paula Johnston if you have any questions or concerns over this process, please contact Jeff Shea at 478- 5342. Sincerely, lston Depu~ [~ Clerk enclos~es AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE # a~.~,~-q VACATING A PORTION OF TAFT AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY 2. CLE~~,: (Comment on back , ' SS ) Dh,6~or ofPuN~s & Utilities City"r_(5?k--- - - Council Fiscal & Budget Committee FOR AGENDA OF: July 7, 1999 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & Ufils ORIGINATOR: R. Witt, City Engineer. /~ a-~ DATE SUBMITTED: July 1, 1999 3. EXHIBITS: 1. Ordinance # 46. ffq Council Operations Committee ENDORSEMENT]KI' INFORMATION [ ] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The City of Bremerton has proposed the vacation of the easterly portion of Taft Avenue between 19th Street and 20Ih Street. On May 26, 1999 Council passed Resolution #2706 setting a hearing date of July 7, 1999 for this proposed vacation. In accordance with Washington State Law all the postings and notifications have been made. Less than 50% of the abutting property owners have submitted written objections to the City Clerk's office. The action before the Council is to approve, disapprove, or modify this vacation of a portion of Taft Avenue 5. RECOMMENDATION: Pass Ordinance # ~'~'5~ on 2nd reading 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED [] TABLED [] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED [1 DISAPPROVED 11 AMENDED [] 10C (OVER) 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: ~]~- la':]" 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 3. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The City will keep all maintanance and liability issues associated with the management of this City right-of-way. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES: Staffing: Administration of the program will remain at the current level Budget: No impact Facilities/Equipment: No impact. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: Filed for Record at Request of: When Recorded Return to: Name: Bremerton City Clerk Address: 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, Washington 98337 Document Title: Ordinance No. Reference Number of Document Assigned or Released: Not Applicable Grantor's Name: City of Bremerton Grantee's Name: Not Applicable Abbreviated Legal Description: A portion of the Right-of-Way for Taft Avenue between 19th Street and 20th Street, situated in the Southwest quarter of Section 11, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M. in Kitsap County, WA. (Map of area at Exhibit Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: N/A ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE Vacating the 820 foot length by 6 foot wide of undeveloped right-of-way along the east edge of Taft Avenue between 20th Street and 19th Street. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton initiated the vacation process of the 6 feet wide portion of the undeveloped right-of-way; and WHEREAS, notice has been posted and published according to law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the portion of the right-of-way set forth herein is not needed for present or future use and should be vacated to allow the abutting property owners to maintain the parcel, now therefore, THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Vacation. The following right-of-way is hereby vacated to the adjoining property owners. The east 6 feet of Taft Avenue between 19th Street and 20th Street, situate in Government Lot 6, Section 11, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., Kitsap County, Washington. Section 2. Reservation of Easements. This vacation shall have no affect on public utility easements or private easements which have been established within the rights-of-way subject to this vacation ordinance. Easements are reserved for all public utilities which have been established within the right-of-way subject to this vacation ordinance. Section 3. Effective date. This vacation shall become effective ten (10) days from passage and publication. APPROVED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ,1999. day of PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this , 1999. day of MIKE SHEPHERD, Council President APPROVED this day of ,1999. LYNN HORTON, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk )48 I I79 ~177 lIs 174 171 17p ~OV£RNy£N? t O? 6 p,~ TENT£O I0-I0-68 Yol $ p~ 177 oo~ I \ 006 oo? : . oo8 023 026 3 .~ -~ .~ . ~> ~ ' -~ ' -~~ ~ ~ '.'~ ~ "'f" i. ~----~' ~ ..... 8 ~z7 ~ ~ ' ': ~ ' .... ~ '""v'"-'~ .... ::~ ~ 0'38 '-~ / o~ I I~1 ~, I: I k~ . :~ ,~ ..... H ,'~~~ · AGENDA BILL - BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE # VACATING A PORTION OF FORD AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY 2. ~ (Comment on back 3. ary) CityTk Council Fiscal & Budget Committee FOR AGENDA OF: July 7, 1999 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & Utils. ORIGINATOR: R. Witt, City Engineer. z~~-- r~---~ DATE SUBMITTED: July 1, 1999 EXHIBITS: 1. Ordinance Council Operations Committee ENDORSEMENT~'[~ INFORMATION [ ] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The Ci~ of Bremerton has proposed the vacation of the southerly portion of Ford Avenue between Kitsap Wav and 13th Street. On May 26, 1999 Council passed Resolution #2706 setting a hearing date of July 7, 1999 for this proposed vacation. In accordance with Washington State Law all the postings and notifications have been made. Less than 50% of the abutting property owners have submitted written objections to the City Clerk's office. The action before the Council is to approve, disapprove, or modify this vacation of a portion of Ford Avenue. 5. RECOMMENDATION: Pass ~rdinance -=' ~'(~,D on 2nd reading RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED [] TABLED[I COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] IOD (OVER) 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 3. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The City will keep all maintanance and liability issues associated with the management of this City right-of-way. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES: Staffing: Administration of the program will remain at the current level Budget: No impact Facilities/Equipment: No impact. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: Filed for Record at Request of: When Recorded Return to: Name: Bremerton City Clerk Address: 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, Washington 98337 Document Title: Ordinance No. Reference Number of Document Assigned or Released: Not Applicable Grantor's Name: City of Bremerton Grantee's Name: Not Applicable Abbreviated Legal Description: A portion of the Right-of-Way for Ford Avenue between Kitsap Way and 13th Street, in the Plat of Phinney 2.5 Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 5 of plats, Page 1, records of Kitsap County, Wa. (Map of area is Exhibit "A") Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: N/A ORDINANCE# AN ORDINANCE Vacating the south 255 feet of Ford Avenue as measured along the west side between Kitsap Way and 13TM Street. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton initiated the vacation process of the 20 feet wide portion of the undeveloped right-of-way; and WHEREAS, notice has been posted and published according to law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the portion of the right-of-way set forth herein is not needed for present or future use and should be vacated to allow the abutting property owners to maintain the parcel, now therefore THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Vacation. The following right of way is hereby vacated to the adjoining property owners. That southerly 255 feet of Ford Avenue as measured along the west side between Kitsap Way and 13th Street, in the Plat of Phinney 2 ½ Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 5 of plats, Page. 1, records of Kitsap County, Washington, situate in the Northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., Kitsap County, Washington. Section 2. Reservation of Easements. This vacation shall have no affect on public utility easements or private easements which have been established within the rights-of-way subject to this vacation ordinance. Easements are reserved for all public utilities which have been established within the right-of-way subject to this vacation ordinance. Section 3. Effective date. This vacation shall become effective ten (10) days from passage and publication, APPROVED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ,1999. day of PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ,1999. day of MIKE SHEPHERD, Council President APPROVED this day of , 1999. LYNN HORTON, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk "o -- AGENDA BILL - BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE # VACATING ALLEY AT WEST LINE OF IVY GREEN CEMETARY CiyA CLE~: (Commem on back rk FOR AGENDA OF: July 7, 1999 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & Utils ORIGINATOR: R. Witt, City. Engineer. ~- ~ ~- ~ DATE SUBMITTED: July 1, 1999 3. EXHIBITS: 1. Ordinance # ~'(,'6 / Council Fiscal & Budget Committee Council Operations Committee ENDORSEMENT'bi INFORMATION [ ] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The City of Bremerton has proposed the vacation of the alley east of Whitney Avenue between 13th Street and 15 Street. On May 26, 1999 Council passed Resolution #2706 setting a hearing date of July 7. 1999 for this proposed vacation. In accordance with Washington State Law all the postings and notifications have been made. Less than 50% of the abutting property owners have submitted written objections to the City Clerk's office. The action before the Council is to approve, disapprove, or modi~ this vacation of the alley. 5. RECOMMENDATION: PULLED [] TABLED [] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: &FP :ava Pass 9. Ordinance # ~r~{,,[ on 2nd reading RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED ~,~/DISAPPROVED il AMENDED [] 10 (OVER) 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: qq-/3/ 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 3. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The City will keep all maintanance and liability issues associated with the management of this City right-of-way. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES: Staffing: Administration of the program will remain at the current level Budget: No impact Facilities/Equipment: No impact. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: 3+ Filed for Record at Request of: When Recorded Return to: Name: Bremerton City Clerk Address: 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, Washington 98337 Document Title: Ordinance No. Reference Number of Document Assigned or Released: Not Applicable Grantor's Name: City of Bremerton Grantee's Name: Not Applicable Abbreviated Legal Description: Alley between 13th Street and 15th Street situate in the Northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., Kitsap County,, Washington. (Map of area is Exhibit "A") Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: N/A ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE Vacating the 625 foot length by 7.5 foot wide of undeveloped alley located east of Whitney Avenue between 15th Street and 13th Street. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton initiated the vacation process of the 7.5 feet wide portion of the undeveloped right-of-way; and WHEREAS, notice has been posted and published according to law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the portion of the right-of-way set forth herein is not needed for present or future use and should be vacated to allow the abutting property owners to maintain the parcel, now therefore THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Vacation. The following alley is hereby vacated to the adjoining property owners. The Alley dedicated in Volume 5 of deeds, Page 1, records of Kitsap County, Washington, lying betweenl3th Street and 15th Street and abutting the east boundary of the Plat of Berry H. Hurt's Addition to the City of Bremerton, recorded in Volume. 3, of plats Page 28, records of Kitsap County, Washington, situate in the Northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., Kitsap County, Washington. Section 2. Reservation of Easements. This vacation shall have no affect on public utility easements or private easements which have been established within the rights-of-way subject to this vacation ordinance. Easements are reserved for all public utilities which have been established within the right-of-way subject to this vacation ordinance. Section 3. Effective date. This vacation shall become effective ten (10) days from passage and publication. APPROVED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this , 1999. day of PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this , 1999. day of MIKE SHEPHERD, Council President APPROVED this day of ,1999. LYNN HORTON, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk 3¢ 690 0Z0 £01 601 0ll ill t°/'/ Z£1 . Off-IlO '3..?#J S ttJ gl /£1 ! 691 .CZ l £ll : ,- ItO 6fO f£O O/ !l gl AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing ~/0. =--~ ~ Appeal of a SEPA Threshold Determination of Non- Significance (DNS) for a 56-acre timber harvest permit on City land zoned SF-1 located west of Anderson Hill Road. FOR AGENDA OF: July 14~ 1999 ORIGINATING DEPT.: DECD ORIGINATOR: Jon Holan DATE SUBMITTED: July 8, 1999 2. CLEARANCES: ~(Comment on back if 3. EXHIBITS: necessary) ,.~/:~f ~.~.,~, Comm. Dev. Dir.: CC Resolution # o~"/I ~ City Clerk: '-~'<~ ~ Notice of Public Hearing City Attorney:,~/~_')'~'~ ~,,,_~/~,,,~ :/~1~ ~c.'-- Appeal Application Staff Report with Relevant Attachments ENDORSEMENT ~('~ INFORMATION__APPROVED~ ,~ BY COUNCIL PRESIDENy?R/~/~~~AL ,i~, MAYOR SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The appellant is appealing the issuance ofa SEPA DNS for a SEPA Checklist submitted for a Forest Practice Application for a 56-acre timber harvest on land in a single-family residential (SF-1) Zoning District located west of Anderson Hill Road. The appellant states that the proposed harvest could be damaging to the environmem and seeks Council review. Pursuant to Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Section 21.02.935 (b) (2), this Type I~ decision can be appealed to the City Council. ?Potential adverse impacts pertaining to the Forest Practices Applications are either addressed throuv_,h '~, State regulatory requirements, City contract requirements, or through the permit application..ks a result. '~\ staff recommends that the DNS be upheld. 6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: N/A REVIEW DATE: N/A PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 7. NOTICE OF ACTION ~ A APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED DATE: 8. AGENDA BILL NO.: 9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 10. 11. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: City's contract with applicam for timber harvest would need to be altered. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTi:I'E~R RESOURCES: Additional staff resources might be required to review revised plans and permit application. 12. RESEARCH SOURCES: Zoning Ordinance File Site Visits Relevant State Laws Citizens of Bremer-~on Petition Against Clear-cutting in the Anderson Creek Watershed. Project N~_am~er: PL99-0021 The undersigned hereby oppose the planned clear-cut of 56 acres in the Anderson Creek-Anderson Hill Road area in order to preserve the second growth forest habitat and the Anderson Creek watershed. P~hfioner' s Phone Silage Print Name Here Ad. ess Number .... ~- ~z~'~ ~'~.r~c~, ( q.t c~,' ~-~_ ~% { ,, / 7- ~ .'/,. ,: i ~ ~ '~ I / 9. - : : , '~" Please return this petition to Roy Runyon, 1901 Gregory Way, Bremerton, WA, phone: 478-0574/551-0574 by 4:00 PM on Wednesday, July 13, 1999 so it may be counted and presented to the Bremerton City Council. Citizens of Bremer'won Petition Against Clear-cutting in the Anderson Creek Watershed. Project N~_~mher: PL99-0021 The undersigned hereby oppose the planned clear-cut of 56 acres in the Anderson Creek-Anderson Hill Road area in order to preserve the second growth forest habitat and the Anderson Creek watershed. Petitioner' s Phone Signature Print Name Here Address Number ,-~. , / /," : ...... ~ l~..' - :' ~- -- /,, '/, /::;:,:, , , _ - -: ..< ' ~ _ ..__._ , -- ...,. .,' ,- Please return this petition to Roy Runyon, 1901 Gregory Way, Bremerton, WA, phone: 478-0574/551-0574 by 4'00 PM on Wednesday, July 13, 1999 so it may be counted and presented to the Bremerton City Council. Citizens of Bremer~on Petition Against Clear-cutting in the A~derson Creek' Watershed. Project N~_~mher: PL99-0021 The undersigned hereby oppose the planned clear-cut of 56 acres in the Anderson Creek-Anderson Hill Road area in order to preserve the second growth forest habitat and the Anderson Creek watershed. Petitioner's Phone ,~ Signature Print Name Here Address Number ~,),,~'.. ~ ~q?/~ ~v&'~-' Please return this petition to Roy Runyon, 1901 Gregory Way, Bremerton, WA, phone: 478-0574/551-0574 by 4:00 PM on Wednesday, July 13, 1999 so it may be counted and presented to the Bremerton City Council. Citizens of Bremer~on Petition Against Clear-cutting in the Anderson Creek Watershed. Project Nnmher: PL99-0021 The undersigned hereby oppose the planned clear-cut of 56 acres in the Anderson Creek-Anderson Hill Road area in order to preserve the second growth forest habitat and the Anderson Creek watershed. Petitioner's Phone Signature /~ Print Name Here~ Address Number 1. 6. ~-/b'~' ~ [~{~//, y ~ ., Please return this petition to Roy Runyon, 1901 Gregory Way, Bremerton, WA, phone' 478-0574/551-0574 by 4:00 PM on Wednesday, July 13, 1999 so it may be counted and presented to the Bremerton City Council. Ci_izens of Bremer'~on Petition Against Clear-cutting in the Anderson Creek' Watershed. Project N~mher: PL99-0021 The undersigned hereby oppose the planned clear-cut of 56 acres in the Anderson Creek-Anderson Hill Road area in order to preserve the second growth forest habitat and the Anderson Creek watershed. Petitioner's Phone Signature Print Name Here Address Number Please return this petition to Roy Runyon, 1901 Gregory Way, Bremerton, WA, phone: 478-0574/551-0574 by 4:00 PM on Wednesday, July 13, 1999 so it may be counted and presented to the Bremerton City Council. Citizens of Bremer~on Petition Against Clear-cutting in the Anderson Creek Watershed. Project N~mh_er: PL99-0021 The undersigned hereby oppose the planned clear-cut of 56 acres in the Anderson Creek-AnderSon Hill Road area in order to preserve the second growth forest habitat and the Anderson Creek watershed. Pd/tioner's Phone Signature Print Name Here Address Number Please return this petition to Roy Runyon, 1901 Gregory Way, Bremerton, WA, phone: 478-0574/551-0574 by 4:00 PM on Wednesday, July 13, 1999 so it may be counted and presented to the Bremerton City Council. Ci-.izens of Bremer~on Petition Against Clear-cutting in the Anderson Creek' Watershed. Project N,3mher: PL99-0021 The undersigned hereby oppose the planned clear-cut of 56 acres in the Anderson Creek-Anderson Hill Road area in order to preserve the second growth forest habitat and the Anderson Creek watershed. Petitioner's Phone Signature _ Print Name Here Address Number "' " :"'-'-' ' " " '.> ,~ x:~_ 9. //. 7 . Please return this petition to Roy Runyon, 1901 Gregory Way, Bremerton, WA, phone: 478-0574/551-0574 by 4:00 PM on Wednesday, July 13, 1999 so it may be counted and presented to the Bremerton City Council. Citizens of Bremer'=on Petition Against Clear-cutting in the Anderson Creek' Watershed. Project N~_amher: PL99-0021 The undersigned hereby oppose the planned clear-cut of 56 acres in the Anderson Creek-AnderSon Hill Road area in order to preserve the second growth forest habitat and the Anderson Creek watershed. Petitioner' s Phone Signature Print N ..ame Here Address Nnmber Please return this petition to Roy Runyon, 1901 Gregory Way, Bremerton, WA, phone: 478-0574/551-0574 by 4'00 PM on Wednesday, July 13, 1999 so it may be counted and presented to the Bremerton City Council. Citizens of Bremer~on Petition Against Clear-cutting in the Anderson Creek' Watershed. Project N,~mher: PL99-0021 The undersigned hereby oppose the planned clear-cut of 56 acres in the Anderson Creek-AnderSon Hill Road area in order to preserve the second growth forest habitat and the Anderson Creek watershed. Petitioner's Phone Si[mature Print Name Here Address Number ? / 1 7. 8. '. 10 Please return this petition to Roy Runyon, 1901 Gregory Way, Bremerton, WA, phone' 478-0574/551-0574 by 4:00 PM on Wednesday, July 13, 1999 so it may be counted and presented to the Bremerton City Council. C~cizens of Brenner~on Petition Against Clear-cutting in the Anderson Creek Watershed. Project Number: PL99-0021 The undersigned hereby oppose the planned clear-cut of 56 acres in the Anderson Creek-Anderson Hill Road area in order to preserve the second growth forest habitat and the Anderson Creek watershed. Petitioner's Phone Signature ^ Print Name Here Address Number ' ~'"~~ .i - ~ '' -5/': ,', ' ' · , ~ ' - ._ , ~ ~ '~,,. ~'~_~ ~ Please return this petition to Roy Runyon, 1901 Gregory Way, Bremerton, WA, phone: 478-0574/551-0574 by 4:00 PM on Wednesday, July 1~, 1999 so it may be counted and presented to the Bremerton City Council. Citizens of Bremer~on Petition Against Clear-cutting in the Anderson Creek Watershed. Project N~mBer: PL99-0021 The undersigned hereby oppose the planned clear-cut of 56 acres in the Anderson Creek-Anderson Hill Road area in order to preserve the second growth forest habitat and the Anderson Creek watershed. Petitioner' s Signature Print Name Here Ad&ess Phone Nnmber Please return this petition to Roy Runyon, 1901 Gregory Way, Bremerton, WA, phone: 478-0574/551-0574 by 4:00 PM on Wednesday, July 13, 1999 so it may be counted and presented to the Bremerton City Council. C~cizens of Bremer-=on Petition Against Clear-cutting in the Anderson Creek' Watershed. Project Number: PL99-0021 The undersigned hereby oppose the planned clear-cut of 56 acres in the Anderson Creek-Anderson Hill Road area in order to preserve the second growth forest habitat and the Anderson Creek watershed. Petitioner' s Phone Signature Print Name Here Address Number 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 Please return this petition to Roy Runyon, 1901 Gregory Way, Bremerton, WA, phone: 478-0574/551-0574 by 4:00 PM on Wednesday, July 13, 1999 so it may be counted and presented to the Bremerton City Council. Cm-cizens of Bremer~on Petition Against Clear-cutting in the Anderson Creek' Watershed. Project N, Jmher: PL99-0021 The undersigned hereby.oppose the planned clear-cut of 56 acres in the Anderson Creek-Anderson Hill Road area in order to preserve the second growth forest habitat and the Anderson Creek watershed. Petitioner's Phone Signature Print Name Here Address Number 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ~0 Please return this petition to Roy Runyon, 1901 Gregory Way, Bremerton, WA, phone: 478-0574/551-0574 by 4:00 PM on Wednesday, July 1~, 1999 so it may be counted and presented to the Bre~erton City Council. FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION / NOTIFICATION GENERAL INFORMATION SECTION NUMBER: :: Payment ID~ REFER TO THE INSTRUCTIONS TO I. FULL LEGAL NAME AND/OR COMPAN*/D~WSIO. NAME O~ LANDOW.ER .USINESS CITY STATE ZIP Unified Buline$$ Identifier lot SSN IlUBI I I SSN [ I 4. TYPE OF LEGAL ENTITY [ I CORPORATION [ ] SOLE PROPRIETOR [ I PARTNERSHIP [1~ OTHER {specifyh r,,~,,,4. ¢~'~_', ? ~,,-~,, '~ -/ ASSIST IN THE COMPLETION OF THIS FORM. TYPE OR PRINT iN PERMANENT INK. 2. FUU_ LEGAL NAME AND/OR COMPANY / DIVISION NAME OF ~ BUSINESS ADORESS 3, FULL LEGAL NAME AND I OR COMPANY/DIVISION NAME OF QPI~RATOR BUSINESS AODRESS 3 ,...o w. ¢"""-'h (L CITY STATE CITY STATE ZIP Unified Business Identifier (or SSN #) UBI [ ] TYPE OF LEGAL ENTITY [ I CORPORATION ~.SOLE PROPRIETOR [ I PARTNF~SHIP [ I OTHER (epecify): Unified Business Identifier for SSN #) UBI [ I ?~ - ~s t~- -5-7 ;~;t SSN44 ~PE OF LEGAL ENTI~ [ I CORPORATION ~ SOLE PROPRI~OR [ I PARTNERSHIP [ ] OTHER 5. FOREST TAX REPORTING ACCOUNT NUMBER: [.,=~ - "'" t)~-~-Y't~ci ] For tax reporting information or tax ~YE T~ numbers carl 1-800-548-8829. 6. S [ J NO - IS THE OPERATION WITHIN CI ? GA, COUNTY ~-- NAME OF CiTY(s): 7. [ ] YES [~O - IS THE OPERATION WITHIN A PUBLIC PARK? If yes, an Environmental Checklist is required. [ ] YES [H~I~O - IS THE OPERATION WITHIN 500 FEET OF A PUBLIC PARK? NAME OF PARK: 8 a. LEGAL SUB-DIVISION OF OPERATION(S): 8 b. PARCELOR LOTNUMBE~: PARCEL OR TAX LOT NUMBER(S) 04').$Ci -i - 0'.:,4 - ~c~ SUB-DIVISION (1/4, 1/4) SECTION TWP RANGE (E)(W) I 9. [ ] YES [vi/NO WAS THE LAND PLATTED AFTER JANUARY 1, 1960 (INCLUDING SHORT PLATS)? (You May Contact County Assessor for Verificationl. If Yes, Environmental Checklist Is Required. 10. [vl~ES [ ] NO - LANDOWNER INTENDS TO CLEAR, IMPROVE OR DEVELOP LAND WI'[J-lIN THREE YEARS7 NOTE: 1. If yes, attach a completed Environmental Checklist, 2, A local government clearing and/or grading permit may be requ red. 3. See the instructions for more information relating to conversions. THE FOLLOWING IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR INFORMATION: If the Forest Practices Application or Notification does not sta(e that there is an intent to convert the forest land to non-forestry uses the county, city, town or regional governments may deny any permits or approvals for conversion to non-forestry land uses for a.~eriod of six [6) years from the date of the application or notification. See the rnstructions under item # 10, and regulations, incldding but not limited to, RCW 76.09.060, RCW 76.09.170{7),,X~.WAC 222-20-01 O, WAC 222-20-040 and 222-20-050. ~ 11. [] YES ~,t~O - DO YOU HAVE AN APPROVED CONVERSION OPTION HARVEST PLAN ICOHP). If yes, include a copy of the approved plan. NOTE: Not all Local Governments issue COHP's. IV. ROAD SECTION [ | YES I~NO IS THERE ANY ROAD WORK OR ROCK PIT DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS APPLICATION: (If YES, complete all blocks that apply and LABEL EACH TYPE SEPARATELY ON MAP.) (If you will not be doing any work involving roads go to Section V.) TYPE OF ACTIVITY TOTAL LENGTH TOTAL LENGTH OF STEEPEST SIDE IN FEET ENDHAUI.JOVERHAUL SLOPE ROAD fno s~lecast) CROSSES CONSTRUCTION Show All Locations On [ I NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION [ ] EXISTING ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ( ] EXISTING ROAD MAINTENANCE I I ROAD.ABANDONMENT [Provide a Detailed [ I ROCK PIT DEVELOPMENT Indicate Pit Locations on SI~w timber h~t volumes and aCrlage in Quest{on 20. Map, 20. V. TIMBER HARVEST SECTION ~YES [ ] NO - WILL YOU BE HARVESTING TIMBER AS A PART OF THIS PROPOSAL? {If YES, complete all blocks that apply and show en map.} (If you will not be harvesting timber as a part of this proposal, go to Section VI.) UNIT TYPE 'OF HARVEST TREES PIeR METHOD OF ACRES PERCENT OF ESTIMATED ~' *(Even_.aged, Uneven-aged ACRE HARVEST VOLUME TO VOLUME TO BE ,~alvege and/of REMAINING (per BE CUT HARVESTED Right of Wayl AFTER IG¢ound Cable, Highleed, type of HARVEST Skyline. Shovel, Rubber Ti~ed harvestl lin MBF) l{For Harvest Type Information Skidder, Tracked Skidder, se~! 'Even-a~led Harvest" (Ord¥ count Animal. Helicopter or unaer trees that me~t WAC 222-16-O10) the requirements Show the Iocatio~ ot each unde~ Even-aged herveat type on Map. harvest in WAC 222-1 $-010~ [ F_ve~- ~ ~ f~ok~,~,- -t,~-~,.k 21. 22. /YES I ~ YES NOTE: 24. [H~YES For even-aged ha~vests, provide surrounding stand information on the base map as required under WAC 222-30-025. See instructions. 1NO YOU BE HARVESTING TIMBER OR LEAVING TREES WITHIN TWO TREE LENGTHS OF ANY OV[ ERHEAi~ WILL POWER LINES? {If yes, the applicant needs to notify the appropriate Power Company.) INDICATE HOW THE FOLLOWING WILDLIFE TREES WILL BE LEFT: {Check all ~hat apply) ° See WAC 222-30-020 (11) for Wildlife Reserve Tree, Green Recruitment Tree and Down Log leave requirements. WILDLIFE RESERVE TREES GREEN RECRUITMENT TREES I ] NO - CLUMPED {Show on Map) (I/l/YES ( ] NO - CLUMPED {Show on Map) I ] NO - EVENLY DISTRIBUTED (Throughout Unit) [ ] YES [ I NO EVENLY DISTRIBUTED {Throughout UniU WAC 222-30-020(11} requires that 2 down logs per aore be left in areas where green recruitment trees are required. [ ] YES [t~O WILL YOU BE LEAVING A DOUBLE-WIDE RMZ(s) FOR GREEN-UP? (For Western Washington Only) INDICATE DOUBLE-WIDE RMZ LOCATION(s) ON MAP REFORESTATION METHOD: Reforestation is required for lands harvested after January 1, 1975 as shown under WAC 222-34-010 (West of Cascades Summit), or WAC 222-34-020 (East of Cascades SummitJ. [ I PLANTING {Species: .... .) [ I~NATURAL .(Applicant must submit a Reforestation Plan - See Instructions.) (Vi REFORESTATION NOT REQUIRED under WAC 222-34-010, 222-34-020 or 222-34-050. 26. VI.--CHEMICAL APPLICATION 5-ECTION /, [ I YES ~vC'NO THIS FOREST PRACTICE INVOLVES THE APPLICATION OF PESTICIDES OR FERTILIZER? If YES, answer the questions below.) {If no, go to Section VII.) [ [ FERTILIZER APPLICATION ACRES (. .) - For fertilizer applications answer question 28 and show application locations on the Base Map.. [ I PESTICIDE TREATMENT - ACRES ( ) - For pesticide applications answer questions 26 27 and 28, and indicate areas to be treated on the Base Map. Describe in the "General Description Section", the purpose of the pesticide treatment{s) you are proposing. LIST THE EPA REGISTRATION NUMBERS, TRADE NAMES, AND RATES OF APPLICATION FOR ALL CHEMICALS PROPOSED, INCLUDING ALL ADJUVANTS. EPA REG. No. Trade Name of Chemical Application Unit of Measure ti Rate of Active Ingredient Per Acre 27. 28. [ ] YES [ ] NO WILL THIS PESTICIDE BE USED UNDER A DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE EXPERIMENTAL USE PERMIT? if yes, include a copy of the Experimental Use Permit. CHEMICAL INFORMATION CONTACT PERSON PHONE # ( ) (Additional information may be required for activities tala:ting to the application of pesticides.) Vii. GENERAL DESORIPTION SECTION 29. Provide any details that will give a better understanding of your project. THE FOLLOWING IS PROVIDED FOR yOUR INFORMATION: RCW 76.09 220 (81 provides anv aggrieved person the right to aggeal the Bi, grovel or disao~roval o! a forest ~racticss a~l~iicatlon. RCW 43.21C.075 ~rovi~es aggrisvsd ~arson the r~ht to alN~aaJ issues arising under the Stats Environmer~talPolic¥ Act. Al~peals must be filed within 30 days o! the aDDt'oval or clisal~lr~rovat of the ~3rest praCtiCeS aO01ic~tlon. AOI~esls must be filed with the FOREST PItACTICES APPEALS BOARD. PO BOX 40903. 4224-6th Ave SE eldg #2,,Lacsy. WA. A~oea~s must be filed in w~iting on the form recluired i~ Title 223-08. Co~currenflv with filing of the Forsst Practices Apoeels Board, col=ms of the SCl~ea~s must !i~ed w~th the OFFICE OF THE-SUPERVISOR OEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 1111 Washington St SE. 4th Floor Natural resources Bldg.. PO 8OX ~,7001. ClymDia. WA 98504-7001, and with the ATTORNE~ GENERAL, PO BOX 40100. OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0100. Compliance with this application/notification does not ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act, or other federal, ~tate, or local laws. SIGNATURE BLOCKS We affirm that the information contained herein is true, and understand that this proposed Forest Practice is subject to the current rules and regulations of the forest practices act, as well as any applicable Federal, State or Local rules and regulations. LANDOWNER Date of~ Landowner Signature: TIMBER OWNER Signature; Print: Date of Timber Owner Signature: op[RAToR Prin~: Date of Operator Signature: AHHLIUA I IUN t NO I'II'-ICA[ION PiRACT OWNSHIP APPL CL 8 A S r__ :2.~ NOR H, RANGE 0 CAf ION t EASt (W.~,), SECTION 04 4;~' (or ~NTtTY 4 [I TAX REP [JNO - : CITY(sD : PARK:_ JB~DlVlS ;-DIVISIO ~ '/~ ~E '/,4. t~'No (Y I]NO N( IS PROV :o converl Dnversion nder item 7), WAC ~o- :lude a cc i lg / / / / / looo ' SCALE 2000 3000 FEET ~ DA[[: Jau:ry 11, g:J4 CONTOUR INTERVAL: 40 Feet NAD 27 ' '/ I I ? 151 4000 5000 5000 IllI]llllllll[lllllio ! ] I Nile ~ '~ LEGENO: See Instructions OISCLAIMER: See Legend ~. 'gg 'Il :51 .... :Si::x3 REGION EKM'ICL,q~ kllq F¢::~: ~RMS:. payment ID# Identifier (o FORk $1' PRACTICE tOWN$1tll) 23 NORTH, RANG[ 0i APPI J CA'ilO~i #. RE SOURCE MAP £ASI (W.L,I.) St. CTLON 04 ~ ENrt I~'Y ON [I IP I~NO [INO ~G IS PR( it to cony · conversi ; under '017), W~ , include / Frr I 1 I~ N^~ 71 LEG[NP; S~e ADDENDIIM TO [NSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FOREST P~...TICES APPLICATION/NOTIFIC 'ION AND MAP i ~ FOREST PRACTICE WATER TYPE EMERGENCY RULE EFFECTIVE 11/18/96 INSTRUCTIONS: To deterrmne ifa stream within your forest practice boundary is considered a Type 3 water under the emergency rule, complete the following: Has the stream been protocol surveyed or meet waiver criteria for WAC 222-16-030(3)(b)(ii)? Yes. Provide information to validate stream type and attach to the Application/Notification. No, or don't know. Go to question #2. Were any fish observed in the stream segment, or are fish known to use this stream segment? __/.Yes. Type 3 stream, RMZ and Shade requirements apply. No. Go to question # 3. Is the width of the stream segment .,~f_O..ft, tA_~ or wider between the ordinary high water marks~ ._~ Yes. Go to question #.4. No. Type 4 or 5 water Is the gradient of the stream segment 16% or~?:'. :.: : - Yes. Type.3 stream, RMZ and Shade:i~:.~e,n..g.S. apply. No Go to cluest~o . Is the gradient of the stream segment ureater than' I6%~d' less than Or eq , Yes. Go to question # 6. No. Type 4 water 20%7 Is the contributing basin (watershed) size to the stream, segment greater than 50 acres? Yes. Type 3 stream, KMZ and Shade requirements apply. No. Type 4 wa~er If you answered "YES" to questions 2, 4, or 6, you must follow all forest practices rules that apply to Type 3 waters. In addition nlease supply the foliowin~ information. · Indicate RMZ on the base map. Answer the questions in Section Il - Water Section on the Forest Practices Application (FPA) accordingly. _ II'you answered "NO" to questions 3, 5, or 6, please attach this key to your FPA. Within fifteen hundred feet (I 500') upstream of a fish hatchery is a type 2 stream. If you have questions or need additional information on survey protocol to determine absence offish use, please call South Puget Sound Region, Forest Practices at (360) 825-1631. ' - WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF Natural Resources JENNIFER M. BELCHER Commissioner of Public Lands KALEEN COTTINGHAM SuDervtsor Forest practice applicant. In order to ensure compliance with WAC 222-16-010, protection of Marbled Murrelets, please answer the following question: Do you own less then 500 acres of forest land Within 50 miles of saltwater in Washington? 8 Yes- Standard forest practice roles apply. No- Please fill out and submit with your forest practice application a Marbled Murrelet Addendum Form. Please contact the Department of Natural Resources South Puget Sound Region Forest Practice Department for this document. (360) 825-1631. *~ Signature ~",~ ~,~. ~v~c.a.. Date ( Print name SOUTH FUGET SOUND REGION 950 FARMAN ST N I' PO BOX 68 I ENUMCLAW. WA 98022-0068 I FAX: ($60) 825.~672 ~ TTY: (.~$0) 825-6387 I TEL: (.760) 825.16_77 £Oual OgoortunitylAfflrmat~ve Action E m moye: RECYCLED PAP[R ~': Marbled Mutrelet Addendum Augus. t 27, 1997 1. Has the stand been design,amd by DF&W as an occupied Marbled Murrelet site? YES - go to q~e-_~on ~4. ____..-. Go to questi°n #2 2. Is ~..~posal wi,hi,~ the 50 miles of saltwater? (Check the 50 mile map) ~ go to question #3 NO - standard FP rules apply (Marble lVturrelet Class IV Special rules do not apply) 3. Does the landowner own less than 500 acres of fore£t'land within 50 miles of salt water? See WAC 222-16.080 (l)O)(vi)(A) YES - stan~d FP rules apply ~go to question #5 Is the proposal covered by a plan (HCP, CH~-A, LOP, etc.)? Y'ES - Follow plan and standard FP rules apply NO - Cia.ss IV-Special Has a'Marbled Murrelet protocol survey been completed? YES - survey requi~ments and standard FP/'tries apply ~- go to question #6 6. Does the stand have platforms greater than 7 inches including moss on conifer 32 inch dbh an greater? N~- go to question//7 lc standard FP rules apply 7. Are there platforms located 50 feet above the ground in a stand~o£ at least 40% codominate and dominate coni£cr? YES - go to question #$ NO - standard rules apply 8. Is thc area containing suitable Marbled Murrclet Habitat greater than or equal to 7 acres? See WAC 222-16-010 - YES - go to question #9 NO - standard rules .apply 9. Is the application within' the nine section Marbled Murrelet detection area documented and recorded in thc DF&W data base? YES - go to questions #I 1 NO - go to question# 10 Gate~oa~ to the Olympics and Home of the Puget 5ound Naval Shipyard August 15, 1995 Mr. Ron Sciepko 3023 West State Highway 16 Port Orchard, WA 98366 Re: Anderson Creek watershed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone SEPA analysis. Dear Mr. Sciepko: A SEPA workshop was conducted on July 13, 1995 to solicit public comments regarding environmental effects of the proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment. The following additional information was requested in my letter dated May 25, 1995 and is still required. Since the workshop, some modifications to this information request has been made. I have ~~ the additional or revised areas as follows: Project Description: Please provide a revised project description including revised comprehensive planning/zoning descriptions. It may also be helpful to include a conceptual zoning map to show the locations of zoning areas within the project site. Earth: Geologically hazardous areas: Please identify geological hazardous areas as defined by the adopted City of Bremerton Critical Lands ordinance including erosion hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, moderate and steep slopes and seismic hazard areas, and identify mitigative measures (should these areas be developed) which would reduce the risk to public health and safety comparable to the level of risk if the site were left in its natural state. Please address temporary erosion control measures which will be included to control possible erosion which may occur. 239 4TH STREET · BREMERTON. WA 98310 Water: Surface: Please identify the types of wetlands and streams on the site in accordance with the adopted City of Bremerton Critical Lands Ordinance. Please provide an assessment of the wetlands and/or stream's functional characteristics, along with their ecological, aesthetic, and economic values. The assessment should also include a study of potential flood, erosion or other hazards which may result from intensive urban development defined in the project description, and include provisions for protective measures that might be taken to reduce such hazards and impacts to the wetland/stream areas. Please identify appropriate buffers as required by the adopted City of Bremerton Critical Lands Ordinance for each wetland and stream type. It may also be appropriate to describe how these areas will be marked/flagged to ensure protection from any future clearing, grading or construction on the site. Storm: Please describe sources and quantify the amount of runoff to be expected at build out of any future development. Please include an assessment of existing and proposed storm water systems, their functions and capacities. Please identify where the stormwater will flow, especially if this water will flow to other natural waters or drainage. ~~~~~~~ ~ ............. ~ ..... ...~ ........ ~:~ ............ ×.~.~...~..~..~.~. ~-~ ~$~:~- .~ ~'~ ~ ' ~' ~. ~ ~ ~ ' ~' ~..:i~~' ~' ~::' .~i::-'~ .~::::~ ~:. :-'..:~"~'! '!:~.:!'-~~" ' !'"?'!' ' ~~:" '7 · ~..!: .: "' ~i!~i~~I~' "~' !'' '~ ~' ' ~'~' ' '~: ': >: s.. ' '-. '...i~:~$~ ~:i~ · Potable water: Please quantify the amount of potable water demanded at build out of any future development. Include an assessment of existing and proposed sources, systems, and their capacities. Ground water: Please identify groundwater resources and aquifer recharge areas located on and near the site. Please describe how these systems function and how they are currently being utilized. Also, please describe how potential development may affect these areas and what methods might be utilized to protect them from intense urban development. Transportation: Please describe the increased transportation needs and identify existing transportation resources available to serve future development. Include an assessment of any new transportation systems that may be necessary to serve the proposal at build out. Additional areas for analysis expressed at the July 13, 1995 SEPA workshop: Several comments were received at the workshop. areas should be addressed: The following CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: When identifying and analyzing environmental effects, it is helpful to identify existing and proposed development(s) in the vicinity of a project to determine "cumulative impacts". Please address the cumulative impacts associated with additional urban development anticipated by this proposal in conjunction with surrounding land uses and proposed development such as the Campus Station subdivision located adjacent to and south of the site within the Anderson Creek drainage basin. (Cumulative impacts to include the effect to the environmental elements of: earth, air, water, plants/animals, energy/natural resources, environmental health, land and shoreline use, light/glare, recreation, transportation, public services) FISH/WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND HABITAT: Please identify and describe the functions and values of wildlife corridors and habitat on and adjacent to the site. List which species of animals utilize the habitat, and what threatened and endangered species are on or near the site. This should also include a description of the streams on the site along with the presence or absence of salmonid habitat. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: Please describe the potential for exposure to toxic chemicals and possible risk of spill which could result from urban development. PUBLIC SERVICES: Please identify the increased demand for the following public services which could be expected from urban development and uses allowed by zoning: Increased potable water needs; Increased school needs (South Kitsap school district); Increased needs for Wastewater facilities; Increased needs for fire and police ~erwice~ Please describe who will provide these services, what their current capacity or levels of service for these facilities are, and what new facilities might be required. AIR QUALITY AND IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE: Please describe how future urban development allowed by the requested zoning will affect air quality and impact wildlife. NOISE: Please describe the potential for increased noise levels that can be produced by possible uses allowed by the requested zoning. AESTHETICS: Please describe possible impacts to topography and unique physical features which could be anticipated with urban development and uses allowed by the requested zoning. LIGHT AND GLARE: Please describe possible impacts from light and glare which could be anticipated with urban development and from uses allowed by the requested zoning. Our intent is to provide to the community and decision making boards with a comprehensive and comprehendible environmental document which they may base future land use decision upon. It may be helpful to use a style and format similar to an environmental impact statement. When ever possible maps and graphs should be used. If possible, please provide the above requested information within 90 day from the date of this letter. If you would like to discuss the above request, you may contact me at (360) 478-5275. sr. Planner CC: Jon Rose July 12, 1999 ..... Mayor Horton and Bremerton City Council Members, We are writing with concerns regarding the proposed logging of 50+ acres of Bremerton watershed adjacent to our property on Anderson Hill Road. In the years that we have lived on Anderson Hill we have experienced water runoff on the south side of our property adjacent to the watershed land. This has been to the extent that an approximately four foot deep curtain drain has been dug on the south side of our property to channel runoff water away from our home. We have a great deal of concern regarding potential drainage problems we may experience without the neighboring forest to help contain the water. We feel that the logging of the proposed land will adversely affect our property. At the west end of our property lies a steep canyon at a depth of approximately 80 feet. Without the present forest being left intact it seems that there would be a strong probability that some land slides could occur in this portion of our property. We feel that the proposed buffer of 25 feet is definitely not adequate enough to help curb the water runoff problem we experience on the south side of our property. Surely you can see that these are definite problem areas with drainage and slide potential. At this early stage you have an opportunity to be proactive in your decisions in order to avoid moral and legal complications in the future. Sincerely, Ron and Cheryl Kinhey 3444 Anderson Hill Road SW Port Orchard, WA 98367 #895-8505 CITY OF BREMERTON Department of Public Works and Utilities BILL OF SALE AND CONTRACT TO PAY FOR AND REMOVE FOREST PRODUCTS FROM CITY LANDS SALE # 99-2 CONTRACT # SALE NAME: Anderson Creek Conversion, Units 1 & 2 EXPORT STATUS: Export Restricted THE PARTIES to this Bill of Sale and Contract for the Removal of Forest Products are the CITY OF BREMERTON, a Washington mumcipal corporation, situated in the County of Kitsap, State of Washington, the address of which is 239 - 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington 98337, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY", and RONALD S. SCIEPKO and ELLEN B. LUNDE, whose mailing address is 3023 W. State Highway 16, Bremerton, Washington 98312, hereinafter referred to as the "PURCHASER". 1-0 GENEKAL TERMS 1.1 Title Conveyed: The sale of forest products described herein has been authorized and ordered by the City Council by approving "Option to Purchase Unimproved Property" agreement, per Kitsap County Auditor' s File No. 9501030128 dated January. 3, 1995, with Purchaser for certain land and timber, which includes the forest products described below and that agreement establishes the total purchase price for the forest products. The City hereby sells and conveys to Purchaser title to said forest products under the terms and conditions more fully described herein. 1.2 Products Sold: The forest products conveyed to the Purchaser are described as follows: all timber bounded by timber sale boundary tags and flagging comprising approximately 1,491 MBF and 2,137 tons of merchantable timber, as determined by a cruise summary report dated December 4, 1995 by Washington Timberland Management. 1.2.1 Volume Estimates: Amounts of forest products sold under this contract are estimates only and for purposes of this sale, have been established and fixed by the cruise summary report cited in Paragraph 1.2 above. 1.3 Sale Area: The sale area consists of 111 acres, more or less, situated in Kitsap County, State of Washington, and described as: part of the El/2 SWl/4 Section 33, Township 24 North, Range 1 East; portions within the W3/4 of the N1/2 of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 1 East; W.M. Sale area is more fully depicted in map marked Exhibit "A". 1.4 Operating Authority: Purchaser is hereby granted permission to enter upon City lands and remove the forest products itemized in Clause 1.2 upon execution of this contract by the City and its authorized representatives and upon payment as set forth in Clause 2.0. Purchaser hereby agrees to remove said forest products by February 28, 2000. 1.5 Representatives: 1.5-I City: The rights and duties of the City under this contract will be exercised by the City's Public Works and Utilities Director or such officer as may be otherwise designated by the Director. 1.5-2 Purchaser: Purchaser agrees, within five (5) days of full execution of this agreement, to notify the City in writing of the name, and address of a person who will be readily available at all reasonable times during the construction and logging operations, and who shall be authorized to receive on behalf of the Purchaser, any instruction or notice given by the City in regard to performance under this contract, or breach thereof. 1.__~6 Insurance: Purchaser shall, before commencing operations, provide the City with a certificate of insurance evidencing commercial general liability coverage of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence including logging broad form property damage. The City of Bremerton shall be named an additional insured, and the policy shall be kept in full force during the lifetime of this agreement. 1.7 Taxes. Purchaser has sole responsibility for payment of timber excise tax as well as any other taxes levied by any government agency having authority thereof. 1.__.~8 Export Restrictions: Timber conveyed under this contract is restricted from export under WAC 240-15 and is subject to all laws applicable under this chapter. 1.8-1 Purchaser Certificate: Purchaser shall complete a Purchaser Certificate included with this contract and return to the City prior to the commencement of logging operations. 1.8-2 Log Marking: All logs shall be branded at both ends with a registered log brand and painted at both ends with durable red paint. Purchaser is responsible for providing the brand and paint at his expense. 2-0 PAYMENT 2.1 Forest Products. Purchaser agrees to pay for the forest products herein before conveyed on the basis of the accepted purchase price, said purchase price being in the amount of $906,020. Purchase price to be paid according to the following schedule: sixty-five percent (65%) of the log value based on scale and paid by the log buyer directly to the City. Any difference in total receipts to the City, based on scale and the above accepted purchase price shall be paid to the City upon closing of the real estate purchase agreement by the Purchaser, but shall be no later than February 28, 2000. 2.2 Scaling Information. Purchaser agrees to furnish the City with scaling information showing the scale, count and measure of forest products removed as well as the breakdown for' log payments based on the above schedule. The scaling information shall be furnished to the City concurrently with log payments. 3.0 LOGGING 3.1 Plan of Operations/Preconstruction and Pre-Logging Meeting. The Purchaser shall, before starting operations within the sale area, submit to the City Representative, a plan of logging operations, including a summary of methods to be utilized, the sequence to be followed, times to be maintained, and such other information as may reasonably be required by the Public Works and Utilities Director, or his appointee. Upon approval by the City, the Purchaser shall carry out its operation under this contract in compliance with and pursuant to the plan. Purchaser shall arrange to meet with the City Representative before commencing any operations on City, land. 3.2 Falling. The Purchaser shall fall all timber into the sale area whenever reasonably possible. The tops, limbs and trees felled into adjacent areas shall be removed concurrently with the logging operation. Directional falling is required along streams or stream courses, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, etc. 3.3 Forest Practices and Other Applicable Laws. Purchaser shall fully comply with all provisions of the Forest Practices Act of the State of Washington as now existing or as subsequently amended, and all other applicable laws, rules and regulations and shall hold the City harmless from any obligation or liability arising thereunder. 3.4 Equipment. Forest products sold under this Contract shall be removed by rubber-tired skidder or tractor. Equipment used shall be sized so as not to cause damage to soils or residual stand. 3.5 Tops. If not otherwise removed, non-merchantable tops and limbs shall be lopped and scattered within the selective cut sale area. All woody debris generated w/thin the fight-of-way area shall be disposed of in a manner acceptable to the City. 3.6 Stump Height. If the stumps are not removed for clearing, all trees shall be cut as close to the ground as practicable. 3.7 Stream Protection. Yarding equipment and any other equipment shall be set back from any stream bank so that the act of yarding, storing or operation will not damage or encroach upon the flowing stream in violation of any statute, rule, regulation or agreement in relation thereto. No timber shall be felled across, or into, and no yarding shall be permitted in or through such stream courses, lakes, or ponds, as designated by the City, or by any agency of the State having jurisdiction thereof, unless permission to do so is granted in writing by the City and/or the appropriate State agency. 3.8 Rub Trees. Rub stumps or trees shall be left on main skid trails, to protect leave trees. Rub stumps or trees may be removed at the end of logging operations. 3.9 Spur Roads/Skid Roads. Whenever practical, existing spur roads and skid roads shall be utilized. Additional spur roads shall be approved by the City prior to construction. No skidding on existing main roads unless authorized in writing by the City Representative. 3.10 Landings. Wherever practical, existing openings shall be used for landings. Landings shall not be located on main access roads. Landing location shall be approved by the City Representative. 3.11 Water Bars. Prior to termination of this contract or cessation of use, whichever is sooner, the Purchaser shall construct water bars across hauling and yarding roads and fire trails in locations designated by the City if deemed necessary by the City Representative. 3.12 Logging Release. Purchaser shall obtain a written logging release from the City where there has been satisfactory compliance with all contractual requirements, including but not limited to, all slash disposal work. The receipt of such logging release and/or acceptance does not relieve the Purchaser of compliance with any slash disposal requirements that are listed within the contract or additional fire hazard reduction measures as may be provided herein. Upon issuance of said release, however, all cutting rights revert to the City. Provided: Hours of operation near residential areas shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 4-0 DAMAGES 4. i General. All operations of the Purchaser under this agreement, including any construction, whether of roads or otherwise, and cutting and removal of timber, shall be so conducted as to minimize, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger to adjacent City timber, or reserve trees within the sale area or within any area within which Purchaser carries on activities, whether transportation or otherwise, as well as to any stream course, stream side, reservoir, lake or pond within such areas, and to all other properties affected thereby. 4.2 Stream Courses. Reservoirs, stream courses, stream sides, lakes and ponds in or adjacent to the sale area shall be cleared of logs, chunk and other debris deposited therein, as a result of operations under this contract. Such material shall be removed and deposited in such a manner as is satisfactory, to the City. Use of machinery, in such waters is prohibited unless provision for such is granted in writing by the City and approved by all appropriate agencies having jurisdiction thereof. 4.3 Erosion and Damage to Soil. During operations under this agreement, including the construction of roads and landings, Purchaser shall take such precautions as are necessary to minimize erosion and damage to the soil, and make certain that no governmental laws, rules or regulations or laws are violated through such erosion, or as a result of its operations. Purchaser shall exercise every necessary means to prevent contamination and pollution of the waters or any reservoir, stream course, lake or pond as a result of any operation by Purchaser during the performance of this contract. 4.4 Deleterious Material. All possible care shall be taken by the Purchaser to prevent fuel, oil, grease or other harmful materials from entering the waters of any reservoir, lake, stream course or pond as a result of any operation of Purchaser. Refuse resulting from Purchaser's use, servicing, repair or betterment of its equipment shall be immediately removed from City property. 4.5 Other Damages. Any damages to fences and/or other structures caused by the Purchaser's operations shall be repaired at the Purchaser's sole expense. 5-0 SURVEYS AND MARKERS 5.1 City, Marks. The City has located and marked or otherwise designated all sale boundaries. Purchaser has gone over the boundary lines on the ground, knows where they are and agrees to confine his or its cutting to the forest products contained within the boundaries and to be responsible for any violation of this requirement. 5.2 Preservation of Markers. Any land, subdivision, survey, comers, witness objects or survey markers of any type are to be preserved. If such are destroyed or disturbed the Purchaser shall re-establish them by a licensed land surveyor in accordance with United States General Land Office Standards at Purchaser's own and sole expense. Comers and/or witness objects that must necessarily be disturbed or destroyed in the process of road construction must be adequately referenced and such reference approved by the Utilities Director prior to the removal of said comers and/or witness objects. 6-0 SLASH DISPOSAL - FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL 6.1 Slash Defined. The term "slash", as that term is utilized for the purposes of this contract, shall mean all debris of whatsoever type created on the sale area and right-of-way thereto by logging, milling, and other related operations of Purchaser, or by windstorm. 6.2 Slash Disposal/Fire Hazard Reduction Plan. A slash disposal/fire hazard reduction plan, if required, will be part of this contract by attachment and will become part of the contract therein. 6.3 Waiver of Slash Disposal Treatment. The City reserves the right to waive any requirement relating to slash disposal or fire prevention, so long as such waiver is made in writing by the City after Purchaser has been provided alternative methods for disposal and fire prevention, which have been approved by the City: Provided: That such waiver shall be subject to revocation in the event of any failure of the Purchaser to comply with such alternative methods. 6.4 Men and Equipment. The Purchaser agrees to provide persons and equipment at its Own expense to fulfill any requirement that may be established by law, whether State or Federal, whether such persons or equipment are to be utilized for slash removal or fire prevention and suppression. 6.5 Clean Firebreaks. The Purchaser shall, upon completion of logging and at such other periodic times as may be stated in writing by the City,, clean out all fire trails and skid roads designated by the City as fire breaks, leaving them free of debris for suitable fire breaks. When designated by the City, water bars and cross ditches are to be installed on trails to prevent erosion. 6.6 Fire Responsibility. Purchaser shall reimburse the City, its agents or employees, for all costs and/or liability of whatsoever nature incurred as a result of negligence of the Purchaser in the creation, spreading or escape of fire, whether such liability is incurred by the City through and/or to private parties or governmental agencies. 6.7 Operating Equipment Durmg Closed Season. The Purchaser agrees: Not to operate any equipment powered by a spark-emitting engine between April 15 and October 15 of each year for logging, milling, fire suppression or road construction and maintenance or any activity whatsoever within the sale area, unless it is equipped with spark arrestor of a type approved by the State of Washington for utilization within its lands. Nor shall it operate any power saw or power equipment in any condition, which is known or can reasonably be known to start fires. The City- reserves the right during periods of dangerous weather as designated by the City, to prohibit the operation of any or all such spark emitting engines within the sale area. 6.8 Fire Hazard Reduction. In the event the City furnishes a fire hazard reduction plan to provisions relating to but not limited to slash disposal and reduction of fire dangers, the Purchaser agrees to carry forth the measures at such time as may be established within the plan, but no later than the completion of logging in an area or at such other time as may be directed by the City. 6.9 Fire Extinguishers, Fire Tools. Every internal combustion motor, yarder or vehicle shall be equipped with a chemical fire extinguisher and shall comply with all State established regulations relating to such equipment. Purchaser further agrees during the period of April 15 to October 15 to maintain on his operation toolboxes and other fire equipment as required by Washington State law. 6.10 Charge for Slash Disposal Work Not Completed. In the event that the Purchaser fails to carry, forth the slash disposal preparation work or reasonable measures to prevent fires from starting or spreading from or within the timber sale area by the date that is designated by the City in any hazard reduction plan set forth or within this contract, the City shall have the right to complete such work or preparation and the Purchaser agrees to pay to the Citv the sum of monies reasonably expended by the City in such work. The Purchaser further agrees to pay all costs and liabilities incurred by the City as a result of the failure of Purchaser to either complete the slash disposal preparation work, fire reduction measures, or to make available the men and equipment as required by the terms of this contract. 6.11 Weather Instruments. During the period from April 15 to October 15, the Purchaser shall provide and maintain such weather instruments which will at all times measure the relative hurrddity and temperature of the air, and make the reports therefrom available to the City upon request. Observations shall not be required on any day that rain is falling. At such time as the relative humidity is 30% or less, operation of any and all spark emitting machinery, with the exception of automobiles, must voluntarily cease, unless permission to continue is given in writing by the appropriate officials of the City. 6.12 Watchperson. During the period April 15 to October 15 and such other times as may be designated by the City, Purchaser shall have a watch person on duty for at least two hours at~er the closure of operations for the day, or any part thereof in which operations occur: Provided: That with the written permission of the City this requirement may be waived or modified. All watch persons shall be competent and trained in fire detection and suppression activities. 6.13 Open Fires. Purchaser shall not set or allow to be set or maintained by his employees or subcontractors any open fire at any time of the year without first having obtained permission in writing from the CiW. 6.14 Fire Lines. Purchaser shall construct a fire lane or firebreak along the outer boundaries of the logging area or areas if required by a slash disposal/fire hazard reduction plan attached to this contract. Such fire lanes or breaks shall be located and constructed to the satisfaction of the City. On or adjacent to the fire lane or break, all dead trees shall be felled and all flammable materials, including slash, reproduction and debris, shall be pushed or otherwise moved into the area to be logged. The cleared width ordinarily may not be required to exceed that of the bulldozer blade used in construction, but additional width may be required if considered reasonably necessary for safety by the City or Purchaser. When deemed necessary in the judgment of the City, a continuous lane cut to mineral earth shall be provided on the exterior edge of the cleared area. 7-0 ROADS 7.1 Authorization. Purchaser is authorized to construct and maintain on the City lands all necessary roads, bridges and other transportation facilities needed for the cutting and removal of the timber included in this contract. When utilized throughout this contract, the term, "construct", shall include the term, "reconstruction", or "reconstruct". 7.2 Road Construction. All construction, reconstruction, and betterment of roads covered under this contract shall be located and constructed as approved by the City and/or will be in accordance with a plan provided by the City, and made a part of this contract by attachment, if required. 7.3 Location, Design, and Construction. Such roads and other facilities shall be located and maintained in accordance with the provisions and specifications set forth in this contract or the attachments thereto and shall at all times remain the property of the City. Any existing road or facilities utilized by the Purchaser in the performance of its activities under this contract shall be maintained and lef~ by Purchaser, in as good or better condition than found at the date of Purchaser's initial use. The relocation, design' and construction techniques of all such roads and facilities shall be approved by the City before construction is commenced by the Purchaser. Purchaser agrees that any transportation facility needed for operation under this contract shall be located, constructed, operated, and maintained in a satisfactory manner. The City shall further have the fight to utilize and allow the utilization of any road construction by the Purchaser under this contract for any and all purposes in connection with the protection, administration and utilization of the area here in question: Provided: That as to any non-public road constructed by the Purchaser any such utilization shall not materially interfere with the operations of the Purchaser. 7.4 Liability f or Damage. Any required payment or maintenance carried out by the Purchaser shall not relieve the Purchaser from liability to the City for repair or damage to the roads, including bridges and culverts, due to overloading trucks, carelessness or negligence on the part of the Purchaser, its employees, subcontractors and their employees, or any other party utilizing the roads with permission of Purchaser. 7.5 Reservations. The City. shall have the right to use, without charge, all existing roads and/or any road constructed or reconstructed on City, lands by the Purchaser under this contract for any and all purposes deemed necessary or desirably in connection with the control, management, harvest and administration of City-owned land or the resources thereof and the City may extend such fights and privileges to others, provided such use by others shall be controlled so it will not, in the opinion of the Public Works and Utilities Director, interfere unduly with the use of the road by the Purchaser. 8-0 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 8.1 Buildings and Improvements. Purchaser may construct on City lands, when authorized to do so by the City, such buildings or other improvements as may be reasonably necessary for logging the timber included in this agreement. All such buildings or improvements shall be located to prevent pollution of the water in streams or lakes and shall in no event violate any applicable City, State or Federal law, rule or regulation. When such improvements are to be moved or abandoned, the Purchaser shall dispose of the improvement in such a manner as is acceptable to the City. The authorization granted hereunder to build or maintain improvements upon the City lands terminates with the termination of this agreement. 8.2 Abandoned Property. Any improvement, whether a building or otherwise, constructed upon the property of the City may, with the consent of the City, be left upon the property from the termination of this contract: Provided: That upon any such action, title thereof shall pass to the City. 9-0 OTHER CONDITIONS 9.1 Notice. All notices to be given by either party to this contract in relation to this agreement shall be in writing and may be served personally upon the parties at the addresses noted below ot by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the party to be served at the address hereinafter set forth. Any notice to be given by certified mail shall be deemed to have been received four days after the posting thereof in the United State Postal Service, postage prepaid. 9.2 Breach of Contract. In the event the Purchaser violates or breaches any term of this agreement or any requirement hereunder, the City shall have the right to suspend operations of the Purchaser hereunder by the giving of written notice, specifying the breach alleged. If such breach is not remedied within thirty (30) days after the giving of the notice, the City, may terminate this agreement and the Purchaser shall have no further rights under this Bill of Sale and Contract. Upon such termination, the City shall notify the Purchaser of a Breach of Contract and the deposit made in connection herewith may be forfeited upon order of the City Council and action may be taken to recover damages from the Purchaser and surety. 9.3 City's Right to Remedy Breach of Contract. In the event the Purchaser has violated or breached any term of this agreement and has failed to remedy the breach thereof, the City shall have the option to remedy of any such breach if, after the giving of notice of breach required hereby, the Purchaser shows no indication of attempting to remedy the breach, or if there is an apparent inability of Purchaser to remedy the breach as such absence of attempt or inability may be reasonably determined by the City, the City may, in its discretion, immediately enter upon the property and commence attempts to remedy the breach. Any expense so incurred by the City shall be charged against the Purchaser and be paid to the City by the Purchaser within thirty (30) days after receipt of the billing for the expense. Purchaser shall, in addition to the cost of the attempt to remedy the breach, be responsible to the City for any such losses or liabilities as may be incurred by the City, as a result of the breach, such losses to be paid to the City by Purchaser within thirty (30) days of notice of the amount in question. 9.4 Assignment. The Purchaser shall not assign any rights hereunder without the consent of the City in writing, signed by the Mayor of the City, of Bremerton. No purported assignment of any such right shall be effective without the consent herein anticipated. 9.5 Purchaser Complaints in Writing. Complaints bv the Purchaser as to any action taken, or any action not taken by the City, in respect to this contract, shall not be considered unless made in writing to the City within thirty (30) days of any such action or non-action. 9.6 Compliance with Laws. Purchaser, its employees, subcontractors and their employees shall conduct their activities in a safe and workmanlike manner to comply with all appropriate City, State and Federal laws, rules and regulations in relation to such activities, and shall cooperate fully in making it possible for the City' s officers to inspect the cutting, logging, construction and other activities of the Purchaser under this contract, and to conduct their official duties on the sale area and its vicinity. 9.7 City, Hold Harmless. The Purchaser shall hold the City, its agents, officers and employees harmless from any liability of any sort whatsoever, whether for injury, to persons or property or otherwise arising out of any cause whatsoever related to Purchaser's operations or performance, action or inaction of this contract. Purchaser shall further, upon the tender of any such claim, assume the defense of any claim filed or brought against the City arising out of Purchaser's performance of this contract. In the event Purchaser fails to comply with the provisions of this paragraph, it shall pay to the City any and all expenses and monies reasonably expended in the processing, defense and settlement of any such claim, with the payment to be made within thirty (30) days of the tender of a statement therefor. 9.8 City's Right to Close Operations. If, for any reasons, including but not limited to danger of fire determined to be excessive by the City, and any reasonable perceived threat to persons, property or the environment, the City exercises its fight to order the closure of operation~ under this contract, (said right being hereby recognized, established, and acknowledged) the time of completion of this contract shall be extended by the number of days or portion thereof contained within said closure, so long as the closure is not as a result of actions of Purchaser or any person or entity acting upon Purchaser's behalf which are actions in breach of this contract. The extensions of time shall be Purchaser's sole remedy under this contract for any such closures and shall be in lieu of any other right, whether at law or at equity, including but not limited to monetary damages. If the closure is as a result of Purchaser's breach of this contract or is a breach of the contract any person or entity, acting on Purchaser's behalf, there shall be no right to the extension provided for hereunder. 9.9 Venue. Any litigation commenced between the parties to this contract arising out of this contract shall be filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, in and for the County of Kitsap, which shall be the court having proper venue thereof. 9.9.1 Settlement. In addition to any other relief granted to one party against the other, the parties agree that the non-prevailing party in any such litigation shall pay to the prevailing party, in addition to any such other relief, the sum determined by the court to constitute reasonable attorney's fees. 10-0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 10.1 During the performance of this contract, the Contractor agrees as follows: (a) The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include but not be limited to the following: emplo,vment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. (b) The Contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 1 !-0 SPECIAL PROVISIONS 11.1 Sanitary Regulations. Sanitary regulations by the Washington State Department of Health shall be observed. Sam-Can type restroom facilities shall be provided by the Purchaser. 11.2 Firearms. No firearms shall be permitted on any properties covered by this agreement or Bremerton Watershed lands. 12-0 MISCELLANEOUS 12.1 Merger. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. There shall be no oral modification of this agreement. 12.2 agreement. Law Applicable. The laws of the State of Washington shall be applied m construing this 12.3 Time. Time is of the essence m performance of this agreement. EXECUTED this S'~/' J day of t~ ~_.. ,1999. PURCHASER: B ----- CITY OF BREMERTON: DE VAL: W. Eugene Sampley Director of Public Works and Utilities ^s Glenna--Malanca, City Attorney KatlTM e enL.~A-~M~rk # I A RESOLUTION reviewing an appeal of a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for a Forest Practices timber harvest application on 56-acres of City land in a single-family residential (SF-1) zoning district. WltEREAS, the City of Bremerton entered into a contract with Ronald S. Sciepko and Ellen B. Lunde to remove forest products from 56 acres of City land located west of Anderson Hill Road; and WItEREAS, the City has made Forest Practice Application to the Department of Natural Resources for such timber harvest; and WItEREAS, on June 10, 1999 the City issued a SEPA Determination of Non-significance (DNS) on such timber harvest application; and WHEREAS, Helen Havens-Saunders, representing the Association to Protect ,~mderson Creek has appealed the SEPA threshold determination; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted an open record public hearing on this appeal on Juiv 14, 1999. NOW, TYI-EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton hereby finds: 1. That for the harvesting of timber, the requirements of the Forest Practices Act and the contractual requirements with Sciepko/Lunde adequately insure the protection of Anderson Creek; ,) That the City of Bremenon has not received any applications for residential development of this land and any environmental review of this type of development would be speculative at this time; and 3. Further environmental review for development of the site will be conducted at the earliest possible time that such proposals are received. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby find that the DNS for the Forest Practices application is adequate. PASSED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this 19 day of MIKE S~P~ CouncilPresidem NOTICE OF PUBLIC ltEARING Bremerton City Council The Bremerton City Council will conduct a public hearing on the following item during its regular meeting on Wednesday, July 14, 1999, which will begin at 6:00 PM in the City Council Chambers of the Bremerton City Hall, 239 4m Street, Bremerton, WA. PL99-0043 - Appeal of a SEPA Threshold Determination of Non-significance (DNS) for a 56 acre timber harvest permit on City land zoned for single-family residential development located west of Anderson Hill Road. Appellant: Association To Protect Anderson Creek (Helen Havens-Saunders, Pres.) All interested persons may appear and provide t6stimony on the matter. The Department of Economic and Community Development (ECD), located at 286 4th Street, Bremerton, WA 98337, will receive 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 ECD. Staff reports will be available by 5:00PM on July 7, 1999. Call James Coombes at (360) 478-5845 for additional information. APPELLANT: APPEAL OF SEPA THRESHOLD DECISION by the City of Bremerton Association to Protect Anderson Creek P.O. Box 1308 Port Orchard, WA 98366 Contact: Helen E. Havens-Saunders, President PH: 876-8904 ITEM BEING APPEALED: Project # PL99-002t: "Timber harvest on 56 acres in a single- family residential (SF-1) zoning district" STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL ACTION PROTESTED: The proposed logging could be very damaging to the enviro~t, both natural and human, and as area residents and concerned citizens, we bring our concerns to your attention COMMENTS ON ENVIKONMENTAL FJ.EMENTS: EARTH: We are very concerned that the combination ofhydric soils and unstable slopes in the NW portion of the area proposed for logging will result in landslide potentials. We are also concerned that after this forestland is "converted" through logging and not replanted, the land may lie fallow for years, presenting unique opportunities for erosion and damage to the stream and harm to residents downstream. Previous clearcuts on this watershed land have always been followed by replanting. SURFACE AND GROLLND WATER OUANTITY .&ND OUALITY: Although the stream branch which runs across this area is shown with a 50' buffer on the map, and the buffer is described as wider in most areas in the text, no buffer at all is shown for the upper (southern) borders of that stream, after the old logging road cuts across it. This area should be buffered as a w~land to protect the headwaters of the stream. Protection of stream sources is vital to salmon and stream preservation. We support the Suquamish Tribe's letter of 5 June asking for at least i00' buffers for the entire length of the stream, and also support their request that the buffers be permanently protected and designated. Although we have been assured by the City's forester that the buffers planned for this logging operation exceed the 25' and 50' lines on the map, and protect the areas about which we are most concerned, these buffers need to be defined and mapped and part of the public record before logging takes place. We are particularly concerned with the stream through the property and the hydric soils and wetlands near the northwest portion of the property. The soils in this area have been historically so saturated that Ollie Nordby, a resident of the hill who has worked for many years within the watershed, put a curtain drain in from above the Kinney, 's barn to the end of their property on the west. Underground springs run audibly for much of the year, and feed a seasonal pond on the property to their north. The ground is so soft it feels fragile, and walkers sink into it. The surface water from Anderson Creek is extremely dean. Anderson Creek is a beautiful year-round stream whose abundant clear water is planned for by the Department of Health as the emergency water supply for the city. We all know that the entire state is worried about water supplies in the future. ,a~ny intrusion in the watershed will have the potential to degrade the surface and ground water. No mount of mitigation can replace the natural recharge characteristics of the watershed. Stormwaters must be kept from impacting downstream residents and Anderson Creek. An overall stormwater plan should be in place before a large logging operation of this type takes place. Kitsap County and the city of Port Orchard both have requirements of this sort in their Critical Areas Ordinances. Bremerton's Critical Lands Ordinance has not been upgraded for many years and is overdue; its requirements regarding ground and surface water will be affected by the new requirement to protect endangered salmon species. The cumulative effect of impervious surfaces should be a consideration before logging takes place; trees can be cut later. but can't be replaced for decades. In addition, stormwaters must be retained to protect groundwater and aquifer recharge:, WILDLY: Neighbors can provide a more detailed list than this; the watershed area is home for songbirds, indeed, but also more than one pair of pileated woodpeckers (a protected species), at least two kinds of owls, golden and bald eagles, nighthawks, red-tailed and other hawks all live within the forest; there is an eagle's nest in the lower watershed, and the Kinneys have seen an eagle spending long periods of time within the upper area which will be logged. The stream beds are natural corridors for wildlife, including bear, beaver, raccoons, bobcat, coyote, many deer, and other mammals. Lack of adequate provisions for stormwater will result in sedimemarion from erosion and will adversely affect the salmon spawning areas downstream from this site. AESTHETICS: If buffers are managed skillfully, and agreement can be reached, the neighbors on the Hilt will be much less uncomfortable with this change. Without proper care, the beauty of this part of the area could be destroyed. TRANSPORTATION: Impacts on local roads, especially but not only Anderson Hill Road, will be major because of this residential conversion. Bremerton does not assess impact fees, and the financial burden will be on county roads. The added tragfic will be a major consideratiom for residents of the entire area - Old Clifton Road, Surmyslope, and Anderson Hill Road - and on the Tacoma Highway interchange's safety. Improvements are not imminent. PUBLIC SERVICES .AND UTILITIES: Clearly comment should be solicited from the South Kitsap School District before a determination is made. Schools in this area are over capacity now, and this residential conversion could impact them severely. Local residents of this area have septic systems and wells, and should not be forced to pay for your infrastructure. We should have some input in whether we wish these "improvements." GENERAL COMMENTS Our Association appealed the City's Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance on the zoning of the entire surplused section of the City's utility lands in 1996. At that point the City's SEPA official requested a more complete environmental checklist from the proponent, Ron Sciepko. This checkti~ was never done, to our knowledge; certainly there are no studies in the files pertaining to this proposal. We would like to touch on a few points we made at that time: (1) Phased review, according to WAC 197-t 1-060(5), "...is not appropriate when it would merely divide a project to avoid consideration of cumulative impacts or alternatives." We stated in our previous appeal that this proposal is clearly part of a series of events that will have serious adverse environmental effects, on and offside, and that an EIS should be done on the entire related series of activities. (2) The beginning of the project is the best time to involve the public and other agencies~ We will be neighbors from this time forward. As the State's SEPA Handbook points out,"The threshold determination process is the ideal time to work with the applicant to refine his/her proposal to make it less environmentally damaging and to identify major problem areas. It is also the time to work with other agencies and the public to make them aware of the project and allow them to identify any concerns which may be resolved eaxly in the SEPA process." (Section F-l). None of the neighbors of this parcel were notified on Anderson Iqxll, including those who have common boundaries. The area above this parcel, which is owned by McCormick Land Company and has been slated for development as a planned unit development, was logged by the owners to open up the building sites several years ago. The logging was much less intensive than this proposal, and lef~ enough trees to showcase the natural beauty, of the area,, while allowing viewers Io envision the placement of homes. In addition, consideration of the entire project as a whole allowed more careful evaluation of environmental impacts, and allowed planning for future buildings to be clustered to protect the streams and wetlands. RELIEF SOUGHT; We request the City to require a complete environmental impact study of the cumulative effects of the current zoning and this project at this time. Barring that outcome, we request that the City's threshold determination be a mitigated one, and that more specific 'safeguards are built into the agreement to allow this logging to take place. We suggest that the heating before the Council might be an opportunity to define those safeguards with the public, and urge the Council to use that tool in the most productive way to build community and work toward a mutually acceptable outcome. Helen E. Haven,s-Saunders, Presidenl Association to Protect Anderson Creek PH: (360) 8'76-8904 APPEAL OF SEPA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Bremerton City Council July 14, 1999 Appellant: Association to Protect Anderson Creek (Helen Havens-Saunders) File Number: PL99-0043 Request: REVIEW OF DNS FOR TIMBER HARVEST (PL99-0021). Attached Documents: Appeal Application received June 28, 1999. Public Notice of Appeal. Notice of Application issued May 17, 1999. SEPA DNS SEPA Checklist PL99-0021 Forest Practices Application/Notification Summary Map for Forest Practice Application Letter of The Suquamish Tribe dated June 2, 1999 Letter of Helen Havens-Saunders dated June 3, 1999 Letter of James Coombes dated June 14, 1999 with Memo of Bill McKinney dated June 7, 1999 in response to Ms. Havens-Saunders. Copy of Contract Background: An Environmental Checklist (SEPA) was submitted by the PubLic Works Department in May, 1999 for review with the Department of Economic and Community Development as part of a Irorest Practice Application to the Department of Natural Resources for a 56-acre timber harvest on City land west of Anderson Hill Road. The land is currently zoned for single- family residential (SIr- 1) use. On June 10, 1999, after review of the Environmental Checklist and the site, the Department of Economic and Community Development issued a Determination ofNonsignificance (DNS) for the proposed timber harvest. On June 28, 1999, the appellant submitted an appeal of that decision in a timely manner. The appellant was a party of record and as a result, had rights to file the appeal. It should also be noted that on June 8, 1999, the City Council approved a contract with Ron Sciepko and Ellen Lunde for the sale and removal of forest products on certain lands in the Anderson Creek area including the subject site. As the purchaser, Mr. Sciepko and Ms. Lunde have the operating authority to remove the trees from the property although the City, as property owner, is making application for the Forest Practice application. 1 Summary of Appeal: The appellant is appealing the issuance of a DNS for a SEPA Checklist submitted for a Forest Practice Application for a 56-acre timber harvest on land in a single-family residential (SF-1) Zoning District located west of Anderson I-Yfll Road. Pursuant to Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Section 21.02.935 (b) (2), this Type II decision can be appealed to the City Council. The appellant states that the proposed harvest could be damaging to the environment and makes comments on the following environmental elements: earth (soils and critical slopes), surface and ground water quantity and quality, wildlife, aesthetics, transportation, public services and utilities. The appellant requests that the City requires a complete environmental impact study of the cumulative effects of this project or require a mitigated determination that provides "more specific safeguards." Staff Analysis: The appellant is concerned with potential damage to the environment in a number of categories. Attached to the staff report is the appeal submitted by Ms. Haven-Saunders with each comment numbered. The following is an analysis of each issue presented by the appellant. Comment 1: "We are very concerned that the combination of hydric soils and unstable slopes in the NI'V portion of the area proposed for logging will result in landslide potentials." Response: The areas that contain steep slopes and hydric soils have been deleted from the timber harvest area. To some extent, concern may have arisen from the appellants' review of DNR Kesource Base maps that show general areas of unstable, erodible, and hydric soils. These are general and do not always depict exact locations for soil types. The boundaries for timber harvest were determined by actual site conditions. The area designated for harvest operations is fairly flat with no excessive or unstable slopes. The proposed harvest and development site soil type is listed in the Soil Survey q£Kitsap Count_ Area, Washington as a Harstine gravelly sandy loam. Commentary for this soil type in the above document expresses the soil ability to "support a heaW load" and use for "urban development". Many of the existing residences in this area are located on this soil type. Two soil types in this general vicinity, but not in the proposed harvest or development area, are dystric xerothents and McKenna gravelly loam soils. These can be problematic for both logging and site development. The dystric xerothent type resides in draws and riparian zones adjacent to Anderson Creek and its tributaries. No disturbance of this soil type will take place. This soil type has either been buffered from any proposed activities or for the most part, been retained in continued City ownership. The McKenna type is what the appellant may be referring to as "hydric" in the NW comer of the property. This area is also buffered out of the proposed harvest area. 2 Comment "We are also concerned that after this forestland is "converted" through logging and not replanted, the land may lie fallow for years, presenting unique opportunities for erosion and damage to the stream and harm to residents downstream. Previous clearcuts on this watershed land have always been followed by replanting." In relation to timber harvesting, problems from erosion are a function of topography, level of soil disturbance, soil type, and most importantly from a water quality standpoint, prox/mity to streams. A long period of time between harvest and development (with its attendant requirements for grading and storm water management) is not anticipated. If however, some delay does occur, erosion and water quality problems are not anticipated, because of the gentle topography, confined areas of soil disturbance from logging, soil type within the operational area, and distance from flowing streams. Further, it should be noted that under Forest Practices requirements, replanting is required within three years if the forest operation continues. There would be potential "exposure" to the soil under any forest practice activity and, from staff perspective, the proposed harvesting is not anticipated to create any different conditions than if a conversion is not proposed. At the time of any grading of the site, compliance with the City's grading, erosion control and other requirements would need to be met. If problem areas do arise as a result of the timber harvesting (actual or potential), the timber purchaser and operator have both contractual and regulatory obligations to remedy the situation. Under the terms of the June 8th contract, the purchaser (Sciepko and Lunde)is obligated to comply with all provisions of the Forest Practice Act and requires the purchaser to take precautions to minimize erosion and damage to the soil during operations (Sections 3.3 and 4.3 of the contract). Further, Section 9.7 of the contract stipulates that the purchaser assumes any liability associated with the operation. In addition, the Forest Practice permit process addresses erosion control for road construction and timber harvesting to minimize sedimentation into streams (WAC 222-24 and 222-30). Meeting these requirements should address erosion and sedimentation concerns upon completion of the harvest. Comment 3: "Although the stream branch which runs across this area is shown with a 50' buffer on the map, and the buffer is described as wider in most areas in the text, no buffer at all is shown for the upper (southern) borders of that stream, after the old logging road cuts across it. This area shouM be buffered as a wetland to protect the headwaters of the stream. Protection of stream sources is vital to salmon and stream preservaa'on. We support the Suquarnish Tribe's letter of 5 June asking for at least 100' buffers for the entire length of the stream, and also support their request that the buffers be permanently protected and designated." Response: The entire length of the stream traversing the property from the stream's confluence with the main stem of Anderson Creek, upstream to its headwaters is classified as a Type 5 by DNR base maps. The Forest Practices Board Salmonid Emergency Rule (WAC 222-30~040 2.b.) adopted March 31, 1999 states: 3 Leave trees shall also be retained as needed within the first 50 feet horizontal distance from the ordinary high water mark along the first 500feet of flowing type 4 or 5 waters above type 1, 2, and 3 waters m the salmonid listed areas map in WAC 222-16-088. Through the City's comract with the purchaser, the City staff has field-marked proposed stream buffers to be maintained during and after the timber harvest. The buffers are proposed for that portion of the stream from its confluence with Anderson Creek to the "old logging road." This is a distance of approximately 1000 feet and is twice the distance specified by the above referenced state standard to protect salmonoids. Further, the area upstream (south) of the "old logging road" is moderate to flat topography. The the stream channel is greatly reduce~d in width (the existing drainage structure is a 12" concrete culvert) and within a short distance, no distinct stream channel is evident; and no associated wetlands are in evidence. Thus, staffbelieves that there is no need for establishing buffers as mitigation south of the "old logging road." Comment 4: "Although we have been assured by the City's forester that the buffers planned for this logging operation exceed the 25' and 50' lines on the map, and protect the areas about which we are most concerned, these buffers need to be defined and mapped and part of the public record before logging takes place. We are particularly concerned with the stream through the property and the hydric sods and wetlands near the northwest portion of the property. The soils in this area have been historically so saturated that Oliie Nordby, a resident of the hill who has worked for many years within the watershed, put a curtain drain m from above the Kinney's barn to the end of their property on the west. Underground springs run audibly for much of the year, and feed a seasonal pond on the property to their north. The ground is so soft it feels fragile, and walkers sink into it. The surface water from Anderson Creek is extremely clean, Anderson Creek is a beautiful year-round stream whose abundant clear water is planned for by the Department of Health as the emergency water supply for the city'. We all know that the entire state is worried about water supplies in the future. Any intrusion in the watershed will have the potential to degrade the surface and groundwater. No amount of mitigation can replace the natural recharge characteristics of the watershed" Response: In establishing the harvest and developmem areas for this proposal, the boundaries along the stream in question were field-marked using the following criteria: a) As mentioned above, the "old logging road" is the proposed limit for the stream buffer which is approximately 1000' upstream of the confluence with type 3 water (twice the distance required by regulation). 4 b) From the "old logging road" downstream, an average buffer of 75' to 100' on each side of the stream channel from the ordinary high water mark has been established (1.5 to 2 times wider than requked by regulation). c) Within the buffer zone, no timber harvesting will occur although, the regulations do allow some tree removal. d) The stream buffer zone includes all of the steeper ground and associated fragile soils adjacent to the stream. Staff concurs with the appellant that the buffer areas as defined by City staff should be mapped. The City's Forestry staffis working on this matter and anticipates the mapping to be completed in the near future. Staff does .not anticipate the need for any mitigation measures on the mapping since it will be implemented through the terms of the contract with the purchaser. Regarding the comment on hydric soils, as noted in the reply to Comment 1, the soils in the harvest area are not hydric soils. Regarding water quality and quantity, City Forestry staff has inspected the site and believes that the proposed boundaries 1) adequately protect this drainage basin and 2) do in all aspects exceed the regulatory requirements for timber harvest. Comment 5: "Stormwaters must be kept from impacting downstream residents and Anderson Creek. An overall stormwater plan shouM be in place before a large logging operation of this type takes place. Kitsap County and the city of Port Orchard both have requirements of this sort in their Critical Areas Ordinances. Bremerton's Critical Lands Ordinance has not been upgraded for many years and is overdue; its requirements regarding ground and surface water will be affected by the new requirement to protect endangered salmon species. The cumulative effect of impervious surfaces shouM be a consideration before logging takes place; trees can be cut later, but can't be replaced for decades. In addition, stormwaters must be retained to protect groundwater and aquifer recharge." Response: The Forest Practices Act addresses erosion control to minimize water quality impacts from timber harvest activities. Further, as mentioned above, the City's contract with the purchaser also has provisions to maintain water quality. The above criteria used in establishing buffers will also adequately protect this stream system during the timber harvest phase. Stormwater management for any subsequent development of the property will be more specifically addressed prior to any development of the site. Comment 6: "NeighborScan provide a more detailed list than this; the watershed area is 5 home for songbirds, indeed, but also more than one pair of pileated woodpeckers (a protected species), at least two kinds of owls, golden and bald eagles, nighthawks, red-tailed and other hawks all live within the forest; there is an eagle's nest in the lower watershed, and the Kinneys have seen an eagle spending long periods of t~me within the upper area which will be logged. The stream beds are natural corridors for wildlife, including bear, beaver, raccoons, bobcat, coyote, many deer, and other mammals." Response: Wild life corridors are retained in this area through the above discussed stream buffer. In addition, k should be noted that the City of Bremerton retains a large tract (over 200 acres) that includes the main stems of Anderson Creek and associated riparian zones. This tract will not be subject to any timber harvest activity and will remain in its current natural state. Comment 7: "Lack of adequate provisions for stormwater will result in sedimentation from erosion and will adversely affect the salmon spawning areas downstream from this site." Response: This City-retained area contains highly diverse vegetative cover, including large diameter and height timber that provides higher quality wildlife habitat than the area of proposed development. Again, potential for erosion and sedimentation offish-bearing water is addressed above. Comment 8: "If buffers are managed skillfully, and agreement can be reached, the neighbors on the Hill will be much less uncomfortable with this change. Without proper care, the beauty of this part of the area couM be destroyed" Response: As previously mentioned above, the City's decision to retain over 200 acres and meet or exceed the buffers required by regulation shows a strong desire to protect the beauty of the area. However, leaving a line of trees along the road would only create a blow down area that would be a hazard to power lines and traffic. Comment 9: "Impacts on local roads, especially but not only Anderson Hill Road, will be major because of this residential conversion. Bremerton does not assess impact fees, and the financial burden will be on county roads. The added traffic will be a major consideration, for residents of the entire area - OM Clifton Road, Sunnyslope, and Anderson Hill Road - and on the Tacoma Highway interchange's safety. Improvements are not imminent." Comment 10: "Clearly comment shouM be solicited, from the South Kitsap School District before a determination is made. Schools in this area are over capacity now, and this residential conversion couM impact them severely." Response: The decision to plan and zone the 56 acre site for residential development site was made in 1995 and any environmental affects associated with the rezone were considered 6 at that time. Currently, there is no residential development proposed as a part of this timber harvest permit and the City has not received any application for such a proposal. The nature of any proposed residential development beyond that known for the rezone is not certain at this time. Conducting any detailed environmental analysis on any potential residential development on the basis of the timber harvest permit would be premature and speculative. Such will be considered for impacts to roads and schools at such time a residential development application is received by the City. Comment 11: "Local residents of this area have septic systems and wells, and shouM not be forced to pay for your infrastructure. We shouM have some input in whether we wish these "improvements." Response: The timber harvest application will not require the extension of any urban services including sewers. Any service extension issues would be addressed as part of any residential development application. Comment 12: "Phased review, according to WAC 197-11-060(5), "...is not appropriate when it would merely divide a project to avoid consideration of cumulative impacts or alternatives." We stated in our previous appeal that this proposal is clearly part of a series of events that will have serious adverse environmental effects, on and offside, and that an EIS should be done on the entire related series of activities." Response: While the proposed timber harvest application is for conversion of the site to a non-timber use, the application does not include any consideration for residential development. It is staff's belief that the intent of WAC 197-11-060(5) can be accomplished at the time of any application for residential development since that will be the first application for the development of the site including grading and other development components. Further, it is staff's expectation that Mr. Sciepko will be making application for a development agreement that would address development of the entire site. This would allow the City to examine the development of the entire site and avoid any se~m-nentation of development for the site. If an application is received for only a portion of the site, staff would be requiting at least a conceptual plan or program for the entire site to assure adequate project and environmental review. Comment 13: "The beginning of theproject is the best time to involve the public and other agencies. We will be neighbors from this time forward. As the State's SEPA Handbook points out, "The threshoM determination process is the ideal time to work with the applicant to refine his/her proposal to make it less environmentally damaging and to identify major problem areas. It is also the time to work with other agencies and the public to make them aware of the project and allow them to identify any concerns which may be resolved early in the SEPA process." (Section F- 1). None of the neighbors of this parcel were notified on Anderson Hill, including those who have common boundaries." 7 Response: As previously mentioned, the determination involves only an application for a timber harvest permit. There is no residential development proposed as a part of this timber harvest and considerations for potential residential development would be speculative at this time. The public and all appropriate agencies will be asked for comments at such time that a residential development application proposal is received. Comment 14: "The area above this parcel, which is owned by McCormick Land Company and has been slated for development as a planned unit development, was logged by the owners to open up the building sites several years ago. The logging was much less intensive than this proposal, and left enough trees to showcase the natural beauty of the area, while allowing viewers to envision the placement of homes. In addition, consideration of the entire project as a whole allowed more careful evaluation of environmental impacts, and allowed planningfor future buiMings to be clustered to protect the streams and wetlands." Response: While the McCormick Land Company project may have been developed as a PUD, there is no such provision in the Bremerton's Zoning Ordinance to require such an approach. As mentioned above, provisions will be made through the timber harvest application as well as providing open space areas around Anderson Creek to provide buffer areas to protect the creek and attendant streams. Conclusion: Staff believes that a Determination of Nonsignificance is adequate for the proposed Forest Practice application. Water quality, erosion, soil disruption and maintaining fish habitat would be addressed in meeting either the requirements of the Forest Practice Act or the City's contract with the purchaser. Other issues such as aesthetics and wildlife habitat would be addressed in maintaining buffers and prohibiting any timber harvest in the area around Anderson Creek. Analyzing other issues associated with the residential development of the site is speculative and premature at this time. Further, any issues related to phasing could be addressed at the time any residential application is submitted. Department of Economic & Community Development 286 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 liON ,~!~ DE,E:'M A R lin ~Ti Description of Proposal: Timber harvest on 56 acres in a single-family residential (SF-1) zoning district. Proponent: City cf Bremerton project Number: PL99-0021 Department of Public Works & Utilities Location of Proposal: West of Anderson Hill Road. Lead Aqenc¥: City of Bremerton, Department of Economic & Community Development The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (ELS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This informatJcn is available to the public on re(~uest. This DNS Js issued under WAC '., 97-i i -355(4)(a) & (5) with copies sent appropriate state departments, agencies with jurisdiction, those wiqo commented. and anyone recuesting a copy. Responsible Official: Jcn Hclan Pcsiticn[T'itle: Planning Manager Phone: (360) 478-5243 Address: 286 Fourth Street, Bremertcn WA 98337 Date: ~., ~.'"., Signature: You may appeal this determination 1:¢. Bremerton City Council No later than: June 28, 1999 Be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact: James Coombes for procedures regarding SEPA appeal. (360) 478-5845 -' L:NINCO~O~TED 4 [ Effective date of latest amendments7 ZONES. SF-1 .Resiaentiai. iovt-ciens:7 SF-2 Residential. iow-aen::, PS P~lcs &Schoois WS Water Su~Nx' FM Forest Manaaement IP induswiai Park IG Indus~ial General I lis_nd uses 2-~e NOT PERMTFTED Bus Pz~sen~er Te~ma~ Bus Mamte~,~nce Faci!i~ Auto Impound Lot Paim ~nd >.filed Products ',i:'~ ,¥aemmzi Ruboe7 & ?i~,c Produz:: .... Fan,-.,", & Reia~ed ~oduct; Conc:tt~. G'.'Dsum. Plaste: Cut Stone & Stone Produ::: The following land uses ma'. be permitted with a Special Use Permit' Repair (other than Auto and Motor Veh~cies'Equipment ',k%oi esa Ut'filities: Plant, Storaoe, eta Ail or_her provisions of the "]P" zone apply to t.q:s a~,=a May 2, 1998 WATERSH. ED & LTTILITT L.&N~DS I P.-x_RT ELEVEN - FOR.¥IS ~,vAC !97-!1-960 En55ronmen:al checkSs:. z"-~e S~.t: E=vX-o~-,.,-?,eE:zi ?o~z;' Ac: ..... ' ~Z:z=ter 45.2!C RCW, reqmr:s aE = - ..... ~ a=,,,,4-s · - {,=" 0:-), enV'-romm--nrz! k.-:raazz of z proposal before ma~g d=zssio',~..A.2 en55rommenmi im'aac: proposah v,-itE: probable si_?-z"qcaz: adverse ~----~azz on ,AG qua!5U, of ~ en'dro:.men:. !'-~e pu--pose of ~ ch~ m :o pro'dC: -..rz'onrzauoz to help you ~d ~e age:z? id:~,· ':.'-~a::~ from you.- proposal (md to reduce or avoid ~"Oa~z_- bom :hr _ur, opeszi, Z: Tou m~: ~w:r care ~u~non azz~z:!v ~d ~:5~y, to ~e ~s~ of yom- ~owledg:. ~o ~wcr ~e cu=~o~ ~o~ vo~ o~2 obst~'ano~ e_- ~-~_m,_.-~- ol~ ~ou: ~e need to Sore= auesno~ ~i: abou: gov:~en~ r:~nom, mace ~ zo~g, shcr:~:. euesno~ ffvou c~. ~'vou ~vt :robi~." - g ............ f Tar zh:~: ~:sZo~ z~iT.' tc ~ =~ 05 vc~- propo~ =v:n ~' you p~ to do ag:=zy ~o wNzh you ~b~: ~ zh:zi~ ~',' ~i: you :e :~iz~ yo~ ~ cz pro~d: ad~uo~ ~o~zoz 7. Dc you have a_ny nia.~ :.or .;ar'--: z?i~Uo-~, c:.:?~.z:o:_ or fu.~.:r az'zZxfi~, related tc or co.~":z:sd ~::?. ~ nroncsa? ;Z y:: WAC (4/! 5.'98) [Ch. i97-11-WAC--p 53] S£?A R~d~s ,: Do .you k%ow w,k--'.,, m,,-' a=~iiczfio~., a:e pc: ,ca=g" for =¢ow.?'.-.m.-~i ~z'.'~'.d by your Froposa!? Lf yes, zgv:22 wa¢~o~ lar= m ~ chec~: ~: ~ you m d~ ......_ ~ ...x- ~¢ ~o-=~ or bo~cs of ,h.__ s~re~s'h. ~o~dd¢ a it~ d~no~ s:m ~[~ ~i,~7.' --mr. ~d :c~e~r~_ _ . --=-. -: '/ .. Ear'& - C::=~.~:-M des~=tiov of thc site (c=c!e one): Flak tong, ~y, s~:~ slopes, mo~mmo~, ~ v,~: is ~e s~=~¢~ slope on ~¢ sit: (appro~m pc~=nt siop~)? E-v'.a~. UATION .~.G E'N. 'C~.' USE [Ch. !9%11 VeAC--p. 54] wAC TO BE CO,~C~L="~. =D ~¥ SEPA Rules :',' -'.LL'.: ..--.,CN FC .:.C.m-_-_-_--NC':' '..'SE ONL ",¥~-~.: gemem] .types of soils are found on ~e sit"- (for ".-c,~mple, cia.',', saad_. __m-ave!, muck)? If you i, mow -&e dzisL~ca~on of a__2_~cul.'r=~2 soils, s-p. scL~y item and not: ar, y d..-tze ',.h.'re surface in&=uom or h~io.-¢ of'ans-,abie so~ in the imme~o vic~.iw? ~" sc. pm?ass. L?p.e. and approy~m~r= .euz:~nss of any Eili~g ar _m~ding proposei Could ~osion os:u= as a res'n/: of cie~---ng, con_va-~ a:-aor., or 'we? E sc. g=n~..J]y dssc='b:. (for ex~-.,l:. b. Age [here any off-sit: so '~:ss of er"--'ssions or odor fuaz may aikc: your .::oposa2? If so, c. Proposed msasu.res to reduce o: conuro! ¢_m.,.%~o,,~ or o[hcr impac:s to aL-, k'an,,-: WAC (4/15/98) ICh. 19%11 'WAC--p.-~5] SEPA R~les -='<-a-L U-a. TiC N FOR USE ON-..':' d:.scr.=:om pu_'Tos-', and a.:prc?-~t"- 2]. D=sc~oe waste taste:iai fha: v, iJ2 be ~c~-g:d into ~s go~d ~om s~6c ~ ar o~ so~z:s, g~?' (far ex~pl:: Dom:sec sewag=; md~m~ :an~g ~e fa~o~g che~caN...; a~:,~!; etc.). Des~oe ~: g:neaI s=e of~e syste~ ~e n~bcr of such sysz:~, ~n¢ nmmber of ho~es ~a be s:r~sd (h' appUcable), or ~e n~mber of ~h or h~ ~s ~stcm(s) ~: expected :o s:pee. ich. 1.o7-11 5%;AC--p. 56] ~ %'AC (4/15/95) SEPA Rules ! ) Des~oe ~e.so~c: of r~off (mciu~g sm~ war,r) ~d me,od of co~e~cn ~d ~osai. h-~y (include ~fifi:s, h%mo~). ;~er: ~ ~ ~r~ flow? ~:~ ~ water :2o~' mm o~er war:~? k' sc, desire. 2) Could w~te ~t:n~ enter ~o~d or smsa:: wate~? h'so, g:n~y dm~oe. E%'.-',L U.-',T~ C N 7-C,R .-',GE.'C':' USE C?,i': : .4xfimals C=:le a.ny bird~ and ~rim, zLs wh/ch have be~ obs:.wed on or near the sire or are kmox;m to be o= or ri:m- the sire: fish: bz~s. szLmom :ou:. hem-,~ she!!~5_ othe=. Lis: a.uv threatened or end2mgered speci:s kmow= to be on or n:az '&e site. WAC (4/15/98) [Ch. 19%11 VeAC---p. 57] _--V -',LL\,.~ C N FOR. USE ~.%,_. h. Would your projec: affcc: :he uomnnzi ~e of solar cnergs_-.' by ~djacen~ prope-~ez? L-' sc, g-~n~y : '&-.az: i.--m.,dz of :n~' co.ed, anon f~=~-:z ~= m:iuded m '~: =i~ of ~ nrooos~? "' ?:J2oosed ---'le2.s'd.res to :':~:..:c: 31 Zs2uo': e'"*vL-c7-----2,-~: '-'*"'" :':?'-'=-d..s% ;,"- l': '~:'~: :).?es a.ud levels of noise would be cr,zzted by o,- associated ~-ith the projec: on z sEox-te.,'-m or a losg-te,,-m, basis (For example: ~--afiSc, con_s~m.:cdon, operauon, other)? ind:- cam v-hz: hours noise wou.id come Eom the site. [Ch. 197-11 WAC--p. 58t SEPA Rules ~) Progosed me~'~-es to r:duc: e: co=roi '~oLse £mpac:-; T_.~nd :nd shoreline use ER'.-*Z_Z'.:. T;O N FC'? · ;,'2 m--x,~ 'C':-' ".*SE '~ :z~ azy .~ar, cf'~ s:t~ be:n :izsz-~:-Z -~ zz' ::vzor_m:n~v s:zsiZve" az:z? k-sc, ~ezi_=,,. k. ?ro~osed m:~'m-ss to avoid c: r:duzt d4sp. iazcm:n: impacts. 2' mn}.: WAC (4/15/95) ~f ICh. 197-11 V~zAC--p. -Zgl TO .EE CO.;'~ff~ L:~ BY SEPA Rules P. ~ousing .=-~rox'-~m' ~te!v how z22,Zv um!~_, i.-' a~.v, wo~d be ~;;--~'~-'o'~'~ T.~i~.re whe'.~ b,e~ --~ or iow-income housing. :. ~o~os~-d mezm.u'~-s ~o reduc.- or control housing inm~ac:. E ~v: E%'~UATi., 0.~' FOR USE {Ch. 197-11%:AC--p. 60] TO SE C©NCPL~D BY SE?A Rules '~_.' _P. ecre~don Would the proposed proje= &isp. lace amy ex',zs'~,ng re=ezuorm] ,uses? k'sc, ?','.-' ~ L'.-',W. 0 N FC'7 USE 0 .',-_ uo.-u-?~'U--s :c be =ro','~ded bv '.be %c~e=: or zp_u~=?.: Lf~y: 13. ~.istoric and cu~m.'-zl prese.m'adon z..~c '~c ~y pieces or obj:~ ~d om o: ~oscd for. ~U~ vzUon re~:= ~o~m zo b~ on or n~ to m= sim? h'sc, g:n~y : -:. Trnnvp. o,~m=on /- d. il': -~¢ ~rooosz! r~'~: ~y nosy roa~ o: sr~c:, or b~rov~m~n~ lo :~s~g roa~ o: ~=:. no: msiu~g &nv~'a,,.s? if sc. g=n~mll>, des~b= (m~cate ~'h~er pubhs or WAC (4/15/98) ~-~ [Ch. :I97-:1 VFAC--p. 61] =--V.KLUA .'iTON FOR USE · ' ' . ..._ oz} wouid be genem:ed by the co,-'--_~ie:ed uroie=? k'imo~, indicate wb.e: ue'k ','okzmes wou2d oc=',~. Public se~Sc~ Wo~d :e .=rojec: ~$u1: i= az: m~eased ne:d for =ublic ser~-i:-_s (for e."~.mpie: ~ pro- r=:-or_ police prorec'aon, h~-zi~ care, scbooiz, omer)? ~s¢, g.-n~'zily d~cr~e. :zt. :ei-'z'zhone. s?'7-:-: sev¢~, s=?uz ~,'s't~-'-~ {Ch. ;97-11 V~'AC--p. 62] WAC (-~,'t 5/9S) AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: June 9, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING DEPT. OF ORIGIN: DECD - Planning ACTION: Special Use Permit to change an existing ORIGINATOR: Jon Hctan nonconforming use sign shop to auto repair DATE SUBMITTED: March 25, 1999 APPLICANT: Jonathan Chang LOCATION: 1533 Shorewood Drive 2. CLEARANCES: DECD Director : (Comment on back if necessary) ENDORSEMENT 2< INFORMATION 3. EXHIBITS: Notice of Public Hearing. Memos to City Council. PC Minutes (5/18/99} . PC Findings of Fact & Conclusion. Special Use Permit Application. SEPA Checklist. Letters of Complaint. Site Photos. APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR S~A~,: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~~j 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Council must decide if the applicant's Special Use Permit Application (SUP99-0006) meets the necessary tests and criteria required for approval of a less intense nonconforming use. 5. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff and the Planning Commission both recommend that the Special Use Permit be denied. 6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jon Holan ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 7. NOTICE OF ACTION Il [--~ PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AME COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: 8. AGENDA BILL NO.: 9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: The applicant would be able to continue the nonconforming sign shop use. 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 CITY COUNCIL JULY 14, 1999 REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT AT 1533 SHOREWOOD DRIVCE THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL. I AGREE WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATION AND HOPE YOU WILL DENY THIS REQUEST. AS THE LETTERS YOU RECEIVED INDICATE, BY FAR THE MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE HEART OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA. THERE IS ONLY ONE NARROW 20 MILE PER HOUR DEAD END ROAD SERVING THIS LOT. NO SIDE WALKS AND LITTLE OR NO SHOULDERS MAKE IT EXTREMELY DANGEROUS FOR CHILDREN AND ADULTS ALIKE. THE POTENTIAL OF ADDED TRAFFIC IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN FEB. 1999 WHEN IT WAS EVIDENT THAT AN AUTO SHOP HAD STARTED OPERATING AT 1533 SHOREWOOD DRIVE I AND SEVERAL NEIGHBORS FILED COMPLAINTS WITH THE CITY. THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SENT OUT A LETTER TO MR. AND MRS BARCELON, WITH COPIES TO MAYOR HORTON, JIM REED, JOHN GUERRERO AND JONATHAN CHANG. THE LE~'~ER ADVISED THAT ACTIVITIES AT THIS PROPERTY MUST CEASE AND DESIST BY MARCH 9, 1999 AND REMAIN SO UNTIL THIS ISSUE IS RESOLVED. I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT ON MANY OCCASIONS MR. CHANG AND MR. GUERRERO RAN AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP ANY DAY AND ALL DAYS OF THE WEEK THE HOURS OF OPERATION RAN LATE INTO THE NIGHT, THIS BEFORE AND AFTER THE CITY'S STOP WORK ORDER. AS MR. GUERRERO TOLD OFFICER VERTEFEUILLE # 464 ON SUNDAY 6/6/99 AT 1300 NOBODY WAS GOING TO TELL HIM WHAT TO DO. WHILE IN THE SHOP THE OFFICER OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE A FRESHLY PAINTED VEHICLE . (FROM POLICE REPORT # 99-06645) THE LAST SIGN SHOP TO OPERATE (HANSON SIGN CO INC.) MOVED OUT SEPTEMBER 1997 WELL OVER THE ONE YEAR REQUIRED FOR DISCONTINUATION OF THE PAST NON-CONFORMING PERMIT. (READ FROM LETFER DATED 24 FEB., 1999 FROM JANET K. LUNCEFORD) ,I AND OTHERS HAVE PROVIDED THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH DOCUMENTS AND OTHER INFORMATION !TO PROVE THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN ACTIVE SIGN SHOP OPERATED AT 1533 SHOREWOOD DRIVE SINCE SEPTEMBER OF 1997. IT IS OUR OPINION: 1. THAT THE REQUEST FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHOULD BE DENIED. 2. THE CITY COUNIClL SHOULD REVIEW THE INFORMATION THE NEIGHBORS HAVE ACCUMULATED. 3. IN ACCORDANCE BMC 21.02.790 THE PROPERTY AT 1533 SHOREWOOD DRIVE SHOULD BE DECLARED SF3 WITHOUT THE NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT AS THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ATTACHMENTS: D.E.C.D. LETTER DATED 2/24/99, PHONE LOG DATED 1/6/99, BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION DATED 1011/97,WA TAX REPORTING # 601708545, BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION DATED 116199, TAX REPORTING # 601632246, TAX REPORTING # 600627084, AND GENERAL AFFIDAVIT LEE G. LEE G. CRAWFORD ! 1536 SHOREWOO DRIVE, BREMERTON, WA. 479-0129 OF BRE XIERTON 239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT February24, 1999 David and Ardith Barcelon 4701 Kean street Bremerton, WA 9831 re: 1533 Shorewood Drive, File # C99-047 Mr. and Mrs. Barcelon: The Department of Ecoh°mic and Community Development has recently received numerous complaints regarding "Guerrero's Sign Shop" on your property located at 1533 Shorewood Drive. Over the past several years, Hanson Signs operated a legal non-conforming sign shop at this location, which is zoned Single-Family 3 (SF-3). Business License records show that you obtained a business license for Dave Barcelon's Truck Town.Signs, Ltd. in October of 1997. In January of 1999, you closed out your business license, stating you had never done any business at that location and had generated no revenues. According to the Zoning Ordinance, once the sign shop use has been discontinued for a period of more than one year, the use of the site mu st revert to a Use consistent with its residential zoning. Complainants have stated that Guerrero's Sign Shop is not a sign shop but an auto detailing shop, which is an illegal non-conforming use in this zoning district. In addition, it has been reported that two other businesses have moved into this structure, neither of which are licensed by the City to operate at this location. Please be advised that activities at this property must cease and desist by March 9, 1999 and remain so until this issue is resolved. In order to continue the auto detailing as a less intense Celebrating 50 Years of Freedom n-conforming use, a Special Use Permit would be necessary. To allow this use as a c6nforming use, a rezone would be required. Applications ['or either a Special Use Permit or a rezone may be obtained by contacting .lames Coombes at the Planning Department, (360) 478- 5275, Sincerely, cc: Mayor Horton Jim Reed lohn Guerrero J'onathan Chang file CITY OF Brem~rton, WA g8337 (3~0) 478.531. BUSINESS LICENSE ~~d'i~~ iFFICE USE ONLY (or C, ene~ Regulatory I...J(::~qse App[icalion -Lic. F~ Due $. __ 1 (Lk~nse Type ) i~,JStneSs Square cocta§a' ts this te~an! Space cur'eP~ly vaca'll? Yes ~ qo ~ I~ no, ~p~a,~ / ~11 ~u ~ ~zfing t4~ ~n~[ s~e ~1~ ~Othe~ business~ Yes Q No ~ tt yes, ~? /.. ~ ~u ~ra~e th~s b~me~ o~ of ~ur ~ome? Yes C ~o ~"' / ff ~me ~paUn. i ~ r~d .~d ~tee to ao~e W the Home ~on Reyulabn~ of 9 K;tchen Dining ...~ra.ne 30 Zoning CrOtnlnc,e Ch, IV, ~c. 9 Yes - N0 .... PERSONAL DATA: REQUIRED OFVALL APPLICANTS Veriti-~.~ Th, uaeanllneS Mt~W r.e~ffm tM me ht~rmatleo provided on this a~fl~n it true aM ~r~l, ti I~ ball hi ~s/her XKwle~e~of pMj~ ~flA~ the DO NOT OPE~TE UNTIL YOUR LICENSE IS IGSUED o.~e:,t~ -o/.~ 7 · / .... --; /" ~. ~ .......,,' ~ ..... Stalo Business Records Detail Back to previous page. Wa~Mngton State Department og Reve~me State Budness Record~ Database Detail ~ REPORT~JIG NM#BER: LEG#L ENTTTy NUHB~R: LEGRL ENTTTY: mm. ZWG ~m~Ol~SS: 47el KI~II ST BREIfERTOfl, MR ONIER TYPE: COR~TZON STRHI)Ii~ ])IIX~TRT~ COI)~: 55'J.~L 9a{1~ OiWE BIBCELOfl9 Tl~Clt TI]HR LTD 1IllS]]lESS LOC~T]~OIt: 479t iCEI#I ST SJINE 6/17/99 1t{:,40 am m4.1muna m INLY i ii II i i http ://dot'. wa.gov/prd/cgi_bin/gif, pl?trald=601708545 I ofl 6/17/99 3:55 PM CITY OF BREMERTOI~ A i D TAX & LiCeNSe OlV,SlON 23~ FOu~lh Sim! JA~ 0~' ?999 Bfem®rlon, WA 1~33T BUSINESS LICENSE E (er Gener~ Regulatory License ApplicatC~ -Lic. Fee Due $ ) (License Type ,) V~I them be If tenant pro~, ewer s IS INS tenant ~a~ c~rf~'.~ vacant? Yes ~No ~ If ~ e~plai,1 W~tl ~:, ~ ~aa~ this lenam s~e wi~h a,~et busiP~s? Y~ ~ ~ ~ I' yes, ~o? ~ yeu o~ate thai ~slness o~ of ~a; hems? '¢e~ ~ ~ ~ .... ff ~s. ,~ tf 1o~l ~cu~R, /,/,/,~/3q,_P.~E~.. _~,,.~N AL DATA: REQUIRED OF ALL APPLICANTS ..//., ~re~es ~r ~a~ 5 Years: Verifie~ '~..: Th unde~slgiM(f hereby corelli tha~ the IAllfm~liofl provided ~ thll~ application il Ifus and cQffact, lo the bast of hls/~r knowtadge under pena~y of plfJury un~r r~e laws State Business Records Detail B~k to previous page. http://dor.wa, gov/prd/cgi_bin/gif, pl?trald=601632246 WmMmgton State Depm'fmem el' Revenue State Business Recordl Datib~e Detldl L.E(mL EliTZTY LEGII. ENTI*I'Y; ~ ~5,GTH STREET CT # Tl~,'*G~t, 14~ 9B,4~7-,49~11 OI41ER TYPE: ~[.E PRQI'KZ~GR STFmOImO ZNOU~TRIII. C0~: 5069 66'J.SB~46 CINmG JO~THRN H & ROB~RT9 L ~s) 9KITH STREE. Y CT # ~IHIE 8/i7/99 FSI N~llllEIIglllE INtt I of [ 6/17/99 3:55 PM Sta~¢ Business Records Detail B~iick to previous page, http ://dor. wa. govlprd/¢gi_bin/gif, pl~trald=600627084 Washington State Department of Revenue State ]3mlness Records Database Detail T#K RE]'~IT*D~ LEGIM. ElrrI'TY NUHBI~R; LEGSI. ERTI"TY.+ B R{-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ R TI]#., MI{ ~J~NS BfP~]]JEgS I.(ICWTI~N: FII l/Ml-flll~ tie Illff I o{' I 6/17/99 3:52 PM GENERAL AFFIDAVIT ST&TE OF WASltlNGTON County of Irdt~p GENERAL AFRDAVIT I,_LEE G CRAWFORD, under penalty of perjury, de~lsre that the atatmenta made here are true to the beat of my knowledge. 8tartlng Date 1 September 1997 $1nos Hanson 81gn Co Inc. moved frorn1633 8homwood Dr. I have not obsen/ed any manufa~udng or rqmlr of ~lgn'8 at 1533 8hoorewood Dr. Du~ng the time that Mr. Bamelon owned the property I did ~ee race cam being worked on, mos cam In trallem being taken in and out of the building. I cid cee a large qmedboat on a trailer brought on the properly, oleaned and backed in the building. One nlghl late In t998 Mr. Barcelona ahowed Mr. Davies and I thorough the bu,cllng, we saw no algn"a being made or at. ed in the building. I did aee that all old equipme~t and materials that were left from the aign shop had been removed and a work ahop fo atom and work on race cam had been sat up. During this vlait Mr. Baroslon told me all he wanted to do wa~ atore and work on hie raos car8 there. I abo saw a large ~peedboat on a troller in the buMIng, Mr. Baroslone aaid it belonged to a friend of hkk 81nos Mr, Chang pumhmed the property I have seen a ear repair and detailing ahop running and a conetru~tlon (x)mpaflles equipment on the properly. The only ~tate ID # I (x)uld find that Is open at 1 ~ Shorewood Dr. ls Querro Auto 8alee & 8ewloe, # 600627084, opened on 01/15/1999, I have lived a~rosa the etreet from 1533 Shorewood Dr. during thla time perlocl and can say there has not been a ~gn shop ~ at that edc~r~. 81gned and sworn to before me thle LEE ~ CRAWFORO Print Name ~ Notary Pul)lb Iff and for the 8tare of WA My Appoim~ Expires: ~ ./-/. ~., O_ ~ ~ ~~~~) · ~~A~C~O~ .. Bremerton Business License Applicants I-toll~ Racing & Marine ! "-' Donald A, Holtz I l ~33 Sho~¢wood Drive Bmmcnon, WA, OR312 lie I ~ I n I ~mF i f ~ m mmmm m m m - Memo From: Jon Holan, Department of Community and Economic Development To~ City Council Date: June 16, 1999 Subject~ Additional Considerations regarding the Special Use Permit for Jonathan Chang (PL99-0006) that were discussed at the Planning Commission Meeting on May 18, 1999. BMC Section 21.02.790 (d) allows for another nonconforming use to replace an existing nonconforming use by Special Use Permit, but only when the new use: · is clearly a reduction in the nonconformity or intensity, or when the new use is found to be uniquely suited to existing buildings, structures, * or other site improvements which themselves may be legal nonconformities. The existing building on the site is not uniquely suited for either a sign shop or automotive repair use. Thus, a determination must be made as to whether the proposed automotive use is less intense than the sign shop. As a result, the applicant has filed for a Special Use Permit for a less intense use. Pursuant to BMC 21.02.85, on May 18, 1999 the Bremerton Planning Commission held a public meeting on the above referenced permit application. The Commission passed a motion recommending that the City Council deny this application for Special Use Permit for an auto repair, detail, and minor body shop in a building with an existing nonconforming sign shop at 1533 Shorewood. However, there were several issues raised at the Commission meeting to be considered at the public heating with Council. Summary of Issues: Change in Use Intensity - Based on the testimony, the Planning Commission agreed with staffthat the proposed use was not a less intense nonconforming use due to traffic, parking, noise, and air quality concerns. Fewer Employees - Applicant claims that the proposed use will have fewer employees than the previous sign shop. The proposed use would have five (5) employees. The applicant claimed that the former sign shop had eight (8) employees. 1 Memo From: Jon Holan, Department of Community and Economic Development To; City Council Date: July 14, 1999 Subject: Additional Considerations regarding the Special Use Permit for Jonathan Chang (PL99-0006) that were discussed at the Planning Commission Meeting on May 18, 1999. BMC Section 21.02.790 (d) allows for another nonconforming use to replace an existing nonconforming use by Special Use Permit, but only when the new use: · is clearly a reduction in the nonconformity or intensity, or when the new use is found to be uniquely suited to existing buildings, structures, · or other site improvements which themselves may be legal nonconformities. The existing building on the site is not uniquely suited for either a sign shop or automotive repair use. Thus, a determination must be made as to whether the proposed automotive use is less intense than the sign shop. As a result, the applicant has filed for a Special Use Permit for a less intense use. Pursuant to BMC 21.02.85, on May 18, 1999 the Bremerton Planning Commission held a public meeting on the above referenced permit application. The Commission passed a motion recommending that the City Council deny this application for Special Use Permit for an auto repair, detail, and minor body shop in a building with an existing nonconforming sign shop at 1533 Shorewood. However, there were several issues raised at the Commission meeting to be considered at the public hearing with Council. Summary of Issues: Change in Use Intensity - Based on the testimony, the Planning Commission agreed with staffthat the proposed use was not a less intense nonconforming use due to traffic, parking, noise, and air quality concerns. Fewer Employees - Applicant claims that the proposed use will have fewer employees than the previous sign shop. The proposed use would have five (5) employees. The applicant claimed that the former sign shop had eight (8) employees. 1 Parking - Staff determined that based on the typical requirements of the former and proposed use, there would be a greater demand for parking. Neighbors have testified that there is already an increase in traffic on the site due to the number of vehicles being worked on. Air Quality and Pollutants - Staff found that even with meeting current requirements, paint odors would be detected off site. Neighbors also testified that the use of their property has been limited because of odors presently emanating from the nonconforming use on the site. The Commission asked if the paints used in an automotive detailing shop is similar or different than paints used in a sign shop. Staff has determined the following regarding the use of paints and cleaning agents used in each business use. Acrylic enamel and polyurethane are the types of paint used for auto body finishing at Maaco Auto Painting and Bodyworks, a local franchise of a national chain. SignTown of Bremerton stated that they use a latex enamel, water-based paint and then vinyl adhesive for most of their sign work. Hanson Signs of Silverdale said that they use latex and acrylic paints for their signs. Soup and water are the main cleaning agents for both auto body and sign shop uses. Maaco stated that any hazardous cleaning solvents are handled according to the rules regarding hazardous waste containment and disposal. As a result, staff has determined that painting of vehicles would not appear to be a reduction in the existing nonconforming use since the type of paints and cleaning agents are similar. Noise - Staff determined that noise from an auto repair would be more intense than a sign shop and similar testimony was received from neighbors. Continuing Nonconforming Use - When the property was annexed into the City, there existed a sign shop. The sign shop therefore became a prior nonconforming use pursuant to state law. According to the Department's best information at this time, that right is continued. Staff is reviewing the non-conforming use issue which may result in a future action. Alternatives - 1. Council may deny this Special Use Permit consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation; 2. Approve the permit stating reasons for approval; 3. Approve the permit with modification stating reasons for approval; 4. Remand it back to the Planning Commission citing issues for Commission consideration; 5. Continue the matter. 2 Hanson Sign Shop used the site until October, 1997. David Barcelon continued the sign shop use by maintaining a business license for a sign shop from October, 1997 through 1998. John Guerrero received a business license for a sign shop use in January, 1999. On January 21, 1999 City Fire Inspector Mike Sechrest inspected the site during a routine inspection. Inspector Sechrest has stated that the building appeared to be a sign shop and that no other use was observed. 3 CITY OF BREMERTON BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS, AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING: PREPARED BY: James Coombes SUMMARY 1. Applicant: e Location: Jonathan H. Chang 8708 - 58t~ Street West University Place, WA 98467 1533 Shorewood Drive Tax Assessor's Lot No.: 3719-001-018-0301 Attachments: o SUP Application o Site Plan o Zoning Map Comprehensive Plan Map: Low-Density Residential Zoning: Single-Family Residential (SF-3) (LDR) FINDINGS 1. Property & Development: The property consists of an irregular, approximately 11,000 square foot lot at the corner of Shorewood and Beach Drive. An existing commercial building occupies approximately half the site. 2. Surrounding Land Uses: Single-family residential neighborhood. 3. Requested Special Use Pursuant to Section 21.02.790 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC), the applicant is requesting a special use permit to change a nonconforming use sign shop to auto repair, detail, and minor body work. Applicants states that vehicles would be washed at off-site location and brought to this property for detailing. SEPA Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, a threshold Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) has been issued for this proposed use. Background The sign shop has existed on the site for many years before the area was annexed into the City of Bremerton. When the City's residential zoning was applied on the site, the sign shop was allowed to continue as a legal nonconforming use. In January, 1999 the site was inspected by a City fire inspector and found to still being used as a sign shop. There may have been other business activities conducted in the building in the past. Within the past few months complaints from neighbors have indicated that the property has been additionally used for automotive repair and service. However, a cease and desist order was issued on March 10, 1999 requiring the discontinuance of any activity other than that of a sign shop. It should be noted that several complaints concerning an automotive activity were received after the cease and desist order was issued although staff has been unable to verify the nature of the operation. Analysis Development Standards - The existing commercial building is nonconforming in setback requirements. The code requires a 20 foot front yard setback for commercial structures in commercial zones and a 10 foot side yard setback when adjacent to a residential zone. The existing nonconforming commercial structure is setback less than 5 foot from Shorewood Drive and the adjacent residential property to the north. No change to the existing building is proposed. 2 Use - An existing nonconforming sign shop has been located on the subject property since before the property was annexed into the City. The use described in the application fits the Zoning Ordinance listed use of a automotive service including repair, detailing, painting and body work. These activities are not permitted in any residential zoning district according to the BMC Figure 140 Land Use Table, but allowed in general business and industrial zones. BMC Section 21.02.790 (d) allows for another nonconforming use to replace an existing nonconforming use by Special Use Permit, but only when the new use: · is clearly a reduction in the nonconformity or intensity, or when the new use is found to be uniquely suited to existing buildings, structures, · or other site improvements which themselves may be legal nonconformities. The existing building on the site is not uniquely suited for either a sign shop or automotive repair use. Thus, a determination must be made as to whether the proposed automotive use is less intense than the sign shop. The following discussion will evaluate the proposed request on that basis. Parking - The sign shop would generate parking needs for employees and customers. For this site the BMC would require nine (9) parking spaces for a sign shop (1 per 600 SF) and approximately thirty (30) parking spaces (1 per 200 SF, plus 1 space for each service bay) for automotive service use. Furthermore, as an automotive service use, vehicle storage before and after service would likely be stored outdoors on the property and create a visual impact. Thus, an automotive service use would have potentially a greater parking impact than the sign shop which could also result in visual impacts on the neighborhood. Traffic & Circulation - Automotive service typically would generate more traffic than the existing nonconforming sign shop. Auto service requires that vehicles be brought to the site for work, while a sign shop typically conducts its work at other sites. Sign shop traffic does not have the same level of vehicle traffic as an auto service facility. No specific traffic data is available comparing sign shops to automotive service. However, due to the nature of each use, it appears that an automotive use would be expected to generate more traffic than a sign shop would from employees, deliveries, and company trucks. The sign shop operated in the past apparently did not generate substantial amounts of traffic on Shorewood Drive since staff did not receive any complaints on traffic. An automotive facility would not only generate employee and delivery traffic, but also traffic from vehicles to be worked on. Therefore, a reduction in this aspect of the nonconformity would be unlikely to occur. Noise - Automotive service that includes repair, body work, painting and detailing will generate noise that is not compatible with a single-family residential neighborhood. Without limiting the hours of operation, the noise from the automotive service use could be disruptive to adjacent properties. By comparison, staff is not aware of any substantial noise generating use caused by a sign shop. Further, to staff's knowledge, there has not been any noise complaints due to the sign shop's operation. This potential for noise associated with various proposed forms of automotive service would likely increase the noise associated with the current nonconforming sign shop use. Therefore, noise is not likely to decrease as a result of this proposed nonconforming use. Air Quality - Puget Sound Pollution Control Agency (PSPCA) requires that the painting of vehicles be done in either a UL approved paint spray booth or a paint room with an approved filtration system and a vertical stack extending a minimum of six foot above the roof of the building. Larry Vaughn of the PSPCA stated that such required standards can minimize paint spray and odor but not completely eliminate paint and odor from traveling through the air to adjacent properties. He further stated that even if the vertical stack is higher than the minimum six foot and includes either an afterburner or activated charcoal system, paint spray and odor would not be totally eliminated from the air. In typical application, Bond stated, the vehicles are moved out of the booth or room before it is completely dry. This further adds to the possibility of fumes and odor emanating to adjacent properties in the neighborhood. Painting in the existing sign shop does not appear to have been much of a concern to the neighborhood since no complaints were received for this activity. Sign painting is typically done at a smaller scale than auto painting. Thus, painting vehicles and the associated air quality would not appear to be a reduction in this existing nonconforming use. Further, it appears that odors emanating from the automotive use would be detected from nearby residential properties even though the applicant would comply with current PSPCA requirements. Thus, for this issue, the proposed automotive use would likely result in a degradation in air quality. Automotive service, including repair, detailing, body work and painting, does not appear to be a reduction in intensity of the nonconforming sign shop, nor is the 4 existing commercial building uniquely suited to any particular use. Thus, the proposed use would not appear to meet the change in use intensity requirement. It is possible these issues could be addressed by possible conditions of approval. If the Commission decides to recommend approval, the following issues and potential conditions need consideration: 1. Parking - condition to limit or prohibit outdoor parking/sight obscuring fence. 2. Traffic and Circulation - limit area of ingress/egress to street/limit number of cars which can be worked on at any one time. 3. Noise - condition on acceptable levels and/or hours of operation. 4. Air Quality - condition on the addition of afterburners or charcoal filtration system and painting and wet vehicles to paint room area or the prohibition to paint any vehicle. While many of these potential conditions could address the above issues, staff is concerned that there would still likely be an air quality impact on the neighborhood resulting in a more intense use. It should also be noted that staff is concerned about the ability to enforce these conditions. It would be difficult to properly enforce such conditions as limiting or prohibiting outdoor parking or limiting the number of cars which can be worked on at one time. While strict enforcement may not be a critical issue in an industrial area where automotive uses are more compatible with the area, it can become a constant issue where the use is nonconforming in a residential area. Alternatives: The Commission has the following options to act on this permit: a. Deny the permit pursuant to staff recommendation; b. Approve the application making findings in support of such approval; c. Approve the permit with conditions making findings in support approval; or d. Continue the matter to a date certain. of such Comment Survey: The application was routed to Departments for review and comment. comments were received: various City The following BuildinQ Dept.: The building must conform to all requirements for a S3 occupancy, H4 if welding or open flame is used. Building must conform to 1997 Uniform Building Code for change of use. 5 Fire Marshal: The building was inspected by a City fire inspector and it was reported that everything appears okay. 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 desi.qnated "SUP" in the Zoning Ordinance, or is bein.q processed as an "Unlisted Use"? NO. Under The Plan's Housing Element Goals, Policies and Strategies, (4) Livable Neighborhoods Policies, (5) states a goal to promote safe, attractive, livable neighborhoods that will attract homeowners. A use which is not less conforming does not support promoting livable neighborhoods. Will the proposal be consistent with all applicable development standards and requirements, includin.q the availability of all needed utilities and services? NO. It does not meet applicable zoning standards for this single-family residential district since it is not an allowed use and does not appear to meet the requirement of a less intense nonconforming use replacing another nonconforming use. The applicant could, however, comply with all applicable development standards including State and City building, health, and fire safety codes, but would not appear to meet the requirement of replacing a nonconforming use with a less intense nonconforming use. Will the proposal, alon.q with any mitigation measures or other conditions of approval, avoid si.qnificant adverse environmental consequences? YES. It appears that no significant adverse environmental consequence will occur as a result of this use. However, conforming to PSAPCA standards would not totally eliminate paint spraY, fumes, and odor from 6 emanating to adjacent residential properties and increased vehicle traffic and noise associated with automotive service would likely be noticeable in this residential district. Will the proposal be compatible with adiacent uses and surroundin,q nei,qhborhood? NO. The automotive service use would not be compatible with adjacent uses and surrounding neighborhood. The nature of the proposed use typically conflicts with the residential neighborhood. Does the proposal comply with all other criteria or design Ruidelines 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. CONCLUSIONS Based on the above analysis, staff concludes that: The proposed use does not appear to be less intense than the existing nonconformity, does not meet the zoning criteria, and is therefore not in the public interest. The proposed use does not meet the necessary tests and criteria required for approval of a Special Use Permit. MODEL RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the findings, the Commission moves to conclude that the request for a Special Use Permit to allow an automotive service use including repair, detailing, and minor body work at 1533 Shorewood as a replacement nonconforming use of less intensity than an existing nonconformity does not meet the necessary tests, and it is therefore recommended, that the application be DENIED as described and shown on the attached application and site plan. '7 CITY OF BREMERTON · 239 4th Street · Bremerton. ;VA 98337 NOTICE OF :kPPLICATION AN'D PLA.,~G CO,.~L--M-i',qSION PIfBLIC M~EETING Bremerton Planning Commission The Bremerton Planning Commission will conduct a public meeting to review the following item duNng its regular meeting on Tuesday, May 18, 1999 which will begin at 5:30 PM in the City Council Chambers of the Bremerton City Hall, 239 4a Street, Bremertort, WA. A public hearing on this application will be held by City Council at a later date. Proj et't: PL99-0006 Spec, al Use Permit for an auto repair, detaiL, and minor body shop in a braiding with an s~sting nonconforming si_mn shop use at 1532 Shorewcod Drive. The appiicant 7ropcses xbz. t the new use meets Bremexon Mumcipal Code Section 2 !.02.790 (d) Change m Use l. nte,,'mi?', wNcix states that another nonconz'orming use may be allowed :o resiace an existing ncnconfcrrrXng use by Speciai Use Pein'fit when the ne';,' use is cie~iv a :eduction in noncon.fcrrniry or kmensirv. Ahl '22rerested persons may appear and pro,Ade testimony on the matter. The Department or'Economic and Cornmumw Deveiopmep& [ocated at 286 4m St., Bremezork WA 98337, '~,5~ received ,ashen commen;s and other e~':ibits on the above item ,ap to 5:00 PM on :he day of meeting. W~nen comments and other exkibits may also be submitted prior to the c!cse of the public mee.hng. Sta.ff'resons and copies o£pertinent materials can be obtained from 'dae Department of Economic and Coffin, unity Deve!oemenr. Staff repons will be available by 5:00 PM on _May 1 i, i999. Call James Coombes at (360) 478-5845 for additional information. Equal Opportunity Employer .... £-3S E-:IS Scl Sd City of Bremerton Special Use Permit Application **'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 use that is not specifically listed in the Land Use Tables of Chapter V as an "Allowed Principal Use" or an "Accessory Use", and for uses that are listed as "SUP" (Special Use Permit required). Instructions Please complete the tbllowing application with as much derail as possible about your proposal and submit it along with the application fee. The application must be complete beeore any processing can occur. Phone Number: Contacz Person i'if different than. appiicant): Address: Phone Number: Title Holder (if different than applicant): Address: Phone Number: Revised on II Page 1 of 3 .4:'Special Use Petwtit. doc Site Address (location): Tax Assessor's Parcel #: Zoning Designation: Parcel Size (property dimensions): _5, f :'c, Legal Description (attach extra sheet if necessao'): Special Use Requested: Proposal (please describe in as much detail as possible the nature of the development): Criteria for Approval: Your requested Special Use Permit can be approved onlv if all of the ~bilov~-ing criteria can be answered "'t~ES''. Is the proposal consistent with the Ckv's Comprehensive Plan and either designated ,"SUP" in the Zoning Ordinance. or is being processed as an "Unlisted Use"? '3/:.5-4 . Will the proposal comply with all applicable development standards and requirements, including the availability of all needed utilities an.c[ serMces? Will the proposal, alon~ with any mitigation measures or other conditions of ' approval, avoid significant adverse enviromental consequences? Will the proposal be compatible with adjacen~ ~ses and suwounding. Page 2 of 3 Rew'i.sed on 11,17 '97 $.'30.4.~f ,4: '.gtvecial ~ 'se Permit. doc 8( 5. Does the proposal comply with all other criteria or design gxfidelines that are applicable to the specific use or type of development? c 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. Applicant's Statement I hereby certify that the statements contained herein are correct. I understand that conditions of approval mav be required to adequately protect the zone or neighborhood wihin which the subject use is located, and I agree to abide bv those conditions. [ understand that the decision on this application mav be appealed and possibly overturned. I also understand that an approved Special Use Po.whit is subject to ~mre review and possibie revocation bv the City Council for any violation of terms or [imitations. I understand that approval of this Special Use Permit may be appealed and possibly overturned bv the City Council. [ have read, understand, and a~ree with ail of the above statements. ~---- Ap/clicant ,Z' 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 3 of 3 Revised on l 1 '1 ;?97 8:30 .4: 'Special Use Pemdt. doc ^¥ .5 i ! / ./ I I_ P.~RT EL£VE.~' - FOtL~fS VvAc ! 97-11-960 Environmental checkiis:. =-%%,' i .~C 515, { E~. "T AL Ci-~_Ci-CL: S T m ~-:c',' id~=,' ~ac= ~om vo~ urocosai i~d :o You m~: ~we: each cuss~cn ........ ;v ~d .... ~v to ~s bes; ofvo~ :.~awlsdz:. ~w~:, or ~i i cu~s=an does nat z~[,; :o ya~ ~pos~ ~t: "do ~at ~ow" ar Sams cuss~o~ ~k about zcv~s:~ rs~azo~, rack ~ ~o~ shcrs~s. cuss~a~ ~ you :~ If you ~v~ ~robi~. '~e ~ov~:n~ agencies :~ ~s~; you. .... --o.~_o_ ~ d~s~e vo,~- .2)Z of ;.%ec.;f~: ;bt ncnur~,'ec: 2~m:ie:= ~ chsc~: for ..... ; ......... ;~ ' ' sxmiam, ,~r./~ wAC [Ch. 19?-ll-YVAC--o SEPA Rules Lis: a.ny environ~cntai ;---for-"_a=cn you '.<now about r~ha: ima b¢~-'n pr~ar~ or will be pr~.~ared, : :}. L'~= o.~7 gove.'-~__~"_: :~p?rovsJ~ or ~¢.~_.i~ ~r -~4Jil be needed for your ~e',,e~ ~e~o~ ~ter m ~ chec!~: ~-~ on ~ ~ag:. (Lead ag~ciss ~v mo~ TO == C._,NL=_.= ~z:., BY ..~. =--'N'VlRCN.'NIE'N'T.-~_ ELEM_E'N'TS :. Earth ~0 ~\-~ ~. Gene~! d~scf,'.cuon of the si~e (ci::le one): '.~ oLk~r ...... b. 'W~-~t is ~e s::~es: slope ~= O.e si:e (approxL~-_.at= {Ch. 19%1I %VAC--p. 54] WAC ,:-'.,'l 5/'9 3;, SEPA Rules iescribe. :'. Cau/d ~osicn oc:ur ~ a ;es',:k of ..... -:°"~'==, :o~-'cnar_ or ,'~e'*. If so, =__.ex-,.-,.,.,*~ "" desc.f:e. a..Air b..~'e .:here any off-s/re so ,~ces of e,~--zSsio,',q or odor .','nar may affec: you.- proposM? If sa. ~ ..... Hv c. Pra¢osed me.utes ro reduce or conrroI en~sio~ or other im'~acu to ,;~ if aav: WAC (4/!5/98) ~t~ [Ch. 197-1t x,x,'AC--?. 55] TO BE CO ~fl:L='q-=_D nY .-~?r -"C.~N'T 3. Water ~-. SEPA Ri, les i) E','.-,,.LL:.~.T:C N .=.Z R AG ----~C':' L'~ E C NL':' desC':'-?uon, p,'-'Tase, zud a.cprcxP'n.-~:e cuzucUes ~' ~', Does :he :ro=osaJ Es ':,:'~'- z "~ "~-'~ '-~'-: -: ' .,u-.,e_ _.ccc .... sc. nots :ccazcn cz due si:.~ :izz. :Dro,tad: 2) Desc:ibe w~:e mates-iai that v-iii be disch~ged into the ground from seT. tic ~ ar other, so ,~css, if ~0' (far ex:kine!s: Domestic sewag'"; mdus~al. :onr:~ing '.he £oilav,'Lag c~er~cais...; ,.~:~tu~al; e:c.). Desc::..'ce the gsze~l size of dee system, the nm-=ber of such systems, E~e nurturer of houses :a be ss.'-vsd (ir-appLicable), er the nu_~ber t_hs system(s) are expos:sd ~o [Ch. 197-11 WAC--p- 561 ~ 0 WAC SEPA Rules d. Prc=oscd mc~ur.~s :o ::duz: ,or z,~n~oi r,'~zc:. ~zund_ z~d rz.zoE v~-at:.-- !_--~ac:s. b. L~: any thr:a~.cn=d or :n '-cmagcred ~¢ci:s k~ov, n to be on or n~ 'd2~ site. WAC (4/!5/95) qi [Ch. 197-11 x,x,'AC--o., ~c~-, i TO a.9, E C.3N~'Lz.--?_D BY Pr.c.~cs~d -'e~'s :o ~r~s~r,'¢ or ~h2nce .%4i~-e, ;.: aa*.,': SEPA Rules ---%'ALL:~, .-:C N .--C ~ b. Vv'auid '/our projec: :zz~ec: .2~ sa. g.~a .e?,.ity desc:-.'be. z. ',', aa: :-zees or energy cceserration features -..re included -:~ me .-z[a.v_s of :_kis 7re?osai? L'~: or2er uroucsed me~-~s :o reduce or z~n:'oi ener~,, i.~-.=ac~, k- --2ye O'%C b..Noise !) ~ATnz: ,.w?es of noise exist m the ~e~ which :r2y affez: your :roi¢ct (for ~--af:2c, equipment, opera,ion, other)? .jif" 2) Vv-zat ~-.,.'Fes cad l¢,,'eis of noise would be cr:zt~d blz or associated v,-i~ the project on a shon-te..'zn or a lo~g-t~,.'-m basis (for example: 2--~ffic, cozs~--zcdon, operation, odaer)? rind- cate what hours noise would come from the ske. [Ch. wxc--p, ssi (,:,,l.S,,ss) SEPA :Rules TO RE CO.'*K~L--TE--'D ~Y T'.'.-'.:-'.J.-'..-: Z :4 7'7 F S. Land and shoreline use a. vv'ha: z ~ue cm~t use of~e site md ~djacens proteges? b. 1~ ~e si:~ beer. '~ed :bt a~cui~7 k-so. des~b~. c. Descr:be any s~-,c:u.-".s on '.he sit.'. ./ ? \) k. Pro.scsed mezsur:s :c avoid or reduce ~soiacement '..-_pasts. ifa=y: ::,'Ac (-;,':5,'9s) ~,~ [c~. :97-:: w.:~c--p.-:91 I. Pr. opos~d m~-',...s'ar:$ :o ~ns~re rke proposal L~ ccm-~affai¢ w4.~ ~.'~tmg aad proj~c:~-d !ar.d -'~/.-kLUATTCN .:C ?. AG EN'C"f USE c. Procoscd m~--razss to reducs or con~rol housing ir?ac'~, if ? a Ae~nb. edc~ , :z- 'aile~ hei_~__h: of ~---.'/.-zroposed s'a-zcT_nre(s), not mc:uc--.~z a.nt~a:~.$; whzt is :he prm .c~-.~zi e,,~-~r-cr buii~_~_g .m~rmai(s) proposed? :. V~: ~g off-sit~ souses slight or gl~e ~y ~ec: yc~ ~ro~cs~? (Ch. 197-I1 ~VAC--p. 60I wac (4,'rigs) SEPA Rules Recreation WAC (4/15/95) ~'" [Ck. 197-11 WAC--p. 61] SEPA R~tes dan? ~' sa, g~n~:uHy descr-be. E~/-'kLL'AT:CN ?C R USE ON-_':' Public ser~dc~s Vv'ould ~ ~rojec: resnk in ~ m~=~d need for =ubLic s~r4¢-'s {for .-.xaJmpi~: ~ pro- :::-dor. poLtc: ~roc,'c'Jom h~,.ltb, c::r:, ~chooLs, orhcfJ? !f So, g~-z~r,-~ly [Ch. 197-11 '~¥AC--p. 62] :,:,'AC SE?A Rules ~. SL~PLE.Mr_-~-7..-'Z. Si-.~---7 ~OKNC.N~RO~CT ACZTCNS (do not ~e ~ sh.~': for projec: a: a :~::r m:~ -~n~ ~'~: ~ro:os~ wer~ not ~oi~t~d. P,~end bneE~' ducucm s;cmg:, or rele~e of ~o~c or ~ardo~ mbs~css; or producuen cf :ores 7 T;.-'L.L.<7~ £ ', -- -_ 7 -LC E:.'C':' '_'E l -"L .:~-.cpos~-'~ m:~:s to avoid or r:duc: suck m~:a~es a~_-: 'r,.t, ..... /:_:r--z:-=d¢ cz :Ex:bi: c- "---de.- i:udv ~ :-c.- =~v~ ..... ~; -,-'.,-: --, i-.-,; si:::.- ......... ~ .... ; .... : WAC (g.'l f,,'95) [Ch. 19%1I WAC--p. 63] TO .3E CO.~iPr_=. ,--??=.D BY ..~?LiC.-~N'T 5. SH?A R~les How would the proposal be !g::iy to a_ffe:: lazd ~d shore~e ~¢. mciu~g whe~ it wo~d ~ow or ==com~g~ ~d or s~or¢~¢ ~es mco~a=~i¢ =5~ ::~g pi~? z .-,..~ ~ A..wN AGE~. 'CY USE - !d:'a~LS/, "."poss£¢ie, wiener the .=ropos~ may co~.F, ic: ,~5,.k local s'a~:, or fed~ bws cr r:q:::=-m for i: [Ch. 197-11 Vv'AC--p. 64] WAC (~,'! 5'98) Laurie A. Corsi 5316 Harbor Ridge Drive Bremerton, WA 98312 BREMERTON BUILDING DEPARTMENT May 6, 1999 Dear Mr. Coombs, I am concerned about the recent news of an Auto Body. Repair business moving into our neighborhood - more specifically on the corner of Shorewood and Beach Drive here in Bremerton. It was my understanding that the previous business (Hanson Signs) at that location had been "grandfathered" in when residential zoning was established. It was also my understanding that we would not see another business go into operation in this neighborhood once Hanson Signs closed. I feet a business established in this residential neighborhood would cause many problems for those of us who live and visit here. The streets are very narrow and increased traffic would be a great safety hazard for those children and pedestrians (mostly elderly) walking and/or biking down to N.A.D. Park. Parking is also a major concern - especially parking that's required for a business - it's just not there! Lastly, the impact on the value of our homes would be negative if a business were to open and operate in our neighborhood. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Sincerely, / .~ Laurie A. Corsi "Mav 1999 Bremerton Planning Commission ATTN: James Coombs Bremerton Ci~ Hall 286 4th Street Bremerton, WA RE: Business License Application. Shorewood Dr/ve. Bremerton Dear Mr. Coombs: [t has recently come to our attention that a new business has applied for a business license to operate an auto repair/detailing shop on Shorewood Drive, across the street fi-om the old Keane Brothers historic log cabin, As an area resident, we have a number of objections to this proposed new business. Our communitv is a quiet, established residential area and we are surprised that there are no restr/ctions on establishing commercial ventures in our nei~borhood. The traffic on Shorewood Drive is alreadv heav~,' and the road is narrow: at one time, [ enjoyed walking on Shorewood Drive but have since abandoned the activity due to the vehicular activit~~ and consequent threat to mv safetw'. Auto repair shops tS.'pically do not beauti15' an area due to parked vehicles awaiting service or collection. We decided to reside in the Shorewood Drive area due in part to the remaining natural beaut,,' and proximi¢' to Ostrich Bav. We perceive a threat to our qualiD.' of life if the auto repair shop business venture is approved. An increase in traffic, noise, and parked vehicles are factors which would significantlv contribute to a decline in the general neighborhood. [n addition, manx' homeowners are justifiably' concerned about a devaluation of their properties. We sincerely' hope that our concerns are Wen due merit and consideration and that the business license application is disapproved. Sincerely, BREMERTON BUILDING DEPARTMENT Allen & Karen Hammerquis"t' 5305 Harbor Ridge Dr. Bremerton, WA 98312 May 10, 1999 Department of Economic & Community. Development 286 4th Street Bremertork Wa. 98337 BREMERTON BUILDING DEPARTMENT Re: Permit for Auto Body & Detail Shop on Shorewood Drive. Dear Sirs; I have lived on Shorewood Drive a short distance north of Thomas/Hanson Sign Company since 1954. We found no great problem with the business ~i a'non-confornm~ use. It was 9 to 5 sort of operation, with little auto traffic and no noise to speak of and certainly no problem at offhours. A body shop is an entirely different proposition. The intersection of Shorewood Drive where the shop is located is a regular school bus stop with all the children getting on or offbusses during the day. A body shop would cause considerable problems and danger for these children with cars interfering with their Such a shop would also entail considerable noise as well as stacked cars and pans fouling up the area and being an eyesore to all the neighbors. The non-conforming use ~i~ended and the property has legally been returned to its proper designation of residential only. I mi_~rt add that if you don't go along with this. a law suit will follow. Very. Truly yours, t 736 Shorewood Dr. Bremerton, Wa. 98312 28 Spyglass Circ[e Groton. CT 06340 BREMERTON BUILDING May 6, 1999 Bremerton Planning Commission ATTN': James Coombs Bremerton Ciw Hail 286 4m St Bremerton, WA 98347 Dear Sir: We are the homeowners of the property, located at 5305 Harbor Kidge Drive, Bremerton, WA. This letter is to discuss the proposed business license for an auto repair/detail shop to be located at 1533 Shorewood (previous location of Hanson Signs) adjacent to Harbor Ridge Drive. Our concern is the devaiuation of our prope~ as well as the other properties in our community due to additional traffic for the new business, excessive noise from an auto repair shop, insufficient parking to support the business and uncertainty, of the business operating hours. While we are the homeowners of the aforementioned property, milkary duties prevent us from living in Bremerton at the present time. The granting of a license to this .type of business may adversely impact the quality of' life that our tenants have come to enjoy. Additionally, we expect that military duties will permit living in our residence once again in the future. We want to ensure that we will enjoy the same quality of [i£e that we had prior to our transfer in October I997 Please be our voice to address these concerns at the Planning Commission meeting on May 18. 1999. Thank you very. much for your support. Verv respectfully. Stanley L Fox II and K~enA Fox Copy Harbor Ridge Homeowners Association May, 3. 1999 CH_4RLES A. & REBA E. LI31BURG 5311 It.4RBOR RIDGE DR. BRE3tERTON. Ve:4SH1NGTON 98312 (360) 377- 7179 , IAY i 0 1999 BREMERTON BUILDING DEPARTMENT Bremerton planning Commission ATTN.: JAMES COOMBS Bremerton City. hall 286 4th Street gremer~on- Washington 98337 TO WHOM IT NLhY CONCERN: We are writing in strong opposition m the proposed granting of a business Ucense to the auto repair and detad shop preparing to open at the corner of Shorewood Drive and Beach Dr. in Bremerton. Tire ~ntire area around this location is residential V~-e have been a home owner at 5311 Harbor Ridge Dr. for over 5 years. We are concerned about the high potential for increasing T 'RAFFIC on this ex'xremeiy narrow, dead end road! We are turther concerned about the NOISE that a repair and paint shop would produce. Then there is a question of POLLUTION : We worry about the possible side effects to us all from sanding and paint odors. There are concerns about ,tL-kZARDOUS WASTES being discharged in~o the air or into Ostrich Bay. Then there is also the possibility, of the EYE-SORES of used body. parts laying around the properw.. Our concern is that ff allowed to open and do business, that problems arising with this business will not be addressed by the city. [ i.e.. HOUR3 OF OPEIL~TION: Since Ihis is a residential neighborhood~ we do not want to h~r or smell auto repairs a~ all hours of the day and aight. allow problems to be_e~n in the 1st place, pt. ease '~env rhe rertuest ~hr she ~cense. There is little room for ?.LR_Ka_~G around ~'his building. Will these be parked on the neighboring streets? We are concerned about repaired cars being test driven throughout the area. Again this is a residential area. children play and people walk and ride bikes along narrow ghorewood Dr~ve.. having this business in ;his ar~a is a hazard to .afl the residents and their guests. [his area has already suffered a decline in property values. The opening of this business ,~ill not help that problem, but-~ll on.h, add to a possible higher drop in value. We in fa~ find it strange shat this piece of property, is allowed zo be zoned for business. We strongly recommend that the zoning be changed to single Family. dweLling~ as most of the homes in the immediate neighborhood are! We thank you for your time in consideration of our requesn', that such Business License be denied .' Respectfully. yours, Charles A. glmbur,$ Martin Hoover 5301 Harbor Ridge Drive Bre~n, WA 98312-1211 , AY 1 0 199S BREMERTON BUILDING DEPARTMENT May 7, 1999 Bre~n Pl anning Cc~rai ssi on Br~n City Hal 1 286 4th Street Br~rerton, WA 98337 At-ten: Mr. James Cc~bs; We are very concerned about the business for an auto repair, detail"and body shop opening in our fa~fily orientated housing area. We purchased our new hare in January 1994 because it was a quiet nice area. Shorewocd Drive is a very narrcw street with children and adults walking in the street and playing, l~is business will greatly increase traffic and there is not adequate parking for this type of an operation. Our concerns are the noi se that a body sh~ causes, traffic and parking on such narrow lines. We cannot exercise control of the hours of operation and this type of busi ness i s very noisy. We believe %ha% our prop~y will devaluate in value, ti~is is not a location for this type of business. Si ncerely, Mam-ti n Hocver 6 May 1999 Bremerton Planning Commission Bremerton City Hall 286 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 ATTN: MR. JAMES COOMBS I~AY t 0 ~999 BREMERTON BUILDING DEPARTMENT, E~rln G Spealunan ] 5304 Harbor l~ige Dr Brenerton, WA 98~12-1200 An item of interest has been brought to our attention that will directly effect our homes and disrupt our neighborhood and quality of life here in this area. On the bases of this, we are addressing the Planning Commission with our concerns in hopes that your decision in this matter will reflect our wishes. A new business, an Auto Repair/Detail Shop, has applied for a business license for operation and wishes to be located 1533 Shorewood Drive and the corner of Beach Drive. This is centered in the middle of a residential area;. It is a quiet area, with narrow streets more tike lanes, and there are NO sidewalks. Because of the quietness it is used by joggers aha walkers daily. School children of all grades walk to their homes along these lanes directly from school and after being let off by busses, one bus stop being at this corner. Our concerns are the increased traffic, noise, and overflow of parked vehicles onto the narrow lanes. (There is preparation at this time to put in a garage size opening in the side of the building onto Shorewood Drive. adding to those facing Beach). Also. we could exercise no control over the hours and days of operation for the business and there is the belief that a devaluation of our property will ensue. All things considered, we cannot embrace and welcome this venture as a constructive addition to this location and most sincerely hope this business license will not be approved. ....-.-Res--pectfully, /' .'. ~ . Ed~' '~' '" . ~- wm u. bpeaKman, President Harbor Ridge Home Owners Association and Marilyn Speakman F_.~ ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPL...~T 286 fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 MAY 1 0 19S~ COMPLAINT FORM BREMERTON/ BUILUING DEFARTM~.NT Date Received Location of Violation: 1533 Shorewood Dr;~ Owner's Name: Jonathan Chang Owner's Address: 8708 58th St. West City, State, Zip OF VIOLATION Complaint Number 99-047 Tax Acct. # 37190010180301 University Place, WA 98467 ~ C~ ~.. ~ Violation can be seen from: j ~ Complaint's pmpe~ (must giv~ written ~x., ~ City Street or Alley permi~ion to enter prope~ to inspect) Complaints may remain antimouse if we do not need to enter their property to see the violation. However, for the purpose of aiding the investigation of this complaint, the complaint's name and shone number will be most helpful. 3omplainant's Name: ROD & BETTY DAVIES Phone fO: 373-2197 Street Address: 1541 Shorewood Dr., Bremerton, WA 98312 Inspected By: Where Viewed From: Why we were there: ACTION TAKEN To Be Cornpiemd By City Date When going on property - Explain by what authority: SECTION OF CODE VIOLATED RECOMMENDED ACTION Draft ~Minute$ f~r Approval Planning Commission Meeting May 18, I999 Roll Call Those present were: Chairman Dingfield, Commissioner Griggs, Commissioner Adams and Commissioner Boyd were present. Commissioners Stone and Wolfe were absent. Quorum certified. The II. Call to Order meeting was called to order by Chairman Din~m':ield at 5:40 p.m. III. ApprovaI of Agenda Motion by Commissioner Boyd to approve the agenda as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Adams. Agenda approved. IV. Public Meeting A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda)' None. B. Heating: None C. Meeting: Special Use Permit for an auto repair, detail, and minor body shop in a building with an existing non-conforming sign shop use (File #PL99-0006) located at 1533 Shorewood Drive. Chairman Dingfield informed those in attendance that this was a public meeting and that the City Council would be holding the public heating for this Special Use 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. Planningn Commission Meeling May 18, 1999 Page Iofl. 1 \ Mr. Jon ltolan asked the Commissioners to review- some desk items that were provided to them just prior to the start of this meeting. The items were: two photographs submitted by staff on the subject site; and three letters submitted in support of the recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit from l) Mr. Paul Grant dated May 12. 1999, 2) Ms. Rent Grant dated May 13, 1999, and 3) Helen Miller dated May 18, 1999. Nh-. Holan stated that this application is a non-administrative Special Use Permit for a change in a non-conforming use. A non-conforming use can be changed to another non-conforming use if there has been a determination of either special site conditions for this particular use, or that there is a reduction in the non-conformity or intensitv of the use. The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit in order to utilize an existing building for the operation of an auto repair/detail and minor body work shop. This use is a non-conforming use in the underlying zoning of single- family residential, which is on the side and also on adjacent property. This SF-3 zone also does not prohibit the past use on the site, which had been a sign shop (originally Hanson Sign Shop before the property was annexed into the CiW). It has continued as a legal non-conforming use since that time. With regards to the background of the use, over the years there have been business licenses issued for the continued operation of a sign shop on this property. In January 1999 the site was inspected by a City Fire Inspector and found that it was still being used as a sign shop at that time In review with the City Attorney's office, staff'determined there was a continuing use as a si~tm shop. It should be noted that there were other acti,Aties that were noted other than the sic_om shop activity, and a cease and desist order was issued on March I0, 1999 requiring the discontinuance of anv activities other than that of the sign shop. There have been several complaints that staff has received concerning automotive activiw aiSer :he cease and desist order was issued, however, staff has been unable to veri~ the nature of this continuing operation. Pursuant to the State EmAronmental Policy Act {SEPA) a threshold Determination of Nonsignificance has been issued for the proposed use. Staff has examined this with regards to a number of different aspects of the proposed use and how it would fit in with regards to potential compatibility issues (parking, traffic/circulation, noise and air quality). Parking - the sign shop parking generates n~ds for employees and customers. Based on the municipal code. nine parking spaces would be reauired for a sign shop of this size. Approximately 30 parking spaces would be required/'or an automotive use. Vehicle storage would likely be occurring before and aiSer service and would likely be stored outside and create a visual impact. Staff found that the automotive use would have potentially ~eater parking impact than the si_ma shop, which would also result in visual impacts in the neighborhood .an automotive use would potentially be an increase in the non-conforming use. Traffic and. Circulation - automotive use would typically generate more traffic than the existing non-conforming sign shop. Auto service requires that vehicles be brought to the site for work, · while sign shops typically conduct their work at other sites. Sign shop traffic does not have the same level of vehicular traffic as an auto sepAce facility. While there is no specific traffic data available to compare sign shops to automotive uses, due to the nature of each use it appears that automotive use would be expected to generate more traffic than a sign shop based on number of Planningn Commission Meeting May 18. 1999 Page 2 of 11 employees, deliveries, company trucks, etc. %q~en operating as a sign shop it apparently did not generate substantial amounts of traffic on Shorewood Drive, since there were not any complaints on traffic due to that operation. Noise - automotive service (repair, body work, painting and detailing) will generate noise that staff anticipates would not be compatible with a single-family residential neighborhood. Without limiting the hours of operation, noise from the automotive service could be disruptive to adjacent property owners. By comparison, staffhas not been aware of any substantial noise generated bv the sign shop activity and to their knowledge there has not been any noise complaints due to the sign shop operation. Staff feels there would not be a decrease in noise as a result of the proposed non-conforming use. ,afir Ouality - Puget Sound Pollution Control Agency (PSPCA) requires that the painting of vehicles be done within either a LtL approved paint spray booth or a paint room with an approved filtration system and a vertical stack extending a minimum of six feet above the roof. A PSPCA representative stated that such required standards can minimize spray paint and odor, but not completely eliminate paint and odor from traveling through the air to adjacent properties. He also stated that even if the vertical stack is higher than the minimum six feet and includes an at~erburner or activated charcoal system, paint spray and odor would not be totally eliminated from the air. Painting in the existing sign shop does not appear to have been much ora concern to the neig. hborhood since no complaints were received for this activitw. Sign painting is typically done on a smaller scale than auto painting. Painting of vehicles and the associated air quality would not appear to be a reduction in this e,,dsting non-coru%rrning use. It appears that odors emanating from the automotive use would be detected from nearby residential properties, even though the applicant would comply with PSPCA requirements. The proposed automotive use would likelv result in a de~adation in air quality. Based on these considerations the stafffound that the proposed use would not appear to meet the change in use intensity, requirement as required under the ordinance. However, it is possible that these issues could be addressed by conditions of approval. If the Planning Commission decides to recommend approval, the following issues and potential conditions could be considered: Parking - limit or prohibit outdoor parking or install a sight obscuring fence. Traffic and Circulation - limit area of ingress/e~ess to the street and/or limit the number of cars that can be worked on at any one time. Noise - condition on acceptable levels and/or hours of operation...~, ir Ouali~ - place a condition for the addition of afterburners or charcoal filtration system and painting and wet vehicles to remain in the paint room, or the prohibition to paint any vehicle on this site. While many of these potential conditions could address the above issues, the staff is concerned that there would still likely be the air quality impact on the neighborhood, resulting in a more intense use based on the need for painting for this particular automotive use. They are also concerned about the ability to enforce these conditions. It would be difficult to properly enforce such conditions as limiting or prohibiting outdoor par -king or limiting the number of cars which can be worked on at one time. Strict enforcement may not be a critical issue in an industrial area Planningn Commission Meeting May 18, 1999 Page 3 of 11 where automotive uses are more compatible with the area, it could become a constant issue where the use is a non-conforming activity in a residential area. Mr. Holan stated that the Commission had the following options to act on this permit: 1 ) to deny the permit pursuant to staff recommendation; 2) approve the application, making findings in support of such approval, 3) approve the permit with conditions making findings in support of such approval, or 4) continue the matter to a date certain. Staffhas reviewed the matter with regards to meeting the five criteria required fbr a Special Use Permit. This use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, ~ven that a use which is not less non-conforming does not support promoting livable neighborhoods. The proposed use does not meet the zoning standards for this single-family residential district since it is not an allowed use, nor does it appear to meet the requirement of a less intense con-conforming use replacing another ~non-conforming use. It does appear that no significant adverse environmental consequences would occur as a result of this use, however, staff'is concerned with air quality issues w/th regards to odor. The proposal would not be compatible with adjacent uses and surrounding neighborhood. The proposal would comply with all other criteria or design guidelines associated with this type of use. Based on this, staff concludes that the proposed use does not appear to be less intense than the existing con-conformity, does not meet the zoning criteria, and is theretbre not in the public interest. The proposed use does not meet the necessary tests and criteria required for approval or' a Special Use Permit, and therefore the recommendation is for a denial of this request. Mr. Jonathon Chang, Applicant, indicated that he felt the staff's report was accurate, however. his plan for the building is not a big scale business plan. There would be tess than five employees. He does not intend to make it a big business. He is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and he is not planmng to get too busy, this is just a hobby as a small business. This building was built in 1941 and has always been a commercial business. He feels most of the complaints have been about the safetv of children. If there has been a business at this location for such a long t/me, he does not believe this should be an issue now'. He beiieves the sign shop employed apprommatety eight people. Nh-. Chang stated there had been complaints about the number of cars that had been parked at the site. He noted that all these cars belonged to him. Call to the Public - Public In Favor of this Application No one in attendance came forward. Call to the Public - Public In Opposition of this Application Betty Davies, 1541 Shorewood Drive, stated her house abuts against the back end of the subject property. She has lived there since 1958 and she feels that a Special Use Permit for an automotive shop is not compatible to this zone. This had been a quiet sign shop with no fumes noticeable when they moved there in 1958. When it was sold to Mr. Hanson as a pal ~nting shop it became more sophisticated. The smell of the fumes drove them inside their home. When ,.'viz. Hanson sold the company to his son, the fumes became worse over the years. His son added a Planningn Commission Meeting May 18. 1999 Page 4 of 11 taller filter stack, but this did not help. She complained to City. Hall but was not told to fill out a complaint form and nothing was ever done. She stated that she complained in the 1970's and then in the 1980's. Mr. Barcelon purchased this property, after no painting was done in the building for over a year. That in itself should return the property, to SF-3 zoning. Mr. Barcelon told her that he was only using the property, to store his race cars, which he did. She noticed no noise or business when he owned the property,. It was purchased in January, 1999 by Mr. Chang, who applied for a sign painting business license. When she noticed many cars coming and going from the property, she found Mr. Guerrero was running a detail shop. No automotive services are allowed in this use. She requested a Stop Work Order be posted on this property, and the City, did post a Cease and Desist Order on the building. Mr. Guerrero applied for this Special Use Permit, which has not been granted, but has continued to occupy the premises. She has heard the compressors being used, and there has been material that smells like hot metal filtering from the smoke filter stack. She hopes'that this Special Use Permit will be denied, and wanted to thank the Planning Department for their support. This has always been a quiet neighborhood and many of the residents have owned their homes for many years. She would like to see this property, returned to SF-3 zoning. Mrs. Davies submitted photo~aphs to Chairman Dingfield. Mrs. Geri Peret, stated she is not immediately affected by this particular street, but she would like to see some effort put together to keep residential neighborhoods residential. This site is within 200 feet of waterfront and she feels this adds another dimension to the application. She feels the building has been on that property for too long and it should be torn down. She would like to see nice residential neighborhoods maintained in Bremerton. Mr. Lee Crawford, 1536 Shorewood Drive, whose property, is straight across the street from the subject properly,, opposes the application. This property, is in the heart of an SF-3 zone. There is only route in and out of this narrow 20 N[PH road, where many children play. The last activity of a commercial sign shop moved out over two vears ago. The next owner (Mr. Barceton) did apply fbr a business license tbr a sign shop, but Mr. Barceion indicated he did not do any business at this address. He feels this property must revert to the zoning of the rest of the neighborhood. He stated that the current owner has been operating an automotive repair service at all hours of the day and night, on all days of the week. These operations have gone on before and alSer the City posted the Stop Work Order. He thanked the Planning Department for their report, their concerns of adverse affects upon the neighborhood and those of the neig/nbors. He agrees that this is not a decrease in land use, but in fact an increase, and can be validated bv the many hours of operation at the site. Mr. Crawford noted that the City Fire Inspector indicated to him that he saw a place where a sign shop could be, but did not see any signs being made on this property. He opposes this application and requests that the Planning Commission make a formal written decision as to the property reverting to SF-3 zoning. Ed Speakman, a neighbor and President of the Homeowners Association for Harbor Ridge, commented that it was nice to see so many of the neighbors present at this Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Speakman asked for a clarification of minor body repair from Mr. Chang. He observed the business starting up at this location and many of'the neighbors discussed it. He lives approximately 1/2 block north of this business. The traffic is a concern of his. It is already difficult to walk or jog up this street. There is a bus stop right at this location. His biggest concern is that it could be promised to remain a small business, but once the money started Plann/ngn Conmfission Meeting May 18, 1999 Page 5 of 11 coming in if it is successful, then it would increase in size. There are no controls over the hours of operation. With the Puget Sound being 200 feet away, he is also deeply concerned about pollution. He hopes the Commission will deny this permit. Paul Scheyer, 2111 Madrona Pt. Dr., stated that since this property is within 200 feet of the shoreline, it would require a Waterfront Conditional Use Permit. He feels this application needs to be processed under a consolidated permit process where a waterfront permit and a Special Use Permit are applied for simultaneously. He feels this is a mandatory process under the RCW. He feels the non-conforming use has been terminated because the si_ma shop has been gone for over a year. This has been used as a storage unit. He indicated the burden of proof should be on the applicant to show that it has been used by showing taxes paid, employee withholding information, business licenses, etc., to have evidence that there was a continuous use. He also stated that he feels the building is illegal. A boundary line adjustment was done, but this was probably not even built on th'e correct properly. An illegal building can never be made legal. Lawana Wartman, 1510 Shorewood Drive, noted that she is across the street and one house south of the subject property, and is waterfront property. Her biggest concern is that if all the cars that are on the outside of this building belong to Mr. Chang, where does he plan on parking cars for his employees or customers. Every piece of property, surrounding this location is private property. Vehicles cannot park on the road. She is also very concerned about the cleansers and solvents used. There is a drain in front of the building that drains onto the beach. She does not want her property damaged by having chemicals spilled onto the beach. She is concerned that some of these issues haven't been fullv addressed. When the automotive business was operating, there were many vehicles going up and dowan this street well over the 20 MPH speed limit. She could hear noise from this location al! the way down at her house. Her tax dollars should ensure that her neighborhood remains residential. She indicated that she and many of her neighbors will file a law suit if this application is approved. Mrs. Norae Larson, 1550 Shorewood Drive, indicated the problems at this location started with Date Thomas, and that Mr. Hanson was a relative of his. There is a log cabin of historical value across the street from this location. She feels this application should have been denied from the beginning and that there was not enough checking done on this. She could hear sanding4-ype noises coming from this location appro~mately one week ago. She is also concerned about the ,types of chemicals being used there and that this facility does not have the proper equipment for this type of operation. She does not feel a commercial propert7 fits into this neighborhood. Mrs. Michele Lanham, 5202 Beach Drive, indicated she had photographs of vehicles parked in the front of the properZy several layers deep which causes congestion. If you are turning from Shorewood Drive onto Beach Drive, the cars would be parked so tar out in the street that it could cause a head-on collision. There was a lot of repair and test driving being done. The road used for the test driving is Beach Drive, and the cars would be driven up and down the street for hours. This caused a ~eat deal of noise. There are no sidewalks in the neighborhoods and they are very narrow streets, causing extra traffic. There were small tractors being worked on, and then being test driven back and forth down the road. There had been large trucks with refuse in them being worked on, which was extremely unsightly. There are a lot of children in the area. She thought this would be a nice quiet neighborhood, and this has been disconcerting for them. She also Plarmingn Commission Meeting May 18, 1999 Page 6 of ! 1 indicated that the drainage ditch in front of the property goes under the street and onto the beach. At high tide, water covers this drainage pipe. She feels this has a large environmental impact. Her photographs were taken from the front living room window of her house. Mr. Doug Adams, 5200 Beach Drive, lives at the property adjacent to this site. He believes that this will cause a lot more impact than the owner states. He purchased his home in November 1998. He had visited the area frequently before he purchased the home and noticed that it was a very quiet neighborhood. In January 1999 it started getting a little noisier and more crowded. He would come home from work during his lunch break and find cars from this business parked in his front yard. If the use is already causing overflow into his property, he is afraid that any future use would only get worse. Call to the Public - Neutral Comments Don Holtz, 1542 Madrona Pt. Drive, commented that he had met with Harold Hanson (former owner of Hanson Sign Company) on Monday (5/17) to get clarification on the history of the property. The property, has been a sign company since 194 I. Mr. Hanson owned and operated that company since 1968. He had eight employees. Over the years, boats, cars, trailers, signs and other items were painted at this facility.. Over the 58 years of business at this company, hundreds and hundreds of old signs, sign poles and other "junk" accumulated inside and outside of this building. Mr. Holtz felt that the neighbors would _a=m-ee that it was a pigsty and a disgrace to the neighborhood. One and a half years ago Mr. Barceton purchased this property, with the adjoining rental houses that had little or no maintenance..M'ter the sign company was purchased, it took two men working eight hours a day for w'o months to clean up the property. Mr. Barceion also replaced the old doors that had been ready to fait offthe hinges. Mr. Barceton realized that a si_mn business was not his forte. He then began painting cars. boats and other items. He also did mechanical work, detailed cars, and ran a race car shop out of this thcilirv. It was not uncommon to go down to the shop at midnight and to find Mr. Barceion tuning or repairing his race car. Mr Barceton decided he wanted a brand new- t'aciiitv and sold this property to Dr_ Chang. Dr. Chang owns numerous cars that he would like to restore. He has spent thousands of dollars on the building (electrical, plumbing, heating, sheetrock and roof repairs) to make it more presentable. This property had been for sale on two separate occasions tbr over a year, but none of the neighbors chose to purchase it. He does not think someone would have the finances to purchase this property and to be able to tear the building down and build a single family residence, because the neighboring properties sold in the upper $70,000 ro lower $80,000 range. Currently there are no regulations on the sign shop. Dr. Chang could operate his sign shop just as the Hanson's did with the huge boom trucks starting up outside at 6:30 in the morning to head out to the job site, unlimited employees, junk everywhere, no restrictions on cars, trailers or anything else that might be getting a sign installed on it. He commented that there are rumors in the neighborhood that the complaints against this property are racially motivated. Nh-. Holtz recommended that the City. of Bremerton purchase this property, have the neighbors purchase this property, or approve the business license with conditions. If this property reverts back to a sign company, there will be no control over it. Planningn comrmssion *leering May 18. 1999 Page 7 of 11 Mr. Russell Park, 1728 Shorewood Drive, has a concern that Mr. Hottz has a conflict of interest in this matter. He believes Mr. Holtz stores his boat at this location. He was not aware that this piece of property had been for sale in the past few years. He had never noticed a for sale sie:n on the building at any time, or perhaps he would have expressed an interest in purchasing it hin~self. Closed to the Public Mr. Chang, responded that he believes there is a misconception that this property would have to convert to a single family residence if the Special Use Permit is not approved. He does not believe this is a requirement because the business never stopped. He would not tear this down and build a home at this location. The business would return to a sign shop il'the Special Use Permit is not approved, because he is permitted to do this. Commissioner Boyd asked if there are two lots involved in this permit. Mr. ltolan responded that it is identified as one assessor parcel, however, the parcel is a zig_zag shape and it does go over two pre-existing platted lots. Commissioner Boyd asked what the difference was between the type of paint used to paint cars and the type of paint used to pain signs. Mr. Holan stated that paint used for automotive purposes would probably be different than those used for signs. This is something that could be addressed as part of the presentation to the Citw Council. Commissioner Boyd stated that she had visited the site and found the building to be unattractive. She asked if there were others ,types of businesses that would be acceptable at this location. Mr. EIolan responded that from a business standpoint, the only thing that would be allowed as a non-conforming use is a sign shop. If another Lype of business were to go into that location, they would have to go through the Special Use Pern~it process to determine if it is a less non- conforming use. Commissioner Griggs asked that when the proper-t5- was sold, did the new owner automatically receive the business license for the existing business. Mr. Holan stated that the non-conforming use runs with the land, not with the property owner. The only issue with regards to a discontinuance of a non-conforming use is if there is actually a period of time that there has actually been an absence of that particular activity before someone could require it to go to a conforming use (i.e., a residential use). Commissioner Griggs asked if there was a particular time period that had to be met. Mr. ltolan said that this particular issue had been reviewed with the City Attorney's office. From the City's standpoint, the determination was made that it was a continuing non-conforming sign shop operation. plarmmgn Commission Meeting May 18, 1999 Page 8 of 11 Commissioner Adams stated that she appreciated the presence of all those in attendance and the comments they had made. The sign shop was tolerated for a long time, even though the use was non-conforming in respect to the sinCe-family residential zoning. Since the building was being used as a sign shop prior to the annexation into the city limits of Bremerton, the business remained. The criteria for approval for a Special Use Permit, though, has not been met in three out of the five criteria. The City Planning staff has made a convincing case. An automotive use would be an increase in the non-conformity or intensity which would disqualify the use of this building for a Special Use Permit and there could be further issues regarding the buildings proximity, to the waterfront through a Consolidated Use Permit. In the interest of solutions, she asked if the property could be used in another way, or could the owners consider a neighborhood community center or youth center as an alternative to moving or modify the building throu~ a Special Use Permit. She felt that the staff' s recommendation to deny the permit was appropriate. Commissioner Griggs commented that he a~eed that the permit should be denied. He did not feel that the Commission should determine if the building should be torn down, but to see if the use was appropriate. Commissioner Boyd made a motion to deny the application for Special Use Permit, as it does not meet the requirements of the BMC Section 21.02.905 and recommended the use be denied. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Griggs. Chairman Dingfield stated that she had driven through the neighborhood and was distressed to hear that it has been in that sort of condition, or perhaps much worse, for many years. She was concerned about the current state of the building. This is a nice nei~borhood with lovetv homes that are well maintained. She was encouraged to hear that the previous and current owners of the property, have been making an effort to clean it up and repair the buildings, and encoura_.qed the continuation of that effort. Chairman Dingfield asked for a vote from the Commissioners on the motion to deny the application for Special Use Permit (PL90-0006 located at 1533 Shorewood Drive). Commissioner Adams, yes; Commissioner Boyd. yes: Commissioner Griggs: Chairman Dingfield, yes. Motion passes. Chairman Dingfield noted that the Planning Commission has a~eed to support the Planning_ Department's recommendation that the application for the Special Use Permit be denied and the application will now be forwarded to the City Council. V. Business Meeting Approval of Minutes: A motion was made by Commissioner Boyd and seconded by Commissioner Adams to approve the minutes of the March 16, 1999 meeting. Motion passed. Planningn Commission Meeting May 18, 1999 Page 9 of 11 B. Directors Report: Mr. Holan reported that the Mayor had met with the City Council at their last meeting to discuss an economic development strate~_my (copy provided). She went through the points that are identified on the overview sheet, and some specific information. Planning staffadded issues that were presented by the Council. For example, under the title "Just What is Bremerton's Identity?" they added comments about sewer rates, how family oriented is the City, is this a communitw in transition, and is the Ci~ perceived to be "hard" to access transportation wise. In addition to these, during her presentation she reviewed the excerpts out of the City's Comp Plan with regards to economic development. These excerpts are included in the packets pro'~Sded to the Commissioners. The City Council and Planning Commission had a joint study session on May 10, 1999 where staff had an oppormniw to present general overview information about what is planning, particularly planning in this state. There was a facilitator that generated discussion about where are we going as a community and as a decision making group, both between the Commission and the Council. From that discussion, one of the biggest issues was that there would be an opportunity to create three different working groups amongst the Planning Commission and City Council dealing with Transportation, Housing, and Economic Development. Tentative assigxunents were made for Planning Commission members as follows: Commissioners Adams/Wolfe - Transportation: Commissioners BoydfDingfietd - Housing; Commissioner Griggs/Stone - Economic Development. There were two requests for ex-tension of the Sinclair Landing PUT), one from Kitsap Transit and one from The Commercial Group. The request by tGtsap Transit was approved based on the amount of work they have done for a one year e~ension of the preliminary PLT). However. the Council did not approve the request from The Commercial Group. This does not mean that The Commercial Group is out of the picture and it does not mean that the City is not moving forxvard on the Sinclair Landing project, is ordv means that the PUD has expired. Chairman Dingfield asked if the e~ension of the Kksap Transit portion included the Commuter Retail building. Mr. Holan stated that their extension was l~br the BTC, which is the Transportation Center. There is nothing to prevent the Commuter Retail Center from proceeding with regards to building permits, since it is an allowed use in that area. Mr. Holan commented that the amendment regarding piers and docks has been approved by the State on April 27, 1999. There have not been any appeals at this point. There was a meeting regarding the Charleston Neighborhood and staff is assembling a packet of design ~maidelines. There has been some recent staffing changes to facilitate this. There is also an intern coming from the University of Washin~on that has a background in design work. They will tap into his expertise with regards to design ~m~tidelines, however, he will not be available until June. There was an announcement for a Planner for the Manette Neighborhood Plan placed in The Sun and in the Seattle Times, with two applications being received that had adequate experience. One person from Arizona has been interviewed, and an individual from North Planningn Commission Meeting May 18. 1999 Page 10 of I l Carolina had a telephone interview. Based on that telephone conversation, the person from North Carolina will be receiving an oral interview in Bremerton. They anticipate that someone will be on board in June. C. Old Business: None. D. New Business: None. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. VI. Adjournment Respectfully submitted by: Jon Holan, Secreta~ Approved by: Joan Dingfietd, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 1999 Page 11 of I 1