HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/26/97 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
239 4TH STREET
BREMERTON, WA 98337
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MARCH 26, 1997
CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 P.M.
A. Pledge Of Allegiance
B. Invocation
CONSENT A~ENDA
Items listed below have been distributed to Council members in
advance for study and will be enacted by one motion· If
separate discussion is desired on an item, it may be removed
from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda at the
request of a Council member.
A. Minutes of Meeting - March 12, 1997
B. Minutes of Meeting - March 19, 1997
C. Bid Award To Smith Tractor & Equipment Company,
Inc. for the Purchase of a John De.re 310E
Backhoe for the Parks & Recreation Department
#AB97-062
#ABp?-o6 J5
3. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
4. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
5. MAYOR'S REPORT
6. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes)
e
A. Resolution #2588, Approving Preliminary Planned #AB97-057
Unit Development (PUD) for Sinclair Landing;
Applicant: Howard S. Wright Construction Company;
Location: Bremerton's Central Business District,
Downtown
RESOLUTION NO.:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT OF "SINCLAIR LANDING", LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA
GENERALLY BOUNDED BY: PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD AND PARK
AVENUE (AVE.) ON THE SOUTH AND WEST; FOURTH STREET (ST.) BETWEEN
PARK AVE. AND PACIFIC AVE. AND BURWELL ST. BETWEEN PACIFIC AVE.
AND WASHINGTON AVE. ON THE NORTH, AND SINCLAIR INLET ON THE EAST
INCLUDING WATERFRONT PARCELS TO FIFTH ST.
WHEREAS, --HOWARD C.. W~,IGJ-JT ~ONSTRtJCTIC,'4 COw proponent for
the proposed Sinclair Landing Planned Unit Development, comprising
approximately 22.5 acres acres and located within the central business district
within the City of Bremedon, has made application for approval of a Preliminary
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. and
WHEREAS, an environmental checklist has been prepared and
considered by the responsible official and a mitigated determination of
environmental nonsignificance issued, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting concerning
this matter on January 21, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the Council that
the "Sinclair Landing" Preliminary Planned Unit Development be accepted
subject to certain conditions; and 2(~_
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council held a public hearing on March
1997, concerning the preliminary Planned Unit Development with mitigating
conditions; now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
That the "Sinclair Landing" Preliminary Planned Unit Development
presented for approvalt~ hereby ac. cepJe,d sgl::lject to the followina conditions:
1. Earth: Implement a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP)as
approved by the City. Minimize exposed soil during construction.; construct truck tire
cleaning areas; cover dump beds as required by state/aw; cover stockpiled earth
and exposed cuts; route runoff to temporary sedimentation ponds; employ best
management practices to control erosion; construct a concrete truck wash-down
area; periodically sweep the streets with street sweepers; and phase construction, to
minimize exposed areas.
2. Air: Implement erosion control measures as approved by the City. Minimize area of
exposed soil dudng construction, or demolition; hose debris during demolition;
construct truck tire cleaning area; cover dump beds as required by state law; cover
stockpiled earth and exposed cuts; employ best management practices; periodically
wet sweep streets. Comply with Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
(P~APGA) Regulation 1, Section 9.15 requiring reasonable precautions to avoid
dust emissions. Implement proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) traffic,
transit, and pedestrian improvements to improve circulation.
3. Surface, Ground, and Runoff Water Impacts: Locate existing surface parking areas
underground and partially cover the Bremerton Transportation Center (BTC) car
waiting areas. Install and maintain oil/water separators as required by City
stormwater regulation. Implement: WA. ST Department of Wildlife's Hydraulic
Project Approval (HPA) conditions; U.S. Army Corp of Engineer's Section 10
conditions; applicable local, state, and federal water quality guidelines. Use
concrete marina f/oats; use concrete or steel pilings instead of creosote wood
pilings; construct interconnecting replacement First St. bulkhead in the dry.
4. P/ants: Use landscaping p/ants or similar measures to provide replacement
vegetation on the site. Incorporate street and punic space landscaping into project
as proposed.
5. Wildlife: Remove existing First St. Dock and approximately 120 creosote timber
pilings which covers 12, 600 square feet of intertidal area. Remove existing First St.
fill which covers intertidal area. Remove 45 creosote timber pilings that support the
Wheelhouse deck. Implement HPA and Corps Section l0 conditions.
6. Energy: Conform with applicable City and State energy code requirements. Create
new pedestrian facilities as proposed to reduce auto energy use. Implement one-
way coup/et street system, and other circulation improvements to increase
transportation efficiencies and lower energy use.
7. Environmental Heath: Property or business owners to comply with applicable local,
state, or federal/aw regulating the storage, handling, or use of hazardous materia~._.~.~l~,
8. Noise: Properly size and maintain equipment~rrj~/ff,/~e,r,s, engine intake silencers, ~
engine enclosures; turn off idling equipment; ~noisy operatibns from 6:30 ~
A.M. to 9:00 P.M. unless special circumstances approved by construction manager.
Construct BTC as proposed which serves as noise barrier between terminal and
waterfront park. ~'~'" ~/~h ~V~ ~'"' ........ '
.......... ,~,w ~rade lo reduce ' ~" no;.;c i-
LI (~llll~.~ '
9. Land, Shoreline Use, Housing: Create approximately 79 additional housing units
than exist. Create new commercial and redevelop commercial space as proposed.
Provide business relocation assistance as required by state/aw.
10. Land Use Planning: Incorporate uses -- retail, parking, office, entertainment, transit
as permitted under zoning. Preserve views to Sinclair Inlet in conformance with
Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan (DWURP). Create: Washington. Ave.
plaza; open space adjacent to Waterfront Park; and linear waterfront Pathway-Park.
Relocate marina as recognized in the City's DWURP Design Element.
11. Aesthetics: Create view corridors through waterfront and along Burwell St. as
proposed to preserve views. Create linear waterfront pathway as proposed to view
Sinclair Inlet and other natural attractions. Conform to City zoning with regards to
height and bulk as applied through PUD process. Comply with City's Design Review
standards required by the DWURP. Place current waterfront parking below the
surface as proposed.
12. Dght and Glare: Design lights within BTC and relocated marina so as to not create
off-shore glare. Obtain United States Coast Guard (USCG) approval of marina
entrance marking lights.
13. Recreation: Create Second St. pedestrian walkway. Create new linear Waterfront
Pathway-Park (esplanade) from Waterfront Park to Fifth St. and create lateral
access points to the existing Waterfront Park and new Pathway-Park. Create a new
public plaza at Washington. Ave. and Second St. and expand Waterfront Park.
Provide alternative siting for Wycoff Park as approved by Puget Sound naval
Shipyard (PSNS) and City Parks Dept.
14. Cultural and Archeologicah Notify State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) if
archeological resources are identified during construction. Provide Public Art in
compliance with DWURP requirements.
~ 5. Transportation: Separate pedestrian, transit, and auto traffic as proposed to
enhance traffic safety. I Convert Bun/v~Pa~
A vel~le it~;e rsec~ "NX
-..,.-~.------ u . - -.,/vi, il,,,.
J~.m~a~c$ tc, p,'~;'~d~ ado'ib'u,~i u~pacity a,~d improve operations to an acceptal)~e
~,vc; c,f $~,-~;~,e. i-Coordinate BTC construction staging plan with WA ST Department
Qf Transportation, City, Port of Bremerton, and Kitsap Transit. Coordinate
construction traffic routing plan with City and Kitsap Transit. Vacate and dedicate
rights of-way as described in rights of-way vacation application. Compensate the
City as required by State and City laws for vacated rights of-way.
16. Public Services: Provide fire protection systems for buildings according to Uniform
Fire Code requirements. Upgrade existing stormwater and water lines serving the
project site as required by City's Public Works Director. Coordinate replacement of
utility services with Puget Power, WA Natural Gas, US West, and City to minimize
disruptions.
17. Scope of approval: This approval recognizes the preliminary, conceptual and
phased nature of the project. As allowed by the zoning ordinance: a) The ultimate
development with specific uses and sites may change at the time of the Final PUD
application(s); b) Final PUD approval(s) shall be subject to the Final PUD approval
criteria of the zoning ordinance. Final PUD application(s) shall require signature(s)
from all affected property owners signifying their acceptance of the plan and
application(s). This preliminary PUD approval does not mandate participation by
COMPRE1TENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
The portion of the Master Plan located south of First Street is designated Transportation
Facilities (T) and the portion of the Master Plan located north of First Street is designated
Central Business District (CBD).
The Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan, a sub-plan of the Comprehensive Plan
assigns the following designations to property within the PUD:
· the area south of Fkst Avenue as Ferry Terminal fiT);
· the area noah of First Street and east of Washington Avenue as Mixed
Commercial/Residential/Tourist (CRT);
· the area approximately 10 feet wide measured from the top of the bluffline along
the shoreline as Linear Park Pathway (LP/P);
· the area bounded between the existing First Street pier on the south, the Turner Joy
on the north, the ordinary high water mark on the west, and the outer harbor line
on the east as Marina South (MS); and
· the area west of Washington Avenue that includes buildings fronting on the west
side of Washington Avenue as Waterfront/CBD Transition Area (TA).
ZONING DESIGNATION:
The Bremeaon Zoning Code designates the area east of Washington Avenue and south of First
Street as Urban Renewal District (URD) and the area west of Washington Avenue and noah
of First Street as Business Core CBC). The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard portion of the project
c~Z°n~is °r°p°sed t° berez°ned General ~dust~(IG)'/t~~ a..4 ~4..c04 '.. ~.a.~ fPUlO, '~/~~a~/'
The Sinclair Landing PUD is intended to be a phased PUD approval with the following uses
constructed according to a phased two year schedule keyed offofthe City's Preliminary PUD
approval date:
Phase 1:1997 through 1999 -- Buildings 1, 2, 3,4, and 5; / ff'- (3t~' / (a C~ [ ~
Phase 2:1999 through 2001 -- Buildings 8, 9, 10, 11, 20 and 23;
Phase 3:2001 through 2003 -- Remainder of the PUD elements. , . ,
'~ite ~ Q_2~:~ o~~lA,,a,u,~_~
~e upl~d portion of the project site exclud~g Ci~ fi~ts-of-way is appro~ately 22.5 acres.
~e m~e poffion is appro~mately 15.5 acres.
Paring:
any or all property owners within the boundaries of the PUD, allowing any or all
property owners to utilize their property in conformance with zoning regulations.
Property in the City limits of Bremerton included in this Preliminary Planned Unit
Development is described as follows:
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS:
Lots 9 to 14 Block 1; Lots 1 to 9 Block 2; Lots 1 to 19 Block 3; Lots 1 to 8 Block 4;
Lots 1 to 29 Block 7; Lots 1 to 34 Block 8; Lots 1 to 26 Block 9; Lots 1 to 9 Block 10;
Lots 1 to 50 Block 14, Town of Bremerton plat as recorded in volume 2, page 30
of the plat records of Kitsap COunty and the following waterfront tax lots:
242401-2-009-2006; 132401-3-015-2009; 132401-3-033-2007; 242401-2-011-2004;
24201-2-010-2003; 242401-2-055-2000; 242401-2-006-2009; 132401-3-014-2000;
132401-3-199-2007; 242401-2-004-2001; 3718-001-009-0006
PASSED by the City Council this
day of March, 1997.
APPROVED this
ATTEST:
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
1. SUBJECT:
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES - MARCH 12, 1997
3-26-97
FOR AGEND~ OF:
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Council
ORIGINATOR: David Farr, pvesident
DATE SUBMITTED: 3-19-20
2. CLEA3LANCES: (comment on back
if necessary)
EXHIBITS:
ENDORSEMENT INFORMATION
MAYOR
__ A-oPROVED BY COLfNCIL ~~~SUBMITTAL:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT'
4. SUNNY STATE~fENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR'COUNCIL ACTION:
8. RECOM}4ENDATION:
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICI~:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:-
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED ~MENDED
DATE:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 12t 1997
#0041
#0062
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton
was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street,
Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, March 12, 1997, at 5:30 P.M.,
with Council Vice President Richard Neville presiding. Council
members present were Bob Winters, Carlos Montgomery, Lon Overson,
John Law, Cecil McConnell, and A1 Colvin. Council members David
Farr and Sherril Huff-Menees were absent. Also present were City
Attorney Ian Sievers and Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President Farr and Invocation given by Councilman A1 Colvin.
Vice President Neville made the following announcement:
(1) City Council will hold a Study Session on March 17, starting at
5:30 P.M., to discuss: Projects Update, Forestry Projects Update,
and Fluoridation.
Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk, announced Agenda Item 10A -
Planning Unit Development For Sinclair Landing Project had been
pulled off the Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting -- February 26, 1997
#AB97-051
M/S/C/U(Colvin/McConnell)
presented.
to approve the Consent Agenda as
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required
by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified
as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that
had been made available to the Council.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Overson) on March 12, 1997, the Council does approve
for payment those vouchers included and further described as
follows: 206629, 206651 through 206867 in the amount of
$494,766.89.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Winters extended congratulations to the citizens of Bremerton
and City Council on being named as Reader's Digest's #4 Best City
To Raise A Family out of 50 cities.
Mr. Montgomery pointed out the City of Spokane garnered the #8 Best
City to Raise A Family.
Mr. Law announced the next District #3 Neighborhood Meeting will be
TAPE #1447
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 2 of 23
held on March 18, 7:00 P.M., at the Senior Center. Police Chief
Paul Du Fresne will be the guest speaker at that meeting.
Mr. Colvin extended a "thank you" to Andy ParypA for his input on
parking issues at the District #1 Neighborhood Meeting. Since that
meeting, he has received comments that the citizens understand the
Mayor's approach to beautifying the City and approve of that, but
some senior citizens believe they will be inconvenienced. One of
the suggestions he received was the possibility of grandfathering
in some of the parking spaces on some of the streets for the senior
citizens. His response to that suggestion was a citizens
committee has been formed to take that issue under consideration
and make recommendations to the City Council. He was told that
somewhere people are given incentives for keeping their property in
good repair and taxed higher if it is in disrepair.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Lynn Horton commented on the Reader's Digest selection of the
50 best places to raise a family and the fact the City of Bremerton
was selected as #4, which was something many local people already
knew. She extended a special "thank you" to Terrie O'Neill,
Municipal Services Coordinator, for the time she spent escorting
the Reader Digest reporter around showing him the things we think
are the reason we are a good place to live.
Mayor Horton reported she and Council President Farr recently
traveled to Washington D. C., along with Kitsap Transit officials,
where they learned Intermodel Surface Transportation Enhancement
Act ((ISTE) was initiated in 1991, with the proviso that all of the
regions in every state was to prioritize their transportation need
for that time frame, and based on the prioritized list the Federal
Government would pass federal dollars to help pay for the projects.
The good news is Washington State has done very well by that
process, especially Kitsap County. However, many states did not do
as well and now are trying to change the way the ISTE works so that
they go back to line item appropriations or what some people call
"pork barreling". It appears that the current prioritized method
would continue. They also heard that President Clinton will
present his proposal for the ISTE funding. For some reason ferries
across the country have been omitted from being qualified for ISTE
funds. She urged Council and members of the public to write letter
or speak with their Congress members about making ferry priorities
eligible for ISTE funding. The primary event they attended was the
American Public Transit Association Conference, as well as having
an opportunity to talk Congress members about the importance of
public transit to all of our community and what public transit
means as far as the Sinclair Landing project and the fact the
second passenger only boat is important to Transit and Sinclair
Land. She believes all of the legislators are very supportive of
TAPE #1447
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 3 of 23
the efforts in the development of Sinclair Landing. She felt the
trip to Washington D. C., was worth the effort to highlight to the
Congress members why our projects are important and that the boat
dollars will be put to good use.
Mayor Horton read a proclamation recognizing MARCH 20, 1997, to be
the First Annual ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE KIDS DAY and declare the
children of Bremerton as ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE KIDS. The
Proclamation was accepted by three Camp Fire Boys and Girls -Ashley
Robinson, Beth Hanson, Brandon Hanson.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
John Thomas, Bremerton resident, reported a situation where the
Bremerton Fire Department answered a 911 call for medical
assistance and not only took care of the patient's medical
emergency but also made sure she had her coat, gloves, purse and
house keys. After the ambulance left with the patient, the Engine
company crew put away the person's perishable groceries, which she
been carrying into her home, turned off the lights and made sure
the house was locked. He views that kind of action as excellence
in customer service.
Del Knauss, Bremerton resident, referenced a recent newspaper
article titled "SLA Up and running alive and well", and questioned
why City officials were not quoted instead of Mary McClure? He
asked how much of the information provided in the article was known
by the Council and the Mayor? He expects to be told how much money
is going down of public funds, do we really have a deal or are we
just getting a ferry terminal. Since he did not get answers to the
questions he raised at the previous Council meeting, he filled out
Public disclosure Request (PDC) forms posing the same questions
along with a couple others and expects the City to respond within
five days as designated on the PDC form.
Bill Camp, Bremerton resident, pointed out under the Open Meetings
Act requiring names and address is an illegal act and strictly
voluntary. Vice Presi4ent Neville emphasized Council did not
require that information, just requested it. Mr. Camp expressed
concern that some people are coming before Council with personal
vendettas against City officials and any time Council allows that
to go on unabated and unchecked they are actually taking an action
against an individual, who is being attacked from the podium. He
was also concerned when members of the Council or business people
commercialize and promote their own businesses from the podium
during Public Recognition, which he views as violations of
council's own rule #5. In his opinion, KITZ was the prime offender
and should be asked to stop using Public Recognition to promote
their business.
TAPE #1447
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 4 of 23
7A - MEMBERSHIP IN THE KITSAP REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL AND
RELATED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTt ~AB97-052
The Council is requested to approve the City's membership in the
Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council. The cost of membership in
1997 will be $12,792. A budget adjustment to provide for this
expenditure is attached. The administration believes that
membership is in the best interests of the City.
Mayor Lynn Horton stated normally the Administration includes this
kind of cost in the budget for the coming year, but because of the
flux in the Regional Coordinating Council, they were unable to
provide clear direction as to their future organization. This
issue will need to be a mid-year budget adjustment to provide
funding for the organization. Several Council members have served
on the Council and understand the value of the Coordinating Council
to bring cities, County and Tribes together to talk about issues
that affect all of the governments. The Regional Coordinating
Council deals with transportation and planning issues and in the
past worked together administering Block Grant funding and
continues to work with Kitsap County for the distribution of
Federal dollars through the HOME Program, which helps fund new
construction in our communities. In the past, this group was a
only a planning organization, but now has a broader mission. She
also sees this forum as a good place to discuss pubic access
because it impacts the entire county, such as water and sewer
issues, etc. She believes the $12,792 is a good expenditure for
having a forum to deal with issues that cross all of the
jurisdictions; therefore, she urged Council to approve the budget
adjustment and authorize the expenditure as presented.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Overson stated it was his understanding this organization also
works with emergency management and health issues for the county.
Mayor Horton stated yes, emergency management is worked through
CENCOM, which is one of the boards that meets monthly under the
Coordinating Council's Agenda, and the Health District addresses
health issues county-wide. Mr. Overson asked if the budgeted
amount was new? Mayor Horton stated yes, prior years were funded
out of State dollars under Growth Management. Now that the State
funding is no longer available, it was felt the function had not
gone away and the scope was broadened. Mr. Overson asked if all
members were paying the same amount or was it prorated? Mayor
Horton explained the fee is prorated based on assessed valuation
and population.
Mr. Colvin questioned the value the City would receive from the
requested funding. Mayor Horton pointed out over the majority of
the past year the Coordinating Council had no staffing and limped
#0899
#0925
TAPE #1447
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 5 of 23
along with the help of Councilman Huff-Menees and some help from
the County's Block Grant funds and support staff, but it was not an
adequate way to staff an important function.
Mr. Law stated having served on that committee, he could appreciate
its need and found it was one of the only places at times to make
the various cities and county come together and discuss issues.
Mr. McConnell questioned the disbursement of the money collected?
Ma~or Horton explained it would be used primarily for staffing,
postage and several tasks that had been identified. One of the
outstanding tasks deals with Urban Area Agreements.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to approve the proposed membership in
the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to approve Budget Adjustment Request No.
97-4.
7B - BID AWARD FOR CALLOW AVENUE BASIN PRIORITYt PHASE 2 STORM
DRAINAGE SEPARATION, ~AB97-053
Bids were opened for Callow Avenue Basin Priority 1, Phase 2 Storm
Drainage Separation Project on March 6, 1997. Six bids for this
project were received. The low bid from Thomco Construction, Inc.
was $4,814,505. The engineer's estimate for this project was
$4,650,000. The action before the City Council is approval of a
contract with Thomco Construction, Inc. for Callow Avenue Basin
Priority 1, Phase 2 Storm Drainage Separation Project.
Tim Richard, Senior Engineer, stated this is the next project
continuing the water/sewer separation program. The first phase of
this project was the construction of the main trunk line portion
through the PSNS expansion area. Phase 2 will complete that
project to provide a main trunk storm sewer for the Callow Avenue
basis and includes two sites: (1) south site is the area from the
Missouri light were an outfall will be constructed - SR304,
Cambrian and approximately Callow Avenue and Farrigut Avenue. (2)
The north site is Montgomery Avenue from 1st Street up to 6th
Street and will include a section in Burwell Street from Callow
Avenue to Montgomery. This will complete Priority 1 and from there
the project will move on to the separation of the smaller parts of
the basin.
Six bids were received with Thomco construction, Inc., being the
low bidder at 4.8 million. The budget for this project is 5.344
million and is funded through low interest and no interest loans
through the State Centennial Clean Water Fund and Public Works
Trust Fund. The City has not worked with this contractor
previously; however 10 references were checked and all of them were
#1198
TAPE #1447
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 6 of 23
very favorable on the quality of the contractor's work and that
they were good to work with. It was noted the contractor had
limited amounts of large pipe experience and the references were
asked if they felt Thomco Construction Inc., could handle the
larger pipes and there response was yes. The only concern
expressed by some of the references was in Thomco's scheduling and
completing projects on time. Mr. Richard pointed out there are
limited working days in the contract with liquidated damages
available and they were required to provide a Performance Bond to
insure that the project is completed.
John Thomas, Bremerton resident, asked if the contractor is
required to pay prevailing wages for this area? Mr. Richar4 states
yes, this contract, as with all public works contracts, requires
contractors to pay prevailing wages and file their intent to pay
prevailing wages at the beginning of construction and to submit
that data for all sub-contractors. At the close out of the
project, the contractor is required to provide an Affidavit of
Wages Paid, which is submit by them to the Department Of Labor And
Industries to verify that fact prior to the project being closed
out by the City and their retainage released.
Mr. Winters asked if the city had received the Performance Bond and
Insurance items? Mr. Richar~ stated no, the contractor is not
required to submit those documents until the contract is awarded to
them by the city Council. Following 'award of the bid, the
contractor has 10 days to submit the signed contracts, show payment
for a performance Bond, and provide a Certificate of Insurance to
the City. Mr. Winters questioned the strengths and weaknesses of
this particular contractor? Mr. Richard stated all of the
references contacted indicated the contractor provided high quality
work, were easy to work with, and the weakness noted was problems
with scheduling the work.
Mr. Overson noted this contractor will be dealing with the largest
business in the city, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, and he was
sensitive that this contractor overcome some their challenge with
scheduling and completion. He wanted to make sure PSNS was kept
happy through non-interference of this project. He asked if the
City would be managing this project? Mr. Richar~ stated yes, the
day-to-day project management would be handled by Bob Earl and Mr.
Richard would be the over all manager. He noted City staff has
worked with PSNS personnel during the construction of Phase 1 and
during the design of Phase 2 to coordinate all of the sensitive
issues.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Winters) to approve a contract for $4,814,505
with Thomco Construction, Inc. for Callow Avenue Basin Priority 1,
Phase 2 Storm Drainage Separation Project, and authorize the Mayor
TAPE #1447
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 7 of 23
to execute the same.
7C - BID AWARD TO OLSEN'S LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR PUMP STATION
CE-1 SANITARY SEWER MAIN REPLACEMENT, #AB97-054
Bids were opened for Pump Station CE-1 Sanitary Sewer Main
Replacement Project on February 13, 1997. One bid for this project
was received. The bid from Olsen's Land Development, Inc. was
$42,602.21. The engineer's estimate for this project was $29,950.
Replacement of this sanitary sewer main will remove a restriction
that has contributed to combined sewer overflows at this site. The
action before the City Council is approval of a contract with
Olsen's Land Development, Inc. for Pump Station CE-1 Sanitary Sewer
Main Replacement Project.
Tim Richard, Senior Engineer, stated this project is to replace a
section of sewer main just outside of the main pump station CE-i,
which carries all of the eastside sanitary flows as well as the
entire Warren Avenue basin. A problem was found where a pipe was
restricting the flow into the pump station from the Warren Avenue
basin and creating overflows at the CSO site that should not be
occurring. The pipe is both improper in size and in grade. This
project will involve digging out and replacing that pipe, which is
a difficult project and will require the to contractor core through
the wall (about 2-feet thick) of the pump station from inside the
wetwell. Workers will be required to work in an area with chemical
piping and vaults and they will actually have to dig under the
stairwells of the pump station. There is also an emergency
overflow pipe above the subject pipe that needs to be replaced.
Bids were solicited from five different contractors through the
City's Small Work Roster and only one was submitted. An error in
the Engineer's estimate was discovered after the bid was opened and
should have been approximately $35,000 instead of $30,000. The
contractor's price for doing the work is higher than anticipated
and he believed it had a lot to do with the difficulty in working
in that very confined area and the risk involved for the
contractor.
Funding for this project will come out of the City's Substandard
Sewer Main Fund, which is used annually for projects that need
immediate attention and has a balance of $220,000.
The contractor has been used on a number of other City projects and
they have always performed very well in their quality of work and
coordination.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Winters expressed concern that only one bid was received and
#1518
TAPE #1447
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 8 of 23
asked if the City received a response from the other four
contractors as to why they didn't bid? Mr. Richar4 stated no one
responded in such a manner. He believed it may have been the
difficulty of the job that kept them from submitting a proposal.
Mr. Colvin asked in the event of a cost overrun is there a
percentage basis to fall back on? Mr. Richar4 explained this
project is for a lump sum bid. Mr. Colvln asked if that meant
there would not be the possibility of amendments to the contract
later into the project? Mr. Richard stated there is no possibility
of running any quantities and the only reason a change order would
be required is if they found some unknown condition underground
that was unknown to the City.
Mr. Neville questioned since this project does take place in his
District and is close to his home, will there be any risk to the
residents, such as odor or chemicals? Mr. Richard stated no, the
risk to the contractor is damaging some of the structures or
piping. The City will secure the piping during construction so
that a break does not occur or chemicals spilled. The chemicals he
referenced are used in the odor control facility and the only
possibility might if the odor control has to be shut down there
offensive odors might be emitted. He is hopeful the work can be
completed within the next couple of months since that is the time
when odors are minimal from that location. Mr. Neville questioned
why this problem was not recognized when the extensive work was
done in the Warren Avenue basin? Mr. Richar4 explained the
engineers that designed that project, both preliminary and final
design, picked up on it. Mr. Neville asked if this "fix" will take
us well into the next century? Mr. Richard stated yes, he does not
anticipate any more work for the Warren Avenue basin.
Mr. Montgomery stated he was very familiar with the subject pump
station and could appreciate why no one wanted to bid on the
project. He asked if the City's Safety Officer will be present
during the construction work? Mr. Richar4 stated the Safety
Officer tries to visit the sites; however, he does not have that
responsibility on this project. The contractor is responsible for
the trench safety and all other safety.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to approve a contract for $42,602.21
with Olsen's Land Development, Inc. for Pump Station CE-1 Sanitary
Sewer Main Replacement Project, and authorize the Mayor to execute
the same.
8A - RESOLUTION NO. 2589t AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HEALTH
CARE REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT AND A DEPENDENT CARE REIMBURSEMENT
ACCOUNT, #AB97-055
Under IRS regulations, an employer may establish a "Reimbursement
TAPE #1447
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 9 of 23
Account" program. This allows an employee to set aside, through
payroll deduction, a portion of his or her salary on a pre-tax
basis, that can be used to reimburse certain dependent care and/or
health care expenses.
he Insurance Benefits Committee is recommending this as part of a
package of voluntary plans to be made available to employees.
These plans will be paid for by the employee participating.
Jim Meith, Human resources Manager, stated the Insurance Benefit
Committee was formed about 1 1/2 years ago and is comprised of all
represented Unions, non-represented Management/Professional group,
Mayor's representative, Human Resources Department representative
and Administrative Services representative. That committee
undertook a complete look at all the City's insurance programs and
what might be desirable in the future. The process was two phases:
the first phase was basically those programs that the City funds,
dental and medical programs, which resulted in the RFP's going out
in the summer of 1996, and in turn resulted in a competitive
process that actually contributed to a reduction in the city's
insurance premium for 1997. The second phase was dealing with some
concerns and interest employees had brought to the committee
through their representative or directly to the Human Resources
Department, which included voluntary programs. That package is now
being considered and part of it is the Reimbursement Accounts. The
Committee is also studying the possibility of offering voluntary
Life Insurance to employees and will be implementing the voluntary
Disability Insurance Program in a few months. All of these
programs are paid for by the employees and the only involvement of
the City is through payroll deduction.
The Internal Revenue Service provisions provide for a 125-plan that
allows employees to set aside some of their money for specifically
health purposes or for dependent care. The employees interested in
the health care program are interested mostly for orthodontics
treatment for themselves or their children, and the purchase of eye
glasses. Basically, the employees determines how much money they
want to set aside in this account and the plan year for this
account is April 1, 1997 through March 31, 1998. Information
meetings on this proposal are scheduled throughout the month of
March and it will be made clear to the employees that the plans are
voluntary and under the IRS regulations if an employee does not use
the amount they designate for that year, that amount is forfeited.
Employees will be encouraged to be conservative the first year of
their involvement so that they can get a feel for what their needs
will be over the period of a year. There are provisions, under the
regulations, where changes can be made for what are called "life
style changes" i.e., divorce, death in the family, birth or
adoption of a child, loss of employment, where money can be taken
#1842
TAPE #1447
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 10 of 23
back out of the account or to increase the amount depending on the
circumstances.
Pubic comment - none.
Mr. M¢Connell asked if the employees have been informed that this
proposal will be coming up? Mr. Meith stated yes. Mr. M¢Connell
asked where will the money go if forfeited by the employees? Mr.
Meith explained forfeited funds would go back into the Employee
Medical Reserve Fund. It was the feeling of the Insurance Benefits
Committee that would keep it in the area of employee benefits and
available for employee use. Mr. McConnell asked if the IRS
suggested where forfeited funds should go? Mr. Meith stated no,
just that it can not go back to the client.
Mr. Montgomez7 asked if the employees would be required to sign a
statement acknowledging they understand the forfeiture requirement?
Mr. Meith explained the enrollment form contains a statement that
any unused amounts remaining in the reimbursement account(s) at the
end of the plan year will be forfeited.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to adopt Resolution No. 2589,
authorizing the establishment of a Health Care Reimbursement
Account and a Dependent Care Reimbursement Account in accordance
with applicable Internal Revenue Code requirements.
8B - RESOLUTION ~2590 ENDORSING THE HOME PORTING OF A THIRD NIMITZ-
CLASS CARRIER AT PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD, #AB97-056
The administration is seeking the City Council's endorsement of the
Department of the navy proposal to place a third Nimitz-class
carrier at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
Mayor Lynn Horton stated the Department of Navy is reviewing where
they will place the third Nimitz-class carrier. At this point, it
is in Everett, but there is discussion that could mean the USS
Lincoln could be homeported in the City of Bremerton. She, Council
President Fart and Councilman Law met with Navy officials for
approximately two hours to discuss issues of interest to the City
and the Navy. She believes this goes beyond the Environmental
Impact Statement issues and is whether or not we, as the community,
support homeporting of the third aircraft carrier. She believes
the positives out weigh the negatives and things that impact the
community can be minimized and the positives can be maximized. She
urged Council to adopt the Resolution.
Bert Gegner, Bremerton resident and Board member of the Puget Sound
Naval Base Association (PSNBA), stated the PSNBA's mission since
the mid 1940s has been to provide support to the Naval bases of
Kitsap County. He then gave a brief rundown of the membership of
the PSNBA. In the past, PSNBA has taken on tough issues such as 50-
40 split of the depot maintenance and privatization of depots, base
TAPE #1447
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 11 of 23
closure commission issues, and worked with Congressman Norm Dicks
on successfully resolving the issues relating to the spent fuel in
Idaho. Now, we are facing a potential threat not only to the
continued operations of the Naval bases in the area, but also a
threat to the economic stability of the community. This relates to
the homeporting decisions the Navy has to make regarding nuclear
carriers. Our community has had an opportunity in the past to
address and testify to the Navy officials on the impact of
homeporting of the USS Abraham Lincoln at PSNS. He read the letter
that PSNBA submitted on behalf and in support of the community to
homeport the aircraft carrier in Bremerton. The PSNBA supports the
proposed resolution and the homeporting of the USS Abraham Lincoln.
Jim Adrian, Bremerton resident and representing IAPT Local 12
(local labor organization that represents 1,500 white collar
workers at PSNS) read a letter that the IAPT Local 12 submitted in
support of the homeporting of the USS Abraham Lincoln in Bremerton.
He pointed out this does not only have to do with re-homeporting
the Lincoln today or within the next couple of years, but the whole
scope of the hearing deals with where the Navy will ultimately base
five nuclear carriers through the year 2004. It is a good
possibility that 1, 2 or 3 carriers could be located in San Diego.
The Navy is currently developing a nuclear repair facilities in San
Diego and as the Navy continues to downside across the country,
competition for these ships, the families and the incomes they
provide to the community is intense. He believes it makes sense
that the Lincoln and another carrier come to Bremerton; however,
these decisions become politically charged, i.e. Congressmen get
involved, jobs are at stake, public protests are staged. The
Senator from Hawaii is very powerful and making a bid for the
Lincoln, but it does not make business sense for that carrier to be
based in Hawaii. However, if there is a political decision made as
opposed to a business decision, we could be "high and dry". We
can't assume it is a done deal and we need to continue aggressively
proactively engaging the Navy at every opportunity through such
organizations as Navy League, PSNBA, Unions, City Officials,
Congressional members, etc. He did not see the homeporting of the
Lincoln creating new jobs, but if it slows down the rate of jobs
being lost and there aren't any more riffs or early outs, that is
progress.
Bill Camp, Bremerton resident, reminded Council that a homeported
ship in Bremerton does not carry a guaranty that the repair work
for that ship will be performed in PSNS and in many instances is
performed by a private contractor. He noted when a private
contractor performs the work it does not always mean an economic
boom for this area. He had an opportunity to sit in with the
Rental Owners Association meeting where Mayor Horton was promoting
the criminal background check ordinance, which was passed by the
TAPE #1447
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 12 of 23
City Council, and part of her thrust was that the military had a
policy and order the sailors to not rent, buy or lease property in
the City of Bremerton on the basis that the crime was so bad. He
emphasized before considering homeporting another carrier in
Bremerton, he wanted to know if the Navy had changed its posture
and issued a declaration of change of Dolicy to allow sailors to
rent, lease, buy property in the City. Secondly, when you bring in
several thousand sailors, considering the vast amount of
legislation Council has passed in the past couple of months, it
would be incumbent upon the Commanding Officer of that vessel to
pass along to the sailors that criminal background checks could be
made for any sailors that may wish to live in the city and if there
is any problem with the law they will be evicted. He also believed
they should be apprised of the City's legislation that addresses
"tall grass".
Roy McInnls, Bremerton resident, stated being retired military he
would not whole heartily say he was against anything that is being
proposed; however, he was concerned about bringing a third carrier
into Bremerton. He echoed some of Mr. Camp's comments. He asked
is this something we just look at as far as having economic income
or is it something that has been thought out on what the impact
would be if the third carrier was homeported in Bremerton? He
asked if the City though about what would happen if there was a big
build up of military in this area and then five years later the
Navy changed its mind to send the Lincoln back to Everett? He is
not concerned for himself, but is concerned about his children and
grandchildren and the affect it will have on the Bremerton
community in future years. He was not comfortable about
integrating more people coming from varying backgrounds into this
community.
Mr. Adrian stated for clarification that if you read the scoping
statement relative to the environmental assessment we are not
talking about a third carrier coming and no one leaving. We are
talking about three non-nuclear ships - Rainier, Camden and one
other that may go to Everett. We are talking about a net increase
of population in Bremerton of 400-700 people. The carrier
contingent that typically comes is about 3,000-3,400 people. The
scenario would be that the three other ships would go to Everett.
PSNS does not do repair work on non-nuclear ships, which is
performed by Todd Shipyard. PSNS is the only shipyard on the west
coast that does nuclear repair work, so it is logical that the
nuclear ship be based in Bremerton.
Mr. Overson questioned the potential for work load growth? Mr.
A4rlan stated it was hard to say. Mr. Overson stated he did not
believe PSNS would hire a lot of people with the potential of that
going away some day. Mr. ~drian agreed with Mr. Overson and
TAPE #1447
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 13 of 23
pointed out the Navy made a decision to strategically locate in
Puget Sound, San Diego and Pearl Harbor areas. The conventional
wisdom is that will be in place for 20-30 years.
Mayor Horton stated the City has drafted input into the
Environmental Impact Statement and that mission was not taken
lightly. Police Chief Paul Du Fresne reviewed crime statistics and
correlated those statistics with ships in port. That review
revealed there was no correlation, we cannot show that crime
statistic increase when a ship comes into port. She believes the
perception of a lot of people is the Navy in the 1997 era is the
same as it was in 1947, and the fact is it is light years from the
1940's Navy. Today's Navy is highly skilled, trained and many of
them have degrees and advanced degrees; and they become part of our
community as homeowners, volunteers, youth sport coaches, etc. To
clarify the statement made by Mr. Camps regarding "housing", she
did follow up on a comment having to do with the availability of a
house for rent in Bremerton and the issues was not crime, but
rather the cost of living. In talking to the head of Navy housing
at Bangor, because they have thousands and thousands of homes that
are on the housing listing for Navy personnel, they ask the person
seeking housing what area they are interested in locating and
then provide them with the pertinent data. The Housing Manager
felt that particular circumstance could have been miscommunications
and that she would talk with her staff so that would not be the
case in the future. Currently, there is adequate infrastructure in
PSNS as well in the City that easily accommodates ships going in
and out. Clearly, there are things that the City feels is
important just by the Navy presence, but we can't say that because
of a new ship coming in it will cause heartburn in any one
direction, it is a broader issue of Navy impact totally in the
community.
On a recent trip to Washington D.C., Mayor Horton and County
Commissioner Chris Endresen talked with Congressmen and their staff
about transportation needs. Commissioner Endresen pointed out,
during those discussions, that because of the Lincoln going to
Everett the ferry system is experiencing about a 160 vehicle back
up on the Kingston Ferry. Based on that fact, Mayor Horton
believes that situation will not go away even if the Lincoln
continues to be homeported in Everett because more affordable
housing is available in Kitsap County than anywhere along the I-5
corridor. When looking at this issue, the city did not just say
yes, it is good for economics. The City has to provide services to
the community whether or not there is a ship in port; therefore
close analysis was made as to the impact, which was articulated
clearly to the Navy. There is no one issue that stands out that
has a huge impact on our community, if a carrier is brought into
TAPE #1447
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 14 of 23
the community and in the aggregate there is nothing to cause any
alarm to say we should not be doing this. She believe very firmly
that the positives far out weigh the negative fact that may come as
a result of this, i.e. jobs, economic input into the community and
in terms of having people in our community and schools.
TAPE #1448
Mr. Law stated he was amazed that there would be any negative
comments on this issue. He recalled not too many years ago San
Franciso voted to not homeport the USS Missouri and as his
grandmother always said "you never go where you are not wanted".
The Navy is a reflection of our own society and sailors come from
our communities throughout the nation and reflect that society. We
in Kitsap County have been lucky because we seem to get the best of
the Navy. He could not see why we shouldn't be happy to have the
opportunity to tell the Navy we want them in Bremerton.
Mr. Overson complimented the author of the resolution on its being
well articulated. Mayor Horton stated the compliment goes to
Terrie O'Neill, Municipal Services Coordinator.
Mr. Montqomery stated he spent 26 years in the Navy, was in 5
shipyards and 20+ years ago worked on this same problem. One of
the things about putting a nuclear aircraft carrier close to an
overhaul facility is that it saves the taxpayers lots of money
rather than bringing it and all the dependents long distances to
the new location. He believes everyone benefits when aircraft
carriers are placed in Bremerton. However, no matter how
economically sound, we still have to contend with the politicians
in Washington, D.C., and they don't always look at the savings to
the military. He emphasized if three aircraft carriers are
homeported in PSNS not all three would be in port at the same time
because one is always deployed, one working up and one maybe in
overhaul or coming down. However, the dependents would remain in
the local area. He agreed with Mayor Horton that military
personnel bring a wealth of skills and knowledge to this area.
Mr. Winters stated he never served in the military, but he is proud
to be from a miliary town. His father worked 30+ years in PSNS and
served the shipyard from the shore as a boilermaker. From the
outside looking in, his father is disappointed, in his years of
retirement, that what Mr. Camp stated is very true and what Mr.
Adrian stated is very true, the contracting of labor has decreased
the number of jobs for local employees. We have to deal with
change, but we have to welcome with open arms any source of
economic development i.e., military, telecommunications,
improvements, uses of the Port, etc.. We have a projection of
20,000 more people into the City by the year 2002. Some people
TAPE #1448
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 15 of 23
#0293
support lower density, he supports higher density and he also
believes housing should be improved. He pointed out in 1990 the
city was named "The Most Liveable City in America", which brought
a lot of people to this area. As of today, there are 5,000
properties for sale in Kitsap County and 130 vacant properties
under $90,000. Based on that data, he believes this community can
handle another ship and influx of population.
Mr. McConnell stated he served 21 years in the Navy in the Oakland
area and a tour of duty in Bremerton. On behalf of the crew of the
third carrier, he will support this resolution.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/McConnell) to pass Resolution #2590 endorsing the
home porting of a third NIMITZ-CLASS aircraft carrier in the Puget
Sound Naval shipyard (P.S.N.S.) of Bremerton, Washington.
9A - ORDINANCE NO. 4590 (SECOND READING) PROHIBITING BROADCAST
FEEDING OF BIRDS AND ANIMALS~ #AB97-043
Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston read the following letters into
the record: "I am the past President of Kitsap Audubon Society and
like many of the 700 members of that organization, I feed wild
birds in my yard. An ordinance prohibiting the feeding of birds or
other wildlife in such a way as to create a public nuisance is
needed and would receive my support. Some examples of the kind of
feeding that creates problems are the broadcasting or feeding on
open platform feeders stale bread, popcorn, seed mixtures and the
like, which attract mob feeding by European Rock Doves (city
pigeons), crows, gulls, and a few other birds. They land on
surrounding buildings, wires, trees, and the like and defecate.
The droppings can be unpleasant, damaging to structures, vehicles,
and plants and even pose a health hazard to people. Some may also
create unwanted noise and the uneaten food can attract rats.
Responsible bird feeders go to great lengths to prevent such
problems by screening feeders with wire netting to allow song birds
to feed while keeping out larger birds such as pigeons and crows.
The use of catch trays under feeders keep food off the ground.
Ground feeding is useful for some song birds, but must be done out
of view of nuisance birds. It should be noted that not every
gathering of birds is a negative or artificial event. European
Starlings on your lawn are eating the larvae of European Crane
flies that can damage lawns. The large number of widgeon (a kind
of duck) that gather on the grass at Lions Field and elsewhere eat
only grass, do not respond to feeding and are here only in the
winter, so, they mow and fertilize the grass at a time when it is
little used by humans! I have discussed the above information with
John McDonald the current President of Kitsap Audubon Society and
we are in agreement as to its validity. P.S. I would be willing
to do a bird feeding class if there is enough interest. Signed
TAPE #1448
city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 16 of 23
Ivan A. Summers, 3019 Sanders Avenue, Bremerton, WA 98310."
"As I was scanning channels on Thursday afternoon I stopped on
Channel 12 to listen in on Wednesday evening's City Council
meeting. To my surprise, my neighbor Fannie Begleau, 1523 6th
Street, was speaking on the subject of pigeons and the feeding of
these other critters. I can count on the sea gulls, pigeons, crows
and starlings descending on the neighborhood every morning. I have
lived here since February of 1991 and Fannie has been ever so
faithful in the feeding of birds, stray cats, stray dogs and any
other critter that wanders into her yard - my cat included, she
even allows stray cats into her home during the day to "visit" and
is upset when they won't go away at night. She, by the way has two
cats of her own. I believe she stated that she is ever so
meticulous about cleaning her yard and outside her home so there is
no debris from her feeding of animals and birds. What she does not
say is that the sidewalk in front of our homes shows the stains of
bird droppings where they sit on the overhead lines, the bread that
covers her yard and is scattered by the birds when they fight over
the food. Then there is the sound of sea gulls tromping across the
roof trying to take flight or eat what they just took from the
yard. There are days when you cannot see Fannie's yard for the
birds that have landed to eat. Her lot is small and it does not
take long for the birds to spill over into the adjoining yards.
Then there are the days she puts out extra food and it lays there
for hours before it is cleaned up by whatever passes through. She
doesn't think about the unwanted guests (i.e. rats, mice and
insects) that appear in the night to eat the food she kindly sets
out for that particular car or dog she considers a stray.
Springtime brings an abundance of mice that have nested close by.
The free food is more than they can turn down. My cat brings me
little mice with such pride! I'm getting to be quite a mouser
myself because he brings them in live so he can share with me and
we can play together. Star of the Sea School is being erected
adjacent to my property. The roof of the new school building was
alive with sea gulls and pigeons this winter just waiting for
Fannie to appear with their morning feast. There may be no mess in
her yard but there is in ours. There are days when she broadcasts
up to three loaves of bread to feed all the birds and that's a lot
for the birds to digest and dispose of. There is not a day gone by
that we have not had to wash bird droppings from our porches and
cars. Can you tell how tired I am of the mess and noise? With a
school's paved playground a stone's throw away from the pigeons and
other birds I would think there is also a health issue involved.
Putting out bird feeders to attract and feed small birds is one
thing, covering your yard with bread and bird seed is overkill. I
own a cat so I don't feed the birds. It's too tempting and he is
a real hunter. If Fannie and others like her want to feed their
TAPE #1448
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 17 of 23
dear little friends, let then do so in a more conservative fashion
with a feeder that restricts the size, number and type of animals
that are attracted. I support any ordinance that would limit the
broadcasting of feed. Not only will it help cut back on the
overwhelming gatherings of birds, but it will also discourage
unwelcome "guests" I mentioned earlier, signed Sylvia M. Wilson,
1521 6th Street, Bremerton, WA 98337."
Mayor Horton stated the input given on this issue, at the time of
first reading of the ordinance, was taken into consideration and
turned the focus of the ordinance on the public nuisance created by
volumes of birds/animals and not those people that want to feed
birds using small feeders or putting out food when there is snow on
the ground and they cannot find food themselves. Also included
were any domestic or wild animals, as well as birds, because it was
pointed out stray cats were also a problem. Another point of
clarification was that it constituted a civil infraction, not a
criminal infraction. Over the past two weeks numerous calls were
received by her Office stating that they too had experienced the
same kind of problems in various neighborhoods. She urged
Council's support of the ordinance on second reading.
Bill Camp, Bremerton resident, expressed concern about how far the
City can reach in and direct lives of property owners. Previously,
comments were made that large flocks of birds are a problem in
other cities across the country as well as in Puget Sound Naval
shipyard (PSNS). Based on his information, PSNS does not have a
problem because they have kill pigeons over the past five years.
He agreed with Mr. Dickerson, a previous speaker on this issue,
that it is more appropriate for the Courts to settle disputes
arising from neighborhood disputes. In his opinion, this action
looked like election year politics.
Andy Par~q~a, Bremerton resident, made the following prepared
statement: "It is my opinion, as stated in my response to the
Mayor, that passing ordinances and the codification of such costs
the taxpayers money, for that reason, since this, if passed, will
require recodification, the entire original B.M.C. 7.08 should be
cleaned up. This version has an added amendment that extends
beyond bird feeding, therefore, it is legitimate to speak to
subjects that tie into Section 1. Amendment.
Subsection (h), in part states "Violation of this section shall be
a misdemeanor." The word "section" is incorrect as (h) is a
subsection the word "secton" should read subsection.
By the proposed amendment, all subsections of 7.08.100 are civil
infractions except for subsection (h). I have a problem with
TAPE #1448
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 18 of 23
subsection (b) Diseased Animals and (g) Threateninq Pedestrians.
In my opinion, to own an animal with an infectious or contagious
disease and to allow that animal to run at large, come into contact
with other animals or to drink at any public or common watering
trough or steam should be a misdemeanor. (Humans can be infected
by such animals). Even though the infected animal is being treated
by a veterinarian, until it is declared contagious free, it should
not be allowed to run at large, subsection (g) is also
questionable to be classified a civil infraction. It reads: "To
cause, permit, or allow any animal to snap at, jump upon, or
otherwise threaten persons using the public sidewalks, streets,
alleys or other public ways." Causing an animal to jump on, or snap
at a person could very well be a danger to the dogs life.
Section 7.08.010 and 7.08.050 have requirements, but are not
classified as to what the results are if disregarded. That is not
specified until Section 7.08.100 by the proposal and refers only to
Following Acts, not Preceding Acts.
There are sections that refer to misdemeanors or civil infractions.
Where in the B.M.C. does it indicate the penalty for the violation?
As an example, look at Chapter 6.28, UNIFORM LITTER CONTROL CODE.
Note 6.28.170 PENALTIES.
Regarding the addition of (m)(2): If a person attends a function
in Aberdeen and will be gone for 12 hours, must he return within
four hours to assure all the food has been eaten and again return
to the family function in Aberdeen? Councilman Colvin, you were
correct, it was "for the birds" last week and adding (m) (2) puts it
into a category I will not describe in public.
Feeding of stray cats and dogs should not be allowed. Instead of
feeding them, Animal Control should be called. How does the person
know if they are infected or have a contagious disease?"
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated Mr. Parypa focuses on the
criminal penalties, which was a question raised at the first
reading of the ordinance. As Mr. Parypa pointed out, most of the
B.M.C. chapters have a penalty section that applies to that
chapter; however, when he checked the Animal Control Chapter he
found it was not typical and some sections called for infractions
and other called for misdemeanors. The particular chapter where he
proposed to insert the subject ordinance was silent on the penalty,
but did list a lot of nuisances that were prohibited. With the
exception of Section 8, which said that will be a misdemeanor,
clearly that is the worst offense among the list of nuisances, i.e.
biting, chasing, attacking, as a misdemeanor. It was his
interpretation that probably the intent was to make the rest lesser
TAPE #1448
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 19 of 23
offenses and infractions since those other chapters under Animal
Control call for infractions. Therefore, the change he made today
was a necessary change to the ordinance, he couldn't come back and
tell Council want it was, but he had to create some penalties for
this bird ordinance. At the same time, he clarified penalties for
the rest of those sections. Mr. Parypa's point is that he believes
there are some other sections that need clarifying and that the
penalties should be misdemeanors rather than infractions. There is
a general provision in the B.M.C. declaring what penalties are when
an infraction or misdemeanor is called out. In his opinion, that
penalty schedule did not have to be repeated every time a penalty
was included in an ordinance. He met with Deborah Goodell, Animal
Control Supervisor, on the redraft of this ordinance, particularly
on the subject of how she felt the penalty scheme should be for
this one section. He indicated to her he was making them all an
infraction, except for the one that is already called out as a
misdemeanor, which is allowed to continue under the language of the
ordinance, and she did not have any problem with that scheme. In
regard to Mr. Parypa's point on excess food remaining on the
property, exposed and allowing access to it, he selected the 4-hour
time frame and Ms. Goodell supported his recommendation.
Larry Dickerson, Bremerton resident, stated as Mr. Overson pointed
out this is no longer an issue of broadcast feeding. He conducted
some experiments placing bird feed in various size pans, which drew
just as many sea gulls, starlings, and crows as if it had been
broadcast. He questioned how many separate complaints from
separate people had the City received regarding this issue? Mayor
~orton stated about a dozen people had contacted her office. Mr.
Dickerson questioned the appropriateness of creating an ordinance
on 12 complaints? Six months ago a group of ladies came before the
City council from the 1000 block of 4th and 5th Streets asking the
City to correct the crime in their neighborhood. What resulted was
their taking charge of the situation by organizing a Block Watch
program and did it for themselves. He also agreed that
neighborhood disputes could be resolved through the Courts or
Dispute Resolution Service. He urged the Council to vote no.
Elizabeth Buell, Bremerton resident, asked if the ordinance would
prevent her from tearing up bread and throwing it on her front lawn
for the birds to eat?
Diane Killam, Bremerton resident, stated her concern is with the
congestion of birds over her property. Because of her neighbor's
practice of feeding birds, she has bird droppings all over her
property, which increases the chance for disease. Lawns and plants
cannot be washed off like slabs of cement and she faces an on going
problem. The City has other ordinances for people that are there
TAPE #1448
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 20 of 23
because they have abused the system, they have rights and they let
them go.
Mr. Paryp& stated he was not against the subject ordinance in
general, but when we're going to clean it up, lets clean it all up
at once. Mr. Sievers stated the definition of an infraction and
misdemeanor was listed in the Administrative section of the B.M.C..
He asked how does the average person know to look up Section 1.2
when the issue is identified in Section 7.08. Mr. Sievers stated
the practice of not repeating those penalty sections where it is a
standard penalty has been the way the code has been handled. In
the chapter dealing with Animal Control there aren't sections
outlining the penalty, but rather calls out if it is a misdemeanor
or infraction. Mr. Parypa also raised the issue about cleaning up
the whole chapter because of the cost of codification. As of now,
the City has the B.M.C. on computer disk, which allows the City to
make changes at a very low cost. The City is not doing
codification more frequently than quarterly. Also, Ms. Goodell
indicated she had some other changes she would like to see made to
the Animal Control chapter.
Mr. Colvin expressed concern that initially the ordinance addressed
the feeding of birds and now wild animals were included. Mr.
Sievers stated it is in a sense a new topic in that criminal
penalties are being assigned to the other nuisances in the section
that was amended. This bird nuisance would have a penalty. Mr.
Colvin asked Mr. Sievers if he would advise cleaning up the chapter
as suggested by Mr. Parypa? Mr. Sievers stated he did not believe
there was a need to go into entirely new sections of the ordinance
since Ms. Goodell wants to address additional changes at a later
time.
Mr. Overson stated he agreed with people who are concerned that
government should stay out of houses and not be encroaching on
people's lives. He also agrees that some thing is needed to
address the concerns identified and the proposed ordinance does
that without getting into people's lives and appears to be
enforceable. He did not want to make other changes other than what
is proposed in the ordinance.
Mr. McConnell questioned how does one prevent starlings from coming
down into yards to eat the larvae, worms, etc.? He questioned what
is meant by "such times" as it is stated: "to feed outdoor at such
times"? And, what numbers create a nuisance and who determines
what is unreasonable? He views this ordinance as being one that
would be thrown out of Court by a Judge due to its being ambiguous.
He also raised a point about a conflict between the 4-hour limit
leaving food in the yard and the proper caring for pets when left
TAPE #1448
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 21 of 23
outside. Mr. Sievers stated what has been done is to move away
from a prohibition of a specific kind of behavior. Some of the
suggestions for changes, at first reading of the ordinance, were
don't unduly restrict what a person is doing, only restrict the
impact on the neighbors. The focus is now on the performance
standard and that performance being you can't do it in a manner or
at a time or in such quantities that it creates an impact. That is
a more vague standard and very similar to the City's nuisance noise
standard, which reads almost the same way. It has been found to
not be unconstitutional, so it is a reasonable person standard.
The way it would be enforce is also similar to that section of the
Noise Ordinance. If a person does not know that a large gathering
of birds are making a noise that disturbs the surrounding property
owner, they would probably just be warned, but if they persist in
the routine of feeding at the same time each day so that it
attracts large numbers of birds that create noise and produce
droppings, they will be cited for an infraction. Mr. McConnell
expressed concerned that the proposed ordinance would put him in
violation since he has bird feeders that trickle down as the birds
eat the food. He needed clarification about food remaining uneaten
for a specific period of time. He could not support the ordinance
as written. Mr. Sievers stated he doubted the Animal Control
people wanted large bird feeders filled with a week's supply of
food left out because it does attract the strays and rodents.
Mr. Law reported he received 11 telephone calls from concerned
citizens citing specific areas within District #3 that are problem
areas and at least six constituents stopped him in stores and on
the street to encourage him to support stricter regulations on bird
feeding.
Mr. Winters reported several constituents also contacted him and
the most interesting one was from Jack Lefcoski, who feels people
should be restricted from feeding ducks at Kitsap Lake. Mr.
Lefcoski was most concerned about the ducks defecating in the lake
which impacts the weed problem. In reference to the section stating
it would be a violation if food is left out and uneaten for four
hours or more, he felt he would be in violation when his two cherry
trees, two plum tress and an apple tree were bearing fruit, because
he did not pick up the fallen fruit every day.
#2039
M/S/C(Montgomery/Overson) to pass Ordinance No. 4590, on second
reading, prohibiting outdoor feeding of birds or animals, and
amending BMC 7.08.100.
Mr. Overson pointed part 2 seems to be different interpretations
and asked if some legal terminology should be inserted? Mr.
TAPE #1448
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 22 of 23
Slevers stated he did not interpret that "feed" referred to growing
produce, particularly when reading the legislative history in the
WHEREAS where it states "or otherwise allowing access to feed or
edible waste". He had a problem saying if feed scattered on the
ground or other surface remains uneaten for four hours because even
though it may be in a large container we do not want it to sit
there for days or weeks unattended. He believes there is a core
behavior that the proposed ordinance addresses and there is almost
no way to write a law that someone can't find some exception or
circumstance that seems unfair. Mr. Overson suggested adding the
words "contributes to a nuisance by remaining uneaten for more than
4 hours".
Mr. Colvin stated he did not believe Mr. Winter's analogy applied
in this instance and could not be accused of broadcasting fruit.
Mr. Winters stated he could be accused by the neighbors for
excessive noise created by the birds prior to their feeding on his
fruit in the early morning.
Mayor Horton noted she has received calls from people expressing
concern that fruit is left on the ground and bees have become a
problem. In those circumstances, the City did contact the property
owner and asked them to clean up the excess fruit. The intent of
this legislation is to have an ordinance that gives the City the
tools to deal with the large neighborhood problems. She assured
everyone that the intent is not to go after people that place small
feeders in their yard to feed birds, or monitor how people are
handling the rotting fruit or bird feed that slipped to the ground.
If the proposed ordinance is approved and at a later time Council
members receive complaints about the City's enforcement policy, the
issue can be readdressed.
Mr. McConnell asked what kind of a complaint will cause the city to
respond with an investigation? Mayor Horton explained generally
the City tries to deal with the situation over the telephone;
however if it appears the problem is not one that can be resolved
simply, then a'staff member is dispatched to the site to look at
the problem. If the situation warrants enforcement, a letter is
written to the adjoining property owner explaining complaints have
been received and ask them to resolve the problem. In most
instances, the offending neighbor takes the appropriate action in
response to the complaints. Mr. M¢Connell noted the civil Courts
provided a process to handle such disputes.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In favor: Montgomery, Overson, Law, Colvin,
Neville
Opposed:McConnell, Winters
TAPE #1448
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 12, 1997
Page 23 of 23
Vice President Neville thanked the TV camera crew for their
services: Rob Rupe, James Noble Jr., and Jamie Campbell.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:12 P.M.
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
DAVID D. FARR, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/DDF/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault
1. SUBJECT:
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1997
FOR AGEND~ OF: MARCH 26, 1997
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Council
ORIGINATOR: David Farr, President
DATE SUBMITTED: 3-21-97
2. C__L_~.NCES: (com~uent on back
if necessary)
EXHIBITS.:
4. $UM}4A~Y STATEh~ENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR'COUNCiL.ACtION:
8. RECO~ENDATION:
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:-
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
DAT]
~MENDED
TAPE #1449
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 19t 1997
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton
was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street,
Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, March 19, 1997, at 5:30 P.M.,
with Council President David Farr presiding. Council members
present were Bob Winters, Carlos Montgomery, Richard Neville, Lon
Overson, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and A1 Colvin. Councilman
Sherril Huff-Menees was absent. Also present was Acting City Clerk
Rich Hanna.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President Farr and Invocation given by Reverend Scott Huff of St.
Luke's United Methodist Church.
#0042
#0060
President Fart made the following announcements:
(1) A City Council Study Session will be held immediately
following the Council meeting to discuss "Planning Commission
issues".
(2) A City Council Study Session will be held March 24, 1997,
starting at 5:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, and the topic
of discussion is: "Further Discussion On Sinclair Landing
Association Update Report".
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting -- March 5, 1997
#AB97-058
M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented.
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required
by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified
as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that
had been made available to the Council.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) on March 19, 1997, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: 206895 through 207128 in the amount of $300,651.51.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Colvin stated he appreciated Del Knauss's questions, which were
raised at the previous Council meeting and encouraged all citizens
to ask questions.
TAPE #1449
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 19, 1997
Page 2 of 8
Mr. McConnell announced the next District #2 Neighborhood Meeting
will be held April 3, 1997, 6:30 P.M., at Fire Station #3, on E.
31st Street and Olympus Drive.
Mr. Law reported Police Chief Paul DuFresne made a very good
presentation at the District #3 Neighborhood meeting on Tuesday
evening. Based on that presentation, Mr. Law felt comfortable with
the evaluation requirements for the performance of Police Officers.
Mr. Overson stated he supports the Police Department's efforts to
reduce some problems having to do with illegal activities in the
City.
Mr. Montqomez7 reported today he attended a Water Protection
Teleconference where the importance of protecting water resources
was discussed. He did not agree with THE SUN's interpretation of
the Police Department's performance standards. For those getting
tickets, he cautioned learn to live within the law.
Mr. Winters announced the AD Hoc Citizens Committee on
Telecommunications' first meeting will be March 31, 1997, 6:30
P.M., in the Council Conference Room. He announced Mayor Horton
will comment, during her report, on THE SUN's reporting the city
had agreed to a year extension of the TCI franchise prior to any
Council action. He asked that Del Knauss be provided data
identifying what the City paid Ben Pollock for his services.
Mr. Fart reported a residence in his neighborhood experienced
damage from a mud slide and the owner, Mrs. Ruth Smith, is taking
refuge with a neighbor, Mr. & Mrs. Bill Garland. On the bright
side, it shows what the Bremerton community is like with neighbors
helping neighbors. The Anderson Cove area will hold a meeting on
"traffic calming devices" at the Bremerton High School, Room 206,
a date and time to be announced.
MAYOR,S REPORT stated a request to extend the TCI Franchise
agreement for one year will be brought to Council in the very near
future. In order to allow the system to continue forward and allow
the City to collect taxation from the system, the extension is
needed. She will be setting up some public hearings to talk about
cable T.V. service delivery and there is a delineated process to
follow since the City is at impasse with TCI. The newspaper
article indicated the extension was a "done deal", which is not the
case.
Mayor Horton supports the Police Department and the Police Chief's
efforts in trying to measure standards for Police performance. THE
SUN has chosen to use "quota system", which are performance
TAPE #1449
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 19, 1997
Page 3 of 8
standards, and stated they are new to the community. Performance
standards are not new, have been in place for a very long time, and
is a way to measure the officers performance in the line of duty.
She is hearing positive comments from residents from practically
every neighborhood that they are seeing and experiencing more safe
conditions within their neighborhoods. She is also receiving
positive feedback from residents along Park Avenue over the
installation of the traffic circle. Other areas are being
considered for installation of traffic calming devises, such as
lower, more gentle speed bumps and/or bulbing out curbs at
intersections. People are telling her they want more enforcement in
neighborhoods rather than less.
Mayor Horton agreed that Ben Pollock's contract costs should have
been included in the information given to Del Knauss and she would
see that he received that information.
Four properties within the City have been posted as "Unsafe TO
Occupy" (Lafayette, Phinney Bay, Wheaton Way and Anderson
Street),due to mud slides. City crews are watching sites on
Campbell Way and Daniels Street for potential slides. Since the
storm event in December 1996, the City engaged a geologist to
evaluate some of the steep slopes in order to get a better
understanding of potential hazards. An area along North Lake Way
experienced erosion, which is the county's responsiblity; however,
the City has a water line to protecting in that area. A canyon area
along old Wheaton Way also is experiencing mud slides. Casad Dam is
experiencing a record high water capacity, but not in any danger.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association and Marilyn
Mantzke, West Sound Arts Council, talked about the Arts Walk and
Arts Party that will be held on April 26, starting at 11:00 AM and
concluding with a Bremerton Symphony Pops Concert at 8:00 P.M., at
the Admiral Theater.
Garland Freymann, Bremerton resident, expressed his concern that
Harlow Drive is used as a raceway by vehicles, making it unsafe for
children walking along the shoulder of the roadway to and from
school. His family experienced the loss of a family pet to a hit
and run driver in front of.their home on Harlow Drive.
Del Knauss, Bremerton resident, stated he was opposed to the City
setting up speed traps for motorist along main arterials instead of
their paroling neighborhoods. The response he received from the
Police Chief on traffic tickets issued was different than what was
reported in THE SUN's article. He acknowledged Mayor Horton
responded to his previous questions. He asked the City to provide
him with the data as to how much money, over the last four years,
TAPE #1449
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 19, 1997
Page 4 of 8
had the Water Department loaned the Wastewater Department and how
much has been paid back so far?
Charlie Brown, Bremerton resident, stated he was still waiting for
a response to a prior question that related to a court case, which
the city lost, involving the Noise Ordinance. He was one of the
motorist that contributed to the Police Department's quota.
Roy McInnis, Bremerton resident, complimented the Wastewater
Utility Department for their assistance in resolving a utility
problem experienced by the Sinclair Missionary Church. The problem
involved a broken pipe in an easement across the former Burley
property, which was repaired by the new owner Parr Ford.
Shannon Bell Bremerton resident, announced Bremerton took first
place at the Special Olympics event at Cheney, Washington.
Harrison Hospital will hold a Blood Drive on April 7, 11:00 AM -
1:00 PM and 1:45 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.
7A - APPOINTMENT OF DAVID VANNEST TO THE DISABILITY ACTION
#1360
COMMITTEEt ~AB97-059
There is a vacancy of the Disability Action Committee.
recommended that vacancy be filled by Mr. David Vannest.
It is
Mayor Horton described Mr. Vannest's involvement in helping to
resolve gang and drug activity in the Callow Avenue/Montgomery
Avenue neighborhood. Mr. Vannest is disabled, but able to make
contributions to the community and would be a good advocate on this
committee.
Public comment - none.
Mr. McConnell asked if this appointment would fill out the
Committee? Mayor Horton stated she believed one additional
position was vacant.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to confirm the appointment of Mr. David
Vannest to the Disability Action Committee.
8A - RESOLUTION NO. 2591t ESTABLISHING ABATEMENT PROCESS FEESt
~AB97-060
Ordinance No. 4586 established the City's authority to assess
"administrative costs incidental to abatement as set by Council
Resolution". Resolution No. 2591 establishes the administrative
fee allowed by the ordinance. This fee represents 75% of the
abatement administrative costs as estimated by staff.
Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, explained the City's
current Abatement process and how it impacts the General Fund when
TAPE #1449
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 19, 1997
Page 5 of 8
buildings are either repaired or demolished by the City. Physical
costs of an abatement are recoverable through a lien process
against a property, if the owner does not reimburse the City.
However, Administrative costs associated with those kinds of
actions are not recoverable under that process and a significant
amount of staff work is involved. The estimated average
administrative costs for an abatement is $775.00 per abatement.
Approximately one abatement is performed per month and without
being able to recover administrative or indirect cost of the
abatements, the General Fund is covering that expense. The
administration strongly recommends the recovery of at least 75% or
$600.00, for every property that goes through the abatement process
in addition to construction or demolition costs. Once the fee is
established, it will stay in affect and increase or decrease
annually based on the previous year's Cost Of Living Index (CPI).
Charlie Brown, Bremerton resident, asked if the city only collected
money from a lien when the property was sold and does the City
collect interest? Rich Hanna, Acting City Clerk, explained liens
are recorded by the City Treasurer's office with the County
Treasurer and then placed on the property tax rolls and subject to
the same interest rates for delinquent Property Taxes (12% per
year) and subject to foreclosure under the same terms as Property
Taxes (3-years delinquent is subject to foreclosure).
President Fart stated his support of this proposal, but was
concerned about the repeat offenders getting a financial break, if
the City only charged 75% of the cost. He supported future action
to implement an escalating fee for repeat offenders.
Mr. Montgomery stated his support for 100% recovery of
administrative costs and questioned why should the rest of the
citizens pay for someone else's refusal to maintain their property
in a reasonable manner?
Mr. Colvln asked Mr. Pratt how he arrived at the 75% figure? Mr.
Pratt stated an argument can be made that this is a function of
general government, as a whole, and general government revenue
should be expended to support part of the abatement effort. He
came down more heavily in favor of being reimbursed full recovery
at 75%, but he would not argue if Council felt 100% recovery of the
average cost ($775.50) was appropriate. Mr. Colvin questioned if
tax dollars paid for the remaining 25% of the cost? Mr. Pratt
stated yes. Mr. Colvin expressed his support to recover 100% of the
cost.
Mr. Neville stated he supported the 75% recovery based on the fact
that to recover 100% of the cost would require tracking every hour
put into the process, which could create burdensome accounting
#1770
#1779
TAPE #1449
city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 19, 1997
Page 6 of 8
responsibilities.
Mr. Winters supported 100% recovery of costs and that should be the
responsiblity of the person creating the mess.
Mr. Overson complimented Mr. Pratt and his staff on coming up with
a supportable figure.
M/S/C/U(Overson/Neville) to adopt Resolution No. 2591, regarding
establishment of fees for the abatement process within the
Dangerous Building Code; including the amendment to include 100% of
the average cost ($775.50)
M/S/C(Law/Winters) an amendment to the motion to 100% of the
average cost ($775.50).
Mr. Montgomery pointed out abatements, such as the Burley property,
cost the City an excessive amount and $600.00 is a small figure
compared to what actually was expended.
Mr. Pratt stated an earlier proposal included a $200.00
administrative fee for abatements that the City undertake but are
completed by the owner. That fee was dropped from the proposed
resolution due to a legal question and it is his intention to bring
that issue back in the form of a Resolution that would meet legal
requirements. His department's statistics show that 1/3 or more of
the abatement actions started are actually finished by the property
owner.
Mr. Montqomer¥ questioned if it was feasible for the City to
collect 100% of the administrative cost? Mr. Pratt stated it is
feasible and it was considered, but he would argue against it. The
administrative overhead time frequently comes in little pieces,
i.e, 5 - 10- 15 minute periods, and it would take an administrative
cost to keep track of all of those pieces of time. The City
Attorney feels it would be difficult to defend in Court unless
documentation was provided showing the incremental periods and how
that time was spent. With a flat fee, all the City has to do is
demonstrate some relevance to the average cost.
Vote on the amended motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor: Law, McConnell, Colvin,
Winters, Montgomery, Farr
Opposed: Neville, Overson
Vote on original motion: Unanimous
8B - RESOLUTION NO. 2592, TO ADOPT THE 1996 UTILITY LAND MANAGEMENT
PLAN, ~AB97-061
TAPE #1449
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 19, 1997
Page 7 of 8
The December 1996 Utility Land Management Plan updates the existing
1986 Land Management Plan. As with the 1986 Plan, the update
addresses maintaining the Union River surface water supply in
compliance with Department of Health regulations for unfiltered
sources under the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR). Volume II
of the 1996 Plan includes a timber inventory summary from the
computer data base developed within the project scope; a computer
based geographic information system (GIS) was developed for all
Water Utility forest lands; forest health issues are addressed also
in Volume II. The Utility Land Management Plan will provide a
rational long term approach for land and forest management policies
and practices within the constraints of water quality. An Advisory
Committee assisted in the Plan development process. This project
was brought to the October 21, 1996 Council Study Session.
Bill McKinne¥, Forestry Manager, stated both the original 1986 Plan
and the update Plan set forth established policies to protect water
quality and meet criteria for an unfiltered source. What is at
issue is maintaining water quality to meet Federal and State
standards so that the City does not have to go to a filtration
plant. Current estimates on capital outlay costs for such a plant
would be $12-15 million and an annual operation cost of
approximately $1.3 million.
In the area of forestry management, the 1996 Update Plan provides
tools that were not included with the original plan, i.e. timber
inventory that is based on extensive field data and establishes
annual cuts, values and is integrated with a Geographic Information
System (GIS) specific to the natural features of the Bremerton
Water Utility lands.
Also included in the 1996 Update plan, but not in the 1986 Plan,
was specifically addressing forest health issues to maintain future
productivity of the forest. Currently, the City does have specific
forest health disease problems that are being addressed. He
emphasized that condition is not unique to Bremerton, it is being
experienced in other western Washington forests. The GIS allows the
scanning of aerial photos and provides best management practices
for mitigation of those specific forest diseases.
Upon adoption of the resolution, the Plan will be submitted to the
State Department Of Health, which is part of the criteria for
maintaining a filtration exempt system.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Neville questioned the shelf life of the Plan? Mr. McKinne¥
stated 10-years. Mr. Neville asked if this means the City will not
have to worry about filtration for 10 years? Mr. McKinne¥ stated
#2648
TAPE #1449
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 19, 1997
Page 8 of 8
the original rules provided that if you exceeded some of the water
quality criteria, it could automatically trigger a decision by the
Department of Health to require filtration. Those rules have been
modified somewhat and decisions may be made on a case-by-case
basis. Mr. Neville asked if the new Plan greatly enhanced Mr.
McKinney's ability to manage the City's forest lands and would that
mean increased harvests? Mr. McKinne¥ explained the inventory
provides a more scientific basis of the standing volume, the value
and how fast the forest is growing. From those figures, a
sustainable yield can be determined. Mr. Montqomery asked if he
understood correctly that the harvest of trees excluded the
diseased areas? Mr. McKinne¥ stated for 1996 the harvest of
diseased timber made up the bulk of the harvest volume. The
positive side of that is instead of harvesting other areas, at risk
timber and is not lost. Revenue projection goals for 1996 were
achieved based on this program and under the allowable volume cut.
Mr. Colvin questioned the value of an annual harvest? Mr. McKinne¥
stated $1.2 - 1.3 million.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Neville) to adopt Resolution No. 2592, adopting
documents entitled "Utility Land Management Plan" and Forest
Management Plan" as policies of the City of Bremerton and as an
addendum to the City's Water Supply Plan required by WAC 246-290-
100 and authorizing the City's Director of Public Works & Utilities
to take the necessary steps to implement the two Plans.
President Fart thanked the TV camera crew for their services:
Rupe, Jamie Noble Jr., and Patricia Mathis.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 6:53 P.M.
Rob
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
DAVID D. FARR, Council President
city of Bremerton
KLM/DDF/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
BID AWARD RECOM/~ENDATION -
JOHN DEERE 310E BACKHOE FOR
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
FOR AGENDA OF: March 26, 1997
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & Utilities
ORIGINATOR: J. Orton, Transp Manaqer
DATE SUBMITTED: March 17, 1997
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back 3. EXHIBITS:
if necessgry) ~
Director, PW & Utils ~'i./~z~' . Bid Tabulation
Director, Parks & Rec~~-~ Technical Specifications
City Treasurer----~ --~_~C~
City Attorney ~ __
Purchasing Supr ~.._ _ . f~ _/~y/ ,~.~/~ .~
~ i~r~ t ~e ~ o~m~~~-/~~
ENDORSEMENT~ INFO~TION [] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~SUBMITTAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Call for Bids was prepared and two bids were received in accordance with
established Call for Bids procedures for one (1) industrial wheel backhoe
loader for the Parks and Recreation Department. The call for bids included
trade-in of existing equipment with backhoe attachment and accessories
(Continuation on Page 2)
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council approve the bid award and authorize the purchase of One (1)
industrial wheel backhoe loader (John Deere 310E) from Smith Tractor
Equipment Co., Inc. of Tacoma, Washington, in the amount of
subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Transportation Manaqer
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED [] TABLED []
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED []
AMENDED []
11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation
for the new equipment. The responsive low bidder, Smith Tractor & Equipment,
Co., Inc., submitted a bid for a John Deere 310E in the net amount of
$33,443.99.
IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
The existing backhoe of the Parks and Recreation Department is no longer
suited for many of the projects it is being used for. The Department would
have to rely on borrowing from another department or renting one at a cost
of $2,070.00 per month.
IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES:
The jobs would be accomplished more efficiently with a new backhoe and would
bring a positive impact on operations. Sufficient funds are in reserve and
budgeted through the 1997 Capital Improvement Program, Equipment Rental
Reserve Fund.
RESEARCH SOURCES:
See Attachment.
*Lift capacities are over-end values in Ill. Ikg~ according to SAI:. J31. Figures listed are 87% of tile nlaximum lift force available. ?,ase veh cle ncludes counterweight
310E BACKHOE WFI'H 310E I~ACKtlOE WITH 3-Fl'. 6-1N. (1.07 M) 310E BACKHOE WITH 3-FI'. 6-IN. {1.07 MJ
STANDARD DII)I'ERSTICK EXTENDABLE DIPPERSTICK, RETllACTED EXTENDABLE DIPPERSTICK, EXTENDEI)
4,859
SWING pIVOT >
FEET
METERS
4~ 3,232 (1466)
I. _74.,__?_!,~/
,, . .
2,236 11014)
/2,223 (1008)
4 8 ~ 16
16 5
4
12 4,,13
1
0
SWING ~1¥01>
'1
'2
'3
'4
FEET
METERS
D13~ 2,867(1300)
l ~'~'~ ~. T
~ 2,2~7
.136 (9691
~ 1,g~ [900)
1,931 (876)
~ L9~4 (868)
4 S 12 16 3)
16 5
4
12
3
1
0
'1
'2
'3
'4
2,841 (12~ 1,986
~~ I
~~'"'. .~...
~ 1,~g (716)
~ l~e(7~)
1,5~5 {T14)
FEET 4 8
16 .5
,4
~2
3
2
1
1
'3
°4
· ROPS and cab
With Standard
Backhoe
Loading height, truck loading position ............. ~.~ ...........................
Reach from center of swing pivot ........................................................
Reach from center of rear axle .............................................................
Maximum digging depth .....................................................................
Digging depth (5AE):
(1) 2-ft. (610 mm) flat bottom .............................................................
(2) 8alt. (2440 mm) flat bottom ...........................................................13
Ground clearance, minimum ............................................................... 12 in. ~305 mm~
Bncket rotation .....................................................................................
Transport height ................................................................................... II ft. 3 in. (3.43
Overall length, transport ...................................................................... 23 ft. 3
Stabilizer width - transport with ROI'S ................................................ 7
Stabilizer spread -operating ................................................................
Stabilizer overall width - operating ..................................................... I I ft. 7 in. (3.53
Width over tires .................................................................................... 81.7 in. (2.07 m)
*Backhoe specifications are with 24 in. x 6.5 cu. ft. (610 mm x 0.18 m~} bucket.
DIMENSIONS
With Extemlable Dipperstick'
Retracted Extended
11 ft. 1 in. 13.38 m) 13 ft. II in. 14.24
18 ft. I in. t$.51 mi 21 ft. 5 in. 16.:,:~ i.~
21 I't. 7 itl. {6.fi8 m) 24 ft. ] I in. 17.59
14 ft. S in. (4.39 m) 17 ft. 11 in. ~5.46
14 ft. 4 in. (4.37 ml 17 ft. lO in. (5.44
I3 ft. 4 in. (4.06 m) 17 ft. (,5.15 m~
12 in. (305 mm~ 12 in. (305 mm~
190 degrees 190 degrees
11 ft. 2 in. (::I.40 m) l l ft. 2 in. (3.40 m~
23 ft. 3 in. (7.09 m) 23 ft. 3 in. (7.09 m~
7 ft. 2 in. {2.18 m) 7 ft. 2 in. 12.18 ml
10 ft. 2 in. (3.10 m) 10 ft. 2 in. (3.10 m~
11 ft. 7 in. (3.53 ml 11 ft. 7 in. (3.53 m~
81.7 in. 12.07 m) 81.7 in. (2.07 m,
LOADER PERFORMANCE WITH BUCKET OPTIONs
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.00 cu. )'ti.
t0.76 m~) lh'avy-
Duty Long Lip
(~pe~'ator control ................................ ii ................................................ single lever
Breakout force ...................................................................................... 8,100 lb. 136.0 kN)
Lifting capacity, full height .................................................................. 5,800 lb. (2631 kg/
Height to bucket hinge pin, maximum ............................................... I 1 ft. I in. 13.38 m)
Dump clearance, bucket at 45 degrees ................................................. 8 ft. I0 in. (2.69 m~
Bucket dump angle, maximum ............................................................ 45 degrees
Reach at full height, bucket at 45 degrees ........................................... 30.9 in. 1785
Rollback angle at ground level ............................................................. 40 degrees
Digging depth below ground, bucket level .......................................... 6.3 in. II 60 mini
Raising time to full height ................................................................... 5.2 sec.
Bucket dump time ................................................................................ I. I sec.
Bucket lowering time (power down) .................................................... 1.9 sec.
1.12 cu. yd. 1.00 cu. yd.
10.86 m9 Ileavy- (0.76 m~)
D_t~ty L_otzg L_ip _y½dt_ipurpose. ..
single lever single lever
7,950 lb. (35.4 kN) 7,125 lb. (31.7
5,600 lb. (2540 kg) S,100 lb. (2313 kg)
11 ft. 1 in. (3.38 m) 11 ft. 1 in. (3.38
8 ft. 10 in. (2.69 m) 8 ft. 6 in. (2.59 ml
45 degrees 45 degrees
30.2 in. (767 mm) 32.2 in. (818 mm~
40 degrees 40 degrees
6.9 in. (175 mml 7.8 in. (197
5.2 sec. 5.2 sec.
1.l sec. 1.1 sec,
1.9 sec. 1.9 sec.
t
BID TITLE:
BIDDER
LOW BIDOER
SUMMARY
TIME OPENED:
T,,.-~_.~..- ),.~
ITEM 1 ITEM 2
C¥~'.o~ /~ ZOO.
CITY OF BREMERTON
BID TABULATION
ITEM 3
OPENED BY
RECORDED BY _~
ITEM 4
ITEM 5
NET BID I °¢'lf/° '
TAX I TOTAL
COMMENTS
TOTAL BID
;5~O C,
Cost Breakdown for John Deere 310E
Total Cost Per Bid
Addendum Item (4WD)
Total:
Less Trade In (1988 2355 John Deere Tractor with Attachments)
Add Two Accessory Items
8.1% Sales Tax
Purchase Total:
41,303.00
4,635.00
45,938.00
(15,000.00)
530.90
2,548.98
Budgeted through Equipment Rental Reserve for replacement of 1988 John Deere
2355 - $51,000.00.
Needed Accessories
Suspension Seat
Reversible Stabilizer Pads
Total:
Cost
240.90
290.00
$530.90
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1997
TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CLERK, CITY OF BREMERTON:
In accordance with your advertisement, plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Clerk the
undersigned hereby agree(s) to provide:
One (1) INDUSTRIAL WHEEL BACKHOE LOADER
For A Total Cost of: $ 41,303.00
Sales Tax: 8.0% 3,304.24
TOTAL PRICE BID: $44~607.24
FORTY FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SEVEN DOLLARS ANB T~ENTY FOUR CENTS
TOTAL COST WRITTEN
Above Price Does Not include Trade-In. Bidder offers trade-in value for one (1) Johne Deere 2355 with
Backhoe attachment in the amount of $ 15,000.00 . If this bid is accepted, Bid
Total Cost above will be reduced by trade-in amount.
BID BOND ENCLOSED X
Performance Will Be
Exhibits Required Enclosed X
Contractor' ',/, '".~-x.4,¢¢,.~ ~ ~
Firm Name
Address
(60) Days After Receipt of Notice To Proceed.
Signature
SMITH TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT CO., INC.
PO BOX 2990
TACOI~A, WA 98401-2990
All Proposals Must Be
In Ink or Typewritten.
No Erasures Permitted
Telephone Number 206-922-8718 F/tX, Number
Signature of Preparer: "-~' ~ Z' ~
206-922-3562
Bremerton Business License #
IRS TIN/SS # 91-1702638
Washington State Contractor #
AGENDA BILL -
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
I. SUBJECT: Public Hearing/Resolution
FOR AGENDA OF: March 26, 1997
ORIGINATING DEPT.: DCD Planning
PRELIMINARY PUD for Sinclair Landing, ~~ -
ORIGINATOR: Jack Allingham, Sr. Plann
LOCATION: Bremerton's Central Business District, downtoxvn DATE SUBMITTED: February 27, 1997
2. CLEARANCE~S:
Director of DCD:
Operations Corem:
Public Works
City Attorney:,.._~(..'"~~
3. EXHIBIT
"A": Synopsis, Opinion and Consensus of the
Bremerton Planning Commission regarding Sinclair
Landing. PUD
"B": Planning Comm. Minutes 1/21/97
"C": Planning Corem Meeting Notes 2/4/97
"D": Resolution No. oQ.~'~;}~'
M ITTAL:~_-~
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The Sinclair Landing Planned Unit Development will redevelop a significant portion of Bremerton's central business district. It
includes the construction of 18 new buildings housing offices, retail stores, cinemas, residential/hotel units, a museum, parking
garages. The plan also proposes a new ferry terminal referred to as the Bremerton Transportation Center (BTC). In order to
accomplish the plan, the City Council is being requested to approve the following: Planned Unit Development (PUD), Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use, Site Plan Review, Right of Way Vacation, Zoning Map Amendment
(Zone portion of PSNS for Bremerton Transportation Center. These proposals were presented and discussed at the Planning
Commission public meeting on January 21, 1997. The Planning Commission recommends City Council APPROVAL of
the Preliminary PUD and accompanying applications subject to the conditions contained in the Synopsis, Opinion ond
Consensus of the Bremerton Planning Commission ('Exhibit A).
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Resolution No.: ~ 5 ~ , approving (with conditions) the Preliminary PUD for "Sinclair Landing ".
Requested Motion: I move to adopt the Synopsis, Opinion and Consensus of the Bremerton Planning Commission as Fmding of
Fact and Conclusions of Law and approve Resolution No.: ,~t~¢ , approving the Preliminary PUD for "Sinclair
Landing" subject to the conditions contained therein.
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Donald L. Pratt
ENFORCEMENT O F FICIAL:,.Qa~;t-Ne~eofl
PULLED
7. NOTICE OF ACTION
TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
8. AGENDA BILL NO.:
AMENDED
DATE:
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL (CONT.)
CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10.
IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
Applicant: Approval of the Preliminary PUD will be denied.
City: Future development will not occur.
Re-application would be required.
11. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
· Additional staff time will be required to process and review the Final PUD approvals Right of Way
Vacation Ordinances and Rezone Ordinances.
· Future development will require building permits.
12. RESEARCH SOURCES:
· ·File #'s: PUD96-002
· Zoning Ordinance
· Site visits
RESOLUTION NO.:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT OF "SINCLAIR LANDING", LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA
GENERALLY BOUNDED BY: PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD AND PARK
AVENUE (AVE.) ON THE SOUTH AND WEST; FOURTH STREET (ST.) BETWEEN
PARK AVE. AND PACIFIC AVE. AND BURWELL ST. BETWEEN PACIFIC AVE.
AND WASHINGTON AVE. ON THE NORTH, AND SINCLAIR INLET ON THE EAST
INCLUDING WATERFRONT PARCELS TO FIFTH ST.
O, ViAlOn I vv,,u, ,~vv, ,v,~ ~, proponem for
the proposed Sinclair Landing Planned Unit Development, comprising
approximately 22.5 acres acres and located within the central business disHct
within the Ci~ of Bremedon, has made application for approval of ~ Prelimina~
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. and
WHEREAS, an environmental checRlist has been prepared and
considered by the responsible official and ~ mitigated determination of
environmental nonsignificance issued, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held ~ public meeting concerning
this matter on Janua~ 21, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended fo the Council that
the "Sinclair Landing" Prelimina~ Planned Unit Development be accepted
subject to certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Bremedon City Council held a public hearing on March 12,
1997, concerning the prelimina~ Planned Unit Development with mitigating
conditions; now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BREMERTON Cl~ COUNCIL
That the "Sinclair Landing" Prelimina~ Planned Unit Development
presented for approval is hereby accepted subject to the following conditions:
1. Eaflh: Implement a tempora~ erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP)as
approved by the City. Minimize exposed soft during construction.; construct truck tire
cleaning areas; cover dump beds as required by state/aw; cover stockpiled earth
and exposed cuts; route runoff to temporary sedimentation ponds; employ best
management practices to control erosion; construct a concrete truck wash-down
area; periodically sweep the streets with street sweepers; and phase construction, to
minimize exposed areas.
2. Air: Implement erosion control measures as approved by the City. Minimize area of
exposed soil during construction, or demolition; hose debris during derno/ition;
construct truck tire cleaning area; cover dump beds as required by state/aw; cover
stockpiled earth and exposed cuts; ernp/oy best management practices; periodically
wet sweep streets. Comply with Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
(PSAPCA) Regulation 1, Section 9.15 requiring reasonable precautions to avoid
dust emissions. Implement proposed Planned L/nit Development (PUD) trafficj
transit, and pedestrian improvements to improve circulation.
3. Surface, Ground, and Runoff Water/rnpacts: Locate existing surface parking areas
underground and partially cover the Brernerton Transportation Center (BTC) car
waiting areas. Install and maintain oil/water separators as required by City
stormwater regulation. Imp/ernenh WA. ST Department of Wi/d/ife's /-/ydrau/ic
Project Approval (/-/PA) conditions; U.S. Army Corp of Engineer's Section 10
conditions; applicable local, state, and federal water quality guidelines. L/se
concrete marina f/oats; use concrete or steel pilings instead of creosote wood
pilings; construct interconnecting replacement First St. bulkhead in the dry.
4. P/ants: Use landscaping p/ants or sirni/ar measures to provide replacement
vegetation on the site. Incorporate street and public space landscaping into project
as proposed.
5. Wildlife: Remove existing First St. Dock and approximately ~ 20 creosote timber
pilings which covers 12, 600 square feet of intertidal area. Remove existing First St.
fi//which covers intertidal area. Remove 45 creosote timber pilings that support the
Wheelhouse deck. Implement/-/PA and Corps Section 10 conditions.
6. Energy: Conform with applicable City and State energy code requirements. Create
new pedestrian facilities as proposed to reduce auto energy use. Irnp/ement one-
way coup/et street system, and other circulation improvements to increase
transportation efficiencies and lower energy use.
7. Environmental Heath: Property or business owners to comply with applicable local,
state, or federal/aw regulating the storage, handling, or use of hazardous rnateria/s.
8. Noise: Properly size and maintain equipment muff/ers, engine intake silencers,
engine enclosures; turn off idling equipment; restrict noisy operations from 6:30
A.M. to 9:00 P.M. un/ess special circumstances approved by construction manager.
Construct BTC as proposed which serves as noise barrier between terminal and
waterfront park. P/ace Wash. Ave. be/ow grade to reduce traffic noise in
Washington Ave. pedestrian plaza.
9. Land, Shoreline Use, Housing: Create approximately 79 additional housing units
than exist. Create new commercial and redevelop commercial space as proposed.
Provide business relocation assistance as required by state/aw.
10. Land Use Planning: Incorporate uses -- retail, parking, office, entertainment, transit
as permitted under zoning. Preserve views to Sinclair Inlet in conformance with
Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan (DWURP). Create: Washington. Ave.
plaza; open space adjacent to Waterfront Park; and linear waterfront Pathway-Park.
Relocate marina as recognized in the City's DWURP Design Element.
11. Aesthetics: Create view corridors through waterfront and along Burwell St. as
proposed to preserve views. Create linear waterfront pathway as proposed to view
Sinclair Inlet and other natural attractions. Conform to City zoning with regards to
height and bulk as applied through PUD process. Comply with City's Design Review
standards required by the DWURP. Place current waterfront parking below the
surface as proposed.
12. Light and Glare: Design lights within BTC and relocated marina so as to not create
off-shore glare. Obtain United States Coast Guard (USCG) approval of marina
entrance marking lights.
13. Recreation: Create Second St. pedestrian walkway. Create new linear Waterfront
Pathway-Park (esplanade) from Waterfront Park to Fifth St. and create lateral
access points to the existing Waterfront Park and new Pathway-Park. Create a new
public plaza at Washington. Ave. and Second St. and expand Waterfront Park.
Provide alternative siting for Wycoff Park as approved by Puget Sound naval
Shipyard (PSNS) and City Parks Dept.
14. Cultural and Archeologicah Notify State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) if
archeological resources are identified during construction. Provide Public Art in
compliance with DWURP requirements.
15. Transportation: Separate pedestrian, transit, and auto traffic as proposed to
enhance traffic safety. Convert Burwell St./Pacific Avenue intersection eastbound
and westbound combined through/left turn lanes to left turn turn-only lanes and
convert eastbound and westbound right turn only lanes to combined through/right
turn lanes to provide additional capacity and improve operations to an acceptable
level of service. Coordinate BTC construction staging plan with WA ST Department
Of Transportation, City, Port of Bremerton, and Kitsap Transit. Coordinate
construction traffic routing plan with City and Kitsap Transit. Vacate and dedicate
rights of-way as described in rights of-way vacation application. Compensate the
City as required by State and City laws for vacated rights of-way.
16. Public Services: Provide fire protection systems for buildings according to Uniform
Fire Code requirements. Upgrade existing stormwater and water lines serving the
project site as required by City's Public Works Director. Coordinate replacement of
utility services with Puget Power, WA Natural Gas, US West, and City to minimize
disruptions.
17. Scope of approvah This approval recognizes the preliminary, conceptual and
phased nature of the project. As allowed by the zoning ordinance: a) The ultimate
development with specific uses and sites may change at the time of the Final PUD
application(s); b) Final PUD approval(s) shall be subject to the Final PUD approval
cdteda of the zoning ordinance. Final PUD application(s) shall require signature(s)
from all affected property owners signifying their acceptance of the plan and
application(s). This preliminary PUD approval does not mandate participation by
any or afl property owners within the boundaries of the PUD, allowing any or all
property owners to utilize their property in conformance with zoning regulations.
Property in the City limits of Bremerton included in this Preliminary Planned Unit
Development is described as follows:
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS:
Lots 9 to 14 Block 1; Lots 1 to 9 Block 2; Lots 1 to 19 Block 3; Lots 1 to 8 Block 4;
Lots 1 to 29 Block 7; Lots 1 to 34 Block 8; Lots 1 to 26 Block 9; Lots 1 to 9 Block 10;
Lots 1 to 50 Block 14, Town of Bremerton plat as recorded in volume 2, page 30
of the plat records of Kitsap County and the following waterfront tax lots:
242401-2-009-2006; 132401-3-015-2009; 132401-3-033-2007; 242401-2-011-2004;
24201-2-010-2003; 242401-2-055-2000; 242401-2-006-2009; 132401-3-014-2000;
132401-3-19%2007; 242401-2-004-2001; 3718-001-009-0006
PASSED by the City Council this
day of March, 1997.
APPROVED this
DAVID FARR
President, City Council
day of September, 1995.
ATTEST:
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
CITY of BREMERTON
Synopsis, opinion and Consensus of the Bremerton Planning Commission
Regarding:
"SINCLAIR LANDING" PUD
(File #: PUD96-0002,)
PLANNING COM?v£SSION MEETING DA TE:
PREPARED BY: Jack Allingham, Senior Planner
January 2I,, 1997
SUMMARY
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS - City of Bremerton:
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Shoreline Conditional Use
Site Plan Review
Right of Way Vacation
Zoning Map Amendment (Zone portion of PSNS for Bremerton Transportation
Center)
APPLICANT:
Howard S. Wright Construction Co.
425 Pontius Avenue North, Suite 100
P.O. Box 3764
Seattle, WA 98124-2264
CONTACT PERSON: Craig Norsen, Vice President
ATTACI~I~ENTS:
1. Master Plan of Planned Unit Development - MI.01
2. Master Plan building Information - MI.02
3. Revised Shoreline Development Plan (JARPA)
4. Plaza Perspective Looking N - M3.01
5. Plaza Perspective Looking SE - M3.02
6. WFT Perspective looking SE - M3.03
7. Existing building and Marina Site Plan - Gl.01
8. Right of Way Property Modification - C3.01
9. Property Rezoning - C3.02
10. DWURP Land/Water Use Plan - Ex. D
11. DWLrRP Design Concepts - Ex. E
FINDINGS for:
PRELIMINARY PUD and ASSOCIATED APPLICATIONS
BACKGROUND
1. Procedural Back~round:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Sinclair Landing Planned Unit Development will redevelop a significant portion of
Bremerton's central business district. It includes the construction of 18 new buildings housing
offices, retail stores, cinemas, residential/hotel units, a museum, parking garages. The plan also
proposes a new ferry terminal referred to as the Bremerton Transportation Center (BTC). This
portion includes:
Terminal Building
BTC Commuter Retail Building;
Passenger-Only Ferry Terminal;
Passenger Waiting Area -- Kalakala or similar waiting facility;
Washington State Ferry and private passenger-only ferry float.
These developments will have a combined total of 2,611,679 gross square feet. There will be
552,810 square feet of retail; 58,450 square feet of restaurant, and 249,874 square feet of
office space. The projects will provide 99 hotel rooms, 142 residential units and parking for
2,930 vehicles. In addition, the plan proposes a floating historic ship, public plazas, waterfront
esplanade, and reconfiguration of the existing marina.
Other approvals necessary to undertake the plan include the vacation of portions of First
Street, 2nd Street, Washington Avenues with re-dedications for right of way realignments.
Also, a portion of PSNS which is currently not zoned will be zoned as "General Industry"
for the Bremerton Transportation Center.
The upland portion of the project site excluding City fights-of-way is approximately 22.5 acres.
The marine portion is approximately 15.5 acres.
For the most detailed description, please refer to the Project Manual and Plan Sheets for the
Sinclair Landing Planned Unit Development & Transportation Center available for review at
the Department of Community Development and the City Council's office and the attachments
to this report.
LOCATION OF THE PROPOSAL:.
Sections 13 and 24
Township 24 North
Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian
The PUD is generally bounded by: Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Park Avenue on the
south and west; Fourth Street (St.) between Park and Pacific and Burwell St. between Pacific
and Washington CC/ash.) on the north, and Sinclair Inlet on the east including wateneront
parcels to Fifth St.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
PUD PROCESS
A PUD application is reviewed by the City in a two-part process; review of a preliminary
plan, followed by review of a final plan. The purpose of this process is to minimize
development costs prior to a city determination of the acceptability of the
preliminary plan, and to allow greater public involvement.
The steps involved in the preliminary review outlined in Chapter VI of the Zoning
Ordinance are:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Conceptual review
Neighborhood meeting (optional)
Preliminary PUD application
City departmental review
Public meeting by Planning Commission
The steps involved in the Final Plan are:
Final PUD application
City review and administrative decision
Record with County Auditor
Location of Project:
The Sinclair Landing project is located within these general boundaries:
3
beginning from a point on the outer harbor line (at a point where the south margin of Fifth
Street as extended intersects the outer harbor line);
· southward along the outer harbor line to a point where the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
(PSNS) property line extends to the outer harbor line;
· northwesterly along the PSNS property line as extended to the outer harbor line to the
southem fight-of-way line of First Street;
· westerly along the southern right-of-way line of First Street to the PSNS property line;
· northerly along the PSNS property line and northerly along the lot line separating lots 22
and 23, block 13, the Town of Bremerton plat as recorded in Volume 2 ofptats, page 30 of
the records of Kitsap County to the northwest comer of lot 23, block 13 of said plat;
· easterly along the southern right-of-way line of Burwell Street to the southwest comer of
Burwell Street and Pacific Avenue;
· northerly to the northwest comer of Burwell Street and Pacific Avenue;
· westerly along the northern right-of-way line of Burwell Street to the easterly right-of-way
line of Park Avenue;
· northerly along the easterly right-of-way line of Park Avenue to the southerly right-of-way
line of Fourth Street;
· easterly along the southerly right-of-way line of Fourth Street and easterly across Pacific
Avenue to the eastern right-of-way line of Pacific Avenue;
· southerly along the eastern right-of-way line of Pacific Avenue to the northwest comer of
lot 1, block 7, of said plat;
· easterly to along the northern lot lines of lots 1 through 10, block 7 of said plat to the
northeast comer of lot 10, block 7 of said plat;
· north along the lot line separating lots 29 and 30, block 7 of said plat to the southern right-
of-way line of Fourth Street;
· easterly along the southern right-of-way line of Fourth Street to the southwest comer of
Fourth Street and Washington Avenue;
· northerly along the western right-of-way line of Washington Avenue to the southwest
comer of Fifth Street and Washington Avenue;
· easterly across Washington Avenue and easterly along the lot line separating lots 8 and 9,
block 4 of said plat as extended to the point of beginning at the outer harbor line.
Legal Description:
Lots 9 to 14 Block 1; Lots 1 to 9 Block 2; Lots 1 to 19 Block 3; Lots 1 to 8 Block 4; Lots 1 to
29 Block 7; Lots 1 to 34 Block 8; Lots 1 to 26 Block 9; Lots 1 to 9 Block 10; Lots 1 to 50
Block 14, Town of Bremerton plat as recorded in volume 2, page 30 of the plat records of
Kitsap County and the following waterfront tax lots: 242401-2-00%2006; 132401-3-015-
2009; 132401-3-033-2007; 242401-2-01 t-2004; 24201-2-010-2003; 242401-2-055-2000;
242401-2-006-2009; 132401-3-014-2000; 132401-3-199-2007; 242401-2-004-2001; 3718-
001-009-0006
4
COMPREFI-ENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
The portion of the Master Plan located south of First Street is designated Transportation
Facilities (T) and the portion of the Master Plan located north of First Street is designated
Central Business District (CBD).
The Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan, a sub-plan of the Comprehensive Plan
assigns the following designations to property within the PUD:
· the area south of First Avenue as Ferry Terminal (FT);
· the area north of First Street and east of Washington Avenue as Mixed
Commercial/Residential/Tourist (CRT);
· the area approximately 10 feet wide measured from the top of the bluffline along
the shoreline as Linear Park Pathway (LP/P);
· the area bounded between the existing First Street pier on the south, the Turner Joy
on the north, the ordinary high water mark on the west, and the outer harbor line
on the east as Marina South (MS); and
· the area west of Washington Avenue that includes buildings fronting on the west
side of Washington Avenue as Waterfi-ont/CBD Transition Area (TA).
ZONING DESIGNATION:
The Bremerton Zoning Code designates the area east of Washington Avenue and south of First
Street as Urban Renewal District (URD) and the area west of Washington Avenue and north
of First Street as Business Core (BC). The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard portion of the project
is not zoned, but is proposed to be rezone d General Industry (IG).
PUD Phasing:
The Sinclair Landing PUD is intended to be a phased PUD approval with the following uses
constructed according to a phased two year schedule keyed offofthe City's Preliminary PUD
approval date:
Phase 1:1997 through 1999 -- Buildings 1, 2, 3,4, and 5;
Phase 2:1999 through 2001 -- Buildings 8, 9, 10, 11, 20 and 23;
Phase 3:2001 through 2003 -- Remainder of the PUD elements.
Site area (in acres):
The upland portion of the project site excluding City rights-of-way is approximately 22.5 acres.
The marine portion is approximately 15.5 acres.
Parking:
5
Number of existing and proposed spaces:
Within the PUD boundary, there are approximately 1,500 existing spaces which will be
removed. Most of these spaces are provided within substandard commercial parking lots
which line the water-fi-ont. The PUD proposes to create 2,930 parking spaces in the locations
and numbers as set forth in Plan Sheet M1.02.
The project will develop parking spaces to meet the standard parking lot space requirements
pursuant to Chapter VII, Parking Provisions, of the Zoning Code.
Parking Lot Type: The proposed parking lots are a Type B which are only allowed within the
CBD. Their modified development requirements take into consideration the limited space,
lack of building setbacks, and other features unique to the CBD area. They will be used
primarily to support Master Plan retail, office, and visitor parking requirements.
Pursuant to the Parking Provisions of the Zoning Code and Figure VII-5, off-street parking is
not required within the CBD-designated portion of the Master Plan that is located outside of
the DWURP. Within the DWURP portion of the Master Plan, the number of parking spaces
provided shall be equal to no less than 30% of the parking required in the Zoning Ordinance for
areas outside the Central Business District. Other than within the DWURP area, parking is not
required within the CBD. The following parking ratios and spaces required reflect the
DWURP 30°,4 rule. Both the underlying zoning standards and DWURP 30 % standards are
provided in the parking calculation table below.
The 30% rule does not apply to parking standards associated with the BTC requirements
which are specifically cited in the DWURP and provided in the table below.
PARKING CALCULATION TABLE
Bldg Building Use Gross Zoning DWLrRp Spaces Required Comments
Sq. Ft. Ratio Ratio / Std.
1 BTC - car N/A N/A 206 206 232 spaces provided
holdin~ arcs
1 BTC - transit N/A N/A 10 buses 10 buses 21 bus spaces provided
deck
1 BTC - ferry N/A N/A 50 kiss/fide; 50; spaces provided in
terminal 160 pass; 160; building 2
50 overflo~v; 50; and
5% of 260 for 13
employees
1 BTC -Retail 23,170 1/300 sq. ft. .31300 sq. ft. 23
1 BTC - Parking N/A N/A N/A none 14 parking spaces
provided in this bldg.
2 Museum 18,650 1/400 sq. ft. .3/400 sq. ft. 14
2 Una~ed 8,196 1/300 sq. ft. .3/300 sq. ft. 8
2 Parking N/A N/A N/A none 68 kiss/ride and 714
total spaces provided
6
3 Restaurant 12,400 1/300 sq. fL .3/300 sq. ft. 12
3 Retail 37,900 1/300 sq. fl. .3/300 sq. fl. 37
3 Office 47,200 1/300 sq, ft. .3/3,00 sq. ft. 47
4 Restaurant 11,700 20+1/100 7 + .3/100 sq. ft. 42
SCl. ff..
4 Retail 45,000 1/300 sq. l:t .3/300 scl.. fl. 45
4 Office 94,900 1/300 scl. fL .3/300 scI. ft. 95
5 Restaurant 24,900 20 + 1/100 7 + .3/100 sq. ft. 82
5 Retail 18.900 1/300 scl.lc .3/300 ~. ft. 19
5 Hotel 99 rooms 1/2 rooms + .3/2 rooms + 15
1/200 sq. ft. .3/200 sq. ft.
5 Health Club 10,717 10/1,000 3.3/1,000 sq.ft. 35
sq.ft.
6 Housing 50 2.0/d.u. .7/d.u. 35
7 Housing 70 2.0/d.u .7/d.u. 49
These uses are located within the CBD zone where off-street parkin{l is not required.
8 Retail 67,!00 N/A (C .BD) none
8 Museum 35,100 N/A (CBD) none
9 Restaurant 20,400 N/A (CBD) none
9 Retail 20,400 N/A (CBD) none
10 Retail 238,100 N/A (CBD) none
11 Retail 13,400 N/A (CBD) none
11 Cinema 37,700 N/A (CBD) none
12 Retail 38,000 N/A (CBD) none
12 Museum 22,200 N/A (CBD) none
13 Retail 52,950 N/A (CBD) none
14 Retail 64,200 N/A (CBD) none
14 Co--op/Daycare 50,100 N/A (CBD) none
14 Office 104,000 N/A (CBD) none
14 Parking N/A N/A (CBD) none 55 spaces provided
15 Waterfront Park none N/A (CBD) none
16 Waterfront none N/A (CBD) none
Esplanade
The marina and Historic Ship are within the DWURP Project Area and are subject to the, .30 parking r~quirement nde.
1'7 Marina 50 trans. 1/20 trans; .3/20 transient 61
up to 200 1/1 perm. .3/1 perm.
18 Historic Ship up to 1/4.00 sq. ft. .3/400 sq. ft. 38
50,000
These uses are located within the CBD zone where off-street parking is not required.
19 Ptaza none N/A (CBD) none
20 Parking Bldg. 3,025 N/A (CBD) none
Retail Lobby
20 Parking N/A N/A (CBD) none 257 l~arki~g spaces
provided in this bldg.
21 Parking N/A N/A (CBD) none 1592 parking spaces
Building provided i.n this bldg.
22 Residential 22 N/A (CBD) none
22 Parkin{~ N/A , N/A (CBD) none 298 parking spaces
7
provided in this bldg.
23 Office 4,800 N/A (CBD) none
23 Retail 4,800 N/A (CBD) none
Parking Requirements Summary_:
Total parking spaces required within the PUD: 930 spaces.
Total parking spaces provided within the PUD: 2,930 spaces.
DWURP parking requirements for the BTC auto holding area: 206 spaces.
Parking spaces provided for the BTC auto holding area: 232 spaces.
Open Space:
Applicable Open Space Standards:
The PUD Open Space provision (BMC 21.02.500(d)) requires:
(1) "There shall be a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the total area of a PUD
dedicated as common open space, accessible to all owners or tenants of the
development. Open space shall be provided for active as well as passive recreational
activities, and for the preservation of existing natural site amenities whenever possible.
Open space shall not include:
i. Streets, alleys, and other rights-of-way.
ii. Vehicular drives, parking, loading and storage areas.
iii. Required buffering and landscaping for parking areas; nor
iv Perimeter setback areas of the PUD project."
(2)...
(3) "Open space and its intended uses shall be clearly designated on the site plan. At
least two-thirds of the open space area shall be suitable for active recreational
purposes."
The PUD provisions go on to further state:
(7) "The total requirement for active open space may be reduced by no more than
twenty-five percent (25%) through the provision of a recreation building, swimming
pool, or similar major recreational facility that, in the opinion of the Planning
Commission, will better provide for the needs of the residents without significantly
detracting from the project's appearance or environmental quality."
Open Space standards as applied to the Master Plan:
The upland portion of the project contains approximately 22.5 acres.
Applying the 15% open space standard yields a requirement for 3.38 acres of open space.
Two thirds of 3.38 acres or 2.23 acres must be suitable for active recreation.
The active recreation requirement may be reduced by 25% because the Master Plan will: · provide for a linear waterfront Pathway-Park,
· will provide lateral access to the Pathway-Park at Fffih Street, Fourth Street and at
several locations between First Street (as extended) and Fourth Street;
· provide a waterfront park expansion;
· provide a public water feature for children's active recreation.
Summary. of required Open Space as applied to the Master Plan:
Active open space requirements may be reduced to a requirement of 1.67 acres due to the
construction of public recreation discussed above.
Passive open space requkement totals 1.15 acres. Passive open space may be met by credits
for natural features such as steep slopes or beach areas.
Accounting for the 25% reduction in active open space due to providing the above-referenced
public recreational facilities, 2.82 acres of open space is requked in total.
Open Space provided by the Master Plan:
Based on the above requirements, the Master Plan includes approximately 5.88 acres of open
space which will be open to the public. The Open Space provided exceeds the required total,
even if allowed deductions in active open space are not accounted.
Approximately 3.76 acres of active recreational space and approximately 2.12 acres of passive
recreational space will be provided. This estimate includes: the waterfront pathway/park
provided by the project and the pedestrian areas located between the Second Street cul-de-sac
and the existing waterfront park. Provided the existing Second Street and First Street are
vacated as requested, this estimate would not include streets, alleys, and other fights-of-way as
provided in the code section cked above. This estimate also includes as allowed by BMC
21.02.500, an accounting for natural areas, which in this case includes inter-tidal area to the
mean lower low water elevation (0 foot).
LOT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
The following tables correspond to each Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan zone and
each building that is sited in a particular zone. The building numbers are the same as assigned
to the buildings listed and shown on plan sheets M1.01 and M1.02. The standards cited
below reflect the standards allowed under the DWURP as granted by the Design Review
Board (DRB) when an addition to the Waterfront Park Pathway is included into a development
proposal (The Dkector of Community Development is the acting DRB as the City Council has
not established one. Design review will be undertaken at the time of building permit
application when specific building designs and construction materials are known). The Sinclair
Landing Master Plan will add a Park Pathway (esplanade) along the front of the development
from the existing Over-water Park to Fifth Street.
DWURP Ferry Terminal Area Standards as applied to:
Buildinl~ 1 (BTC) ,
9
STANDARD REQUIRF_aMENT PROPOSED ANALYSIS
Front Yard Setback: none none N/A
Rear Yard Setback: none none N/A
Side Yard Setback: none none N/A
Height: 50 ft. 78ft. (48 fl_ excluding Conforms
(above WA Ave.) clock tower);
Alloxs~ble Density: N/A N/A N/A
D~velling Units: N/A N/A N/A
Lot Coverage: 100% 100% Conforms
Landscape Plan: Yes With Building Permits Conforms
DWU-RP Commercial/Residential/Tourist Area Standards as applied to:
Buildings 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, and 7
STANDARD REQUIREMENT PROPOSED ANALYSIS
Front Yard Setback: none none N/A
Rear Yard Setback: none none N/A
Side Yard Setback: none none N/A
Shoreline Setback: 25 ft from OHWM or bldgs. 45 to 60 feet from Conforms. Bluff setback subject to Geo-
10 ft. fi'om top of bluff OHWM tech. analysis.
Height: S of 4th 100 fl- bldgs, fi-om 64 to 86 feet Conforms
N of 4th 120 fl- above WA Ave.
(above WA Ave.)
Allowable Density: N/A N/A N/A
I~velling Units: N/A N/A N/A
Lot Coverage: 100% 100% Cbnforms
Landscape Plan: Yes With Buildin~ Permits Conforms
Downtown Business Core 03C) Zone as applied to:
Buildings 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. 13, 14, 21 and 23.
STANDARD REQUIREMENT PROPOSED ANALYSIS
Front Yard Setback: none none N/A
Rear Yard Setback: none none N/A
Side Yard Setback: none none N/A
Height: 120 ft. + if PUD 19 to 53 feet (applying Conforms
BC standards)
Allowable Density: N/A N/A N/A
I~velling Units: N/A N/A N/A
Lot Coverage: 100% 100% Conforms
Landscape Plan: Yes With Buildin~ Permits Conforms
PUD allows height to be varied ff PUD approval criteria met.
10
DWURP Linear Park Pathway Area Standards as applied to:
the Park Pathwa,v improvements (no buildin~ proposed witl'fin the corridor)
STANDARD REQUIREMENT PROPOSED ANALYSIS
Front Yard Setback: none none N/A
Rear Yard Setback: none none N/A
Side Yard Setback: none none N/A
Height: 12 ft. or per DRB no buildings proposed Conforms
approval within the comdor
Allowable Density: N/A N/A N/A
Dwelling Units: N/A N/A N/A
Lot Coverage: N/A N/A N/A
Landscape Plan: Yes With Building Permits Conforms
DWLrRP Marina South (MS) ~trea Standards as applied to: '
Passenger-Only Fe? Terminal, Marina Exp~ion. and Floafin~ Breakwater
STANDARD REQUIREMENT PROPOSED ANALYSIS
Front Yard Setlmck: N/A N/A N/A
Rear Yard Setback: N/A N/A N/A
Side Yard Setlmck: N/A N/A N/A
Height: 25 ft. above OHWM Kalakala - (45 ft.)2 Conforms
Allowable Density: N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Dwelling U~its: N/A N/A N/A
Lot Coverage: N/A N/A N/A
LandscaDe Plan: N/A N/A N/A , ,,
PROPOSED SIGNAGE: Signage will be submitted in conjunction with building permits.
PROPOSED LANDSCAPING: Landscaping plans w/Il be submitted in conjunction with
building permits.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Criteria f or Action: Chapter VI, Section 15, General Development Standards of the
Bremerton Zoning Ordinance states:
"A PUD may be approved if it is found that the development conforms to all of the
following general criteria"'
PUD allows height to be varied if PUD approval criteria met.
11
The location, design, and uses of the PUD shall be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, Bremerton Shoreline Management Program, and with
other applicable plans and ordinances adopted by the City.
The PUD shall be integrated with its surroundings and designed to
harmonize with existing or proposed development in the neighborhood. In
the case of a departure in character from the surrounding land uses, the
scale, intensity and desisn shall adequately reduce the impact of the
development in such a way that the project will not be detrimental to the
neighborhood.
The traffic generated by the PUD shall be accommodated safety without
congestion on existing or planned streets.
All development will be adequately served by existing or planned facilities
and services.
o
The PUD will result in an attractive, healthful, efficient and stable
environment for living, shopping, working and leisure activities.
The development plan shall make adequate and appropriate provisions for
the preservation of the environment, both natural and man-made, and the
conservation of energy.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY VACATION AND DEDICATION
Request:
Vacation of City of Bremerton fight-of-way a City Council initiative as allowed
by RCW 35.79.010, and
Acceptance by the City Council of future property dedications for City right-
of-way purposes.
Back ~ound:
Several changes in the circulation pattern within the project will occur as follows:
Pacific Avenue will be widened an additional 10 feet south of Second Street to create room for
a bicycle lane and reconfigured traffic lanes, First Street will be modified to allow a grade
transition from Pacific Avenue to the Washington Avenue Tunnel which will place Washington
Avenue under a proposed plaza which would span the existing Washington Avenue between
First and Burwell Streets. Second Street will be partially vacated and a cul-de-sac will be
created off-of Pacific Avenue. Pacific Avenue, First Street, and Washington Avenue will
become one-way streets to improve traffic flow, pedestrian safety, and air quality within the
project area. Burwell will be realigned at the intersection with Washington Avenue and a new
Burwell street end will be dedicated to the City for public access purposes. Traffic signals at
the Pacific Avenue/Burwell Street and Washington Street/Burwell Street intersections will be
modified to match the one-way street revisions. Additional mitigation at the Pacific
Avenue./Burwell Street intersection will also be required to provide the capacity needed to
serve increased traffic volumes. This added capacity will be achieved by converting the
eastbound and westbound combined through/left mm lanes to left mm only lanes and
converting the eastbound and westbound fight turn only lanes to combined through/fight turn
lanes.
To accomplish these changes, the following fights-of-way will be vacated and dedicated:
Leeal description of property to be vacated:
1. First Street fight-of-way from Washington Avenue to its terminus in Sinclair Inlet:
That portion of First Street lying southeasterly of the southeastern margin of
Washington Avenue.
2. Washington Avenue right-of way from First Street to its terminus at the Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard:
That portion of Washington Avenue bounded on the north by a line between the
northeast comer of Lot 6 of Block 10 and the westerly comer of Lot 1 of Block 2
of the Plat of the Town of Bremerton as filed in Volume 2 of the Plats on Page 30,
Records of Kitsap County, Washington, and bounded on the west by the east line
of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard as shown on a Record of Survey filed in
Volume 41 of Surveys on Page 215, Records of Kitsap County, Washington.
3. Second Street fight-of-way from Pacific Avenue to its terminus in Sinclair Inlet:
That portion of Second Street lying southeasterly of the southeastern margin of
Washington Avenue and that portion of Lot 1 of Block 3 of the Plat of the Town
of Bremerton deeded to the City of Bremerton by deed filed under Auditor's
Number 8603260082, Records of Kitsap County, Washington.
ALSO
That portion of Second Street between the east margin of Pacific Avenue and the
northwestern margin of Washington Avenue.
4. City alley from Washington Avenue to First Street:
The 14 foot wide alley in Block 10 of the Plat of the Town of Bremerton as
recorded in Volume 2 of Plats on Page 30, Records of Kitsap County, Washington.
5. City alley from First Street to Second Street:
The 14 foot wide alley in Block 9 of the Plat of the Town of Bremerton as
recorded in Volume 2 of Plats on Page 30, Records of Kitsap County, Washington.
6. City alley abutting lots 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 located between Second and Burwell
Streets, Block 8:
That portion of a 14 foot wide alley in Block 8 bounded on the south by the
northerly limits of the previous alley vacation in said Block 8, all within the Plat of
the Town of Bremerton as recorded in Volume 2 of Plats on Page 30, Records of
Kitsap County, Washington.
7. City alley abutting lots 16 through 23 and lots 15 and 24, Block 7:
That portion ora 14 foot wide alley in Block 7 bounded on the north by the south
margin of Fourth Street and bounded on the south by the north margin of Burwell
Street as shown on the Plat of the Town of Bremerton as recorded in Volume 2 of
Plats on Page 30, Records of Kitsap County, Washington.
8. City alley abutting lots 11 through 15 and 24 through 29, Block 7:
That portion of a 14 foot wide alley in Block 7 lying east of a line connecting the
southwest comer of Lot 29 with the northwest comer of Lot 11 of said Block 7
and lying west of a line connecting the southeast comer of Lot 24 with the
northeast comer of Lot 15 of said Block 7 as shown on the Plat of the Town of
Bremerton as recorded in Volume 2 of Plats on Page 30, Records of Kitsap
County, Washington.
9. City alley abutting Lots 22, 23, 24, and 25, Block 13 and Lot 12, Block 12:
That portion of a 14 foot wide alley between Blocks 12 and 13 lying east of the
west property line of said Block 12 extended north to the south line of said Block
13, all within the Plat of the Town of Bremerton as recorded in Volume 2 of Plats
on Page 30, Records of Kitsap County, Washington.
10. City alley from First Street to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard:
That portion ora 14 foot wide alley in Block 1 lying easterly of the east line of the
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard as recorded in Volume 2 of Plats on Page 30,
Records of Kitsap County, Washington
11. City alley abutting Lots 1 through 50, Block 14:
A 14 foot wide alley in Block 14 of the Plat of the Town of Bremerton as filed in
Volume 2 of Plats on Page 30, Records of Kitsap County, Washington; except
that portion previously vacated by the City of Bremerton Ordinance No. 779.
12. West margin of Washington Avenue (within Second to Burwell Street block):
Commencing at the intersection of Washington Avenue and Burwell Street; thence
along the centerline of Burwell Avenue North 69° 42'58" West 35.20 feet; thence
South 26° 22'22" West 30.17 feet to the northeast comer of Lot 20 of Block 8 of
the Plat of the Town of Bremerton as recorded in Volume 2 of Plats on Page 30,
Records of Kitsap County, and the True Point of Beginning; thence South 26°
22'22" West along the easterly line of said Block 8, a distance of 97.09 feet; thence
North 29° 24'52" East 97.78 feet; thence North 69° 42'58" West 5.22 feet to the
Point of Beginning.
13. East margin of Washington Avenue between First and Burwell Streets:
Beginning at the intersection of Washington Avenue and Second Street; thence
South 29° 24'52" West 7.00 feet; thence along a line 1.00 feet easterly of(normal
to) and parallel with the centerline of Washington Avenue South 37° 37'27" West
212.22 feet to the beginning ora curve concave to the east having a radius of 89.00
feet; thence southerly along said curve an arc distance of 80.51 feet through a
central angle of 51° 49'53" to the most westerly comer of Lot 1 of Block 2 of the
Plat of the Town of Bremerton as filed in Volume 2 of Plats on Page 30, Records
of Kitsap County, Washington; thence North 37° 37'27" East 292.57 feet along
the westerly line and its extension thereof of Block 2 of said Plat; thence North 26°
22'22" East 327.59 feet along the westerly line and its extension thereof of Block 3
of said Plat; thence continuing along said westerly line of Block 3, North 12°
38'00" East 24.81 feet; thence North 88° 24'34" West 11.97 feet; thence South
29° 24'52" West 343.71 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Legal description of property to be accepted for dedication:
1. Portion of Lots 16 and 17, Block 7:
That portion of Lots 16 and 17 of Block 7 in the Plat of the Town of Bremerton as
filed in Volume 2 of Plats on Page 30, Records of Kitsap County, Washington,
lying southerly of the easterly extension of the north margin of Burwell Avenue
fi-onting Lots 1 through 15 of said Block 7, from the southeast comer of said Lot
15 to the northwestern margin of Washington Avenue.
2. Second Street Cul-de-sac:
All that portion of Block 9 of the Plat of the Town of Bremerton as filed in Volume
2 of Plats on Page 30, Records of Kitsap County, Washington and that portion of
vacated Second Street included within the circumference of a circle having a radius
of 62.50 feet, the center point of which is located as follows: Commencing at the
intersection of Burwell Avenue and Pacific Avenue; thence south along the
centefline of Pacific Avenue a distance of 280.02 feet to the intersection with
Second Street; thence East (normal to the centerline of Pacific Avenue) a distance
of 132.04 feet; thence South (parallel with Pacific Avenue) a distance of 32.60 feet
to said center point. Also, all that portion of vacated Second Street lying westerly
of said circumference.
3. Pacific Avenue expansion fi-om Second to First Streets:
The west 8 feet of Lots 1 through 7 inclusive of Block 9 of the Plat of the Town of
Bremerton as filed in Volume 2 of Plats on Page 30, Records of Kitsap County,
Washington.
4. Extension of Burwell Street fi-om Washington Avenue to the mean higher high water line:
That portion of Lots 11 through 14 of Btock 3, the vacated 14 foot wide alley
fronting thereon and uplands and tidelands fronting thereon lying within a strip of
land 60 feet in width being the easterly extension of that portion of Burwell Avenue
fi'onting Lots 1 through 15 of Block 7 and Lots 21 through 34 of Block 8, all
within the Plat of the Town of Bremerton as filed in Volume 2 of Plats on Page 30,
Records of Kitsap County, Washington.
5. Western margin of Washington Avenue (within Second to Burwell Street block):
That portion of Block 8 of the Plat of the Town of Bremerton as filed in Volume 2
of Plats on Page 30, Records of Kitsap County, Washington, described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of Washington Avenue and Second Street; thence
along the centerline of Second Street, North 63 ° 37'38" West 35.00 feet; thence
North 26° 22'22" East 30.00 feet to the southeast comer of Lot 15 of said Block 8
and the True Point of Beginning; thence North 26° 22'22" East along the easterly
line of said Block 8 a distance of 158.93 feet; thence South 29° 24'52" West
159.16 feet to the south line of said Lot 15; thence South 63° 37'38" East 8.45 feet
along said south line to the Point of Beginning.
6. Pacific Avenue expansion at comer of Pacific and First Street:
That portion of Lot 1 of Block 9 of the plat of the Town of Bremerton as filed in
Volume 2 of Plats on Page 30, Records of Kitsap County, Washington, described
as follows: Beginning at the southeast comer of the west 8 feet of said Lot 1;
thence East along the south Line of said Lot 1 a distance of 10.00 feet; thence
Northwest on a straight line to a point on the east line of said west 8 feet of Lot 1,
a distance of 35.00 feet North from the Point of Beginning; thence South along
said east line 35.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.
BASIS FOR THE REQUEST TO VACATE SURPLUS:
The above requested vacations are sought in order to develop the proposed Sinclair Landing
Master Plan. Vacation of public streets and alleys will serve the following purposes:
· create access into the proposed Bremerton Transportation Center, create adequate
area for the ultimate Ferry Terminal and adequate area for off-street Ferry Terminal
auto holding area as is consistent with the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal
Plan (requests 1, 2, 4 and 10);
· create a pedestrian-oriented and auto-free Washington Avenue Plaza and create a
new public waterfront underground parking lot (request 3);
· vacate the remainder of a partially-vacated alley (Block 8) in order to create a
consolidated development parcel (request 6);
create consolidated development parcels that are currently bisected by alley ways
(requests 5, 7, 8, and 9);
· create a new public parking garage to be built in association with the Master Plan
improvements (requests 3 and t 1); and
· align Washington Avenue with the proposed Washington Avenue tunnel which will
allow the development ora pedestrian plaza which links the upland portions of the
project to the waterfront portions (requests 12 and 13).
Dedication
·
of property for City rights-of-way will serve the following purposes:
create a new waterfront street end (Burwell Street) to enhance public access to the
waterfront which will, in conjunction with the creation of the new waterfront
esplanade and new Fourth Street and Fifth Street public access, compensate for the
vacation of First and Second Streets (dedication requests 1 and 4);
align Washington Avenue with the proposed Washington Avenue tunnel which will
allow the development ora pedestrian plaza which links the upland portions of the
project to the waterfront portions (dedication request 5);
allow for the creation of a new Second Street cul-de-sac which would serve the
proposed Master Plan area (dedication request 2);
create additional right-of-way to permit a dedicated left mm lane at Pacific and
First Street (dedication requests 3 and 6).
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Management Master Program, and other
state and local law:
Comprehensive Plan:
Comprehensive Plan Economic Objectives establish the following goals:
· to stabilize local economic fluctuations;
· strengthen the tax base;
· create new jobs.
These goals can be best achieved by creating retail, office, transportation, and pedestrian
improvements that attract new businesses and the public. The proposed Master Plan and its
associated vacations will create parcels that optimize the development potential of private land
while also optimizing public benefits such as increased public access to the waterfront and
increased economic and employment benefits associated with the development of the Master
Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan establishes as a sub-plan the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal
Plan (DWURP). The DWURP establishes the following policies that are relevant to the
vacation request:
1. Develop the downtown Bremerton Waterfront area to its highest economic and
social potential and take advantage or the site's unique public and natural resources
and amenities;
2.Increase private sector employment in the Project Area;
3. Promote development of a high intensity, water-oriented, diversified environment
that will be a draw to visitors, ferry users and local people. Cultural, recreational
and commercial activities are encouraged. Desirable uses include office,
hoteL/conference center, museum/cultural, and residential facilities;
4. Route circulation flow so as to minimize conflicts between ferry users and local
traffic, and between motorized vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians;
5. Unneeded right-of-way shall be reconfigured to provide a more appealing
pedestrian environment, through such features as wider sidewalks, plantings, street
furniture, etc.
6. The City will vacate Washington south of first Street in order to expand the Ferry
Terminal Area to the northwest;
7. The primary function of First Street east of Washington shall be to provide local
access to the fishing pier, marina, pathway-park system and adjacent business. It
shall also provide supplementary access to the Ferry Terminal Area; and
8. Second Street shall provide two-way vehicle access into the Project Area from
Washington Avenue, with priority given to pedestrians.
Vacating the requested areas satisfies the first three policies by creating an optimal
development that is capable of attracting private investors, retailers, and the public. Policies
four and five also support optimizing the Master Plan's economic development potential by
creating an attractive pedestrian-oriented retail environment. The proposed Master Plan with
its focus on pedestrian waterfront access and access to retail and other uses will help insure that
the economic development policies of the DWUP, P are met.
Vacating portions of Washington Avenue, portions of First Street, Second Street, and the alley
between Washington and Fkst Street will create a ckculation pattern that separates vehicular
and pedestrian uses and therefore creates consistency with the forth and fifth policies listed
above. The separation of incompatible uses for both public safety and economic reasons
support the vacation of the requested public fights-of-ways. Vacating Second Street will also
achieve the pedestrian-oriented focus of the eighth policy listed.
The primary purposes of the existing First Street right-of-way, establishing pedestrian access to
the waterfront, will be maintained by the dedication of the extension of Burwell Street, the
creation of public access at Fourth Street and Fifth Street, the establishment of the waterfront
esplanade, and the maintenance of public access at the current First Street location by the
proposed pedestrian hillclimb which is located immediately to the north of the Commuter Retail
Building. The hillclimb will provide pedestrian access to the passenger-only ferry, to the
marina, to the Pathway-Park, and to businesses located in the immediate area.
Shoreline Master Prom-am:
The City's Shoreline Master Program defers to the DWURP as the controlling document in
most circumstances. The following Master Program policies also apply to the vacation of
streets and alleys:
1. Vacation of right-of-way: The City shall vacate public right-of-way abutting a body of salt
or fresh water only in compliance with RCW 35.79.035
RCW 35.79.035(1)
A city or town shall not vacate a street or alley if any portion of the street or alley abuts
a body of flesh or salt water unless: ...
The vacation is sought to enable a city or town to implement a plan, adopted by
resolution or ordinance, that provides comparable or improved public access to the
same shoreline area to which the streets or alleys sought to be vacated abut, had the
properties included in the plan not been vacated.
The proposed vacation of First and Second Streets will serve the public use by creating
developable areas that are necessary to allow the construction of an enlarged public
transportation center and adjacent public garage that will serve the citizens of the City of
Bremerton and the larger Kitsap County community. The Master Plan is designed to permit
the construction of these public uses.
In addition to creating these public uses, the Master Plan will improve public access to the
shoreiine. Proposed access will occur at six linear or perpendicular access points along the
shoreline including the newly dedicated Burwell Street extension and the proposed Fourth
Street and Fifth Street improvements. By comparison, there are currently two existing lateral
access points at First and Second Street. In addition to creating additional lateral access points
to the shoreline, the Master Plan will create a new shoreline Pathway-Park from the existing
over-water park to Fifth Street.
All proposed access points will be fully open to the public pursuant to a development
agreement with the City or by dedication to the City. The adoption of the shoreline access plan
described above and incorporated into the Master Plan PUD submittal will not only create
comparable public access to what now exists but will in fact, create superior public access to
the shoreline.
The Master Plan design which allows the creation of the proposed enhanced public access
points and the public transit and garage facilities would not be possible if the existing rights-of-
ways were not vacated.
Public interest will be served bv this right-of-way vacation:
Vacating the requested streets and alleys within the Sinclair Landing Master Plan will serve the
following public interests:
A new public Bremerton Transportation Center (BTC) which meets the necessary
requkements for off-sWeet auto holding capacity, for Kitsap Transit bus capacity,
for sheltered commuter waiting areas, and for commuter retail services will be
constructed.
· New public underground and above ground parking garages which will meet the
parking demands associated with the Sinclair Landing proposal will be constructed.
· Public access to the shoreline will be increased by vacating the existing rights-of-
ways which permit the creation of a development pattern that establishes new
additional waterfront access points.
· Developing an optimal Master Plan design will create attractive public spaces such
as the Washington Avenue Plaza (proposed), the waterfront esplanade (proposed),
attractive public buildings CBTC), and private retail, office, hotel, and other uses
that will attract the public and new businesses into the downtown core.
· Public tax revenues from property tax and retail sales taxes will be increased by
creating an Master Plan layout that optimizes public amenities and optimizes retail
and other private commercial space which will be desirable to retailers, other
businesses, and the general public.
· Creating an optimal Master Plan layout will attract businesses and create new jobs
within the Bremerton community.
Easement and existing utilities that abut or cross the proposed vacation:
Existing and proposed utilities are illustrated on the Utilities Improvement Sheets on the
Sinclair Landing Master Plan PUD plan sheet submittal.
APPLICATION FOR
ZONE RECLASSIlrlCATION (REZONE)
Title Holder:
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
Farragut Avenue
Bremerton, WA 98314-5001
Property_ Location:
Address: 221 First Street
General location:
The property is generally located on Lots 1 through 5 of the Town of Bremerton plat
as recorded in volume 2, page 30 of the plat records of Kitsap County and the former
City right-of-way fronting lots 1 through 5, Block 10 and Lots 10 through 14, Block
11 of said plat. See Plan Sheet C3.02 dated 28 August 1996.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Heavy Industrial
Current Zoning: The subject property is not currently zoned by the City of Bremerton.
Requested Zoning: General Industry
Basis for request:
The area subject to this application will be used for a new access drive into the
Bremerton Transportation Center (BTC). The proposed access drive will enter the
BTC at the point where Pacific Avenue intersects with First Street. This access
location wilt allow for direct access into the BTC auto holding area from Pacific
Avenue. The proposed access route will allow for additional auto holding capacity so
as to prevent autos waiting for ferry service from backing up onto City streets.
The property subject to this application is proposed to be transferred from PSNS
ownership and into ownership of the BTC operator. The proposed access area is
currently not zoned because the property is PSNS owned and not subject to City
zoning. Once the property is transferred out of PSNS ownership, some form of zoning
must be applied to the property by the City.
In that the current Comprehensive Plan designation is Heavy Industrial, the zoning
proposed to be applied to the subject property, General Industry, is fully consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. Access drives are a permitted use within the General
Industry zone.
Criteria for approval:
This rezone request can be approved by the Bremerton City Council only if alt of the
following criteria can be met.
1. The rezone is substantially consistent with the Comprehensive Plan:
20 ¢7
The proposed General Industry designation is the zoning equivalent of the
existing Comprehensive Plan Heavy Industrial designation. No other City
zoning designation is more consistent with the .Comprehensive Plan
designation. The proposed access drive is a permitted use under the proposed
zoning.
2. The rezone is necessary because either:
a. Conditions m the immediate vicinity have so markedly chc~ged that a rezone is
required in the public interest;
The subject property will come out of PSNS ownership which is not subject to
City zoning and some form of City zoning must be applied in order to approve
the proposed BTC access drive.
Although the policy of not applying City zoning to PSNS property is
appropriate when there is federal ownership, the current circumstances dictate
the application of City zoning in that the subject property which will no longer
be held by the Navy.
b. The rezone will correct a zone classification or zone boundary that ,vas
inappropriate when establishe& or
The lack of any zone classification was appropriate when the City adopted
zoning in this area. However, the change of ownership necessitates the
application of the proposed zoning. See the response to 2a above.
c. The rezone is to place or remove an overlay zoning designation on the Zoning
Map;
This element is not applicable to of the proposed zoning request.
3. The rezone would not result in adverse environmental consequences;
The proposed zoning request would allow the creation of an access drive into
the BTC. Previously prepared environmental assessments for the BTC indicate
that the construction of the BTC will improve air quality by better integrating
auto and transit service into downtown traffic patterns. Further environmental
benefits associated with the zoning request and BTC project include the
separation of auto, transit, and pedestrian traffic which will create a safer and
more convenient use of transit and ferry services. The impacts to the
environment associated with the construction of the entire BTC and other
Sinclair Landing Master Plan improvements will be analyzed by the City in
association with the Sinclair Landing Master Plan PUD SEPA review.
The rezone bears a substantial relation to the public interest or welfare becanse
there is a public need for a change of the kind m question; and that imtblic need will
be best served by changing the zoning classification of the subject property;
The proposed zoning will allow the construction of an access drive which is
necessary to developing the proposed BTC, a public/private development
project which will provide enhanced public transit and public ferry services and
new commuter retail services to the commuting public.
The existing transportation cemer functions poorly, lacks adequate auto
storage capacity, and creates by its current configuration auto, transit, bicycle,
and pedestrian safety problems and circulation conflicts. The proposed access
configuration that requires the acquisition of PSNS property and that requires
the zoning map amendment will correct the public safety and circulation
conflict problems.
The proposed access location creates a superior BTC entrance alignment off of
Pacific Avenue and maximizes the auto holding capacity of the BTC which
minimizes the potential of autos waiting for ferry service backing onto and
blocking City streets.
The proposed BTC will also enhance local and state tax revenues due to the
increased property valuation of the privately owned Commuter Retail Building
portion of the BTC and the retail sales associated with the commuter retail
function of the BTC.
Essential public facilities and services are presently available and adequate, or can
be reasonably be made available;
The area proposed for zoning could use public police and fire services which
are present within the downtown area. Sewer, water, and electricity would be
used for the operation of the auto ferry toll booths and associated office space.
All utility services are present at the site.
6. b~ the case ora City-initiated area-wide rezone only: The rezone is area-wide in
scope, the action directly and similarly affects a significant class of properties
rather than individual parcels.
This element is not applicable to the proposed zoning request.
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND
SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
22
The Bremerton Shoreline Master Program defines &tbstcattial Development as:
"Any development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is
higher, exceeds two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or any
development which materially interferes with normal public use of the water or
shorelines of the state ..... ".
Also, Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) are issued for proposed substantial
development activity when the activity is classified as a Conditional Use in the
Shoreline Use/Activity Matrix (Table 3-1). The purpose of the Conditional Use
Permit is to allow greater flexibility in the application of the Shoreline Program.
Proposed Uses:
The following uses are proposed for development within shoreline jurisdiction under a
Substantial Development Permit:
· removal of existing buildings within shoreline jurisdiction;
· removal of the existing First Street pier;
· removal of existing First Street pier fill and bulkhead; construction of an
approximately 140 foot long bulkhead which would interconnect to existing
bulkheads; the proposed new bulkhead would be constructed in the dry behind the
existing bulkhead and the old bulkhead and fill that occupies the intertidal area
would be removed at low tide once the new bulkhead is installed;
· removal of existing piles and pile-supported deck underneath the
Topside/Wheelhouse and replacement with a concrete deck and concrete pilings;
· relocation (partial) of the existing marina -- no new moorage slips are proposed as
part of this substantial development permit;
· up-sizing of the existing storm drain outfall at the BTC from 18 inches to 36
inches;
· Construction of the following:
· the Bremerton Transportation Center (BTC) which includes:
· Ferry/Transit Building and ticket sales structures;
· Commuter Retail Building;
· transit deck;
· reconstruction of auto holding deck and access/egress lanes;
· new passenger-only fen5, float; passenger ferry waiting area (the
Kalakala or other equivalent); and access ramp to waiting area;
· partial relocation of the existing 50 slip marina and relocation of the
existing floating breakwater; installation of new slips to retain the pre-
existing 50 slips;
· mooring dolphins and access ramp to the Historic Ship;
· repositioning and possible re-anchoring of Turner Joy;
· underground parking garage for approximately 1,400 cars and
retail/museum space;
· expansion of existing waterfront park;
· two mixed-use retail and office buildings;
· a hotel/retail building;
· two parking and residential use buildings;
· waterfront esplanade and retaining wall; and
· street, sidewalk, utility and other similar project improvements.
The following uses are proposed for development under shoreline jurisdiction under a
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit which is subject to final approval by the Department of
Ecology:
· relocation of the existing floating breakwater which will occur in conjunction with
the relocation of the existing marina slips; and
· siting a Nstoric ship, a floating maritime museum use which is designated as a
conditional use under the City's Shoreline Master Program.
Location of proposed project:
The improvements within shoreline jurisdiction occur within Sections 13 and 24, TownsNp
24 North, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian.
The portion of the Master Plan witNn the City ofBremerton's shoreline jurisdiction occurs
generally within the following boundaries:
· beginning fi.om a point on the outer harbor line (at a point where the northerly lot
line of Lot 8, Block 4, Town of Bremerton plat as recorded in volume 2, page 30
of the plat records of Kitsap County as extended intersects the outer harbor line);
· southward along the outer harbor line to a point where the Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard (PSNS) property line (which is the same as the southern lot line of Lot 9,
Block 1 of said plat) extends to the outer harbor line;
· northwesterly along the PSNS property line as extended to the outer harbor line to
the easterly right-of-way line of Washington Avenue;
· northerly along the eastern right-of-way of Washington Avenue to the northwest
comer of Lot 8, Block 4 of said plat;
· westerly along the northern lot line of Lot 8, Block 4 of said plat to the point of
beginning.
Use Location:
The City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program designates the upland portion of the site as
Downtown Waterfi'ont Upland (DW/U) and the marine portion of the project as Downtown
Waterfront Marine (DW/M).
Chapter 3, Environment Designations and Kequkements describes the use of the Downtown
Waterfront/Upland and Downtown Waterfront/Marine (overwater):
Downtown Waterfront:
This designation is a special Urban Commercial designation for the downtown
shoreline area that is subject to the Bremerton Downtown Waterfront Urban
Renewal Plan. This area is located along the west shore of the Port
Washington Narrows where it meets Sinclair Inlet. It is bounded on the south
by PSNS; on the west by the west side of Washington Avenue; on the north by
the extension of Sixth Street; and on the east by the Outer Harbor Line.
The intent of this designation is to encourage development of the downtown
waterfront into a vital, attractive water-oriented area that maximizes
opportunities for large numbers of people to interact passively and actively with
the shoreline for leisure and enjoyment. It is characterized by m/xed water-
dependent, water-related, and water-enjoyment uses. The Downtown
Waterfront designation is divided into two sub-areas: Upland and Marine.
Downtown Waterfront/Marine (Over-water) (DW2): This designation consists
of the area waterward of the OHWM. It includes areas designated Ferry
Terminal, Pathway-Park, Marina/South and Marina/North by the Urban
Renewal Plan.
Water access and moorage facilities including piers and docks are permitted
activities identified in the Shoreline/Use Matrix (SMP, Table 3-1, page 2 of 3).
The proposed development is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the
SMP and complies with the regulations.
ENVIRO~NT-SPEC~C REGULATIONS
Downtown Waterfront Environment:
1. Downtown Waterfront Environment:
Public access shall be provided in accordance with the adopted Downtown g"aterfront
Urban Renewal Plan.
2. Downtown Waterfront/Upland:
Permitted: Water-dependent uses; water-related uses; water-enjoyment uses,
as defined herein, which may include museums, restaurants, and mixed-use
commercial.
3. Downtown Waterfront/Marine Environment:
Permitted: Water-dependent uses; water-related uses.
Permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit: Over-water restaurants;
aquariums; floating maritime museums (e.g. ships open to the public for
tours); other water-enjoyment uses, as defined herein: PROVIDED,
Approval of such uses is contingent upon compliance with the following
criteria:
1)
The use provides an opportunity for a substantial number of people to
enjoy the waterfront area. For restaurants and aquariums, access to
and on the seaward-side of the structure shall be provided for
patrons and the public.
2)
Large ships open to the public for tours should be located north of
Burwell Street, to prevent degradation of views from the downtown
business core.
3)
Restaurants and aquariums shall not exceed seventy-five (75) feet in
width, and not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height,, measured
from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM).
4) Ail structures shall be designed to be attractive and unobtrusive.
5)
The structures shall be built on pilings or float. Landfill waterward of
the OHWM is not allowed.
6) The use is compatible with water-dependent uses of the area.
Evaluation of compatibility will consider:
26
a) Demands for the site by water-dependent uses (e.g. ferry
terminal, foot ferry, shipyard);
b) The effect on the usefulness of adjacent areas for water-
dependent uses;
c) The probability of attracting additional desirable water-
dependent or undesirable non-water-dependent uses;
d) Subsidies or other help offered by the developer to support
nearby water-dependent uses.
The project is consistent with these requirements, including provisions for enhanced public
recreational opportunities and physical public access to the shoreline in accordance with the
adopted Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan.
Criteria for Action: Approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must be based
upon compliance with criteria from the following documents:
The State Shoreline Management Act (SMA): The Shoreline Management
Substantial Development process, including public notification and a 20-day
review period, have been processed in conformity with the requirements of the
State Shoreline Management Act.
In general, shoreline permits are reviewed by the City using the same
procedures used for zoning permit applications when a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit is required. The permit application will be reviewed and
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Bremerton City Council
with final approval for shoreline conditional use approved by the Washington
State Department of Ecology.
Construction of the proposed project is not authorized until twenty days have
lapsed from the date of final decision by the Department of Ecology, or until
any appeal procedures have been completed.
Applicable Use/Activity Goals, Policies And Regulations:
Development necessary to undertake and complete the PUD are subject Bremerton
Shoreline Master Program's goals, policies and regulations pertaining to the following uses
and activities:
· Marine Bluff Review, p. 4-4
· Public Access, p.4-7
· Signs, p. 4-15
· View Protection, p. 4-21
· Commercial Development, p. 5-7
· Recreational Development, p.5-18
· Residential Development, p.5-20
Utilities, p. 5-27
· Water Access and Moorage Facilities, p. 5-29
· Shore Modification, p. 6-2
· Bulkheads and Seawalls, p. 6-17
· Grading and Drainage, p. 6-28
View protection:
Proposed buildings within the PUD will exceed 35 feet above the average grade level. The
buildings within the Master Plan will be designed to comply with Downtown Waterfront Urban
Renewal Plan (DWURP) policies that require the maintenance of view corridors within the
downtown waterfront redevelopment area. The plan provides for view corridors which are
consistent with the DWURP's view corridor requirements.
Conditional Use:
Floating breakwaters and floating maritime museums are permitted as a Shoreline Conditional
Use permit.
WAC 173-14-140 Review criteria for conditional use permits states that conditional uses may
be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
1. That the proposed use is consistent with policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the policies of the
Bremerton Shoreline Master Program;
2. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of the shorelines;
3. That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other
permitted uses within the area;
4. The proposed use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects to the shoreline environment
in which it is to be located;
5. That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
In addition, when considering the application, consideration must be given to the
cumulative impact of additional requests for similar actions in the area.~
aln other words, if comparable developments were permitted by CUP in the area where
similar circumstances exist, the total of the developments must also be consistent with the
SMA and must not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
Relocating an existing breakwater and developing facilities for a floating maritime museum is
consistent with the criteria necessary for granting a conditional use.
SEPA: Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act:
A mitigated environmental threshold determination of non-significance (MDNS) was issued by
the Responsible Official on December 4, 1996 for this project.
The City of Bremerton determined that the project as proposed, as mitigated under City, State,
and Federal laws, and as subject to the agreed upon mitigation, will not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement was not
required under RCW 43.21C.
This decision was made after the review of: an expanded environmental checklist and technical
reports prepared for the PUD; the City of Bremerton Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal
Plan (DWURP) FEIS; the Bremerton Ferry Terminal FEIS; and other information on file with
the City of Bremerton. The DWURP FEIS and the discussion of impacts and mitigation in the
areas of soils and topography, water quality and fisheries habitat, transportation and parking,
utilities, aesthetics and views, and economics were incorporated by reference into this threshold
determination.
Mitigation:
The following were the conditions of mitigation which should be carried over to the PUD
approval:
1. Earth: Implement a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP)as
approved by the City. Minimize exposed soil during construction.; construct truck tire
cleaning areas; cover dump beds as required by state law; cover stockpiled earth and
exposed cuts; route runoff.to temporary sedimentation ponds; employ best management
practices to control erosion; construct a concrete truck wash-down area; periodically
sweep the streets with street sweepers; and phase construction, to minimize exposed areas.
2. Air: Implement erosion control measures as approved by the City. Minimize area of
exposed soil during construction, or demolition; hose debris during demolition; construct
truck tire cleaning area; cover dump beds as required by state law; cover stockpiled earth
and exposed cuts; employ best management practices; periodically wet sweep streets.
Comply with Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) Regulation 1,
Section 9.15 requiting reasonable precautions to avoid dust emissions. Implement
proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) traffic, transit, and pedestrian improvements
to improve circulation.
3. Surface, Ground, and RunoffWater Impacts: Locate existing surface parking areas
underground and partially cover the Bremerton Transportation Center (BTC) car waiting
areas. Install and maintain oil/water separators as required by City stormwater regulation.
Implement: WA. ST Department of Wildlife's Hydraulic Project Approval (I-[PA)
conditions; U.S. Army Corp of Engineer's Section 10 conditions; applicable local, state,
and federal water quality guidelines. Use concrete marina floats; use concrete or steel
pilings instead of'creosote wood pilings; construct interconnecting replacement First St.
bulkhead in the dry.
4. Plants: Use landscaping plants or similar measures to provide replacement vegetation on
the site. Incorporate street and public space landscaping into project as proposed.
5. Wildlife: Remove existing First St. Dock and approximately 120 creosote timber pilings
which covers 12,600 square feet of intertidal area. Remove existing First St. fill which
covers intertidal area. Remove 45 creosote timber pilings that support the Wheelhouse
deck. Implement HPA and Corps Section 10 conditions.
6. Ener~: Conform with applicable City and State energy code requirements. Create new
pedestrian facilities as proposed to reduce auto energy use. Implement one-way couplet
street system, and other circulation improvements to increase transportation efficiencies
and lower energy use.
7. Environmental Heath: Property or business owners to comply with applicable local, state,
or federal law regulating the storage, handling, or use of hazardous materials.
8. Noise: Properly size and maintain equipment mufflers, engine intake silencers, engine
enclosures; mm off.idling equipment; restrict noisy operations fi-om 6:30 A.M. to 9:00
P.M. unless special circumstances approved by construction manager. Construct BTC as
proposed which serves as noise barrier between terminal and waterfront park. Place Wash.
Ave. below grade to reduce traffic noise in Washington Ave. pedestrian plaza.
9. Land, Shoreline Use, Housing: Create approximately 79 additional housing units than
exist. Create new commercial and redevelop commercial space as proposed. Provide
business relocation assistance as required by state law.
10. Land Use Planning: Incorporate uses -- retail, parking, office, entertainment, transit as
permitted under zoning. Preserve views to Sinclair Inlet in conformance with Downtown
Waterfi'ont Urban Renewal Plan (DWURP). Create: Washington. Ave. plaza; open space
adjacent to Waterfront Park; and linear water~ont Pathway-Park. Relocate marina as
recognized in the City's DWURP Design Element.
11. Aesthetics: Create view corridors through waterfront and along Burwell St. as proposed
to preserve views. Create linear waterfront pathway as proposed to view Sinclair Inlet and
other natural attractions. Conform to City zoning with regards to height and bulk as
applied through PUD process. Comply with City's Design Review standards. Place
current waterfront parking below the surface as proposed.
12. Light and Glare: Design lights within BTC and relocated marina so as to not create off-
shore glare. Obtain United States Coast Guard (USCG) approval of marina entrance
marking lights.
13. Recreation: Create Second St. pedestrian walkway. Create new linear Waterfront
Pathway-Park (esplanade) from Waterfront Park to Fifth St. and create lateral access
points to the existing Waterfront Park and new Pathway-Park. Create a new public plaza
at Washington. Ave. and Second St. and expand Waterfront Park. Provide alternative
siting for WycoffPark as approved by Puget Sound naval Shipyard (PSNS) and City Parks
Dept.
30
14. Cultural and Archeoloaical: Notify State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) if
archeological resources are identified during construction.
15. Transportation: Separate pedestrian, transit, and auto traffic as proposed to enhance traffic
safety. Convert Burwell St./Pacific Avenue intersection eastbound and westbound
combined through/left turn lanes to left mm mm-only lanes and convert eastbound and
westbound right mm only lanes to combined through/right turn lanes to provide additional
capacity and improve operations to an acceptable level of service. Coordinate BTC
construction staging plan with WA ST Department Of Transportation, City, Port of
Bremerton, and Kitsap Transit. Coordinate construction traffic routing plan with City and
Kitsap Transit.
16. Public Services: Provide fire protection systems for buildings according to Uniform Fire
Code requirements. Upgrade existing stormwater and water lines serving the project site
as required by City's Public Works Director. Coordinate replacement of utility services
with Puget Power, WA Natural Gas, US West, and City to minimize disruptions.
CONCLUSIONS
Comprehensive Plan:
The PUD and associated applications are consistent with the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning/DWURP:
The PUD and associated applications comply with the provisions of the Bremerton Zoning
Ordinance and Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan.
Shoreline:
Uses and development adjacent to the shoreline are consistent with the Bremerton Shoreline
Mater Program and meet the minimum criteria for granting conditional uses for a floating
maritime museum/historic ship and relocation of the floating breakwater pier.
Rezone:
The proposed zoning of the portion of PSNS to IG to be used for development of the
Bremerton Transportation Center meets the criteria for granting the zoning change.
R-O-W:
The proposed rights of way to be vacated along with the proposed areas for dedication meet
the criteria necessary for granting the vacations
RECOMMENDATION
The Bremerton Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of all applications subject to
the following conditions:
MODEL MOTIONS
BE IT RESOLVED, it is hereby the opinion and consensus of the Bremerton
Planning Commission, after considering oral and written comments, that the Planned
Unit Development for "Sinclair Landing" and its associated applications should be
approved by the Bremerton City Council subject to the following conditions of
mitigation:
Mitigation:
1. Earth: Implement a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP)as
approved by the City. Minimize exposed soil during construction.; construct truck tire
cleaning areas; cover dump beds as required by state law; cover stockpiled earth and
exposed cuts; route runoff.to temporary sedimentation ponds; employ best management
practices to control erosion; construct a concrete truck wash-down area; periodically
sweep the streets with street sweepers; and phase construction, to minimize exposed areas.
2. Ai___r: Implement erosion control measures as approved by the City. Minimize area of
exposed soil during construction, or demolition; hose debris during demolition; construct
track tire cleaning area; cover dump beds as required by state law; cover stockpiled earth
and exposed cuts; employ best management practices; periodically wet sweep streets.
Comply with Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) Regulation 1,
Section 9.15 requiring reasonable precautions to avoid dust emissions. Implement
proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) traffic, transit, and pedestrian improvements
to improve circulation.
3. Surface, Ground, and Runoff.Water Impacts: Locate existing surface parking areas
underground and partially cover the Bremerton Transportation Center (BTC) car waiting
areas. Install and maintain oil/water separators as required by City stormwater regulation.
Implement: WA. ST Department of Wildlife's Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
conditions; U.S. Army Corp of Engineer's Section 10 conditions; applicable local, state,
and federal water quality guidelines. Use concrete marina floats; use concrete or steel
pilings instead of creosote wood pilings; construct interconnecting replacement First St.
bulkhead in the dry.
4. Plants: Use landscaping plants or similar measures to provide replacement vegetation on
the site. Incorporate street and public space landscaping into project as proposed.
5. Wildlife: Remove existing First St. Dock and approximately 120 creosote timber pilings
which covers 12,600 square feet of intertidal area. Remove existing First St. fill which
covers intertidal area. Remove 45 creosote timber pilings that support the Wheelhouse
deck. Implement I-t2PA and Corps Section 10 conditions.
6. Energy: Conform with applicable City and State energy code requirements. Create new
pedestrian facilities as proposed to reduce auto energy use. Implement one-way couplet
street system, and other circulation improvements to increase transportation efficiencies
and lower energy use.
7. Environmental Heath: Property or business owners to comply with applicable local, state,
or federal law regulating the storage, handling, or use of hazardous materials.
8. Noise: Properly size and maintain equipment mufflers, engine intake silencers, engine
enclosures; mm offidling equipment; restrict noisy operations from 6:30 A.M. to 9:00
P.M. unless special ckcumstances approved by construction manager. Construct BTC as
proposed which serves as noise barrier between terminal and waterfront park. Place Wash.
Ave. below grade to reduce traffic noise in Washington Ave. pedestrian plaza.
9. Land, Shoreline Use, Housing: Create approximately 79 additional housing units than
exist. Create new commercial and redevelop commercial space as proposed. Provide
business relocation assistance as required by state law.
10. Land Use Planning: Incorporate uses -- retail, parking, office, entertainment, transit as
permitted under zoning. Preserve views to Sinclair Inlet in conformance with Downtown
Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan (DWURP). Create: Washington. Ave. plaza; open space
adjacent to Waterfront Park; and linear waterfront Pathway-Park Relocate marina as
recognized in the City's DWLrR.P Design Element.
11. Aesthetics: Create view corridors through waterfront and along Burwell St. as proposed
to preserve views. Create linear waterfront pathway as proposed to view Sinclair Inlet and
other natural attractions. Conform to City zoning with regards to height and bulk as
applied through PUD process. Comply with City's Design Review standards required by
the DWURP. Place current waterfi'ont parking below the surface as proposed.
12. Li~t and Glare: Design lights within BTC and relocated marina so as to not create off-
shore glare. Obtain United States Coast Guard (USCG) approval of marina entrance
marking lights.
13. Recreation: Create Second St. pedestrian walkway. Create new linear Waterfront
Pathway-Park (esplanade) fi.om Waterfront Park to F~h St. and create lateral access
points to the existing Waterfront Park and new Pathway-Park. Create a new public plaza
at Washin~on. Ave. and Second St. and expand Waterfront Park. Provide alternative
siting for WycoffPark as approved by Puget Sound naval Shipyard (PSNS) and City Parks
Dept.
14. Cultural and Archeolo~cal: Notify State Historic Preservation Office (SI-IPO) if
archeological resources are identified during construction. Provide Public Art in
compliance with DWURP requirements.
15. Transportation: Separate pedestrian, transit, and auto traffic as proposed to enhance traffic
safety. Convert Burwell St./Pacific Avenue intersection eastbound and westbound
combined through/left turn lanes to left turn turn-only lanes and convert eastbound and
westbound right turn only lanes to combined through/fight turn lanes to provide additional
capacity and improve operations to an acceptable level of service. Coordinate BTC
construction staging plan with WA ST Department Of Transportation, City, Port of
Bremerton, and Kitsap Transit. Coordinate construction traffic routing plan with City and
Kitsap Transit. Vacate and dedicate rights of-way as described in rights of-way vacation
application. Compensate the City as required by State and City laws for vacated rights of-
way.
16. Public Services: Provide fire protection systems for buildings according to Uniform Fire
Code requirements. Upgrade existing stormwater and water lines serving the project site
as required by City's Public Works Dkector. Coordinate replacement of utility services
with Puget Power, WA Natural Gas, US West, and City to minimize disruptions.
17. Scope of approval: This approval recognizes the preliminary ,conceptual and phased
nature of the project. As allowed by the zoning ordinance: a) The ultimate development
with specific uses and sites may change at the time of the Final PUD application(s); b)
Final PUD approval(s) shall be subject to the Final PUD approval criteria of the zoning
ordinance. Final PUD application(s) shall require signature(s) from all affected property
owners signifying their acceptance of the plan and application(s). This preliminary PUD
approval does not mandate participation by any or all property owners within the
boundaries of the PUD, allowing any or all property owners to utilize their property in
conformance with zoning regulations.
Laurence Stone, Chairman
Bremerton Planning Commission
Date
DONALD L. PRATT
Executive Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
January 21, 1997
Chairman Stone announced and called the meeting to order.
The Secretary called the roll: Those present were Boyd, Robinson, Olsen, Stone. Absent
were: Adams, Hancock, Dingfield.
Chairman Stone asked Donald Pratt to discuss the agenda.
Donald Pratt stated that the Sinclair Landing Project should not be a Public Hearing and should
be moved as Neighborhood Meeting under New Business. Also requested that New Business be
moved to the third item of business. Commissioner Boyd moved for approval with the
suggested changes. Seconded by Commissioner Olsen. Question called: Boyd, yes;
Robinson, yes; Olsen, yes; Stone, yes. Motion passes.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING-SINCLAIR LANDING
Donald Pratt, asked the appearance of fairness questions. No responses. Also stated that the
meeting tonight was strictly informational and not part of the formal, legal process of approving
or disapproving of a permit. That decision will be made during a public hearing in front of the
City Council in the future.
Jack Allingham, presented the staff report. This is a Planned Unit Development Application
for the Sinclair Landing project. The Applicant is the Howard S. Wright Company.
Applications applied for to date of Planned Unit Development (PUD), Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use, Site Plan Review, Right of Way Vacation, and
Zoning Map Amendment. The project proposes approximately 18 new buildings with the
proposed uses of offices, retail stores, cinemas, residential, hotel units, museum, and parking
garages. The developments will have over 500,000 square feet of retail, over 58,000 square feet
of restaurant use, over 249,000 square feet of office use, 99 hotel rooms, 142 residential units
and parking for over 2,900 vehicles. They also propose a floating historic ship, public plaza's,
waterfront esplanade and reconfiguration of the existing marina. Another strong component of
the project is to redevelop the Bremerton Ferry Terminal into the Bremerton Transportation
Center. It will have a commuter retail building, the terminal itself, a passenger only terminal,
a passenger only waiting area, and float. The site is bordered by Sinclair inlet, PSNS on the
South, Pacific Avenue out to Park Avenue on the East, and 4th Street up to 5th Street on the
North. The PUD process is designed to be a multi step process, beginning with
PAGE -1~
a conceptual review, progresses onto a neighborhood meeting, which was held in 1996, and
tonight we are having a public meeting before the Planning Commission, and then this request
will go onto the City Council. The PUD process is to get a preliminary approval prior to a final
design approval. Planning Staff feels that all of the criteria have been met and recommend
approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
Craig Norsen, Vice President of Howard S. Wright stated that they are part of the team that
has been working on this project for about 1 1/2 years. The project is a Public/Private
Partnership. A PUD allows for a major redevelopment in downtown Bremerton. Stated the area
of the project as well as the potent/al uses. Stated this plan may be modified or changed along
the process.
David Hewitt, Architect from Hewitt/Isley, stated that the architecture goal was to provide
an activity center were people could live, visit, shop, as well as a transportation center. Showed
two sketches illustrating ideas. The goal is to build on with the existing theme of the buildings
and ampi/fy what we already have.
Jeff Peacock, Parametrix, stated that their goal regarding transportation was to create a
seamless as possible system. Reviewed the four elements: vehicular traffic, non-motorist traffic,
marine traffic, and the transit system.
Mary McClure, Sinclair Landing, stated that t/tis is a very complex project and needs
everyone working together--no one entity could do it alone. Reviewed the entities involved in
the Sinclair Landing. The key roll of the SLA is to do coordination with all of the players as
well as with the State, EDC, Schools, Neighborhood Groups, PSNS, etc.
Commissioner Boyd, asked if there is a covered walkway from the parking structure to the foot
ferry and was concerned about the transportation issues in downtown Seattle.
Craig Norsen responded yes there would be covered walkways. David Hewitt responded that
Seattle is currently working on their transportation issues.
Commissioner Olsen asked for clarification on the parking numbers. Craig Norsen clarified
the numbers.
Commissioner Robinson had concerns regarding the length of the projected timelines.
Craig Norsen responded that large elements will be moving ahead rather quickly. The
Transportation Center is scheduled to begin this July.
Elizabeth Burl, resident, questioned if there were provisions for the handicapped.
PAGE -2-
Craig Norsen responded yes.
Ward Yohey, resident, stated that he was pleased and excited with the project.
Connie Ray, from KITZ, concerned about the need for better and prompt terry service.
Mary McClure, responded that the SLA is working very closely with the ferry system and their
attitudes toward Bremerton.
Lon Overson, responded that there is a meeting with regard to the Ferry System on January
27th, 1997 at 6:30PM.
Charlie Brown, feels that the SLA has done a great job getting all of the entities together.
Concerned about the public fmancing of the underground parking garage and if parking meters
will be put back in.
Donald Pratt, stated that if there were not enough parking revenues to pay back the bonds, then
the County's Block Grant would be used to make the payments. There is no plan to bring back
parking meters.
Lou Weir, stated his concern that while we are in this planning process, the property owners
still need to be able to rent their buildings and the tenants need to be informed as to what is
going on with the process and how long they are going to be able to operate. Also, everyone
needs to be careful about what is being said regarding the process.
Mary McClttre, stated that the SLA is sensitive to the issue.
Cliff Deitz, would like to see more condo's built so that there will be a bigger base of people
downtown. Supports the project.
Anna Laurie, feels that the Pacific Avenue traffic pattern is unnecessarily complicated, and is
concerned that the project will reflect too much of the past and we should be looking more to
the future.
Joe Mentor, sated he has seen many projects come and go in the past. Has concerns about the
project coming together because of the lack of developers. Feels the PUD should just be for a
limited time so that if this project does not go, then some other developers can come in. Sated
that block grant dollars are only to be used for housing.
Donald Pratt, stated that the waterfront area is slum and blighted and therefore block grant
dollars are eligible. The City Council has the ability to limit the "life" of the PUD.
PAGE -3-
Charlie Brown, asked if the PUD includes the marina.
Donald Pratt, stated that the Marine configuration is not part of the application at tiffs point.
Donella Wilts, concerned about how the commuters will be affected during construction.
Craig Norsen, stated that during construction they intend to maintain the transportation and
encourage the use of Kitsap Transit.
William Jeb, concerned about the Navy expansion and the related parking that goes with the
expansion.
Craig Norsen, said the Navy is very interested in the revitalization of Bremerton. The Navy
is taking steps to improve its parking.
Connie Ray, stated that the McWilliams park-n-fide is full. If you are asking people to use
these lots, they need to be expanded and improved.
Craig Norsen, said that Kitsap Transit is aggressive in its long range planning and expansion
of these lots.
Michael Lane, asked what happens to City Hall? What is the height of the buildings? Square
feet of office space? Do we have any pre-leases? Any group targeted? Status of the options
team? Agree with not enough information given to tenants and landlords. What happens to my
building?
Craig Norsen, stated that there have been some discuss-ions regarding relocating City Hall or
improving its current building. The building next door is included in the plan--no intent/on to
change the building other than a remodel. The parking lot behind the building has the potential
for some type of development. The square footage is approximately 150,000 square feet of
office space. The height is 6 stories. There have been only informal discussions regarding
leases at this point. Good interest in retail, office, and restaurant. No particular groups have
been targeted.
Dick Main, questioned the provisions for handicapped individuals accessing the ferry?
Craig Norsen, indicated that the terminal will be handicap accessible.
Commissioner Boyd questioned if the ferry system has a design for the terminal?
Craig Norsen, responded that he has had input into the design.
Lynn Johnson, stated his concern with safety issues in the area.
PAGE -4-
Camilla Dirks, had a concern about the ferry traffic back-up during the summer with
construction going on.
Craig Norsen, stated that the holding area for ferry traffic will be increased.
The Neighborhood meeting was concluded.
Approval of the December 17, 1996 minutes. Approved as presented.
Director's Report
Donald Pratt and the Commissioners discussed the function of the Planning Commission with
regard to Rule 12.
Donald Pratt reported on the storm related issues and complimented the staff under the direction
of Mayor Horton on how well everyone responded. Job well dohe!
Also reported that the City is in the process of setting up a studio in City Hall. This could be
used for announcing new permits, etc. This would be shown 2-3 times each week on Channel
12.
There will be a Planning workshop at Given's this Saturday.
Next regular meeting will be February 18, 1997. Also, there may be a meeting on February 4th-
-Donald Pratt will check it out and notify the Commission.
Donald Pratt mentioned that both Stone and Boyd's terms expire tiffs year. Both indicated
they would be interested in being reappointed.
Chairman Stone pointed out that he had read that seconds to motion are not required in
governmental bodies. Need to look further at this issue.
Meeting Adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
M/r yn W el
Approved:
Larry Stone, ~hairman
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
Bremerton Planning Co~ission
FEBRUARY 4, 1997
Meeting called to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll call:
Present: Boyd, Olsen, Stone, Robinson. Donna Adams arrived at 6:10.
Absent: Dingfield (for reasons of appearance of fairness issues),
Hancock.
Call to Order.
Approval of the Agenda: Remove Public Hearing as Item IV; replace with Call to
the Public.
Call to the Public.
Review/Approval of January 2I, 1997 minutes.
second. Unanimous approval.
Olsen moved to approve, Boyd
Old Business. None.
New Business:
applications.
Planning Commission discussion of Sinclair Landing Project
Issues:
Acceptance by property owners within the PUD area: The commission
recognized that the applicant Howard S. Wright, Inc. does not own all of
the property within the PUD and that each property owner may or may not
choose to be party to the plan. It was determined that approval of the
plan did not mandate participation from all property owners, nor did it
restrict the use of property to the plan. As the plan develops in phases,
each property owner could develop in a manner allowed by zoning until the
next phase which includes their property is proposed. The final PUD will
require all affected property owners within the phase to provide written
approval and acceptance of the plan prior to city approval.
Phasing and timinq: The preliminary plan should have an expiration date.
The zoning ordinance allow 2 years between preliminary approval and final
pud approval. The two year schedule may be too rigorous to allow a
realistic construction schedule for a project of this scale. Perhaps the
City should utilize a development agreement to allow the flexibility
necessary to set time limits for development, but allow for a realistic
design and construction.
Parking: The preliminary plan shows proposed uses and parking areas. It
was not clear how the parking would relate to the uses, particularly the
hotel. Final PUD approval needs to be reviewed for functional convenient
parking.
Scope of approval: Planning Staff proposed condition No. 17 which
addresses the issues regarding phasing and acceptance by affected property
owners.
Motion: Olsen moved to adopt motion with conditions; Boyd seconded. Unanimous
approval.
The next regular meeting w~ll be February 18, 1997.
Meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
Larry Stone
Cha i rman
Date
Don Pratt
Executive Secretary
Date
LE®ENI~
/
:/
HALF SIZE
EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS DESCRIPTION
New BuJldJl~g $
Terr~noL Retail, Restouranl, Office, Residentiol and Hotel Buildings
· Brick or ~e facing ot lower rlo(xs.
· Pre¢(3st concrete or c~l stone cladding al wa~s which step down to
Renovol ed BuiJdingi
Reloil ond Office Buildings
· Restoration ol e;~ting I:x"ick. hle os, concrete cloddtng.
· Pa~ted oturrlnum winG~w $ with c~' g~ at retail
leveB otld tinted, r~orYre flecflve ~ at office uses.
HALF SIZE
I. iNNER AND OUTER HARt_.. LINES ,,R, SHOWN
AS ,~DJAC~,, PROPERTY LINES SINCE THESE
I~OUNOARIES DEFINE HARBOR ''-'
L:.~ AREAS.
* U~W=+~.S, ULLW=O.0. ~A~U- S.O.$. U~_W-0.0.
3. A'~RAGE WATER DEPTH AROUN0 ACTI~IT'F =
~x,~l~ 3. ISSUED AdO~S~ I~,
5. SEE NOTES SHEET FOR ~O_ION CONTROL
TO ~E RELOCATE0 NORTH 50'~
~E'A' FLOAT
REA APPROX l l,O00 SO FT
~ NEW STEEL
GANGWAY 13xlS0'
~ -- .~' STOR~ ORAIN
~ TF~L
~'-M\ L
% 73 YRS
P RECONFIGUREO MHW
~% MARINA. 6 .UHHW
YRS
-- NEW PASSENGER - ~A~ (NO EXPANSION)
FERRY TER~IN~ ~ ~ ~iE~H,~R~P,~ ~
SINCL~R INLET ~ ' --RELOCATEO BREAK~R-~33' NE
~ A~O~ STRUCTURES REUO~0. 6 ~S OLD
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
NCI_AIR I_ aN ENINE3
0 15o' 5oo' 450' 6oo' goo'
SCALE: 1" = 300'
Pag~ 4 of g
SINCLAIR LANDING (~ FLETCHER WRIGHT, INC.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOP~ AND ~ ~
BREMERTON TRANSPORTATION CENTER ~~w ~. .
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND
BREMERTON TRANSPORTATION CENTER
SINCLAIR LANDING
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND
BREMERTON TRANSPORTATION CENTER
?.S.m.S.
HALF SIZE
EXISTING BUILDING AND
MARINA SITE PLAN
~;1tiI, Il,
411hill~
G1.01
NOTES;
1. FO~ E.Y~S~ PROPERTY OWHER,~erPS. SEE SHEET ~ 1,03,
RIGH~ OF' WAY INFORMA
ASSESSORS MA~A..~
/
!
8LOCK 8
IS DERIVED FROM CITY
CARDS.
UND~.RGROdJND PARKING GARAGE
(~ EXST ~ O~ r,.~c~c ,e,~A~.CP n~{ ~ EECO~c~
NO'I'~S:
RUGHT OF WAY
ASSESSORS MAPS
/
/
/
//
//
//
IS DERIVED FROM CITY
'~UMENT CARDS. '
HALF STZE
NOT FO~
d
lEI
Jc8.02:
i
DOWNTOWN
WATERFRO
URBAN
REI
PLAN
· Exhibit "D"
LAND/WATER USE PLAN
Project Area
Mixed Co~rcial/
Residential/Tourist
Waterfront/CBD
Transition Area
Ferry Terminal
Linear Park/Pathway
Page 15
UUWHtUWN
WATERFRONT
URBAN
RENEWAL
PLAN
ALT. 1-B
L
Exhibit "E"
DESIGN CONCEPTS
~ Ferry Terminal Area
Pathway/Linear Park
,~ Interior Parking/Service
(Surface or Structure)
] Public View Platforms
.~Open/Undeveloped (Bluffs)
~ Ferry. Traffic
· Viewpoint (panoramic views)
Page 16