Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/96 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 239 4TH STREET BREMERTON, WA 98337 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FEBRUARY 21, 1996 CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 P.M. A. Pledge Of Allegiance B. Invocation CONSENT AGENDA Items listed below have been distributed to Council members in advance for study and will be enacted by one motion. If separate discussion is desired on an item, it may be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda at the request of a Council member. None CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 4. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 5. MAYOR'S REPORT PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) NEW BUSINESS A. Workers' Compensation Claims Administration Contract -- Johnston & Culberson #AB96-036 Budget Amendment Requests for Forest Ridge #AB96-037 Park and Pendergast Park Improvements, and Concessions at Lions Field and Pendergast Park Approval of Long Term License for Puget Power Park (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE) ORDINANCES A. Ordinance #4544 (Second Reading), Tracyton Beach Pre-Annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation #AB96-031 B. Ordinance #4545 (Second Reading) To Amend #AB96-035 City's Comprehensive Plan To Comply With The Final Decision And Order Of The Growth Management Hearings Board PUBLIC HEARING - 6;00 P.M. OR LATER A. Resolution #2540, Regarding Recovery Of Fees #AB96-039 For The Abatement Of The Property Located At Werner Road and Madison Street, Kitsap County Assessor's Tax Number 4564-001-027-0007, Owned by William & Natasha Sesko AGEND& BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Workers' Compensation Claims Administration Contract - Johnston & Culberson FOR AGENDA OF: February 21, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT: Admin. Services ORIGINATOR: Peqgy Lesser /~.~._ DATE SUBMITTED: February 13, 1996 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back 3. EXHIBITS: if necessary) Contract Director, Admin. Svcs. ~ INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRE~ITTAL: YOR CO CIL PRESIDENT The City self-insures its workers' compensation obligations and utilizes the services of a certified third party claims administrator to make claim payments. In response to a City RFP, three claims administration firms were recently interviewed and Johnston & Culberson was selected as the most qualified service provider. The service fee for this contract is $12,500 per year plus a one-time takeover fee. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the professional services agreement with Johnston & Culberson. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: P. Lesser ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: P. Lesser EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 3/1/97 PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE: AMENDED 11. AGENDA BILL NO: CLEARANCE COMMENTS (cont.): 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (cont.): 5o IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: We would continue to utilize the services of our current claims administrator. 0 IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES The cost of this agreement has been included in the approved 1996 risk management budget. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: -JOHNSTON [] CULBERSOM SERVICE AGREEMENT TitlS AGREEMENT, made and entered into March 1, 1996, between Johnston & Culberson, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereinafter called "Service Company" and City of Bremerton, hereinat~er called "Employer". WITNESS THAT: WItEREAS, Service Company is in the business of providing advice and administrative assistance as an independent contractor to Washington SeW-Insured Employers subject to Workers' Compensation Law as defined, and WItEREAS, Employer desires to employ Service Company as the claims administrator for its self- insured workers' compensation claims. TI:IEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants and obligations of the parties hereinafter set forth, it is agreed as follows: DEFINITIONS: For purposes of this Agreement, the terms herein are understood and agreed to be defined as follows: "Workers' Compensation Laws": With respect to the State of Washington shall include Title 51 of the Industrial Insurance Laws of the State of Washington. Bo "Premium" is the workers' compensation premium required by the Workers' Compensation Laws which Employer otherwise would be required to pay of it were not a Self-Insured employer; such premiums are based on the Washington payroll hours of Employer and are determined by the rules, rates and experience modification provisions of the Workers' Compensation Laws. Until sufficient information is available to compute an experience modification factor, manual rates will be utilized. "Paid Claims Losses" are defined as all payments by Employer to workers for compensation, medical services, drugs, prosthetic devices, rehabilitation, transportation and any and all other benefits and payments required under said Workers' Compensation Laws. "Unallocated Claims Services" are defined as all normal administrative, investigative and adjustment services relating to a specific accident or occupational disease, including but not limited to: supervision of and timely issuance of checks for workers' compensation claims and mandatory vocational rehabilitation obligations to workers under the Workers' Compensation Laws as they become due and prior to delinquency; maintenance of all records required by the Workers' Compensation Laws or any agency charged with their enforcement, including records of all claims, statistical services, as defined in IF below; documentation of all payment requests for workers and vendor; periodic calculation of Employer's premium as defined in lB; preparation and filing on or before the applicable due date of all reports, statements or other documents required under the Workers' Compensation Laws; coordination with Washington Department of Labor & Industries as required; representation of Employer at all Hearings before the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals and the Department of Labor & Industries of the State of Washington, where, in the opinion of Service Company, an attorney is not required; consultation with and concurrence from Employer before appointing legal counsel, when required; supervision and management of mandatory vocational rehabilitation for qualified injured workers of Employer; assistance in the selection of and subsequent supervision of outside parties classified under Allocated Claims Services and costs thereof, as defined in 1E below. All such actMties shall be carried out pursuant to the terms of this agreement by salaried employees of Service Company. "Allocated Claims Service" costs are defined as the costs relating to specific accidents or occupational disease which costs are not related to Unallocated Claims Services as defined in 1D of this Agreement. Allocated Claims Services costs include, but are not limited to: court costs, court depositions, transcripts, subpoena costs, costs and materials for expert witnesses involving medical, legal or chemical questions, outside attorney fees, private investigation fees, vocational rehabilitation fees for qualified injured employees of Employer and any similar costs or expenses properly chargeable to the defense of a particular claim or to the protection of the subrogation rights of Employer not otherwise provided for under ID of this Agreement. Allocated Claims Service costs are paid out of Employer's workers' compensation checking account with prior approval of Employer. Fo "Statistical Services" are defined as the five (5) following reports to be produced by Service Company and distributed on a regular and timely basis to Employer. (2) (3) (4) (5) Monthly Loss Analysis Monthly Loss Summary Weekly Check List Monthly Check Register Annual Financial Report Additional reports may be furnished by Service Company upon request of Employer, at fees agreed upon by both parties. SERVICE COMPANY OBLIGATIONS: Service Company agrees to provide the following services to or on behalf of Employer. A. Unallocated Claims Services as defined in 1D above, B. Statistical Services as defined in 1F above; 2 o Co Loss Comrol Services and Training Programs as provided and set forth in the written proposal which include but are not limited to the following: (1) (2) (3) (4) Advice and consultation on a regular basis, including safety inspections, safety committee involvement, supervisory training, noise level surveys, industrial hygiene testing, and recommendations on use of personal protective equipment. Providing information relating to specific safety topics as appropriate. Loss Control Audits Assistance in implementing Employer Loss Control Programs Neither the right to provide these services and recommendations, nor the providing thereof nor any report thereon, shall constitute a representation by Service Company that such work places, operations and machinery are safe. Do Service Company shall use due care and reasonable diligence in the exercise of its powers and the performance of its duties under this Agreement. Service Company agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Employer and its directors, officers and employees against any and all losses, claims, lawsuits, settlements, judgment costs, penalties and expenses, including attorney's fees resulting or arising out of the negligent, dishonest, fraudulent or criminal acts of Service Company in carrying out its duties under this Agreement. Service Company shall provide the Employer with on-going proof that it maintains current Professional Liability insurance coverage with minimum limits of $1,000,000. EMPLOYER OBLIGATIONS: Employer agrees that it will: go Forward promptly to Service Company all reports of industrial or occupational diseases and workers' notices, complaints and correspondence relating to such claims. Co Do Fo Cooperate with Service Company in regard to the administration of Claims and Loss Control Programs. Provide Service Company with appropriate payroll, financial and organizational information necessary for the completion of required State reports. Provide Service Company with sufficient data input for coding of administration units, locations and departments, for monthly Loss Analysis and Loss Summaries. Establish a checking account for Workers' Compensation expenditures and fund as necessary to insm'e S~lfficient amounts are present to pay all checks. Provide Service Company, on a timely basis, all pertinent Excess Insurance reporting requirements and/or reporting modifications for all annual periods for which claims administration services are provided. 3 Employer agrees during the term of this Agreement and for a period of one (1) year following its termination, it will not employ any person employed by Service Company during the terms of this Agreement without the prior written consent of Service Company. Indemnify and hold harmless Service Company and its directors, officers and employees against any and all claims, losses, settlements, judgment costs, penalties and expenses, including attorney's fees, resulting from or arising out of any functions of Service Company under this Agreement, or a claim for benefits under the applicable workers' compensation law, unless it is determined that liability therefore was the consequence of negligent, dishonest, fraudulent or criminal acts of Service Company or any of its directors, officers or employees. 4. SERVICE FEES: Takeover Fee: For the assumption and future management of all claims incurred prior to the March 1, 1996, takeover date, Employer agrees to pay Service company a one-time fee of $150 for each open indemnity file. Ongoing Fees: For all Claims, Statistical and Accounting Services outlined herein, Employer agrees to pay Service Company annual fees of $12,500, billed quarterly in advance, for the first 50 claims, $240 per claim thereafter. Loss Control Services: For Loss Control Services as defined herein, as requested, Employer agrees to pay Service Company $80 per hour for on-site consulting. C All Allocated Claims Services expenses which are incurred in the litigation of any claim will be paid by Employer. D All costs of printing necessary forms and checks, archive claim storage and retrieval fees. and all costs for First Aid/CPR training materials or materials used in developing audio/visual training programs, including associated shipping and handling and other incidental and special costs incurred in the provision of Loss Control Services will be paid by Employer. Do A service charge of 1% per month (12% per annum) will be applied to all outstanding invoices thirty (30) days after date of invoice. 4 5. TERMINATION PROVISIONS: Ao Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon sixty (60) days written notice to the other party. Upon termination of service by written notice, a final accounting will be made of the fees payable to Service Company and any funds belonging to Employer in possession of Service Company, and any balance due either party will be promptly paid by the debtor party. Upon termination by Employer and as soon as reasonably practical, Service Company will turn over all claims files and ancillary work products on those claims to Employer or its designated representative. At a cost to be negotiated at the time of termination, Service Company may continue to administer existing claims at the request of Employer. 6. CONFIDENTIALITY: It is understood and agreed that all statistical, financial and personnel data relating to Employer or any of its employees provided to Service Company by Employer, or any employee thereof, pursuant to this Agreement is confidential, and Service Company and its employees shall keep such information in the strictest confidence except to the extent necessary to perform the services to be rendered hereunder. 7. ASSIGNMENT: Neither this Agreement, nor any part thereof, shall be assignable by Service Company, whether by operation of law or otherwise, without the prior written consent of Employer. Any attempted assignment without such prior written consent shall be null and void. 8. GOVERNING LAW: This Agreement shall be construed under and governed by the laws of the State of Washington. 9. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This entire Agreement between the parties is set forth herein. This Agreement supersedes and invalidates all previous agreements, both written and oral. It may not be amended orally and neither party shall be bound by any modification unless made in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the parties. No term or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived nor shall there be an estoppel to enforce any provisions of this Agreement, except by a statement in writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of the waiver or estoppel is sought. 5 ,/ IN WITNESS WI:I~'~REOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by the persons authorized to act in their respective names. Signed this__ day of' ,1996. JOHNSTON & CULBERSON, INC. P si ent CITY OF BREMERTON By: Title: AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS/RECREATION BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR FOREST RIDGE, CONCESSIONS, & PENDERGAST IMPRO%~TS FOR AGENDA OF: 21 Feb 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT:Parks/Recreation ORIGINATOR: Jim Spencer DATE SUBMITTED: 8 Feb 1996 o ~: (Co~,-~ent on back ~ ~ if necessa~) Parks ~ .~/--,~'-~ ~ ~ Treas~er ~ ~'1" ''~ -'J~--Y~ ' Fiscal & Bud_ge~'.--J~-~~ Operations ~'~ [~--~'~ ENDORSEMENT ~( INFORMATION.__ FISC B,. r NT CO, I E 3. ~: 1.Forest Ridge Budget Adj. Request 2.ConcessionOper Budget Adj. Request 3.Pendergast Slope Stabilization Budget Adj. Request 4.Pendergast Const Fund Summary APPROVED BY COUNCIL P~ FOR SUBMITTAL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~_ 0 PERAT I ON~CO~41 ~Iq~E 4. $%~9~%RY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The Parks and Recreation Department requires budget amendments to accomplish the following three tasks: A) Remodel of the Forest Ridge Restroom was targeted for completion in the 4thQuarter of 1995. Scheduling conflicts made this impossible. Request reappropriation of the $10,000 allocated in 1995 out of the Real Estate Tax Fund to 1996. (Please see Exhibit 1) (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the following three budget amendments: A) Reappropriate $10,000 from Real Estate Excise Tax Fund 109 from 1995 to 1996 so that restroom improvements can be completed at Forest Ridge. B) Appropriate $64,120 to General Fund 001-51 to allow for in-house operation of the concessions at Lions and Pendergast in 1996. C) Appropriate an additional $10,000 to "capital outlay" from "ending Working Capital" in the Pendergast Park Construction Fund 308 for stabilization of the toe of the slope. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jim Spencer, Interim Director_ ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Jim Spencer ~ Interim Director EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NQTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL 2. CT.R~IANCE COMMENTS: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION (CONT'D) B) In the past, operation of the concessions at Lions & Pendergast was contracted out. The Parks & Recreation Department is proposing to operate this service. First year costs are estimated at $64,120, which includes labor, supplies, and capital purchases. We anticipate breaking even in the first year of operation. Profits in future years will be diverted to the Pendergast Construction Fund. (Please see Exhibit 2) C) In order to bring fields 4,5, and 6 to grade at Pendergast, stabilization of the toe of the slope on field 5 is required. It is requested that an additional $10,000 toward "capital outlay" be reallocated within the Pendergast Park Construction Fund so that this task can be accomplished. This $10,000 comes out of "Ending Working Capital" (Please see Exhibits 3 and 4) 5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: A) In order to finish the Forest Ridge restroom project, an alternate funding source would have to be identified and subsequently approved by Council. B) Operation of the Concession stands at Lions and Pendergast would be opened for bid. C) At Pendergast the toe of the slope for field 5 will not be stabilized. This will make it impossible to bring fields 4,5, and 6 to grade. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES. EOUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: A) Improvements to the Forest Ridge restroom will be accomplished by Parks maintenance personnel. The requested re-appropriation of the $10,000 is for the associated supplies and materials. B) Operating the concession stands at Lions and Pendergast is a new task for the Parks and Recreation Department. Taking on this task will require the hiring of part time personnel, and the purchase of associated equipment and supplies. C) Parks and Recreation Department will coordinate with a contractor to ensure accomplishment of the work at Pendergast. Requesting Department: CITY OF BREMERTON BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX FUND 109 NO. SOURCE OF FUNDS: Description INCREASE BEGINNING CASH Amount 10,000 USE OF FUNDS: Description FOREST RIDGE PARK IMP. Amount 10,000 NARRATIVE: Improvements to the restrooms at Forest Ridge Park approved in the 1995 Budget were not completed pdor to year end and were not rebudgeted in 1996. Staff is requesting re-appropriation of the funds needed to complete these improvements. Department Head Signature Date Treasurer Comments: ~,~irector SignatdY'e Date ~---~ Recommended ~--] Not Recommended ~-' ~-~._ 1 77_.7./~ ~ Treasurer's Signature Date Mayor Comments: ~-~ Recommended [---~ Not Recommended j~/' ~/ Approved ~ Denied M~jS-._ ,,Z?, 3/q ayor's Signature Date Fiscal & Budget Committee Comments: ~ Recommended r'~ Approved Not Recommended Denied Fiscal & Budget Committee Signature Date Requesting Department: CITY OF BREMERTON BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST PARKS DEPARTMENT 001-51 NO. 96-2 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Description CONCESSION REVENUE Amount 64,120 USE OF FUNDS: Description CONCESSION LABOR SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT Amount 29,310 25,648 9,162 64,120 NARRATIVE: This adjustment will provide the budgetary authority for in-house operation of the ballfield concession as described in Council study session. Department Head Signature Treasurer Comments: Date ~D~ector Signature [~.~Recommended ~ Not Recommended Treasureffs'~at~ Mayor Comments: [~ Recommended ~ Not Recommended [---]Approved ~ Denied ~ ,~. ~)~ ~D~t~/~/ Signature Fiscal & Budget Committee Comments: '1~-~ Recommended ~-~ ~ Approved ~ Not Recommended Denied Fiscal-& Budget -~ommiffee Signature Date Requesting Department: · -¢tUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUES'~_ PENDERGAST PARK CONSTRUCTION #308 No. 96-3 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Description REDUCE ENDING CASH Remaining ending cash = $90,000 Amount 10,000 USE OF FUNDS: Description SLOPE STABILIZATION PROJECT Amount 10,000 NARRATIVE: This acljustment will provide funds needed to control soil movement on the slopes between the upper and lower ballfield levels. Department Head Signature Treasurer Comments: Date Date ~Recommended [~ Mayor Comments: Not Recommended Dhte I [Recommended ~ Not Recommended [---~ Approved [--'-~ Denied ~~vofs ~. ~/ yor's Signature Fiscal & Budget Committee Comments: Recommended ~ [~ Approved r-~ Not Recommended Denied Fiscal & B'Udg6( Committee Signature Date EXHIBIT 4 Pendergast Park Construction Fund 308 1996 Budget 1996 Proposed Amendment Ending Working Capital Capital Outlay - Development of 4,5, 6 - Portable Toilet - Toe Stabilization $100,000 12,000 7,O00 not budgeted $119,000 $90,000 12,000 7,000 10,000 $119,000 AGENDA BILL BR~fERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: PUGET POWER PARK--APPROVAL OF LONG TERM-LISENCE FOR AGF~NDA OF: February 21, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT: psrw~ ~ R~r~=~= ORIGINATOR: J~m ~p~n~r~ Ynt~ Directo DATE SUBMITTED: ~ Febr,,~ry R: 1QQ& 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back 3. EX"MYBITS: if n~cessary) ~~/-~-=----f-7-- Puget Power Lease Agreement Parks City Clerk~ ~..~_(_~.--~ Fiscal & Budget -]~p/~ City Attorney Operations ENDORSF~MENT 4. SLRWJW~XRY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: In April of 1994, Mayor Horton contacted Puget Power about joint use of their property o which is located at the North end of Elizabeth Street under the Warren Ave. Bridge. This is a beautiful piece of waterfront property with both mountain and water views. This lease agreement allows the City an opportunity to create a passive park, that will offer citizens the opportunity to picnic, fish, and enjoy a spectacular Olympic mountain view. 8. RECOM2~ENDAT%ON: That the City Council authorize and direct the M~yor to sign the Lease Agreement with Puget Power for the establishment of this park. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jim Spencer. Interim Dir. ~NFORC~--N~ OFFICIAL: Jim Spencer~ Interim Dir. EX~LRATION DATE: February 28~ 19~6 P,,~fI~N DATE: PULLED TABLED CO~'NCiL DIRECtiVE: 10. NOTICE OF AC?ION A.=PROVED DISA.:PROVE-D DATE: AMF~ND 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IM?ACT ON NON-?As$AGE: If the lease is not signed, it will be' nullified by Puget Power and the property will not be converted into a park. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FAC!LiT%ES, EOU~M~ OR OTHER RESOS~CES: Impact on staffing, budget, and equipment will be minimal. We anticipate labor to include clean-up, path stabilization, and installation of two picnic tables, a bench, and garbage containers. These items are currently in our inventory. We recognize the need for this park to be low maintenance and not become labor intensive. The only additional cost during this fiscal year would be appropriate park signase. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: N/A AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, dated as of ,19 , is entered into between PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ("Licens~r"), a Washington corporation; and CITY OF BREMERTON ("Licensee"), a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington. RECITALS 1. Licensor owns certain property (the "Property") located in Kitsap County, more particularly described as follows: The lowland portion of Lot 4, Tract 4, Warren Smith's Acre Tracts, as per plat recorded in Volume 2 of Plats on page 51, records of Kitsap County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at a point where the South line of Lot 4, Tract 4, Warren Smith's Acre Tracts, intersects the West line of Elizabeth Avenue in the City of Bremerton; thence West 136.805 feet; thence North to the meander line; thence Southeasterly along the meander line ot the intersection with the West margin of Elizabeth Avenue; thence South along the West margin of Elizabeth Avenue to the point of beginning. Situate in Section 14, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, WM., in Kitsap County, Washington. 2. The Property is used by Licensor for the transmission and distribution lines for the transmission and distribution of electric power and other related purposes and will continue to be used for these and other purposes for the foreseeable future; and 3. Licensor and Licensee recognize the need of land for use as outdoor recreation areas; and 4. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, that portion of the Property not now or hereafter used by Licensor is made available by Licensor to the public pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement and RCW 4.24.200 and RCW 4.24.210. In consideration of the prompt and faithful observance and performance of the terms and conditions hereinafter contained, IT IS AGREED as follows: 1. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be for 10 years commencing November 1, 1995 and expiring at midnight, October 31, 2005; provided, however, that this Agreement may be terminated earlier as follows: (a) Upon written agreement of the Licensor and Licensee; or (b) Upon 180 days' notice by Licensor to Licensee in the event Licensor should require the Property subject to this Agreement or any part thereof for uses and purposes incidental to Licensor's business; or lot'4 i7 (c) Upon 180 days' notice for any cause by Licensee; or (d) Upon 30 days' written notice by Licensor to Licensee in the event of Licensee's breach of the terms or conditions of this Agreement. 2. Removal of Property from this Agreement. Licensor may, at any time and from time to time, upon 180 days' notice to Licensee, remove such portions of the Property from the terms of this Agreement as Licensor may, in its sole and exclusive judgment, require, for uses and purposes incidental to Licensor's business. 3. Use of Property. Permission and authority are given to the Licensee, upon the terms and subject to the conditions of this Agreement, to maintain and use that portion of the Property not now or hereafter used by Licensor for the benefit of the public as an outdoor recreation area subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. It is agreed that no claim of ownership, estate or interest in the Property will, at any time, be asserted or claimed by Licensee, by anyone for the benefit of Licensee, by the public or any member thereof because of such use or for any other reason. Licensee accepts the property in its present condition and assumes all risks incidental thereto. Licensee's use of the Property is not exclusive and Licensor may use and grant others the right to use the Property, so long as use of the Property by others is in Licensor's reasonable judgment compatible with the rights granted Licensee hereunder. Licensor may place, construct, remove, alter, expand, enlarge, improve or add to the transmission and distribution lines or any other additions or improvements on the Property in connection with the carrying on of Licensor's business. Any such lines or other additions or improvements may be so placed, constructed, removed, altered, expanded, enlarged, improved or added to any part of the Property notwithstanding its use as an outdoor recreation area. Licensee shall not lease the Property or any portion thereof, or assign any rights arising under this Agreement without Licensor's prior written consent. 4. Indemnity. To the full extent Licensee can legally do so, it shall release, defend, indemnify and hold harmless Licensor and Licensor's agents, officers and employees from all loss, cost, liability or damages of every kind or nature whatsoever that may be claimed or accrue by reason of damage to or loss of property or injury to or death of person from any accident or incident upon, in or about the Property arising out of or in any manner connected with or related to Licensee's use or occupation (or the use or occupation by the public or any member thereof) of all or any portion of the Property or areas adjacent thereto, or caused by the acts, omissions or neglect of the Licensee, the public, any member thereof, or any agent or employee of Licensee. Pursuant to the provisions of RCW 4.24.210, Licensor shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to Licensee, the public or members thereof, or to any other users or occupants of the Property (or any facilities thereon). 5. Access. Licensee may, at any time, close to the public all or any part of the Property for reasons of maintenance, development, restoration or improvement; provided, however, that Licensor, its employees, agents and designated representatives shall at all times have the right to enter upon the Property for the purpose of making any inspections, repairs, alterations, changes or improvements upon any of its property, including but not limited to the Property and adjacent grounds, or for any purpose whatsoever connected with the carrying on of the business of Licensor. Licensee agrees to give 10 days' advance written notice to Licensor of any intended closure by Licensee pursuant to this Section 5. In the event Licensor may, in its sole discretion, consider it necessary in connection with the operation of its business to enter the Property or carry out activities thereon, 2of4 Licensee shall, when given 180 days' advance notice thereof by Licensor, promptly close to the public all or any part of the Property as requested by Licensor and keep the Property so closed during the period or periods of time requested by Licensor; provided, however, Licensor shall not be obligated to give Licensee notice of any such closure in the event Licensor shall, in its sole and exclusive judgment, deem it necessary to enter the Property for emergency repairs or routine maintenance. 6. Improvements~ Additions~ Maintenance and Utilization of the Property. Licensee may not place, construct or maintain on the Property any additions or improvements (including but not limited to project identification signs, paving, curbs or landscaping) without the prior mutual agreement of Licensor and Licensee. Licensee agrees that no such addition or improvement shall obstruct or interfere in any way (no matter how significant) with Licenso¢s transmission and distribution lines or other facilities, or with the carrying on of the business of Licensor. Whether or not any such obstruction or interference does exist shall be within the sole discretion of Licensor. Licensee shall promptly remove, at its sole cost and expense, any such addition or improvement after written notice thereof from Licensor. Licensee shall at all times keep that portion of the Property used by Licensee for the benefit of the public, and all additions and improvements thereto, in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, and shall not permit waste, damage or injury to any portion of the Property. All additions or improvements to the Property that are made by or at the request of Licensee, as well as the expense of repairs, maintenance and utilization of such additions and improvements, shall be at Licensee's sole cost and expense. Licensor is not obligated or required to in any way maintain any part of the Property for the benefit of the Licensee, the public or anyone because of this Agreement, any provisions of this Agreement or any resulting use or uses by Licensee, the public or any member thereof. If, in the sole discretion of Licensor, it is necessary for any purpose to remove, alter, or partially or totally destroy any additions or improvements placed, constructed or maintained on the Property by Licensee, Licensor shall have the right to do so. In the event of any such removal, alteration or destruction, Licensor shall have no duty or obligation to repair or restore such additions or improvements. All additions or improvements made by or at the request of Licensee shall be removed by Licensee upon termination of this Agreement unless Licensor, by written agreement, consents that they remain. Any such additions or improvements remaining on the Property at the termination of this Agreement with Licensor's consent shall become the property of Licensor without cost or obligation on its part. 7. Ownership. Licensor owns the Property in fee and nothing herein shall in any way be construed or deemed to be a grant of any estate or interest in or right of control or possession over the Property except the permission to use the Property as herein provided. 8. Cost Reimbursement. After 30 days' prior written notice to Licensee of any failure by Licensee to perform any term or condition of this Agreement, Licensor, in addition to any other rights or remedies it might have, may itself perform such term or condition on behalf of Licensee and Licensee shall immediate!y reimburse Licensor for all costs incurred in connection therewith. 9. Restri':tions. The use of the Property will be restricted to recreation activities. Camping, campfires, the use of firearms and any other activities that would endanger Licensor's transmission or distribution lines or other facilities or that are inconsistent with the safe use of the Property will be prohibited. Licensee agrees to police and enforce the terms of this section. 3of 4 10. Inspection and Sign Placement. Licensee agrees to inspect the Property and place, at its sole cost and expense, warning, directional and cautionary signs where necessary along the Property prior to allowing public access to the Property and throughout the term of this Agreement. 1'1. Taxes. Licensee agrees to pay all real and personal property taxes that shall become due and payable either during the term of this Agreement or subsequent to its termination which are based on assessments made during the term of this Agreement on or because of additions or improvements which Licensee has placed or will place upon the Property. Licensee will submit yearly to Licensor evidence of payment of such taxes. In the event any of such taxes are levied directly against Licensor, Licensor may pay such taxes and, upon receipt from Licensor of billing for any such taxes so paid, Licensee shall immediately remit all such amounts to Licensor. 12. Charges. Licensee will not charge, collect or receive from the public a fee of any kind for the use or enjoyment of the Property. 13. Notices. Any notice or other communication required to be in writing hereunder shall be deemed sufficient, if in writing and delivered personally to the addressee or sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: To Licensor: Puget Sound Power & Light Company Puget Power Building Bellevue, Washington 98009 Attention: Manager, Real Estate Division To Licensee: City of Bremerton 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, Washington 98310 or to such other address as may be designated by the addressee by written notice to the other party. 14. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY By Its ATTEST: 10/I3/94/01:35 PM CITY OF BREMERTON By Its 4of 4 Tracyton Beach Pre-Annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation. '"j~lic Hearing/Ordinance 2. gu~F~BAH~F~:(comment on back if necessa~.,~..,.~ City A~torney'_~im~_~. ~ _, Community Dev: --z~3~~L-~ AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: ~ FOR AGENDA OF: FEB. 7~ 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT:Com D~¥ ORIGINATOR:Hough/O'Neill DATE ~D]~MITTED:JAN 31~ 1996 * Staff Report * Ordinance * Planning Commission ~acts of ~indiu§s ENDORSEMENT ~ INF RM~TION APPROVED BY COU~I~r~.~P/~i~SIDENT ./ SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FO~COUNCIL ACTION: The City of Bremerton is considering the annexation of properties located adjacent to the west of city limits and along Tracyton Beach Road. Prior to the final decisions on the annexation, the City must determine the most appropriate Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations for these parcels when they become part of Bremerton. On Jan. 16, 1996 the Bremerton Planning Commission held a public hearing and developed a recommendation for the area. It is recommended that, upon annexation, the area be designated "Low Density Residential (LDR)" on the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. The Commission further recommended SF-2, which allows for a density of four dwelling units per acre. 8. RECOMMENDATION: ~C~o~un~c~i The Planning Commission recommends that the City 1 pass, on the first reading, and approve, on the second reading, an ordinance causing the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the Bremerton Planning commission for the Tracyton Beach ADnexation , and zonin~ the are~ Si:-2 upon. annexation. to be adopted) 9. RESPON~SIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED TABLED APPROVED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DISAPPROVED AMENDED DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: 2, CLE~.~qCE CON~.~N~S: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PaBSaGE= Kitsap County has a proposal for new zoning for the entire county in the works which is due for adoption in April. In that plan, this area is designated with a zone that is equal to the SF-3 designation. If the City Council chooses to designate this area as SF-2, the application for annexation will be with drawn by the owner of the property. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS. FACILITIES, EOUIPMENT OR OTHER 7, I~sEaRCH SOURCES~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE amending the Official Comprehensive Plan and Zoning maps of the City of Bremerton for property located west of the city limits along Tracyton Beach Road. WHEREAS, a Letter of Intent to annex was submitted to the City Council on December 6, 1995; and WHEREAS, during that meeting the City Council determined that said area should be subject to Pre-Annexation land use designation; and WHEREAS the Bremerton Planning Commission conducted a public heating on January 16, 1996 to accept public comments and to consider zoning designations, following which a recommendation that the land be designated low-density residential (LDR) on the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and that the zoning should be SF-2, which allows 4DU/acre; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 1996 the Bremerton City Council conducted a public hearing and accepted additional comments and considered the recommendation of the Plann/ng Commission; now therefore THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN Section 1. The Bremerton City Council adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the Bremerton Planning Commission, on the above application approved at its January 16, 1996 meeting. Section 2. The Official Comprehensive Plan Map of the City of Bremerton is hereby amended to designated the Tracyton Beach Annexation area (described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein), as "Low Density Residential (LDR)"; as shown on Exhibit "A".The Official Zoning Map of the City of Bremerton is hereby amended for the subject property to Single Family 2 (SF-2)" as shown on Exhibit "B". APPROVED by the City council on the first reading this ,1996. day of PASSED by the Bremerton City Council this __ 1996. day of John Law, Council President APPROVED this day of ., 1996. Lynn S. Horton, Mayor ATFEST: Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk MDR Riddell Ro; [] LDR C.GI LDR Sylvan Way MDR MDR Tracyton Beach Annexation Area S MU ('it)' t?f ll/-emerton COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Adoptcd: April 5, 1995 P MDR Residential Designations: "~ LDR Low Residential Density 3 to 8 DU/acre EXHIBIT NO. "~" Proposed Tracyton Beach Annexation Area (Location Maps) Sylvan MDR Tracyton Beach Annexation Area \\ C-G MDR C-G EXHIBIT NO. ", t3 ,, EXHIBIT NO." DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY BLVD. FOR ANNEXATION. NORTH OF SHERIDAN RD AND EASTERLY OF TRACYTCN 14 NOVEMBER 1995 BY GERRY THORNBURGH CHECKED BY NED LEVER. Beginning at a point 647.58 ft south and 727.48 ft west of the NE corner of Govt Lot i of Section 11. T24N, R1E. WM: thence S1°08'50"W 531 ft: thence S0°00'36"E 304.14 ft to the Govt. Meander line and the TPOB: thence NO°OO'26"W 204.14 ft: thence N1°O8'50"E 531 ft: thence S89°41'35"E to a point on the southerly extension of the west line of the Plat of Sheridan Hills Estates as recorded in Vol. 23, pg. 15 of Plats Kitsap County Washington, said point being on the existing City limits line: thence following the existing City limits line south along said west line and its southerly extension of said Plat to a point 666 ft south of the north line of said Govt. Lot 1: thence east to the east margin of said Govt. Lot 1: thence south along said east margin of said Govt. Lot 1 to a point 25 ft south of the SW corner of Lot 9 of the Plat of Sierra Terrace Addition as recorded in Vol. 8, pg. 45, of Plats Kitsap County Washington: thence east parallel to the south line of said plat a distance of 136.60 ft: thence south parallel to the east line of said Govt. Lot 1 to a point 1515.92 ft south of the North line of said Govt. Lot 1 extended east: thence N88°O6'OO"W 462.90 ft: thence N1°O9'50"E 45.25 ft; thence S60°57'30"~,i 208.99 ft to the Govt. Meander Line: thence leaving the existing City Limits line and running Northwesterly along the Govt. Meander line to the TPOB. This area contains 15.22 acres. 012 · · v.'. / 10 !. '~ ....... '/r ~" ~'- ~ I0~ 108 ~ tll -.~ 025 0~$ , S':. EXHIBIT NO." 014 .N oro-oo E~ $'5- Zg~' . ^'Il'COle.'"\ 015 OOS.CO 02/ FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW of the BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION OF '© Pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Tracyton Beach Annexation --- File: PAZ-01-96 Ron W. Hough --- Long-range Planning Division --- Department of Community Development --- Jan. 31, 1995 SUMMARY The City of Bremerton received a Letter of Intent to annex specific property into the City. The City Council reviewed the initial proposal on December 6, 1995, accepted the letter of intent, and directed staff to proceed with the annexation. This step in the annexation process involves the review of the proposed annexation area to determine the most appropriate City Comprehensive Plan designation and City zone to be applied upon annexation. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. APPLICANT: 2. LOCATION: Owners of property within the Annexation Area submitted a Letter of Intent to annex their property into the City of Bremerton. East Bremerton vicinity.., mostly inland of Tracyton Beach Boulevard, west of Sheridan Road, and immediately.west of and abutting the Bremerton City limits. DESCRIPTION: (a) Size: 15.22 acres. (b) (c) Lots: Fifteen parcels of different shapes and sizes. Development: Six existing dwellings, as shown in the following table and map: LOT NUMBER LOT SIZE CURRENT LAND USE 005 0.08 ac. Vacant 006 4.07 ac. Single-family residence 012 0.60 ac. Single-family residence 014 4.22 ac. Single-family residence 01 $ 1.78 ac. Single-family residence 021 0.83 ac. Vacant 080 0.1 $ ac. Single-family residence 093 0.23 ac. Vacant 107 0.5§ ac. Single-family residence 108 0.42 ac. Vacant 109 0.46 ac. Vacant 112 0.44 ac. Vacant 113 0.43 ac. Vacant 114 0.43 ac. Vacant 115 0.43 ac. Vacant UNK 0.07 ac. Vacant TOTAL: [ 15.22 acres I Proposed Tracyton Beach Annexation Area o~4 ~4 .. 096 E~ST MDR Riddell [] LDR C.GI LDR Way MDR MDR S Tracyton Beach Annexation Area MU P MDR ('i.tv of 13remerton COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Adopted: April 5, 1995 Residential Designations: LDR Low Density Residential 3 to 8 DU/acre MDR Medium Density Residential 8 to 18 DU/acre HDR High Density Residential More than 18 DU/acre 3 (d) Access: (e) Topography: (f) Utilities: Tracyton Beach Road. E. 29th Street (stubbed out to provide access to this area). Area slopes toward Washington Narrows to the southwest with mild to steep slopes. Sewer: The area is within the City of Bremerton sewer service area and future development can be served. Water: The area is within the City's Water service area and can be served with City water. Police and Fire: Upon annexation, this area will be served by City police, fire, and emergency medical services. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS: (a) Kitsap County.: Kitsap County's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in December 1994. It designated the Tracyton Beach area "Urban Low Residential, 1-9 DU/acre". The County Comprehensive Plan was appealed and found to be invalid by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Heatings Board in October 1995. The County later adopted interim Urban Growth Areas that included areas most obviously urban in nature and most suitable for urban development. The subject annexation area is within the interim UGA and is not considered to be a disputed urban area. (b) City_ of Bremerton: The City's 1986 Comprehensive Plan was revised in April 1995. Prior to the new amendments, the City's Plan included unincorporated areas surrounding the City. The Tracyton Beach Annexation area was designated on that Plan as "Residential, 0-7 DU/acre", which was the City's lowest-density designation. The City's revised Plan does not claim jurisdiction beyond the City limits, but does recognize the general land use designations of Kitsap County. The City and County plans must be consistent with each other. 4 ZONING: (a) Kitsap County_: The "interim" zoning of the subject area is "UR-6" (Urban Residential) which allows up to six dwellings per acre. (b) City_ of Bremerton: City zoning will apply upon annexation. If the recommended Plan designation of "LDR" is approved, the City could apply any one of four zones that allow densities within the 0-8 units per acre range. The City's Zoning Ordinance is currently being revised and the residential zones may soon be adjusted to be directly consistent with the Plan designations. At the present time, any of the following zones could be applied to this annexation area: :t: SF-1 (Single-family Residential) 3 DU/acre :g SF-2 (Single-family Residential) 4 DU/acre $ SF-3 (Single-family Residential) 9 DU/acre $ DR (Duplex Residential) 9 DU/acre The SF-1 and SF-2 are very low density zones that are generally applied where access is difficult, where utilities are deficient or non-existent, in unique waterfront locations, or in other areas where a lower-than-normal density is necessary or desirable. The SF-3 zone is the City's most efficient and desirable low-density zone. It is designed to accommodate typical single-family home subdivisions, with moderate sized lots (4,800 sq.ft, minimum), and at a density that is consistent with the needs, lifestyles and typical characteristics of today's modem neighborhoods. The DR zone is essentially the same as the SF-3 zone, but allows duplex structures in addition to single homes. The overall density is the same. The DR zone is applied most often to existing duplex neighborhoods. PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL This annexation is being processed in accordance with the 75% Petition Method as outlined in RCW 35.13.125. The final annexation proposal and 75 percent petition will be considered by the City Council for approval by ordinance. The annexation area was reviewed by City staff, which recommended a Comprehensive Plan designation of LDR (Low Density Residential) and SF-3 (Single-family 5 o Residential) zoning. The Bremerton Planning Commission conducted a public heating on January 16, 1996, accepted public comments on the staff proposals, deliberated, and formulated its Plan and Zoning recommendations to the City Council. In most situations, the City's Comprehensive Plan can be amended only once per year. However, there are exemptions for emergencies and for annexations so that the Plan Amendment needed to complete this annexation can be approved as part of the annexation package and will not delay the annexation process. Environmental Review (SEPA) is not required for annexations, but is required when Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Maps are amended. The required SEPA Checklist was completed for these amendments and a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued by the City's SEPA official on Jan. 4, 1996. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 1. CONCLUSIONS: Following acceptance and consideration of the information and recommendations provided in the staff report, and the public testimony offered during the January 16 public hearing, the Bremerton Planning Commission arrived at the following conclusions and recommendations: (a) The proposed SF-3 zone has a minimum lot size of 4,800 sq.ft. It could allow as many as 120 homes within the 15 acre annexation area. An even higher density may be possible through a Planned Unit Development and density bonus. The Commission concluded that this could result in a neighborhood having more than twice the density of the adjacent neighborhoods to the east and north. Within a 300 ft. radius of the annexation area, the average lot size is 8,028 sq.ft, in the neighborhood to the east (28th and 29th Streets) and 10,508 sq.ft, in the Pawnee Drive neighborhood to the north. Thus, the proposed $F-3 zone would not be consistent with the densities of those adjacent neighborhoods. (b) Other than the Tracyton Road frontage, the anexafion area's only access point is East 29th Street. This street was "stubbed out" to provide access to a future development in this area and would carry traffic east to Rickey Road, a distance of about 650 feet. The traffic would pass 16 existing single-family homes. Based on the testimony received at its public heating, the Commission concluded that the traffic generated by a residential development of more than 100 homes (potentially) on the subject site could have adverse traffic-related noise and safety impacts on the existing neighborhood and that a lower density in the annexation area would be more acceptable. (c) Property owners in neighborhoods adjacent to the annexation area testified that their properties are long-term investments and that a higher-density residential development on the annexation area site could adversely affect their views, could be of lower quality design, and may adversely affect their property values. The Commission concluded that a lower-density residential zone with larger lots would be more likely to take better advantage of the location and its amenities and result in larger homes with higher values. 2. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information provided and public testimony offered at its January 16 public hearing, the Bremerton Planning Commisson recommends the following Comprehensive Plan designation and Zone for the Tracyton Beach Annexation Area: Comprehensive Plan: .LDR: Low Density Residential, 3-8 DU/acre. Zoning: SF-2: Single-familyResidential. WAYNE 0XI~SEN, Chair / Bremerton Planning Commission Date for: 15:ZOA-96-1.SR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 16, 1996 The meeting began with the Secretary calling the roll: Those present were: Chairman Olsen, Commissioners Hancock. Jackson. Dingfield, Boyd, Stone, and Robinson. Absent was Commissioner Goetze. Staff Present: Ron Hough. Shane Jensen, Jack Allingham and Marylyn Waibel. Chairman Olsen asked if there was a quorum? The Secretary responded yes. Chairman Olsen stated that on the back of the meeting agenda for tonight are the procedures for holding a public hearing. The Chairman requested that everyone read it carefully because the Commission follows the procedure listed. Chairman Olsen called the meeting to order. Chairman Olsen requested approval of the Agenda. Motion to approve agenda was made by Commissioner Stone and seconded by Commissioner Jackson. Approved unanimously. Chairman Olsen requested approval of the December 19, 1995 minutes. Commissioner Stone stated that since he had not received the minutes that this item be deferred until the next meeting. This motion was seconded by Commi~si0ner B0yd. Approved unanimously. Chairman Olsen requested any public input from any item that was not on the agenda: Doug Berger: wants to speak about the Tracyton Beach annexation. Chairman Olsen informed Mr. Berger that this item was on the agenda and he would have the opportunity to speak to the issue at that time. Director's Report: ROI!. Hough reported that regarding Pope Resources, the Commission had made a recommendation to City Council to approve a minor map amendment on the Comprehensive Plan to include about a 25 acre industrial area near Pendergast Regional Park. That was approved by the City Council on January 10, 1996 and it goes to second reading tomorrow night. R0n Hough reported that the Growth Management Hearings Board made its decision at the end of December on the appeals of our Comprehensive Plan. They gave us about two months to make some changes in the Anderson Creek area to Comprehensive Plan maps, texts and tables, etc. We have drafted those changes and will bring them back for a public hearing in two weeks with the Planning Commission. February 7th it will go to the Council Operations PAGE - 1- 36, Committee as an agenda bill and then to the City Council for f'u'st reading on the ordinance on February 14th. February 21st will be the Council second reading, February 26th is the deadline to comply and March 4th is the deadline to file the amendments. Mr. Hough stated that the schedule is pretty tight, but indicated that they are drafted and now it is a matter of notification, advertising the hearings and getting them through the process so they can get the changes submitted on time. Commissioner Boyd asked if they are substantive? Mr. Hough indicated that they were very minor -- acklmg a couple of map amendments to the Anderson Creek area to show the Sciepko Annexation area to clarify the issues there. What exactly is involved in wetlands or are we actually designating for industrial which by agreement is actually less by 168 acres compared to 340 acres originally designated as industrial. We trimmed it back after looking at the terrain, environmental features, etc.--should clarify the city's issues. There are also some related changes to text of tables, acreage of industrial land, etc. Mr. Hough stated that he was hoping to have a study session tonight regarding zoning, but because of the length of the agenda, would not have time tonight. Hopes to have a public hearing on January 30th on the basic zoning atlas and proposed designations for residential zones and the land use tables. Mr. Hough stated that with regard to our staff, Shane Jensen will be leaving the City of Bremerton to take a position at the City of University Place near Tacoma. Mr. Hough also stated that until Don Pratt returns, the Mayor is serving as the Department Head for Community Development. Mr. Hough reminded the Commission about the APA Winter Conference coming up this Saturday, January 20th in Port Townsend. Stated he mailed updated Conference programs to all of the Commissioners. Discussion followed regarding the logistics of car pooling, etc. Chairman Olsen requested that this discussion continue after the public hearings, under Old Business. Chairman 01sen asked Ron Hough if he had any information on Don Pratt. Ron indicated that he had talked to him this morning and that we was in good spirits, but tired. Said he was very appreciative of all of the flowers, card, support, etc. Stated he would be in the hospital at least through this week. PUBLIC HEARINGS Hearing #1 - Pre-Annexation Plan and Zoning (Tracyton Beach Annexation) Chairman Olsen announced the fin'st hearing which is the Pre-Annexation Plan and Zoifing of the Tracyton Beach Annexation. The proponent for this hearing is the City of Bremerton. Chairman Olsen asked the appearance of fairness issue. Commissioner B0yd stated that she felt PAGE -2- she may have an appearance of fairness issue because the area in question was her former neighborhood. Chairman Olden recommended that Commissioner Boyd remain seated because this hearing was for rezone only and that the City Council had already taken this issue under advisement tbr annexation. Chairman Olsen asked R_~ if he concurred with his recommendation and Ron Hough stated he did as long as Commissioner Boyd felt that she could be fair and that it would not bias her decision. Commissioner Boyd indicated that it would. Ron Hough indicated that she should not vote on the issue. Chairman Olsen indicated that she could stay. Ron Hough began his presentation by stating that this was a pre-annexation plan and zoning using the overhead to show the area in question. The area is a 15.22 acre area, currently in the County, consisting of about 15 properties. The City has received a letter of intent to annex the property into the City and the City is processing this in accordance with the 75 % petition method, which is the method we typically use for annexation. Before it is annexed into the City, we hold a public hearing to determine what the most appropriate comprehensive plan designation should be after it enters the City as well as what the City zoning for the property should be. In this case we are not proposing to change the Comprehensive Plan radically, we are proposing to designate it LDR (low density residential). Mr. Hough presented an overhead map showing the lot sizes as well as what is currently on the lots, indicating that most of the lots are vacant, approximately 6 have a single family home on them. Most of the area is vacant and would probably be proposed for a residential development of some type. The issue tonight is what Comprehensive Plan and Zoning should be upon annexation. We are not reviewing the design of the sub-division. The Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan currently show Urban Low Residential, which is a density of 1 to 9 dwelling units per acre. The City's consistent Comp Plan designation is 1 to 8 dwelling units per acre. This is slightly lower in density and this is the recommendation to designate it Iow density residential when it comes into the City. Within in that category, we have several zones that could be applied that go up to 8 units per acre, single family 1, 2, 3 and duplex are the primary zones. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council and that recommendation will go into the annexation package which then goes to the boundary review board for their approval and eventually get adopted as far as the annexation. Any questions? Commissioner Dingfield asked regarding the list of lot numbers, number 5 and the unknown one, are we to assume that those are the two pieces on the waterfront? Ron Hough indicated on the map the location of the unknown one Commissioner Dingfield was unable to locate lot number 5. Ron Hough indicated that lot 5 was also a small strip. Ron Hough indicated that we should have some testimony on this issue as he received several phone calls today. Commissioner Robinson wanted clarification that this proposal before us tonight is not to PAGE -3- consider the value or merit of the annexation into the City. We are only to recommend that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to bring it into compliance and consistency with the City and County. This is the zoning designation of an already approved LDR. Ron Hough indicated that the LDR is in the County jurisdiction. Chairman Olsen asked if this was under the new Comprehensive Plan of the County or the Old Comprehensive Plan. Mr Hough indicated it was the one they adopted in December 1994 which was declared invalid. Chairman Olsen asked what it was before the invalid one? Ron Hough was unsure, he thought it was about the same, urban designation, low density residential designation. Not sure on the density figure, as it was over a year ago. The County's designation now have interim zoning on the area and the interim zoning is also Urban Residential. Therefore, any way it goes it is about the same density whether it is inside the City or not, of course, when it comes into the City, the City has the ability to change the zoning on it and we could up zone it or down zone it or whatever else is most appropriate. In this case it is surrounded by multiple family designation, an apartment complex, and mostly single family suburban type subdivisions around the East side. If we zoned it single family 3, chances are we would end up with a similar type of subdivision in this area, maybe more than one, it depends on how it is designed. Proponent: David Smith, with Randall, Alexander and Smith and resides in Poulsbo. Mr. Smith is the proponent for the annexation and Mr. Vergeer is the seller of the properties. Our objective is to eventually establish a residential project to provide predominately housing for sale to aim basically at the incoming working people that are being shifted here from other ports throughout the western United States, and that is basically our target market. Chairman Ol$en asked if this was not a zoning only issue? Ron Hough stated that it was Comprehensive Plan and Zoning only. Chairman Olsen stated that what he builds or doesn't build is that something we deal with now.'? Ron Hough answered no--that we are talking about the density and the type of development that would go in the zone that you would be approving or recommending, single family 3, that zone allows only single family homes, it doesn't allow duplexes or apartments, gas stations or anything like that--that is what we are considering. Jerry Vergeer, owner of the majority of the property that we are dealing with and is available for any questions. PAGE -4- Commissioner Stone asked what properties do you own--would you mind pointing out on the map. Jerry Vergeer proceeded to the map and outlined the properties owned. Doug Berger, lives north of the annexation area, wants to say that he supports the basic annexation process and thinks it is appropriate to have the property in the City under growth management and all of those issues Concerns with the level of the zoning, the SF3 designation, as well as the impact on the neighbors around the property. Supports SF2. Jim McDonald, resident of the area stated his concern with regard to the traffic in the area. Supports SF2. Thinks it should be a PUD. John McConnell, resident of the area, concerned with the traffic in the area and the impact on the schools. Denise West, resident of the area concerned with the traffic and supports SF2. Margaret Vamva$, resident of the area, concerned with the height of the dwellings and supports SF2. Gary. Clauson, resident of the area, concerned with access and potential for increased vandalism. Erie Clauson, resident of the area was concerned with devaluation of her property. Carl Shulmer, resident of the area and is conerned about intruding on his property for access and what his rights are a the owner. R0n Hough asked if it is 10 feet wide? Carl Shulmer answered yes it is. Ron Hough stated flaat it may provide access to that one lot or something but it would not be the access to a subdivision. It is much to substandard to provide access to the subdivision. The only real access to this whole area is either on Tracyton Beach Road or 29th Street. Those are the two access points. John McC0nnell asked how do you prevent people from accessing the road. Ron Hough asked which road, the little 10 foot wide road? If the road is privately owned I guess you can put a gate on it. It is not a public street, it is a private way of some sort, I guess. The gentleman that just spoke said he owned it, I believe. He can put a gate on it.' Carl Shulmer reiterated his concerns about people accessing his property. PAGE -5- Ron Hough stated that we are not sure the access fight to all of those properties. There are about 15 properties there and I am not sure that all of them have good access tbr development and if someone wanted to build a house on any particular one of them we would want to know how they are going to get in and out. That is sort of a design issue rather than a zoning issue. Those things are going up further down the road when we get some sort of a plan for development and that will show what kind of an access program they are going to develop along with the plan. That is not what we are considering tonight, because we do not have proposal. This is really an annexation issue. Chairman Olsen stated that the owner of the property will not access through Mr. Shulmer's property. Dick McConahay, resident of the area, concerned with SF3 designation, value of their property, quality of the neighborhood, supports SF2. Jerome Nelson, resident of the area, concerned with impact on sewer system. Ron Hough indicated that from hearing the speakers it appeared the consensus was for SF2. Stated building heights are the same SF1, SF2, and SF3--30 feet. Stated reason for recommendation of SF3 was because it is efficient density for providing public services. Stated pros and cons for higher and lower density. Chairman Olsen closed the public hearing to the Commission. Commissioner Robinson reiterated the purpose of the hearing was zoning only. Commissioner Dingfield asked Ron Hough what the sizes of the lots that are located around E. 28th and E. 29th? Ron Hough indicated that he was unsure. Chairman Olsen asked Ron Hough if the area already located in the City if in fact it is SF2? Ron Hough indicated that it was indicated SF3. Commissioner Stone stated he felt it is important to look at compatibility with the neighborhood. Motion by Commissioner Stone to forward a recommendation to the City Council that the area to be included in the Tracyton Beach Annexation be designated as follows upon annexation, Comprehensive Plan Designation LDR with Zoning Map reference of SF2. Motion seconded by Debra Jackson. Question called: Olsen, yes; Boyd, abstain; Stone, yes; Robinson, no; Hancock, no; Jackson, yes; Dingfield, yes. Motion passes. Hearing//2 - Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Chairman Olsen announced the second hearing and asked the appearance of fairness questions. PAGE -6- Ron Hough presented the staff report with regard to the zoning text amendment as it pertains to recycling centers. 'Definitions were drafted for recycling terms. Proposing to amend the land use tables of the zoning ordinance to allow recycling centers in the Industrial Park Zone by special use permit and in addition to where it is allowed in the Industrial General Zone and General Business Zone. Amend the same table to allow recycling collection stations by special use permit in the General Business Zone/Shopping Center Zone and the Industrial Park Zone and the Industrial General Zone. The recycling collection station limited is proposed to allow that outright in all zones when it meets recycling collection station design standards. These are for public use facilities only. Chairman Olsen requested public input. Tom Triggs, Bremerton resident, agrees with 99 % of the proposal. Concern with the collection stations turning into garbage dumps. Chairman Oisen closed the public hearing to the Commission. Commissioner Stone in response to Mr. Triggs remarks questioned paper and cardboard bins'? Ron Hough indicated that there are already paper and cardboard bins throughout the City and it would be difficult to require them to landscape around them and added that they are not really a problem. Commissioner Boyd asked if there are any controls over the bins to require them to empty them? Commissioner Stone indicated that the Lion's club has several bins and that Brem-Air is good about emptying them. Also questioned recycling center design centers, with regard to the landscaping. Ron Hough indicated the landscaping requirements are for the public facilities, not for example, apartment complexes. Commissioner Robinson questioned definition//3, recycling center and recycling collection both have attached to them approval of a SUP, the .collections station limited does not. Ron Hough indicated that it is good to be able to review them under the SUP, because you are never sure what that are going to look like. Commissioner Stone asked that the limited situation applies primarily to apartment complex, etc.? R0n Hough responded not necessarily, it could be a private operation on a vacant lot, limited to lighter weight recyclables. Commissioner Dingfield asked if the City were to establish public recycling collection centers, would that open up the door for removing the mandatory paid requirements for residential residents? PAGE -7- Ron Hough indicated that was not the intent, but would supplement the program. Commissioner Robinson asked Ron Hough what the down side of including cardboard and paper'? Ron Hough indicated the old ones could be grandfathered in. The new ones would have to meet the standards. Ron Hough reminded the Commission of Mr. Triggs concern with regard to the landscaping. Chairman OBen asked if that would be taken care of by staff?. Ron Hough indicated that it would be treated like a new parking lot going in. Chairman Olsen recommended that paper and cardboard be added to any motion made. Motion by Robinson, after reviewing and considering the proposed amendments and input provided by the public and by City staff, I find the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to meet the City's approval criteria with the addition of accommodating both paper and cardboard recyclable products and I move that these amendment be recommended for City Council for approval. Second by Commissioner Stone. Question Called. Boyd, yes; Stone, yes; Robinson, yes; Hancock, yes; Jackson, yes; Dingfield, yes; Olsen, yes. Motion passes. Hearing #3 - Our Lady Star of the Sea Parish Chairman Olsen announced the hearing and asked the appearance of fairness question. Commissioner Hancock indicated that he is a member of the parish and asked the audience if he should remove himself or stay. Jerry_ Soriano stated that the audience should not have to object and that if anyone on the Commission has a conflict they should remove themself. Ron Hough added that Commissioner Hancock had abstained on the first decision a couple of weeks ago. Commissioner Hancock left the room. Jack Allingham presented the staff presentation. Redevelop a school at their current location on 6th Street. Changes have been made to the plan since the heating in November. Application for a site plan review and special use permit and a zoning ordinance special exception for a reduced front yard setback. Also the parish plans to use a security fence which exceeds height limits. Vacation and relocation of the alley. Planning staff recommends approval of the right- of-way vacation. PAGE -8- Jerry. Sorian0 stated his area of concern is that the hedge and fence get put in as well as that the alley will be in existence before construction of the building. Additional concerns with the location of the dumpster as well as the timing of the dumpster dumping. Also, he would like to see the work done during reasonable hours. Expressed concern about receiving notifications from the Planning Department. Dave Fergus, architect for the project indicated that all parties have agreed to the site plan proposed. Indicated that there are still some sequence construction issues that need to be worked through. Sylvia Wil~on, resident of the area indicated that all of her concerns have been resolved. Gentleman from the Church, appreciates the efforts of the architect and the neighbors to come to an agreement. Chairman 01sen closed the hearing to the Commission. Commissioner Stone asked the staff if this would require separate motions for the vacation and the site plan review. Jack Allingham indicated yes. Commissioner Robinson questioned the purpose of the Special Use requirement is because of the nature of the proposal for the school and the Special Exception stipulation concerns the set back variance and the fence/hedge height that exceed the current zoning definition. Jack Allineham indicated that was correct. Commissioner Jackson added that she was happy to see the two parties come to an agreement. Commissioner Stone moved approval of the model motion on the vacation of the right-of-way. Seconded by Commissioner B0yd. Question: Stone,' yes; Robinson, yes; Jackson, yes; Dingfield, yes; Boyd, yes; Olsen, yes. Motion passes. Commissioner Din_~eld stated she was happy to see that the neighbors and the church were able to work this out and that all the safety issues were addressed and feels it will be a delightful addition to the City and neighborhood. Commissioner Dingfield moved approval of the Special Use Permit, Site Plan Review, Zoning Ordinance Special Exception for Our Lady Star of the Sea School subject to the following conditions: that the properly drawn legal document be filed on the parking agreement with the County Auditor, that the applicant provide a landscape plan prior to the issuance of building permits as outlined in the model motion and that the applicant provide the handicapped ramps on their site plan, that the school sign located in the right-of-way on the corner of 6th and Veneta PAGE -9- be moved out of the right-of-way and that a storm water management plan be submitted for review by the City Engineer. Seconded by Commi$~i0ner Stone. Question called: Jackson, yes; Dingfield, yes; Boyd, yes; Stone, yes; Robinson, yes; Olsen, yes. Motion passes. Jack Allingham reiterated what the Commission approved and went over the appeal process. Public Heating//4. - Tennyson Special Exception Commissioner Olsen asked the appearance of fairness question. Shane Jensen presented the staff report. Original heating was held back in August. Commission denied the Special Exception and the Tennyson's appealed it to the City Council. In the mean time the Tennyson presented the Planning Staff with documents showing some neighbors endorsement of the project, as well as a letter from an Engineer supporting the retaining wall. In light of the new information the City Council remanded it back to the Planning Commission to hear the new information. Staff recommendation is approval. Ron Hough asked if staff had reviewed the additional information and if that had any impact on the original recommendation. Shane Jensen indicated that it would not, since staff had already recommended approval. The additional information confirmed approval. Commissioner Stone indicated that one issue they had concerns with during the last hearing was the Engineers endorsement and that the letter presented was a rather weak endorsement. Shane Jensen indicated that as far as the Building Department is concerned that if the wall is 4 feet or higher that the design needs an Engineer's stamp and if that stamp is there, it is fine with them. Commissioner Boyd indicated that in the original hearing discussion was held regarding the safety of children with regard to the height of the wall. Shane Jensen indicated that the Engineer stamp is simply to verify structure stability and has nothing to do with safety of children climbing on the wall. Commissioner Stone read from a letter from Mr. Holland concerning the excavation for the wall. Commissioner Robinson stated the importance of the Engineer's stamp and that the stamp is not to be taken lightly. He also recapped the past heating and the conflicts between the neighbors and indicated that it appears that the neighbors have come to an agreement. PAGE -10- Commissioner Hancock asked if we are still a "misguided" commission'? Commissioner Robinson answered that he would not be surprised. Steve Dicks0n, attorney for the Tennyson's, reiterated how this issue got back to the Planning Commission. Indicated that the neighbor's have come to an agreement. Stated that rather than look at the Engineer's letter, look at the Engineer's stamp on the plans. Stated that the neighbor's are recommending that the Commission approve the special exception. Requested the Commission to approve. Commissioner Dingfield expressed concern over the fact that the Tennyson's had they gone through the proper permitting steps to begin with, this issue would not be before the Commission. Also stated that the Tennyson's have a history of ignoring the permitting process. Steve Dickson disagreed with the statement of a history of not complying with the permitting process. He agreed that they did not seek the proper permits in this particular case and they ordinarily should have. Discussion followed regarding the set-back requirements. Davis West, attorney representing the Williams and Bushnell families in this matter. With regard to the issue of Mr. Holland's letter, he wanted to point out that there is no set back issue that he is aware of. Stated that Mrs. Williams concern was not that her son would climb on the wall. Her concern was that her son plays next to the wall and was concerned that the wall would collapse onto her son. The Engineer's stamp answers her concern. Suggested looking at this as if it was coming before you for the f'n'st time with support from the neighbors. The settlement agreement that the neighbors have is contingent on the Tennyson's being able to keep the rock wall as is. It is in the best interest of all parties to grant the permission. Commissioner Stone discussed the matter at the last meeting on behalf of the Williams. Wondered if that issue will come to the Commission next if they approve this exception. David West assured the Commission that it would not because the Williams's purchased the lot behind them and moved the boundary line such that the corner of their garage meets the set back requirement, they have final approval from the City for their garage. Chairman O1sen closed the heating to the Commission. Commissioner Stone discussed the fact that the previous staff report, there was a reference to the fact that retaining walls are very common in the area and that there have been violations of the set back and height requirements, etc. Were most of these sites referred to built prior to the 83 zoning. Shane Jensen indicated that it is hard to tell. We don't require permits for walls under 4 feet high and many of them are under that. Shane Jensen stated that this issue should be looked at as if the wall had not been built. Are PAGE - 11- there special circumstances, are they compatible with surrounding areas, would they be sate as proposed. Commissioner Stone asked if the Commission should totally overlook what appeared to be and contrary to the first attorney, it seems to me that this is not a first experience tbr Mr. Tennyson. The wall was built without a permit and does not meet the set back requirements. We have documents attached, which I assume are somewhat correct, that would lead us to believe that Mr. Tennyson does have a knowledge of Building Code requirements in both the City and County and in the past has chosen to ignore them. I, as a person, find this a little bit offensive and I am asking you as staff if this is something we should be totally insensitive to and is it not part of the issue? Commissioner Boyd stated that there is the matter of the movement of land, bulldozing was done without a permit. Shane Jensen stated that all of those thing have happened and that is why this has been so difficult, because we know there have been some things done without permits, whether they were done that way I can't say. The applicants have said they did not understand the set back requirements t'or retaining walls, well I have listed that because I do not know otherwise. I know what they told me so I put it in the staff report. Commissioner Stone asked Mr. West if the Commission does not grant this special exception, what will happen? David West stated that he believed the agreement that they have will not work and this could drag on for years. Commissioner Dingfield asked about the other people that Mr. West referred to that would appeal in the blatant ignoring of the permitting process. This hurts the people of Bremerton by not following the rules. David West agreed that maybe there should be some sanctions for not going through the proper process but agreed with Shane's recommended approach that none of this happened and this is your first time with this issue. Commissioner Dingfield stated that it is difficult to set aside a wall this big with all the bulldozing that went on. David West stated he understood but it would be pointless to make them tear it down and have them come back asking for permission to put it back up. Commissioner Robinson reiterated Shane's directive of considering the issue as though the wall as not there. Shane Jensen stated that had it came in today with the proper information it would have been an PAGE -12- /47 administrative decision and the Commissioner would never have seen it. Chairman Olsen stated that last time the neighbors were taking sides. Now, as the attorney have stated, the neighbors have worked it out and we should move tbrward. Mr. Tennyson, by hiring an attorney has probably paid more that he would of had he done it right the th'st time. Commissioner Stone commented that his families relationship or knowledge of Mr. Tennyson goes far back beyond the attorneys acquaintanceship with them. It is with a great deal of disgust, however, that I recommend approval of the exception request. Second by Commissioner Boyd. Question called: Dingfield, no; Boyd, yes; Stone, yes; Robinson, yes; Hancock, yes; Jackson, yes; Olsen, yes. Motion passes. Shane Jensen stated that this decision is subject to the appeal period. Old Business: Chairman Olsen discussed a letter that was received from Don Pratt. Chairman Olsen invited anyone to attend the downtown Waterfront Task Force meeting. Asked for a volunteer to attend the Downtown Merchants Association. Discussion followed regarding the various committees that the Commission is on. Commissioner Dingfield disccused the proposed Council/Commission workshop. Mr. Hough said he would work with the Council to set up a date. Commissioner Stone discussed the terms of the Commission. Stated he researched the Ordinance creating the Commission and wondered where the April 1st expiration date came from. Chairman Olden discussed the January 20th Port Townsend meeting. Ron is going to look into getting a van from Kitsap Transit. Commissioner Robinson was appointed to coordinate the travel plans. Meeting Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Marylyn Waibel, Acting Secretary AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL HEAR~ d(~4S SUBJECT: PUBLIC lNG & ORDINANCE To amend the City's Comprehensive Plan to comply with the Final Decision and Order of the Growth Mgmt. Hearings Board. FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: Feb. 14.., 1996 DCD/Planning Ron Hough Feb. 6, 1996 CLEARANCES:/~I~ back if necessary) City Dir. Comm. Dev. Growth Mgmt. C~mm...,~ _-,~.~-,,'~ 3. EXHIBITS: ,/ Staff Report ¢' Statement of A~tions Taken ,/ Ordinance ,/ Planning Cor'rt~ission Minutes ENDORSEMENIT/~'- INFOI:[rMATION - COUNCIL SUBMITTAL: APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT , 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Bremerton's revised Comprehensive Plan was adopted on April 5, 1995. Portions of the Plan pertaining to the Anderson Creek area were appealed to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. The Board reviewed the Plan, conducted a public hearing on November 28, 1995, and issued its decision in December. The Hearings Board upheld the City's Plan but directed certain changes to correct some minor internal consistency problems. Those changes have been drafted. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 30, 1996, and recommended City Council approval of the changes as presented. 8. RECOMMENDATION: City Council approval of the attached Ordinance on first reading. City Council passage of the Ordinance on second reading. /~ ~ 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: Donald Pratt 10. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The recommended changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan were directed by the Growth Management Headngs Board in its Final Decision and Order, issued in December 1995. The Board gave us a compliance deadling of 4:00 PM on February 26. The adopted amendments must be filed with the Hearings Board by March 4. If we don't adopt these corrections to our Plan, the Plan will remain internally inconsistent. That status could affect our eligibility for certain types of grants or other State funding for needed projects, and could also leave us vulnerable to other State-imposed sanctions. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: No anticipated impacts in these areas. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Appeal documents filed by the Association for the Protection of Anderson Creek (APAC) Final Decision and Order of the Central Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Board ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE adopting the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and including amendments ordered by the Growth Hearings Board WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton adopted a revised Comprehensive Plan on April 5, 1995 by Resolution No. 2508, to comply with the Growth Management Act of 1990; and WHEREAS, the Plan was appealed to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board to review certain issues related to the Anderson Creek area of the City; and WHEREAS, the Heatings Board reviewed the City's Plan, conducted a public hearing on November 28, 1995, and issued its Final Decision and Order on December 26, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Hearings Board identified specific intemal inconsistencies within the text and tables of the Comprehensive Plan and ordered that those inconsistencies be corrected by February 26, 1996 and filed with the Board by March 4, 1996; and WHEREAS, the ordered corrections were drafted and reviewed by the Bremerton Planning Commission, were the subject of a Commission public hearing on January 30, 1996, were included in a "Statement of Actions Taken", and were recommended by the Commission for City Council approval; now, therefore, THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. The Bremerton Comprehensive Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted in its entirety with the following pages amended as set forth in exhibits "A" through "G" attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein: a. Land Use Element page 40 is amended as set forth in Exhibit "A"; b. Land Use Element page 41 is amended as set forth in Exhibit "B"; c. Land Use Element page 43 is amended as set forth in Exhibit "C"; Land Use Element page 48 is amended as set forth in Exhibit ..... D, Land'Use Element page 76 is amended as set forth in Exhibit ..... E, Land Use Element page 80 is amended as set forth in Exhibit ..... F, Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the summary of this Ordinance for publication attached hereto as Exhibit "G" pursuant to RCW 61.16.160. APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ,1996. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ,1996. JOHN LAW City Council President APPROVED this day of ,1996. LYNN HORTON, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY City Clerk WEST :: 'ERTON pLAN 9. BREM A. WEST BREMERTON SECTOR DESCRIPTION The West Bremerton sector is, by far, the largest of the three with 11,198 acres, or about 76 percent of the City's total area. The urbanized portion accounts for about one-fifth of the sector and includes all areas west of National Avenue and Oyster Bay, the West Park and Jackson Park communities, the Naval Hospital, NAD Park, the developing Pendergast Sports Complex, Kitsap Lake, the City's sewage treatment plant, SR-3, and other points of interest. On the urban fringe are operating gravel extraction operations and undeveloped hills. The non-urbanized 4/5 of the West Sector consists mostly of City Utility-owned forest lands, the City's Union River Watershed, Gold Mountain Golf Course, and some smaller facilities. Also included in this sector, but physically separated, is the Anderson Creek utility lands east of Gorst and south of Sinclair Inlet. In December 1994, a portion of the Anderson Creek area (approximately 340 acres) was declared to be surplus utility land and has been designated for industrial use on the Comprehensive Plan. WEST Land Use--Page 40 ! I ! ! ! ! Exhibit "B" All lands were inventoried and existing uses and residential densities were determined. Only lands within the City limits or in City ownership will be addressed, with the understanding that Kitsap County will produce a consistent and coordinated land use plan for all unincorporated areas. 8. LAND USE INVENTORY The City's land use inventory included only areas within the City limits. The following table provides a short summary of land uses within the City limits of West Bremerton. W. BREMERTON PERCENT LAND USES TOTAL ACREAGE OF TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 382.4 3.4 COMMERCIAL 81.4 0.7 INDUSTRIAL 142.9 1.3 PARKS & O.S. 345.8 3.1 SCHOOLS 22.0 0.2 PUBLIC 226.5 2.0 WATERSHED 3,529.2 31.5 UTILITY LANDS 4,795.4 42.8 RIGHT-OF-WAY 387.6 3.5 VACANT 1,284.8 11.5 TOTALS: 11,198.0 100.0 % of City = 75.9 C. RESIDENTIAL LANDS (1) Overall Character: Residential lands account for only 3.5 percent of the total land area and the overall residential density is a very Iow 2.3 dwellings per acre. Much of West Bremerton and adjacent unincorporated areas might be considered Bremerton's "urban fdnge". These areas were originally rural and still retain much of their rural character and lifestyle. The neighborhoods surrounding Kitsap Lake have a character of their own and residents often express a sort of protective "pride of ownership" regarding the lake and its environs. West Bremerton is a very desirable place in which to live, as demonstrated by the success of the Dockside on Kitsap Lake community and other new investment and development. (2) Infill Capacity: The City's watershed and utility lands are important to the City's water source and forest resources and are not being considered for residential development. However, with the urbanized portions of the West Bremerton Land Use --- Page 41 Exhibit "C" Most of the commercial development is concentrated within the Auto Center District or the small neighborhood service center at the north end of Kitsap Lake. Restaurants, motels and other tourist-related uses are located along Kitsap Way on each side of SR-3. Only 12.6 acres of vacant commercial land remains in West Bremerton and the City will be looking for opportunities to increase commercial development opportunities, especially in areas that have good freeway visibility and easy access to SR-3. E. INDUSTRIAL LANDS Most of the area's 143 acres of existing industry is located within the Auto Center District, which is zoned for "General Industry", the City's "heavy industrial" zone. Mineral resource extraction operations are "industrial" land uses for planning and zoning purposes. Gravel extraction takes place at the west end of Werner Road and in other locations throughout the area. These sites have limited life expectancies and the next use of those lands is not yet clear. Some hilly sites offer excellent views and may be more desirable as residential sites. The Plan reflects the current industrial use and, at the owners' requests, will support the "Industrial Park" zoning that has been on these properties since 1988. It's apparent that all lands presently zoned for industrial use are not necessarily most suitable for for non-resource type industrial uses. Some have physical, Iocational, or other limitations. Some owners will request Plan amendments to allow more appropriate uses --- primarily residential. Lands that really are uniquely-suited to future industrial uses will be strongly protected by the City from competing non-industrial development pressures. The old Kitsap Lake Drive-in Theater, north of the lake was zoned for industrial development and will soon become a new Puget Power facility. Some adjacent (currently residential) lands to the east have been added to this industrial park district for future expansion. F. PARKS & SCHOOLS The West Bremerton sector is fortunate in having a great deal of undeveloped land and many opportunities for parks and recreational areas. The area already has Kitsap Lake Park, NAD Park, the new Pendergast Sports Park, Jarstad Park near Gorst, Gold Mountain Golf Course, and smaller parks and recreation facilities in Jackson Park, West Park and other areas. With the vast amount of total area, its surprising that there is very little public shoreline access. Jackson Park offers a shoreline park and beaches for its residents. Kitap Lake has the public park and two other small public access points. And, those fortunate enough to live in waterfront homes or condominiums have access to their shorelines. The Parks and Open Space Element of this Comprehensive Plan will explore ways in which NAD Park and other areas might be further developed to provide new access opportunities. Three public schools serve West Bremerton; Jackson Park and West Hills Elementaries, and a new elementary school just east of Kitsap Lake. Since West Bremerton has the greatest growth potential, it will also generate additional demands on the school system to provide more Land Use -- Page 43 UNION City of Bremerton RIVER WATERSHED and UTILITY LANDS Prepared by: Bremmlon Planning Land Use -- Page 48 Exhibit "E" ANDERSON cREEK coRPO TE:CAMPUS A. LOCATION An undeveloped area of approximately 400 acres, located east of Gorst, mostly south of SR-16, and west of Anderson Hill Road. _B. AREA DESCRIPTION The subject area currently hosts City of Bremerton ground water supply sources. The terrain slopes upward from Sinclair Inlet and Highway 16 to an elevation of nearly 400 feet at the southwest corner. The area includes a system of streams and ravines. C. SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSAL GORST The owner of the site proposes a comprehensive development that would include a planned office, hotel, and warehouse distribution development. The mix of proposed uses on this single site represents un unfamiliar combination that is not readily processed through existing development regulations and zoning. The uniqueness of this proposal justifies further analysis to ensure a quality development as well as sensitivity to its neighbors and environmental characteristics. Included in this study should .be an analysis of infrastructure availability and timing. The cities of Port Orchard and Bremerton have agreed to provide both sewer and water to support a large-scale corporate campus at this location. The details need to be completed. B:LAND-USE. E-E Land Use--Page 76 ~68L 'g ~lJdV gC~'~ 'ON uof~{osm~ 113unoo Y040 uoueme~a ~ .~el~opV · IVIOW~IAIYIOC~ INV-Id :ISN QNVq'1 spueq fq!lp, n ~' peqsJe~eNt trloo SM I ,,A,, )!q)tlX3 Exhibit "G" For publication: ORDINANCE SUMMARY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Bremerton City Council passed Ordinance No. , entitled An Ordinance adopting the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and including amendments ordered by the Growth Hearings Board on February 21, 1996. This Ordinance consists of the following elements: A. INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN which outlines the need for planning, the requirements of the Growth Management Act of 1990, a description of the City's 1986 Plan, relationships between the Plan and its implementing regulations, and a program for periodic review and amendment. B. THE VISION FOR BREMERTON describes the community's vision of the future, broken down into vision statements pertaining to population growth, neighborhoods, human development/education, governmental services, economic diversification, tourism, and transportation and mobility. C. PLANNING GOALS includes a listing of the statewide (GMA) planning goals and supplementary City goals that will help to implement the vision statements and that also guided the preparation of all other Plan elements. D. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM was the first element to be written and adopted. It outlines the public process to be used in the development and period review of the Plan. E. LAND USE ELEMENT depicts the City's growth-related goals and visions for the next 20 years and includes the Plan maps on which zoning is based. It addresses development constraints, socio-economic considerations, the Urban Growth Area, density, City sector plans and outlines for Specific Area Plans. F. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT is closely linked to Land Use and identifies current conditions and deficiencies in the City's street system, traffic and transit data, travel demands, road improvement options, and other related data. It also establishes Levels of Service standards for City arterial streets, a financing and implementation plan, and a Concurrency Management Strategy. G. HOUSING ELEMENT includes goals, policies and strategies related to Bremerton's current and future housing needs. It addresses housing conditions, facilities and services, housing costs and affordability and related issues. H. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT consists of two parts, the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Facilities Program. The Plan outlines the GMA requirements, scope, goals and policies, and implementation strategies. The Program includes an inventory of capital facilities, forecast of future needs, and a six-year finance program for capital facilities. I. UTILITIES ELEMENT includes an inventory, analysis, and future needs assessment for various types of utilities, primarily natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications, and addresses levels of service, design and resource conservation. J. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT includes goals and policies related to critical lands, shorelines, air and water quality, energy conservation and historic preservation. K. IMPLEMENTATION, CONSISTENCY AND CONCURRENCY ELEMENT describes a number of Plan implementation tools, including zoning, subdivision regulations, shoreline management, urban renewal, area/neighborhood plans, countywide growth policies, interjurisdictional growth management agreement, and annexation policies. It also explains how the City will deal with issues of consistency and concurrency. The GLOSSARY includes definitions of terms commonly used in comprehensive planning under the Growth Management Act. STAFF REPORT Ron W. Hough --- Long-range Planning Division --- Department of Community Development --- February 8, 1996 Comprehensive Plan Amendments: CPA-01-96 --- Growth Mgmt. Hearings Board Order Proposal: Background: To amend the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan to bring it into compliance with the requirements of the State Growth Management Act (GMA), in response to the December 1995 Final Decision and Order of the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. The City of Bremerton amended its Comprehensive Plan to comply with the GMA and adopted its revised Plan on April 5, 1995. The process of drafting the new Plan was long and tedious and included many public meetings by the Citizens Advisory Committee and Planning Commission during the two years prior to City Council final hearings and adoption. Following adoption of the City's revised Plan, three appeals were filed with the Growth Hearings Board; one by Kitsap County and two others by members of the Association to Protect Anderson Creek (APAC). The County appeal was later withdrawn and the other two continued through the appeal process. The two APAC appeals focused on 340 acres of City-owned lands in the Anderson Creek area east of Gorst. These lands were acquired by the Utility many years ago and annexed to Bremerton in 1987. The City Utility recently determined that ownership of all of the Anderson Creek lands was not necessary for the protection of existing wells or for other Utility purposes and most of the property was declared to be surplus and available for sale and/or other uses. The owners of an adjacent 76 acre parcel saw an opportunity to combine part of the City property with theirs to create a larger site for the development of an industrial complex. They asked to purchase the land. The City agreed with the general concept and entered into an agreement (option to purchase) on December 22, 1994. By December, 1994, most of the Comprehensive Plan revisions had been drafted and forwarded to the Planning Commission where study sessions and public hearings had already been conducted. The change resulting from the Anderson Creek surplus and sale agreement entered the comprehensive planning process in January 1995 when it was introduced as a map change. The change was from "Utility Land" to "Industrial Park". The change was introduced to the CAC at its January 24, 1995 meeting. Although the proposal was not available for CAC or Planning Commission review, it was the subject of close scrutiny and discussion during the public heatings before the City Council in March and April 1995. Also, since the text of the Comprehensive Plan had already been drafted, not all sections could be adjusted to accommodate the 340 acres of additional industrial land at that time. Rather than delay the planning process further, it was decided that those adjustments would be made later during our annual Plan amendment cycle. The Hearings Board Review & Decision: Following the July 1995 appeals, the City, appellants, and Hearings Board worked to prepare and assemble the necessary documents for review. The City's "index" included nearly 1,000 letters, memos, reports, maps, files, and other documents that were used in the preparation of the Plan. Briefs were written and followed by response briefs and other correspondence, leading up to the Board's public hearing on the merits of the legal issues, which was held on November 28, 1995. The issues specifically addressed in the Hearings Board's 31-page Order were: --- Public participation. --- Open space requirements. --- Capital facilities analysis of the change to "Industrial Park". --- Protection of critical areas. --- Destruction of aquifer resulting from the change to "IP". --- Consistency with Countywide Planning Policies. --- Intemal and External consistency of the Plan. The Order: The Hearings Board found the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan to be in compliance with the requirements of the Growth Management Act with some exceptions. The following are those exceptions and the Board's orders to bring them into compliance no later than March 4, 1996: mo The Plan should have been adopted by ordinance rather than resolution. We must re-adopt the Plan by ordinance. 2 Bo Co Eo The "Land Use Inventory" table on page 41 of the Land Use Element is "internally inconsistent" because it shows only 142.9 acres of industrial land. We must either amend the table or add some text to explain why this table does not include the Anderson Creek "IP" lands. Page 43 of the Land Use Element includes a description of West Bremerton area industrial lands. It mentions 143 acres of industrial land use, but does not mention the 340 acres of proposed industrial use in the Anderson Creek area. This needs correction or clarification. Page 45 of the Land Use Element suggests that Anderson Creek is a watershed and owned by the Bremerton Water Utility. This needs to be clarified. Deadline for compliance with the Order: 4:00 PM, February 26, 1996. A statement of actions taken to comply with the Final Decision and Order of the Hearings Board must be filed by 4:00 PM, March 4, 1996. The Board will then schedule a compliance hearing to determine whether the City has procedurally complied with the Order. Statement of Actions Taken: To comply with the Final Decision and Order of the Growth Hearings Board, the following actions are proposed: The Plan was adopted by resolution. It should have been adopted by ordinance. Action taken: Thc City has re-adopted the Comprehensive Plan by ordinance, a copy of which is attached hereto with exhibits. The "Land Use Inventory" table on page 41 of the Land Use Element is internally inconsistent because it shows only 142.9 acres of industrial land. It doesn't include the Anderson Creek area, which was designated "Industrial Park". Thc Hearings Board remanded portions of the Plan that are internally inconsistent with instructions to either update them with appropriate information for the Anderson Creek property as currently designated, add narrative explaining that the depicted information was compiled before the Anderson Creek property was designated as "industrial park", or otherwise make the Plan internally consistent. Explanation: The table on page 41 of the Land Use Element provides a summary breakdown of land uses throughout the West Bremerton sector. This data was obtained from a 1993 Land Use Inventory that was conducted prior to designation changes in the Anderson Creek area. This is an "existing" land use table and the industrial acreage figure of 142.9 acres reflects actual industrial use. The Anderson Creek property was not in industrial use at that time and still isn't. However, at the time the Plan was adopted, 340 acres of the Anderson Creek Utility property had been surplussed with the intent of sale and future development. The amount to be sold and developed has been reduced to 168 acres which, in turn, has been supplemented by the 76-acre Sciepko Annexation to the west. More of the area is now being retained in the "Utility Lands" designation than originally intended. This can be further clarified through the following actions. Actions Taken: Amend the following maps to include the 76-acre Sciepko Annexation area which was added adjacent to and west of the Anderson Creek property: (1) West Bremerton Sector description map. P. 40 of Land Use Element. (attached as Ordinance Exhibit "A") (2) Union River Watershed & Utility Lands map. P. 48 of L.U. Element. (attached as Ordinance Exhibit "D") (3) Anderson Creek Corporate Campus map. P. 76 of L.U. Element. (attached as Ordinance Exhibit "E") (4) Watershed & Utility Lands Land Use Plan. P. 80 of L.U. Element. (attached as Ordinance Exhibit "F") Bo Amend the table on page 41 of the Land Use Element to reflect the recent changes in the Anderson Creek area: (See Ordinance Exhibit "B") (1) Remove 168 acres from the "Utility Lands" category and add it to the "Vacant" category. This is the undeveloped acreage to be sold for development. (2) The remaining 172 acres of the Anderson Creek area, which is the main corridor of Anderson Creek, remains in the "Utility Lands" category. (3) Add 76 acres to the "Vacant" category to accommodate the Sciepko annexation which occurred in 1995. This land is designated "Industrial Park" and will be combined with part of the 168 acres being sold for industrial development purposes. (4) Adjust the Total Acreage and Percent of Total figures in this table to reflect these changes. The adjusted table will appear as follows: 4 W. BREMERTON PERCENT LAND USES TOTAL ACREAGE OF TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 382.4 3.4 COMMERCIAL 81.4 0.7 INDUSTRIAL 142.9 1.3 PARKS & O.S. 345.8 3.1 SCHOOLS 22.0 0.2 PUBLIC 226.5 2.0 WATERSHED 3,529.2 31.5 UTILITY LANDS 4,795.4 42.8 RIGHT-OF-WAY 387.6 3.5 VACANT 1,284.8 11.5 TOTALS: 11,198 100.0 % of City = 75.9 o An inconsistency exists in the text of page 43 of the Land Use Element. The Board noted that the first paragraph under the heading "E. Industrial Lands" refers to 143 acres designated as "industrial" but does not include the 340 acres proposed for "industrial park" in the Anderson Creek area. Explanation: The text on page 43 of the Land Use Element is referring to the 1993 Land Use Inventory of "existing" industrial development and not to lands designated for that use on the Comprehensive Plan. This needs to be clarified in the text. Action taken: Insert the word "existing" into the first sentence under section "E" on page 43 of the Land Use Element so that the sentence reads as follows: (also see Ordinance Exhibit "C") "Most of the area's 143 acres of existing industry are located..." The "Water Resources" paragraph on page 45 of the Land Use Element indicates that the Anderson Creek property is still a watershed and/or owned by the Bremerton Water Utility. The paragraph reads as follows: Bremerton has a plan for the management of thousands of acres owned by the Bremerton Water Utility. These lands include the Union River, Anderson Creek, Gorst Creek, and Heins Creek watersheds as well as other Utility owned lands. Explanation: This statement remains accurate. Although the City Utiliw has declared part of the Anderson Creek property to be surplus, it has retained lands in the lower part of the creek corridor and will continue to maintain wells in that area. These wells will continue to be important to the City's overall water system. An aquifer recharge study was done last year to assist in the protection of the wells through land use controls upstream. Those controls will affect the use of the surplus lands. In bringing the City's Plan into compliance with the GMA, the City must also meet the requirements of RCW 36.70A.020(11) and 140, as well as any City adopted local public participation and notice procedures. Explanation: Both RCW references pertain to public participation in the process, including State Planning Goal #11 (Citizen participation and coordination) which is: "Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts." The Section 140 reference requires "early and continuous public participation" in the development and amendment of plans and regulations. Bremerton's Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was the primary participation body during the development of the Comprehensive Plan. The CAC no longer exists but the Citizen Involvement Element of the Comp. Plan remains in effect. Recommendation: Following its public heating on January 30, 1996, the Bremerton Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendments contained in the section entitled "Statement of Actions Taken" to comply with the Growth Hearings Board order. 15:CPA- 1-96 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING UNAPPROVED DRAFT January 30, 1996 DRAFT The meeting began with the Secretary calling the roll: Those present were: Chairman Olsen, Commissioners Hancock, Goetze. Dingfield, Boyd, Stone, and Robinson. Absent was Commissioner Jackson. Staff Present: Ron Hough, Jack Allingham, and Marylyn Waibel. Chairman Olsen asked if there were any additions or deletions to the Agenda'? Commissioner Dingfield requested that a discussion be added to the Agenda regarding the joint study session with the City Council/Planning Commission. Motion by Commissioner Boyd and Seconded by Commissioner Goetze to approve the addition to the Agenda. Approved unanimously. Commissioner Stone expressed his concern about the absence of the minutes from December 19, 1995. Ron Hough indicated that he tried to find them -- the person who was to have done them was discharged about that time and they have not been transcribed. R0n Hough indicated that he would find someone to transcribe them. Chairman Olsen announced that this was the time for the Public Hearings. He went over the basic rUles and procedures for the heating process and indicated that the rules are on the back of the Agenda. Chairman 01sen expressed his concern about the format of the agenda. He indicated that the format on the agenda was changed six months ago and continues to be typed incorrectly. The hearings are supposed to be on the agenda before all other items. Ron Hough stated that the procedures for the Public Hearing did not get on the back of the agenda for this meeting. He indicated that his office was in turmoil. Chairman Olsen asked if there was anyone in the audience that was unaware of how the Planning Commission conducts Public Hearings? Chairman Olsen again reviewed the procedures for the Public Hearing. Chairman Olsen requested that we hear the Director's Report. PAGE -1- Motion by Commissioner Stone to .move approval of the model mo~lgon, be it resolved, the Bremerton Planning CommissiOn, after considering oral and~('ritten testimony, and staff report, recommends to the/Cit~ Council aooroval of th_e/Rieht-of-Way Va-cation prooosal as the areas orooosed to be vacated are no Ion~m' needed to be retained for public right-of-way n~edf_~and that the oublic interest/~ll best be served bv n!=acine 31,000 square feet' of commercially developed land On/the tax rolls. The vacat~ ~all b~. subject tO the f011ow~n/g conditions: /// / unO, hal 1. The applic I compensate thet-,i,-.,,_,,,_~,t;0/r the property in accordange"~vith City and State reeulatio~s../ 2. Ease~en~ necessary for existing~d future utilities shall be'~eserved / ~' , ,,.~ ' Sec°~ded bY C°mmissi°ner B°~yd' .~_ue 'on a ed: Stone.,ves: Robinson, yes; Hanco,c.k,~'ves; Dinefield, yes; G,0. etze, yes; Boyd. yes: Olsen, yes-/' ~Iotion passed. , .' ..... - _ . / ,." Jack Allingham s.t~ed ~at wi~ ~e Planning Co.~mission approval, the recgr~mendation will be forw ded to LCiV Council. blic oti, will be given before .Chairman Olsen thanked the public for,tffeir participation /e ' Chairman Olsen stated that we would go back to the minute~. Is there a call to the public for anything that is not on the agenda? No response. Any Old Business? No response. Chairman Olsen announced that we will begin the second Public Hearing. Chairman Olsen asked if he needed to ask the appearance of fairness questions? Ron Houeh indicated no. Ron Hough stated that we are considering revisions to the Comprehensive Plan that are required by the Growth Management Heatings Board as a result of the appeals of our Comprehensive Plan that was adopted last April. The appeals were brought by the Anderson Creek Association. The focus of the appeals was the Anderson Creek area owned by the City Utilities, which is about 340 acres that the City Utility decided to surplus. Mr. Sciepko entered into an agreement with the City to purchase the property and combine it with his property and turn it into a large industrial development. It came to us late in the planning process just before we adopted the Comprehensive Plan and after the plan had gone through public hearing before the CAC. The CAC did not get a chance to comment on it and the Planning Commission had already held its hearings on the Comprehensive Plan by the time this change came to us, it was on its Way to the City Council. It was put into the EIS that we prepared on the Comprehensive Plan, and also the subject of some lengthy public hearings before the Council last March and April. The Plan was adopted in April with the entire Anderson Creek area designated Industrial Park. The Anderson PAGE -5- Creek Association felt it was inappropriate and they appealed the Plan to the Growth Management Hearing Board. That appeal was filed last July. The public hearing was held last November and came out with a 31 page report, the final conclusions and order. Some issues addressed were Public Participation because of the late arrival; the appellants felt there wasn't adequate citizen participation, the Board felt there was considering the testimony at two City Council meetings; open space requirements--they reviewed capital facilities analysis-- the hearings Board felt we didn't need to do a capital facilities analysis until there is some sort of a proposal; protection of critical areas--they felt we did an adequate job of protecting those with the adoption of the critical lands ordinance in 1993, destruction of aquifers resulting t¥om the change to IP--they felt we can't assume that an industrial development on top of the hill will automatically cause damage to the aquifers; the City was also in the process of doing an aquifer recharge study--the Water Utility--they determined the aquifer where we get our well water is recharged from the aquifer recharge area that extends to the south, consistency with the Countywide Comprehensive Plan and felt there wasn't a problem there. Internal and External consistency of the plan, they did find a few things that were not consistent internally and that was resulting from the late arrival of the amendment. We did not have time to adjust all of the tables and maps, etc. They found our plan to be consistent with the Growth Management Act--there weren't any major problems. The minor inconsistencies are required to be fixed by March 4th. Amendments were drafted by January 16th, the Staff Reports mailed out and Planning Commission hearing tonight, then it goes to the City Council Growth Management Committee on February 7th, City Council Public Hearing on February 14th, second reading on the 21st. The recommendation is written up in a statement of actions taken which is required to be submitted to the Hearings Board on March 4th and is drafted the way it might come out of the City Council after all of the changes are made. The Plan was adopted by Resolution, it should have been adopted by Ordinance. The action taken, the City has re-adopted the Comprehensive Plan by ordinance. The changes are not major, most are internal inconsistencies changes between maps and tables and in some cased the hearings board was wrong, assuming certain things said certain things that they didn't. For example, the West Sector they confused an existing land use table .with a proposed land use table. So we wrote up a clarification. The major changes are to clarify what has happened in the City since the plan was adopted. The main thing that happened was that it went from 340 acres of industrial park to further negotiations that kept the central corridor open and will leave it in utility land designation and reduce the area that is sold to Mr. Sciepko to about 168 acres which includes industrial park. The final product is much better than the original product because it leaves the open space through the center and creates a more appropriate industrial area to develop and leaves some residential and clarifies the maps and tables in the plan. We feel that by these actions we will meet the hearings board order on time. PAGE -6- Commissioner Stone asked if Mr. Sciepko's property has been annexed into the City.'? Ron Hough indicated that it had been. Completed last November. Commissioner Stone stated that we had made a recommendation at the hearing in March to remand it back to the Director because he had recommended IP from County Business Park. Am I correct in the assumption that upon annexation the City Council changed it to IP? Ron Hough stated that in the zoning ordinance it allows for default zoning upon annexation. The default zoning says that when property comes into the City, you can bring it in without going through the pre-annexation planning and zoning process by just taking the City's zone that is most directly similar to the County's zoning on the property at the time. Within 60 davs of annexation it goes to the Planning Commission to determine if that is the zoning the City (rants to keep on the property or if there is some reason to change it. Rather than bring it to the Planning Commission after the annexation, it was brought to you before the annexation. Commissioner Stone stated that his question arose from the fact that was the area in which we had a difference of opinion as to the applicability, if we were following the Municipal Code. It seems to me we went pretty far astray. Ron Hough stated it did go astray--it shouldn't have come to the Planning Commission in the first place in his opinion. We should have had a study session and sat down and gone over the codes. Chairman Olsen stated that the City Council has taken in all of this property as IP? Ron Hough stated that they took it in as the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning is IP. Chairman Olsen stated that was the action by the City Council? Ron Hough indicated yes. The center piece remains utility land, the Anderson Creek corridor. Commissioner Robinson stated that is primarily to protect and insure the protection of the creek. Ron Hough stated that it might have looked this way anyway. The City could have sold Mr. Sciepko the whole thing and we may have ended up with a site plan that looked very similar to this: But to insure that this would happen, the City entered into an agreement of that sort rather than to assume the site plan would show something similar to it. Commissioner Robinson stated that what is here tonight is not a judicial matter, it is legislative housekeeping for what has akeady occurred and to answer the questions/reservations by the Growth Management Heatings Board. PAGE -7- Ron Hough stated that after the changes are made and sent back to the Hearings Board, the Board will schedule another public hearing to see if we are in compliance. This is a long process-probably a year or so from the time of the appeal to the time the final action is taken. Commissioner Robinson added that what may or may not occur on the pieces of property, up there that are not designated utility land--that might be developed or not or by whom is completely academic to this situation'? R0n Hough indicated the decision has been made, we are just correcting the documents to reflect the decision. Commissioner Boyd asked if by making that center property utility land, doesn't that answer the protests we have had from the County residents'? Ron Hough indicated not entirely. We are hoping it will. Commissioner Boyd stated that mostly it covers their concerns. Ron Hough stated it removed the potential of industrial development in that corridor. Commissioner Boyd wondered why they were not here. Ron Hough stated that Mike and Helen and the folks that work with them provided additional environmental information that we can use in the processing of any applications. Commissioner Stone asked if he was correct in his impression that the Hearings Board-that this procedure had satisfactorily met the test of RCW 3670 on Public Participation. Ron Hough indicated that they didn't have any problems with the procedures. Chairman Olsen asked if there were any other questions? No response. Asked if there was any written testimony. None. Asked for any public in favor? Ron Sciepko stated that the merits of the Comprehensive Plan were reviewed, testified to, considered and decided by the City Council in the Winter and Spring of 1994 and 1995. The appellants took the matter to the hearings board, to which they submitted detailed briefs and numerous- supporting documents. The actual hearing on their appeals lasted most of a full day before a hearings examiner who found that none of the arguments challenging the City's Comprehensive Plan had merit. Mr. Sciepko reiterated the process and how we got to where we are tonight. Chairman Olsen asked if there are any questions. No response. Any additional speakers in favor? No response. Anyone in the public who would like to speak in opposition'? PAGE -8- Dave Delarowve with the Association to Protect Anderson Creek. Presented history on how the Association got involved and what their position is. Concerned with the project "in his backyard", the process of surplusing the property, public notification and felt that the sale was a "done deal" before the hearing. Concerned that the Industrial Park is not consistent with the development around it, being residential, concerned with the water--residential wells. Also, had concerns with urban services; fire and police services, sewer capacity, as well as traffic access. Stated he would like to see the whole area left as utility land. If that recommendation is not possible would like to see other zoning options explored for the property. The area designated as Low Density Residential be consistent with the rural area using the City's designations. Chairman Olsen requested any additional speakers in opposition'? Mike McCuddin with the Association to Protect Anderson Creek. Stated he was here last year to discuss the appropriate zoning for the 75 acres being annexed. The proposal was presented to make it IP, and you reviewed the tables, the Commission agreed that the most similar zoning was not IP buy similar to Business Park and that was how you voted. Concerned that disappeared. Concerned about the public notification as well as environmental issues. Chairman Olsen stated that the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. The Council has already taken a vote. Also stated that the speakers are rehashing a rehash. The Commission is here to review the Comprehensive Plan and Map Amendment only. Mike McCuddin questioned what the Commissions role is in the matter? Chairman Olsen stated the Commission will make only a recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Robinson stated that we are getting far afield. The opposition testimony is the same arguments that have been given before. It is not pertinent to this subject because we are not being asked to make any recommendation. What we are doing is administrative housekeeping that will go to the City Council to reconcile the definitions based on the appeal hearing, to clear up the numbers, tables, etc. Ron Hough stated the Hearing Board did not find a problem with the decisions made by the City. They found problems with the consistency in the text and the maps of the Comprehensive Plan. What we have are the corrections to the inconsistencies. We hold a public heating to make sure we are correcting them the right way. Mike McCuddin wondered why they were here? If what we say has no impact? Commissioner Robinson stated it can't have under the circumstances. housekeeping. This is strictly Ron Hough stated that the questions we are trying to ask at this public hearing is if we are doing the right thing as directed by the hearings board to correct these inconsistencies. PAGE -9- Commissioner Robinson added in accordance with the actions taken by and voted on by the City Council. Commissioner S~one asked if he was correct in stating that the Council will have a public hearing on the 14th and 21 st'? Ron Hough indicated yes. Whenever we amend the comprehensive plan for any reason we hold a public hearing at the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mike McCuddin questioned if it would do any good to come to those meetings. Ron Hough stated that the question again at that time is whether the City is doing what the board ordered them to do, not what it should be zoned at. Commissioner Robinson reiterated the purpose of the hearing. Chairman Olsen suggested that Mike finish up and stated that when things proceed they will hold hearings on zoning and some of the arguments you are using will be brought in then. Chairman Stone asked if Mike and his group attended the hearings board and all had an opportunity to speak? Recorded -- are we recording the same comments again'? Mike McCuddin responded not necessarily. He and Mr. Sceipko were at the same meeting, but if you were to talk to both of them you would wonder if they were at the same meeting. The Growth Management Heating Board in their review of the process understood why the group was upset. The question is did the City go through the proper procedures. Our point is that this was introduced late in the process, perhaps procedures were rushed and the public input was after the decision had already been made. Charlie Brown stated that he was concerned about the residential wells and supported the previous two speakers. Felt the proposed industrial park is only a couple of miles from the Port of Bremerton and felt there would be competition hurting the taxpayers. Also asked Commissioner Din~field is she was the one who testified at the Port of Bremerton in favor if the Sinclair Landing Association. Commissioner Dingfield responded she was. Adding that she did that on behalf of the Bremerton School District and as a private citizen. Charlie Brown stated that made no difference. You did not identify yourself as a Board Member of the Sinclair Landing Association, did not identify yourself as a member of the Planning Commission and that is opposition to the RCW. Chairman Olsen asked if there were any additional speakers? PAGE -10- Ron Hough responded to Dave's questions about zoning. The City's lowest density, zoning is single family 1 which has a minimum lot size of 15,,,00 square feet and allows about 3 units and acre. Chairman Olsen stated that those speaking in opposition will have opportunities to speak at City Council. Ron Hough stated on the 14th of February at the Council Hearing. Chairman Olsen stated that when it gets into the planning stages of the development there will be public input. Ron Hough indicated yes. Commissioner Hancock indicated that Paragraph D on page 3 states Page 45 of the land use elements suggests that Anderson Creek is a Watershed owned by the City of Bremerton Water Utility. This needs to be clarified. What needs to be clarified? Ron Hough answered that the statement is still accurate. It just needed to be clarified. I think they assumed we were selling the entire watershed which is not true. Commissioner Hancock asked if we are going to amend the table, page 41 from 142.9 acres. Ron Hough answered that we are amending the table on page 41 in several ways and reviewed them. Commissioner Goetz asked on Page 3, item c, if once the public hearing is achieved we have completed the requirement? Ron Hough answered that was just one step. Discussion followed on whether a motion was necessary. Commissioner Robinson moved that the required Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that has been drafted and ready to be adopted along with the entire Plan by ordinance and exhibits attached to the ordinance show these changes which came from staff. The accompanied ordinance and amendments are recommended for approval by the City Council and pass the~e on second reading to comply with the Growth Hearines Board order. Seconded by Commission Boyd. Question: Robinxon, yes; Hancock, yes; Dingfield, yes: Goetze. yes; Boyd, yes; Stone, yes; Olsen, abstain. Motion passes. Discussion followed on the format of the agenda. Commissioner B0yd reiterated that the Hearing should be first. PAGE - 11- AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing Resolution # ~5%/0 , regarding recovery of fees for the abatement of the property located at Wemer and Madison Streets, Kitsap County Assessor's Tax Account number 4564-001-027-0007, owned by XXrflliam and Natasha Sesko. City Clerk City Attorney: 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) FOR AGENDA OF: February 21, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT: Building Dept. ORIGINATOR: Janet Ltmceford DATE SUBMITTED: 3. EXHIBITS: 1. Resolution# - 2. Clerk Report City Treasurer: ENDORSEMENT__~INFORMATION~ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: ; .' .... ~ ~11 ~' s52~'~'~'~ ~' ik'~ 'ill ~ ~ ~ ~f ~5 ~'~'6 ~(( ~,~'~ ~-6 ~; In October and November of 1995, the City performed demolition of two buildings which had been declared unsafe after the owners oft. he property, William and Natasha Sesko, failed to do so as ordered by the Building Official. The fees for the work totaled $18,707,20. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council, by resolution # ~ ~ .~O , order that the fees incurred for the abatement of the unsafe structures located on the Sesko property at Werner and Madison Streets be collected as reasonable abatement costs and become a lien against the property 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Scott Erickson ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Scott Erickson EXPIRATION DATE: N/A REVIEW DATE: N/A 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: CLEARANCE COMMENTS: o IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: The City would forfeit the costs of this abatement. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: The City's llne of credit would suffer the deficit of not collecting these funds. RESEARCH SOURCES: N/A 7O RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION reviewing charges for the abatement of the property at Werner Road and Madison Street, Kitsap County Tax Assessor's Number 4564-001-027- 0007, and determining means of collection. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton incurred costs for the abatement of dangerous structures at Werner Road and Madison Street, Kitsap County Tax Assessor's Number 4564-001-027-0007; and WHEREAS, the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, as adopted by the Bremerton Municipal Code, allows the City to recoup these costs either by personal .judgement against the property owner or as a lien against the property; and WHEREAS, the City Council is charged with determining whether the fees are just, and how they should be collected; and has considered the report of charges filed by the Building Official amd any protests or objection filed; and WHEREAS, the Building Official of the City of Bremerton recommends the fees be collected as a lien against the property located at Werner Road and Madison Street, Kitsap County Tax Assessor's Number 4564-001- 027-0007, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton: 1. That the abatement charges included in the report of the Building Official in the amount of $18,707.20 for the property located at Werner Road and Madison Street, Kitsap County Tax Assessor's Number 4564-001- 027-0007, Bremerton, attached hereto, are just and reasonable. 2. That the City of Bremerton will exercise its right to recapture abatement fees by filing a lien against the property. PASSED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of JOHN LAW Council President 77 CITY OF BREaMERTON · 239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: RE: CC: Kathy-- January 23, 1996 Kathleen McCluskey, Dir. of Admin. Svcs. Janet Lur~ceford, Administrative Analyst Sesko Abatement Scott Erickson, Building Official I have scheduled a public hearing for February 21, 1996 for Council to determine whether the fees are just and how they should be collected for the abatement of the Sesko property on Madison Street and Werner Road. The fees incurred are as follows: Street Dept. (Oct.) $ 3,826.96 (Nov.) $13,584.59 Appraisal $ 1,000.00 Title Report $ 184.85 Administrative Fees (4 Hours) $ 110.80 Total $18,707.20 · Celebrating 50 Years of Freedom · OF KITSAP COUNTY ~'0 ," ;', 400 WARREN AVE.' P.O. BOX 313 · BREME~3'VA (206) 373-0164 · FAX: (206) 377-0112 JUL CITY OF' BREMEI'~'FI]N ATTN: JANET BUILDING DEPT. 286 47 H ST. BREMERTON WA 98337 KC1792 E103509 WARNER ROAD 07-24-c] 5 PARTIES: SESKO / 07-24-95 CHAIN-TITLE & tax 184.85 07-24-95 Policy- Issued UNOERWRIYrEN CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE TO: TOTAL ~ 1 ~,4.85 LAND TITLE COMPANY OF KITSAP COUNTY P.O. Box 313 · Bremerton, WA 98310 CITY OF BRE~'~ERTON F-'ART-IES: SESKO / FROM: Rick D. Wells, Appraiser P.O. BOX 3241 SILVERDALE, WA. 98383 TO: ICity of Bremerton 239 4tk St. Bremerton, Wa. 98310 * * * INVOICE Invoice number: Citybrem.3 Date: 10/13/95 For professional appraisal services rendered. Narrative appraisal- SESKO PROP./WE~NER RD. 1,000.00 O0 00 m~les @ $0.25 per mile miles @ $0.25 per mile Subtotal: 1,000.00 State Tax: A service charge of 2% per month will be applied to all accounts more than thirty days past due. Thank you very much for your business. MERTON MENTS ONLY INTERt_ ND TRANSFER TRANSFER # I COMPLETE THIS F(~ ~ !~:=I--I~,~("E:L'~ETURN TO ACCOUNTS PAYA3LE  Building Department Str~ ~D~tment Demo! itions {REVENUE DEPARTMEN~ (EXPENDITURE DEPARTMEN~ DEPARTMENT Charges per attached summary for: October 1995 BLDM LABOg $1,703,00 EQUIPMENT $791.96 MATERfALS $1,332.00 SALES TAX $ .00 TOTAL [~-[-\~.~ 2~%-[- $3,826.96 SUB- TOTAL TOTAL PROJ. # ~MOUNT (Sign Here) PROJ. # r A.MOU EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR Date ~ 2, 1995 9:19 am City of Bremerton - Streets Billing Details Street Department Summary of Services for : October 1995 W.O. ~ Description Regular 10/02/95 SD950264 ABATEMENT/DEMO OF SESKO PROPERTY OFF WERNER ROAD & UNION COLEN COREY 2.0 hr JEFF INGH~ 4.5 hr HADLEY KENTNER 4.5 hr '93 GMC 1-TON DUMP 4.5 HR 10/09/95 SD950279 ASBESTOS INSPECTION OF EVAN BURNEY HOUSE BULK S~MPLES (13) ASBESTOS INSPECTION 1.0 EA BULK SAMPLES (ASBESTOS) 13.0 EA 10/09/95 SD950264 ASBESTOS INSPECTION OF SESKO HOUSE NORTHWEST CORNER OF UNION/KEAN & WERNER BULK SAMPLES (2) ASBESTOS INSPECTION 1.0 EA BUnK SAMPLES (ASBESTOS) 2.0 EA t0/25/95 SD950264 MEET WITH PUGET SOUND AIR POLUTION CONTROL ON SESKO PROP. RILEY THOMPSON '91 GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U 10/26/95 SD950279 BURNEY HOUSE DEMO STEVE BOWMAN '95 1-TON CHEVY COLEN COREY '92 GMC 1-TON P/U JEFF INGHAM '94 JD410 BACKHOE DEAN SMITH RILEY THOMPSON '91 GMC S-l§ 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U 10/31/95 SD950279 BLDM - BURNEY HOUSE DEMO JAY-PEE BAGE '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK COLEN COREY '91JDT10 BACKHOE (SOLD TO WW) HADLEY KENTNER RILEY THOMPSON '91 GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U '94 JD410 BACKHOE DUMP FEES FOR 1995 t.5 hr !.0 HR 5,5 hr 5.5 HR 1,0 hr 1.0 HR 5,5 hr 2.0 HR 6.0 hr 3.0 hr 1.0 HR 8.0 hr 8.0 HR 8.0 hr 8.O HR 9.0 hr 7.0 hr 1.0 HR 5.0 HR 60.0 YD Overtime PAGE BLDM Costs 52.00 117.00 !17.00 40.50 2!0.00 364.00 210.00 56.00 39.00 6.00 i43,00 49.50 26,00 9.00 143,00 64.00 !56.00 78.0O 6.00 208.00 208.00 208.00 242.96 234.00 182.00 6.00 t60.00 492.00 $3,826.96 INTERFUND TRANSFER CtTY OF aREMERTON _ --, CITY DEPARTMENTS ONLY DATE 1 ?/flR/'q.~ TRANSFER COMPLETE THIS FORM IN DUPLICATE AND RETURN TO ACCOUNTS PAYA3LE Building Department TO Street Department FROM Demolitions (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) (EXPENDITURE OEPARTMEN~ t SUB- QTY. DESC RI PTIO N TOTAL TOTAL Charges per attached summary for: November 1995 BLDM LABOR $2,275.00 EQUIPMENT $2,059.96 MATERIALS $8,839,63 .+ q/6 0'~ = ~q~. ~ ~ SALES TAX $ .00 TOTAL $-t-3 , 174.59 ~ I }~LTND/DEPT BASUB EL OB IT PROJ.~/ AMOUNT ~"~ft~O/DEPT BASUB EL OB IT PROJ.~ AMOUNT (Sign k REVt DEPARTMENT (Sign Hel~} --- EXPENDITO~E DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR City of Bremerton - Streets - PAGE Billing Details ,tment Summary of Services for : November 1995 BLDM Description ~50264 SESKO PROPERTY WERNER ROAD DEMOLITION PERMITS BLDG. DEPT. DEMO. PERMIT INTERFUND .;4693 SD950279 BURLEY HOUSE DEMOLITION PERMIT BLDG. DEPT. DEMO PERMIT INTERFUND #4693 SD950279 BLDM - BURLEY HOUSE DEMO JAY-PEE BAGE '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK COLEN COREY '92 GMC 1-TON P/U HADLEY KENTNER '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP RILEY THOMPSON DUMP FEES FOR 1995 DL%IP FEES FOR 1995 KCB, INC. ASBESTOS ABATEMENT (BURLEY) 11/02/95 SD950279 BLDM - BURLEY HOUSE DEMO JAY-PEE BAGE '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK COLEN COREY '92 GMC 1-TON P/U HADLEY KENTNER '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP RILEY THOMPSON '91 GMC S-15 4%4 EXT. CAB P/U '91 JD710 BACKHOE (SOLD TO DUMP FEES FOR 1995 DUMP FEES FOR 1995 11/13/95 SD950264 DEMOLITION OF SESKO PROPERTY ON WERNER ROAD STEVE BOWMAN HADLEY KENTNER RILEY THOMPSON 11/14/95 SD950264 DEMOLITION OF SESKO PROPERTY WERNER ROAD STEVE BOWMAN '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK COLEN COREY '94 JD410 BACKHOE '91 JDTIO BACKHOE (SOLD TO WW) '92 GMC 1-TON P/U SCOTT COREY TERRY DEVERY HADLEY KENTNER '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP RILEY THOMPSON DUMP FEES FOR 1995 KCB, INC. NOV.9,14,15 ASBESTOS CLEANUP Regular 1.0 IN 1.0 IN 7.0 hr 8.O HR 1.0 hr 1.0 HR 9.0 hr 9.0 HR 3.0 hr 70.0 YD 50.0 YD 1.0 IN 3.0 hr 3.0 HR 2.0 hr 2.0 HR 9.0 hr 9.0 HR 3.0 hr 1.0 HR 2.0 HR 20.0 YD 70.0 YD MOVE LOGS 1.0 hr 1.0 hr 1.0 hr 8.0 hz' 8.0 HR 8.0 hr 10HR 60HR 10HR 10 hr 10 hr 90 hr 90HR 40hr 140 0 YD 10IN 11/15/95 SD950264 HAULING DEBRIS TO DUMP FROM SESKO PROPERTY WERNER ROAD HADLEY KENTNER '94 JD410 BACKHOE '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK DEAN SMITH '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK RILEY THOMPSON 90 hr 9 0 HR 4 0 HR 3 5 hr 3 5HR 2 0 hr Overtime Costs 39.50 27.50 182.00 208,00 26.00 9.00 234.00 234.00 78.00 574.00 410.00 2043.00 78.00 78.00 52.00 18.00 234.00 234.00 78.00 6.00 60.74 164.00 574.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 208.00 208.00 208.00 32.00 182.22 9.00 26.00 26.00 234.00 234.00 104.00 1148,00 3531.63 234.00 288.00 104.00 91.00 91.00 52.00 1995 2:03 pm City of Bremerton - Streets Billing Details Street Department Summary of Services for : November 1995 ,re W.O. $ Description ~egular '91GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U 2.0 HR DUMP FEES FOR 1995 40.0 YD 11/16/95 SD950264 HAULING DEBRIS FROM SESKO PROPERTY WERNER ROAD COLEN COREY 2.0 hr '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK 2.0 HR PAGE = 2 Overtime BLDM Costs 12.00 328.00 52.00 52.00 $13,t74.59 , 1995 4:17 Customer Description City of Bremerton - Streets Work Order History Regular Overtime PAGE = ! C05~S ,rk Order ~ :SD950264 tie :BLDM SESKO PROPERTY WERNER ROAD atus :S stomer :BLDM rk Type :AO reman :225 ad Employee:243 iority : Date Targeted: Date Entered :09/22/95 Date Assigned:09/22/95 Date Started :10/02/95 Date Finished:Il/t6/95 Labor Hours Est: 0 Materials Est : $0 Equipment Est : $0 Location :N40!4280 /02/95 BLDM '09/95 BLDM 25/95 BLDM 01/95 BLDM !3/95 BLDM i4/95 BLDM !5/95 BLDM ABATEMENT/DEMO OF SESKO PROPERTY OFF WERNER ROAD & UNION COLEN COREY 2.0 hr JEFF INGHAM 4.5 hr HADLEY KENTNER 4.5 hr '93 GMC 1-TON DUMP 4.5 HR ASBESTOS INSPECTION OF SESKO HOUSE NORTHWEST CORNER OF UNtON/KEAN & WERNER BULK S~PLES (2) ASBESTOS INSPECTION t.0 EA BULK S~HPLES (ASBESTOS) 2.0 EA MEET WITH PUGET SOUND AIR POLUTION CONTROL ON SESKO PROP. RILEY THOMPSON 1.5 hr '91GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U 1.0 HR SESKO PROPERTY WERNER ROAD DEMOLITION PERMITS BLDG. DEPT. DEMO. PERMIT !NTERFUND ~4693 t,0 IN DEMOLITION OF SESKO PROPERTY ON WERNER ROAD (MOVE LOGS) STEVE BOWMAN 1.0 hr HADLEY KENTNER 1.0 hr RILEY THOMPSON t.0 br DEMOLITION OF SESKO PROPERTY WERNER ROAD STEVE BOWMAN 8.0 hr '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK 8.0 HR COLEN COREY 8.0 hr '94 JD410 BACKHOE 1.0 HR '91 JD?IO BACKHOE (SOLD TO WW) 6.0 HR '92 GMC 1-TON P/U 1.0 HR SCOTT COREY 1.0 hr TERRY DEVERY 1.0 hr HADLEY KENTNER 9.0 hr '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP 9.0 HR RILEY THOMPSON 4.0 hr DUMP FEES FOR 1995 t40.0 YD KCB, INC. NOV.9,14,15 ASBESTOS CLEANUP 1.0 IN HAULING DEBRIS TO DUMP FROM SESKO PROPERTY WERNER ROAD HADLEY KENTNER '94 JD410 BACKHOE '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK DEAN SMITH '90 INT, 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK RILEY THOMPSON '91 GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U DOIP FEES FOR 1995 9.0 hr 9.0 HR 4,0 HR 3.5 hr 3.5 HR 2.0 hr 2.0 HR 40.0 YD 52,00 i17,00 !17.00 40. zu 210.00 56.00 39.00 6.00 39.50 26.00 26.00 26.00 208.00 208.00 208.00 32.00 182.22 9.00 26.00 26.00 234.00 234.00 tO4,00 1148.00 ,,o31.63 234.00 288.00 104.0{1 91.00 91.00 52.00 12.00 Description City of Bremerton ._~treets Work Order History Regular Overtime PAGE ~ Costs CO£EN COREY '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK 2.0 hr 2.0 HR 52.00 52.00 SU~4MARY FOR W,O. ~ SD950284 Labor Benefits $0,OO Equipment. $1,2~8.72 Materials $5,313.13 Sales Tax $0.00 Total $8,20§.8S Use Tax $0.00 63,0 hfs .0 hrs $8,209.85 6, 1995 4:17 pm Customer Description City of Bremerton - Streets Work Order History Regular Overtime PAGE Costs ~ork Order # :SD950279 ~itle :BLDM - BURNEY HOUSE DEMO ;tatus :S :ustomer :BLDM ;ork Type :AO 'oreman :225 .ead Employee:243 ~riority : Date Targeted: Date Entered :10/26/95 Date Assigned:lO/26/95 Date Started :10/26/95 Date Finished:Il/02/95 Labor Hours Est: Materials Est : Equipment Est : 0 $0 $0 Location :N4014280 0/09/95 BLDM 0/26/95 BLDM 0/31/95 BLDM i/01/95 BLDM 1/01/95 BLDM .1/02/95 BLDM ASBESTOS INSPECTION OF EVAN BURNEY HOUSE BULK SAMPLES (13) ASBESTOS INSPECTION BUnK SAMPLES (ASBESTOS) BURNEY HOUSE DEMO STEVE BOWMAN '95 1-TON CHEVY COLEN COREY '92 GMC 1-TON P/U JEFF INGHAM '94 JD410 BACKHOE DEAN SMITH RILEY THOMPSON '91GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U BLDM - BURNEY HOUSE DEMO JAY-PEE RAGE '90 INT. ]0 YARD DU~IP TRUCK COLEN COREY '91JDT10 BACKHOE (SOLD TO WW) HADLEY KENTNER RILEY THOMPSON '91GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U '94 JD410 BACKHOE DUMP FEES FOR 1995 DUMP FEES FOR 1995 BURLEY HOUSE DEMOLITION PERMIT BLDG. DEPT. DEMO PERMIT INTERFUND #4693 BLDM - BURNEY HOUSE DEMO JAY-PEE RAGE '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK COLEN COREY '92 GMC 1-TON P/Ii HADLEY KENTNER '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP RILEY THOMPSON DUMP FEES FOR 1995 DUMP FEES FOR 1995 KCB, INC. ASBESTOS ABATEMENT (BURLEY) BLDM - BURLEY HOUSE DEMO JAY-PEE BAGE '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK COLEN COREY 5.5 hr 5.5 HR 1.0 hr 1.0 HR 5.5 hr 2.0 HR 6.0 hr 3.0 hr 1.0 HR 8.0 hr 8.0 HR 2.0 hr 8.O HR 9.0 hr 7.0 hr 1.0 HR 5.0 HR 60.0 YD 50.0 YD 1.0 IN 7.0 hr 8.0 HR 1.0 hr t.0 HR 9.0 hr 9.0 HR 3.0 hr 70.0 YD 50.0 YD 1.0 IN 3.0 hr 3.0 HR 2.0 hr ?.N HR 143.00 49.50 26.00 9.00 i43.0(] 64.00 156,00 78.00 6.00 208.00 208.00 208.00 242.96 234,00 !82.00 6.60 ]60,00 492,00 4i0.00 27.50 i82.00 202.00 26.00 9.00 2.34.00 234.00 78.00 574.00 410.00 2043.O0 78.00 78.O0 52.00 !8.00 995 4:17 pm C PAGE Customer Description of Bremerton - Streets Work Order History 4230 HADLEY KENTNER '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP RILEY THOMPSON '91 GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U '91 JD?10 BACKHOE (SOLD TO DUMP FEES FOR 1995 DUMP FEES FOR 1995 SUMMARY FOR W.O, # SD950279 Labor $2,340.00 Benefits $0.00 Equipment $1,593.20 Materials $5,268.50 Sales Tax $0.00 Total $9,201.70 Use Tax $0.00 2egular 9.0 hr 9.0 HR 3.0 hr 1,0 HR 2,0 HR 20.0 YD 70.0 YD Overtime Costs 234.00 234.00 78,00 6,00 60.74 164.00 574.00 90.0 hfs .0 hrs $9,201.70