HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/10/96 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
239 4TH STREET
BREMERTON, WA 98337
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
APRIL 10t 1996
CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 P.M.
A. Pledge Of Allegiance
D. Invocation
CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed below have been distributed to Council members in
advance for study and will be enacted by one motion. If
separate discussion is desired on an item, it may be removed
from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda at
the request of a Council member. ~_~
A. Minutes - March 27, 1996 #AB96-074
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
4. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
5. MAYOR'S REPORT
6. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes)
NEW BUSINESS
A. INFORMATION ITEM ONLY: TCI Cable Rate Increase #AB96-075 ~ I
ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance (First Reading) Adopting Interim
Land Use Permit Regulations
#AB96-076 i~
1. SUBJECT:
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
M~NUTES - MARCH 27, 1996
FOR AGEND~ OF:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ORIGINATOR:
DATE SUBMITTED:
4-10-96
City Council
John Law. Pr~dmnt
4-2-96
2. ~: (comment on back
if necessary)
3. EXHIBITS:
ENDORSEMENT__ INFORMATION__ APPROVED BY COUNCIL P~ENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAYOR coUNCIL PRESIDENT' ~/~~--~-/
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNC~ ION:
8. ~CO594ENDATION:
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
DATE:
ENDED
TAPE #1369
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 27t 1996
#0028
#0038
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton
was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street,
Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, March 27, 1996, at 5:30 P.M.,
with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present
were Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Cecil McConnell, Carlos Montgomery,
Sherril Huff-Menees, David Farr, Richard Neville, and Lon Overson.
Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathy
McCluskey.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President Law and Invocation given by Pastor Michael Smith of
Bremerton Unity Church.
President Law announced immediately following the Council meeting,
the City Council will hold an Executive Session to discuss
"potential litigation"; and a Study Session to discuss "Cable
Access TV Update".
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes -- March 6, 1996
#AB96-062
B. Minutes -- March 13, 1996
#AB96-063
M/S/C/U(Neville/Farr) to approve Consent Agenda as presented.
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required
by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified
as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that
had been made available to the Council.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) on March 27, 1996, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: EFT3568, EFT3569, 196213, and 196260 through 196401 in
the amount of $433,988.50; Regular Payroll for the period 3-15-96,
in the amount of $693,365.96; Retirees' Payroll for the period
ending 3-31-96, in the amount of $166,255.17.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Colvin congratulated residents of the City of Seattle on
passing their School Levy. He thanked John Thomas for sharing his
concern.
Mr. Montgomery reported only seven members of the public attended
the Neighborhood Meeting, held March 25, where they discussed the
TAPE #1369
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 27, 1995
Page 2 of 9
design of road improvements along Kitsap Way and Weslon Place.
Mr. Overson reminded everyone of the Tour Of Historic Homes on
March 30, starting at 2:00 P.M. Proceeds from the tour will go to
the Kitsap Historical Museum and their moving into the City of
Bremerton. Tickets may be obtained from the local Chamber Of
Commerces, Visitor and Convention Bureau or Kitsap County Museum
located on 4th Street.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Evelyn Mosha¥ announced Christmas In April will take place on April
27, with nine homes located in Bremerton and Port Orchard
qualifying for the program. There is still need for professional
roofers, building materials, and cash donations. Additional
information may be obtained by calling 479-5778.
Gord¥ Byrd complimented Council staff for the amount of time/effort
put in to process Agenda packets and various other papers for the
City Council. He encouraged members of the public to come down in
person to share their concerns or ideas with the City Council.
Don Larson, President Of Washington Scuba Alliance, reported
Washington Sea Grant and Kitsap County PUD sponsored a Water
Festival at Olympic College on March 22. Approximately 1,400
elementary students attended that event. He reminded everyone of
the Sinclair Inlet Clean Up and Marine Fair on April 20, 12:00 Noon
to 3:00 P.M., starting at the First Street Dock. He thanked the
Parks Department and Diamond Parking for donating parking spaces
for the clean up volunteers. He announced a Marine Life Exhibit is
scheduled at Illahee State Park on April 18, starting at 9:00 A.M.
John Thomas stated in the past two months he has attended three
presentations by Fletcher Wright on the Sinclair landing project.
He is leaning more positively towards that development, but a
number of valid questions have been raised that can only be
answered by members of Sinclair Landing Association. One of those
questions is how much is it going to cost? He was concerned that
nothing had been done about the graffiti on the eastern approach to
the Manette Bridge and he believed it had been reported. His input
on cable TV service is no raise in rates until TCI provides the
residents of Bremerton with the kind of services they provide to
County residents. Lastly, residents of Snohomish County voted down
a Ballot measure on their 911 system on Tuesday. He pointed out
Kitsap County's 911 system is failing and we do need the entire
County population to support an upcoming Ballot measure to upgrade
that system. He felt strongly it would take people like the
elected officials to convince the public they need to lend their
support.
TAPE #1369
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 27, 1995
Page 3 of 9
Mar~ MoClure, Executive Director Sinclair Landing Association,
handed out copies of a report that was promised to Council as part
of the Memorandum Of Understanding. The report includes their Work
Plan for the next several months, budget, schedules, etc.
MAYOR,S REPORT
Mayor Lynn Horton stated she would make sure the graffiti problem
is taken care of by the City. Questions raised by Mr. Thomas and
others about the Fletcher Wright proposal cannot be answered until
they have completed working through the process. To a great
extent, this project is truly a ground breaking project in the
State of Washington, and progress is being made working through a
complicated maze getting to a point where costs can be identified.
The framework of the project is becoming more and more solidified
and as time goes by, she is very confident those questions will be
answered to the publics' satisfaction, even though some may not
agree with those answers. In order to clarify a recent statement
by the City Treasurer regarding the recent Utility rate increase,
in the short term, the ratepayers will be helping to finance the
acquisition of properties in the condemnation area. But, in the
long term, except for the property that will be held in reserve and
used for future plant expansion, the properties will be sold to be
used for more compatible uses than residential; and through the
life of the property, the taxes collected from that area will go
back to repay the Utility for the property acquisition.
Mayor Horton read a Proclamation designating the MONTH OF APRIL as
COUNT DOWN TO EARTH DAY 1996. The proclamation was accepted by Don
Larson, President Washington Scuba Alliance.
Mayor Horton announced there will be a City-wide clean up week (for
vegetation only) April 15-20. Details will be provided at a later
date.
Mayor Horton introduced the 1996 Armed Forces Queens Pageant
candidates: Marianne Bart, sponsored by TCI Cablevision; Yvonne
Campbell, sponsored by Kitsap Optical; Melissa Chase, sponsored by
Northwest Bank; Rachael Davenport, sponsored by Parker Lumber and
Tony's Italian Restaurant; Svea Eklof, sponsored by Lewis Chapel;
Summer Gerou, sponsored by Kitsap Bank; Cory Hawk-Siedleaki,
sponsored by Clarke's Rexall Drugs; Christine Johnson, sponsored by
Dillan's Insurance Agency; Nqoc Pham, sponsored by MedEquip
Services and West Hills Honda; Kirsten Roberts, sponsored by KPS
Health Plans.
7A - BID AWARD RECOMMENDATION FOR GOLF COURSE CAPIT~L
EQUIPMENT/BARNETT IMPLEMENT COMPANY, ~AB96-064
A call for bid on two John Deere Triplex mowers, and three John
Deere Walking Mowers for Gold Mountain Golf Course were prepared,
#0944
TAPE #1369
city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 27, 1995
Page 4 of 9
advertised, distributed, and received in accordance with accepted
call for bid procedures.
Two bids were received. The low bidder was Barnett Implement
Company. Base bid was $38,786.00 + sales tax of $2,947.74, for a
total cost of $41,733.74. It should be noted that the Technical
Specifications called for bids on three Walking Greens Mowers, not
two as stated in the proposal. We would like to have the bid
amended to include the third Walking Greens Mower as a cost of
$4,729.02, including sales tax. The new total of the bid would be
$46,462.76 (tax included).
Pat westhoff, Parks Department, stated this request is over budget,
and the current balance in the Parks Capital Unidentified Fund is
$32,700. He pointed out they originally budgeted $44,000 for
equipment needs; however, the requested amount is $46,462.76. He
also pointed out there will be a cost savings in the next Agenda
item, which will balance out the fund. Mr. Overson pointed out this
was not within the normal City Council's budget process to control
the budget for this Construction Fund. Mr. Westhoff stated he may
have erred stating there was $32,700 in their unidentified Capital
Fund. One piece of equipment will be funded from their old Course
Capital Improvement Fund and the remaining equipment will be funded
s from the Construction Fund, which contains a Contingency Fund of
$30,000.
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(McConnell/Winters) to accept the amended bid and approve
the purchase of the mowers from Barnett Implement Company at a
price of $46,462.76 (tax included).
7B - BID AWARD RECOMMENDATION FOR GOLF COURSE CAPITAL
EQUIPMENT/WESTERN EQUIPMENT, ~AB96-065
A call for bids on the attached list of Golf Course equipment was
prepared, advertised, distributed, and received in accordance with
accepted call for bid procedures. One bid was received that met
the specification requirements as advertised. Western Equipment of
Kent, WA submitted the only acceptable bid in the amount of
$211,713.85 (tax included).
Pat Westhoff, Parks Department, briefly reviewed the bid process
and explained going with Toro equipment standardizes the equipment
already being used, which is a significant issue when dealing with
parts for equipment. When the new golf course was being
constructed, Toro was specified for the irrigation system. At that
time, it was unknown to Parks Department staff that Toro, by
getting the irrigation system bid for the new course, would provide
the City with an irrigation bonus in the amount of $15,000, which
#1263
TAPE #1369
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 27, 1995
Page 5 of 9
will be put back into the Construction Fund account.
Mr. Winters asked if the City had past experience with Western
Equipment? Mr. Westhoff stated yes. Mr. Winters asked how often
the mowers are used on a daily basis, and do they come with
warranties? John Alexan4er, Golf Course Grounds Keeper, stated
most of the mowers are used daily, and Toro provides a one-year
warranty, which he believes is standard in that industry.
Mr. Farr asked why the budget item is the larger amount verses the
cost minus the rebate amount? Mr. Westhoff explained the City is
purchasing the equipment from Western Equipment and in turn Toro
will send the $15,000 to Western Equipment, who will then pass it
on to the City. Mayor Horton explained the City will pay Western
Equipment the full amount and the rebate is made available based on
that payment.
Mr. Colvin asked if all of the rebate funds would go back to the
General Fund? Mr. Westhoff explained some of the equipment will be
going to the older golf course and that percentage will go into the
old golf course Capital Equipment Fund and the remainder in the new
Construction Fund.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Overson pointed out the City is buying nearly $300,000 worth of
equipment and asked if more equipment would be purchased? Mr.
Westhoff stated yes. The budget reflects $445,000 in the Capital
Equipment Fund and there are still amenities to fund out of this
category, i.e. signs and flags for each hole, benches, etc.
Additional kinds of equipment will be coming when the new
maintenance building comes on line, i.e., desks, file cabinets,
etc.
M/S/C/U(McConnell/Montgomery) to authorize and direct the Mayor to
execute the contract for the golf course equipment with Western
Equipment for the bid amount of $211,713.85 (tax included), subject
to City Administrative Policies and Procedures.
7C - CALLOW AVENUE BASIN CSO REDUCTION PROJECT; PRIORITY 1, PHASE
2 (V4214) - AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEN~_NT WITH CH2M
HILL, ~AB96-056
The City has negotiated amendments with CH2M Hill, Inc. for
professional services on the Callow Avenue Basin CSO reduction
project. Amendment No. 8 is for additional design services outside
of the existing scope of work for the Priority 1, Phase 2 project.
These include changing, of the storm sewer alignment in Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard (PSNS), preparation of separate surface restoration
plans for Montgomery Avenue, the addition of storm sewer in Burwell
#1554
TAPE #1369
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 27, 1995
Page 6 of 9
Street, soil characterization in PSNS, an overflow manhole in
Cambrian, and an increase in complexity on the project greater than
what was originally anticipated resulting in additional plan sheets
and effort. An additional task was included to provide for final
payment on the Wastewater Comprehensive Plan effort. The not to
exceed amount of Amendment No. 8 is $64,350.
Amendment No. 9 is new contract services. It provides for
construction staking and an allowance for on-call design services
during the Priority 1, Phase 2 construction. City survey crews
will not have the resources to provide construction staking for
this project. It is valuable for the design firm to provide
construction staking because of their familiarity with the project
and ability to quickly resolve any errors or changes which may
arise. The design engineer will be available for submittal review,
conflict resolution, and field review of critical situations on an
on-call basis. The not to exceed amount of Amendment No. 9 is
$64,240.
The amendments will revise agreement amount to $1,093,928.
Adequate funds exist for this work. Staff recommends approval and
execution of the amendments.
R&ndyWitt, City Engineer, reviewed the information provided in the
Summary Statement. He noted under Amendment #8, some of the larger
items that generated the amendment involve changing the storm sewer
alignment at its outfall location in the Shipyard area. Montgomery
Avenue was originally set up for patching, but once they realized
the work would involve patching the whole street, it made more
sense to provide street plans for that area, which will provide a
better finished product. They also extended the sewer line on
Burwell, to avoid conflicts with the Bremerton Ferry Terminal to
Gorst project, which will probably occur next summer. We do not
want to overlay a street and then dig it up the next summer. This
amendment allows taking boring samples to map the location of the
contaminated soils and determine the level of contamination, which
will determine how and where it can be disposed.
Elizabeth Buell asked if "next summer" meant 1996 or 19977
Wit% stated summer of 1996.
Mr.
Mr. ~eville stated this is a multi-million dollar project and it
pleased him to see effort made to plan ahead so that a street did
not have to be dug up once it was resurfaced.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) to authorize and direct the Mayor
to execute Amendment Numbers 8 and 9 to the Professional Services
Agreement with CH2M Hill, Inc.
TAPE #1369
city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 27, 1995
Page 7 of 9
7D - BUDGET ADJUSTMENT CONVERTING THE CITY'S FLEET I~INTENANCE
FROM A CONTRACTED TO A CITY-STAFFED OPERATION, ~AB96-067
It has been determined that it is in the best interest of the City
to not renew the current contract for fleet maintenance upon its
expiration April 30, 1996. The contractor has been given notice to
this effect pursuant to the terms of the contract. This budget
adjustment will authorize the positions and expenditure authority
necessary for the City to take over the fleet maintenance upon the
expiration of the contract.
Gene SamDle¥, Public Works and Utilities Director, stated this is
not an allocation of additional funds, but a reallocation of funds
currently in the 1996 budget, which will accommodate the transition
from contract operations to operation by City forces. It will
provide for staffing requirements and operational expenditures
necessary to implement that transition. He noted the net savings
projected in 1996 is approximately $40,000. He felt confident they
can proceed and not exceed the budgeted authorization. He pointed
out there is a $48,000 contract deposit considered in this budget
and the budget for the contracted operations for 1996 was initially
reduced by $50,000 in the hope that a contract could be
renegotiated and realize that type of savings, which was not the
case and resulted in the decision to transfer this. operation to
City operations.
Charlie Brown, 1333 E. Hope Street, stated the City is saying it is
saving $40,000 this year and a couple of weeks ago Council action
saved $20,000 by eliminating a Probation Officer position. He
asked if that $60,000 was being moved to another budget line item
to be spent or is it true savings? Mr. Sample¥ stated the item he
mentioned is within the Transportation Fund, which is funded by the
General Fund, with the majority of funds coming out of the
Equipment Revolving Fund.
Mrs. Huff-Menees asked Mr. Sampley to explain how he planned to
take this function in-house and any changes he might foresee. Mr.
Sampley explained the intent is to staff the facility in the same
manner it was previously staffed. The facility was operated
effectively and there were no problems with the contracted
operations other than a financial concern. There will be a Fleet
Manager, who will report to work on April i to initiate the
transition action, and in the process of establishing registers for
Lead Mechanic, two Mechanics and one Mechanic Assistant. There
will also be an Office Assistant Senior position to help with the
office administration and inventory control and other duties as
assigned by the Fleet Manager.
Mr. Overson stated he was concerned with numbers not being
presented as he feels they should be. The actual cost in 1996 is
#2005
TAPE #1369
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 27, 1995
Page $ of 9
reflected as $724,500, but the documentation does not present that
fact. The proposed savings of $39,000 is in fact not a savings,
but actually loss of money, but part of that is attributed to
capital expenditures. To get the proper costs, you need to add the
$48,000 and $4,500 into the $672,000 to get actual budget costs for
the year. The City Treasurer chose not to show the data in that
manner and that point was discussed with him in the Study Session.
It is his understanding that as much as any considered cost savings
there are other benefits from the in-house control. Mr. Sampley
stated he appreciated Mr. Overson's comment, the reason he
mentioned the $48,000 of contractors' deposit was consideration of
the overall picture. Offsetting that was the $50,000 reduction in
the initial budget that was established with the hope to negotiate
a reduction of $50,000 and present the budget accordingly. From
continued contracted operations, had this not been a renewal year,
we would have expected a $50,000 increase, which essentially
offsets that deposit. There are significant one-time expenditures
for capital in the initial setup, which includes computers, shop
equipment, etc. He believes savings will be realized in 1996 and
in the long term. Mr. Overson asked if Mr. Sampley intends to have
the 1997 budget reflect the $672,000, which shows no savings over
the 1996 budget, or $724,000, which shows an actual $52,000
increase in costs? Mr. Sampley stated the $39,500 is shown as a
budget item entitled "Savings", which had this been a new request
that item would not have been included and the total amount would
have been decreased by $39,500. As far as what would be required
in 1997, all he could say was it will be considerably less because
of the one-time expenditures anticipated in start up, one of which
is inventory at a cost of $30,000 to stock the inventory, which is
then maintained from that point on. It is not his intent to
increase inventory costs because of the excellent relationships
that have been established with local vendors and availability of
parts.
M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees/Colvin) to approve
adjustment for fleet maintenance.
the proposed budget
8A - ORDINANCE NO. 4549 (SECOND READING) AMENDING PARKING
REGULATIONS TO ENHANCE PENALTIES, REPEAL RE-PARKING, ~]tB96-061
Public comment - none.
Mr. McConnell asked if "business District" was identified in some
other section of the Parking Ordinance? Ian Sievers, City Attorney,
stated the City previously adopted a Resolution setting up time
zones and it may be covered as a district in that document. He was
not aware of another ordinance setting up parking restriction in
that district, it does have different type of zones with different
time limits, including Loading Zones. Mr. McConne11 noted he felt
part of the sentence addressing "business zone" should have
#2235
TAPE #1369
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 27, 1995
Page 9 of 9
remained in the Ordinance. Mayor Horton stated that point would be
checked to make sure the final copy is correct and the change
pertains to the business districts. Mr. McConnell referenced
"service vehicles" and asked if such vehicles would be allowed to
repark within the business district? M&¥or Horton assured Mr.
McConnell that service vehicles could repark in the business zone
without being penalized.
M/S/C(Montgomery/Farr) to pass Ordinance No. 4549 on second
reading, amending the parking code to remove prohibition on re-
parking except in residential permit areas; increasing penalties
for overtime parking and repeat offenders; and amending BMC Title
10.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor:
Opposed:
Overson, Neville, Farr, Huff-Menees
Law, Montgomery, McConnell, Colvin
Winters
With no further business meeting adjourned at 6:44 P.M.
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
JOHN E. LAW, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/JL/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault
~END~ B~LL
BREI~ERTON CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Informational Item
TCI Cable Rate Increase
FOR AGENDA OF: April 10, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT: Admin. Services
ORIGINATOR: Kathleen Mc¢lusk~y
DATE SUBMITTED: April 4, 1996
2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back 3. EXHIBITS:
if necessary)
ENDORSEMENT INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESID~EH~E~R SUBMITTAL:
MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~/~/~--~--'-
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL 2~ON:
Patrick McDonald, TCI General Manager, will present the proposed 6/1/96
cable rate increase. These rates are not subject to Council approval.
This is an information item for the Council and public.
RECOMMENDATION:
None
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: N/A
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10.
APPROVED
DATE:
11.
NOTICE OF ACTION
DISAPPROVED
AMENDED
AGENDA BILL NO:
CLRARANCE COMMENTS (cont.):
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (cont.):
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
TCI RATE INCREASE DISCUSSION
APRIL 10, 1996
TCI has submitted a rate increase application for all cable rates
to go into effect June 1, 1996. TCI will be presenting their
explanation of these rate increases at the Council Meeting on April
10, 1996. Staff's rate review report to Council will be submitted
at a later date. Listed below are suggested questions to ask TCI.
Please review the attached rate table that shows TCI's rate history
since the City has regulated rates.
1) Why is the rate for basic service increasing 16% from $10.59
to $12.28 when there have been no changes in programming or
services offered?
2) Why is Bremerton's basic rate higher than Kitsap County's when
they now have three additional channels on the basic tier that we
don't have?
3) Why is TCI entitled to a three year inflation adjustment when
they were granted an adjustment just last July 19957
4) What actual programming cost increases did TCI experience
since the last rate increase of July 19957
5) Why is the rate for expanded service increasing 22% from
$10.63 to $12.987
6) Please explain the tremendous jump in equipment costs.
7) The hourly service charge for labor increased 13% from $20.29
to $22.91. Please explain.
8) Why is the City's hourly service charge higher than the
County's?
9) Why are all installation charges higher for the City than the
County?
CABLE RATE HISTORY FOR TCI
PRE-REGULATION FCC 383/1200 FCC 1210 FCC 12t0 FCC 1205 FCC 1240 KITSAP COUNTY 1240
RATES REGULATED RATES REGULATED RATES REGULATED RATES REGULATED RATES REGUALTED RATES REGULATED RATES
31-Mar-94 14-Jul-94 l$-Peb-~5 Jul-95 Jul-98 Jun-96 Jun-98
BASIC SERVICE $ 10.43 $ 9.87 $ 10.09 $ 10.59 $ 12.28 $ 11,96
EXPANDED BASIC $ 11.14 $ 9.87 $ 9.99 $ 10.63 $ 12.98 $ 14.13
STANDARD CONVERTER $ 0.67 $ 0.45 $ 0.86 $ 1.63 $ 1.66
ADDRESS.CONVERTER $ 1.17 $ 0,80 $ 1.28 $ 2.06 $ 2.10
REMOTE CONTROL $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.12 $ 0.12
INSTA£LATION-UNWIRED $ 37.49 $ 26.79 $ 30.44 $ 34.37 $ 34.21
INSTALLATION-PREWIRED $ 18.74 $ 13.40 $ 16.22 $ 17.18 $ 17.10
~DDT'L OUTLET-SAME TRP $ 6.25 $ 4.47 $ 6.07 $ 5,73 $ 5.70
N:)DT'LOUTLET-SEPTRIP $ 18.74 $ -1~.40 $ 16.22 $ 17.18 $ 17.10
RELOCATE OUTLET $ 18.74$ 13.40 $ t6.22 $ 17.18 $ 17.10
NONADDRESSUP/DNGRD $ 12.50 S 8.93 $ t0.16 $ 11.46 S 11.41
N~)DRESSABLUP/DNGRD $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 1.99
CONNECT VCR-SAME TRIP $ 6.25 $ 4.47 $ 6.07 $ 5.73 $ 5.70
CONNECT VCR-SEP TRIP $ 12.501 $ 8.93 $ 10.16 $ 11.46 $ 11.41
CHG FOR CHANGE TIERS $ 12.50 $ 8.93 $ 10.16 $ 11.46 $ 11.41
HOURLY SERVICE CHARGE $ 17.50 $ 17.86 $ 20.20 $ 22.91 $ 22.80
COMPARATIVE VALUES- $ 187.07 $ 143.63 $ 162.43 $ 185.73 $ 185.90
SUM OF EACH BUNDLE
ALL JUN-1996 RATES EXCLUDE LOCAL FRANCHISE FEES.
INFLAllON ADJUSTMENT INCLUDES JUNE 1994 THRU JUNE 1997.
KITSAP COUNTY RATES ARE FOR THEIR EXPANDED SYSTEM - -
INCLUSES 3 ADDITIONAL CHANNELS ON BASIC AND 6 NEW
CHANNELS ON EXPANDED BASIC
Page 1
TCI boosts
cable rates
up to 20%
21.0,000 will have to pay
more in the Se, attle ar~a
After several yea~ of relatively modesl increases in
lheir monthly bills, mosl cable ~ viewem in lhe Seattle
area will be jolled by a stiff 15 to 20 percent boost fl'urn '
l~le-Cmnmunications Inc.
The average TCI m~.~lomer in Sealfle now spends
$20.79 per monlh for cable sea. ice, according to the
company. Thal average will jump Io $25.16 in Juue. The
increase also will apply Io TCI c~slomem fl~mughou/King
County who will see lheir average bills go Io $26.03.
Based in Denver, Colo., TCI is the nation's largest
cable IV operalor, serving aboul one-foudh of ll~e halloa.
The company has 632,975 cuslome~ in Washinglon slate,
including about 210,000 in SeaUle and surrounding
communilies.
Bill Bennett, general manager of TCI Cab[evision of
Washin~on Inc., said lhe dramatic increase is parlly the
resull of a new Federal Communications Commission
nde Ilml ~llows cable operalms Io adjust their roles once a
year instead of k~ur times a year as pmscri~d under
previous re~lalions.
The city can review TCI's rate adjustment ~o make
sure il complies with its franchise agreement, said City
Councilwoman ,lane Noland, But the mai power lies with
See TCI, Page
1. SUBJECT:
Ordinance Adopting Interim
Land Use Permit Regulations
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
FOR AGENDA OF:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Develo~
ORIGINATOR: Ian R. Siever~x
City. Attorney
2. CLEARANCES: . (Comment on back if
DIRE~~~F'_~ Y DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL COMMITTEE
necessary)
3. EXHIBITS:
Proposed Ordinance
ESHB 1724, adopted during the 1995 legislative session, mandated land use
regulatory reform by local government with the goal of streamlining and
consolidating the permit process.
The proposed ordinance adopts rules which consolidate permit review, sets
deadlines of approval and limits the number of public hearings that may be
required. The interim rules will be replaced by permanent development regulations
in the Zoning Code after policy discussions have been concluded.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to approve on first reading Ordinance No.
Motion to pass on second reading Ordinance No.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] DATE:
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
(OVER)
8A
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: -- --
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
LANDUSE.AB - Agendas - 4/3/96
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE implementing interim Land Use Permit
pursuant to ESHB 1724, Ch. 347 Laws of 1995; and amending
Municipal Code Title 21.
procedures
Bremerton
WHEREAS, ESHB, Ch. 347 Laws of 1995 require Bremerton and other local
governments planning under the Growth Management Act to establish by ordinance or
resolution procedures for 1) a consolidated project permit, 2) combining the environmental
review process with review of land use project permits and 3) providing for no more than
one open record hearing and one closed record appeal; and
WHEREAS, an interim ordinance is needed to comply with deadlines of this regulatory
reform bill while allowing continued public participation and policy discussions and the
integration of these procedures into the City's development regulations; now, therefore,
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
Section 1. Consolidated Project Permit. Processing and approving any project permit
shall include the actions listed below. Project permits are those defined by RCW 36.70B.020,
but does not include street vacations or other approvals relating to use of public areas; lot line
adjustments; and building and other construction permits or similar administrative approvals
categorically exempt from environmental review under chapter 43.21C RCW, or for which
environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits.
(a) A Notice of Application to the public and agencies with jurisdiction as required
by RCW 36.70B. 110.
(b) A determination of completeness to the applicant as required by RCW
36.70A.440.
(c) Completion of project review and a Notice of Decision as required by RCW
36.70B.130 within the time period provided in RCW 36.70A.065 and RCW
36.70B.090. The Notice of Decision may be the project permit or a report
consistent with RCW 36.70B.060.
(d) An optional consolidated project permit review providing for the integrated and
consolidated review and decision on two or more project permits relating to a
proposed project action, including all project permits requested by an applicant.
(e) Public meetings or required open record hearings may be combined with another
agency or jurisdiction's meeting or open record hearing on the project.
Section 2. Open Record Hearing.
(1) Except for an appeal of a determination of significance, there shall be no more than
one open record hearing or open record appeal hearing, and one closed record appeal for project
permits as defined by RCW 36.70B.020.
(2) Any project permit currently requiring Planning Commission action and City Council
LANDUSE.ORD - Disk 2 - 413/96
approval shall have a predecision open record hearing by the Planning Commission. The
Planning commission will forward a recommendation, after considering the input from its open
public hearing, for consideration by the City Council. The Council shall make its decision based
on findings and conclusions and the taped or written transcript of the Planning Commission and
shall not supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony. The City Council shall
enter its decision based on the record.
(3) Any project permit currently requiring Planning Commission approval with an appeal
to the City Council shall have an open record hearing or appeal hearing before the Planning
Commission and a closed record appeal before the City Council. Only applicants for the permit
or approval at issue, owners of the property at issue, or persons who participated in the record
hearing leading to the appealed decision shall be permitted to file an appeal. The Council may
modify or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission if the party seeking relief has carried
its burden of proof as to one or more of the following standards:
(a)
Co)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(0
The decision was based on unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed
process, unless the error was harmless;
The land use decision is not supported by substantial evidence in light of the
entire record;
The land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts;
The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law;
The decision is outside the authority or jurisdiction of the body or officer making
the decision; or
The decision violates the constitutional rights of the party seeking relief.
Section 3. Consolidated Environmental Review.
(1) Appeals of environmental determinations under BMC 21.12.210 shall be of the
governmental action together with its accompanying environmental determinations and shall be
commenced within the time required to appeal the governmental action which is subject to
environmental review; Provided, however, a determination of significance may be appealed and
dec~ded before the agency s final decision on a proposed act~a determ~natton of non-
significance (DNS) may be appealed before the agency's final decision only if the appeal is heard
at a proceeding where the heating body will render a final recommendation or decision on the
underlying action. A threshold determination shall have an open record appeal hearing before
the Planning Commission.
2) Except for a determination of significance, no threshold determination, decision or
recommendation on a project permit shall be issued until the expiration of the public comment
period on the notice of application.
3) Where a project requires an open record predecision hearing and the threshold
determination requires public notice under chapter RCW 43.21C,.the threshold determination
shall be issued at least fifteen (15) days prior to the open record hearing or predecision hearing.
Section 4. Amendment. Those sections of BMC Title 21, Land Use, relating to land
use approvals are amended by this ordinance to the extent they are inconsistent.
LANDUSE.ORD - Di~k 2 - 4/3/96
Section 5.
and publication and shall expire ninety (90) days following its effective date.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ~
,1996.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ~
,1996.
Effective Dates. This ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days from passage
day of _
day of
JOHN E. LAW, Council President
APPROVED this
~day of
,1996.
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
LANDUSE.ORD - Disk 2 - 4/3/96
3
type of land use;
level of development, such as uniL ~ c acre or
of density;
~ infrastructure, including public facilities and services
to serve the development; and
The character of the development, such as develop~
ards.
:) In determining consistency, the determinations made
to RCW 36.70B.030(2) shall be controlling.
For purposes of this section, the term "consistency"
Iclude all terms used in this chapter and chapter
RCW to refer to performance in accordance with this
~{~pter and chapter 36.70A RCW, including but not limited
compliance, conformity, and consistency.
t~ (4) Nothing in this section requires documentation,
4gtates an ag.ency's procedures for considering consistency.
~t limits a umt of gove.rnment from asking more specific or
i~lated questions with respect to any of the four main
Categories listed in subsection (1) (a) through (d) of this
getion. [1995 c 347 § 405.]
intent~Findings--1995 c 347 §§ 404 and 405: See note following
~C'W 36.?0B.030.
36.70B.050 Local government review of project
permit applications required--Objectives. Not later than
March 31, 1996, each local government shall provide by
ordinance or resolution for review of project permit applica-
tions to achieve the following objectives:
(1) Combine the environmental review process, both
procedural and substantive, with the procedure for review of
project permits; and
(2) Except for the appeal of a determination of signifi-
cance as provided in RCW 43.21C.075, provide for no more
than one open record hearing and one closed record appeal.
[1995 c 347 § 406.]
36.70B.060 Local governments planning under the
growth management act to establish integrated and
consolidated project permit process---Required elements.
Not later than March 31, 1996, each local government
planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall establish by ordi-
nance or resolution an integrated and consolidated project
permit process that may be included in its development
regulations. In addition to the elements required by RCW
36.70B.050, the process shall include the following elements:
(1) A determination of completeness to the applicant as
required by RCW 36.70B.070;
(2) A notice of application to the public and agencies
with jurisdiction as required by RCW 36.70B.110;
(3) Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.140, an optional
consolidated project permit review process as provided in
RCW 36.70B.120. The review process shall provide for no
more than one consolidated open record hearing and one
closed record appeal. If an open record predecision hearing
is provided prior to the decision on a project permit, the
process shall not allow a subsequent open record appeal
hearing;
project by another local, state, regional, federal, or other
agency, in accordance with pre :ohs of RCW 36.70B.090
and 36.70B.i 10; ~
(5) A single report stating all the decisions made as of
the date of the report on all project permits included in the
consolidated permit process that do not require an open
record predecision hearing and any recommendations on
project permits that do not require an open record
predecision hearing. The report shall state any mitigation
required or proposed under the development regulations or
the agency's authority under RCW 43.21C.060. The report
may be the local permit. If a threshold determination other
than a determination of significance has not been issued
previously by the local government, the report shall include
or append this determination;
(6) Except for the appeal of a determination of signifi-
cance as provided in RCW 43.21C.075, if a local govern-
ment elects to provide an appeal of its threshold determina-
tions or project permit decisions, the local government shall
provide for no more than one consolidated open record
hearing on such appeal. The local government need not
provide for any further appeal and may provide an appeal for
some but not all project permit decisions. If an appeal is
provided after the open record hearing, it shall be a closed
record appeal before a single decision-making body or
officer;
(7) A notice of decision as required by RCW
36.70B.130 and issued within the time period provided in
RCW 36.70B.080 and 36.70B.090;
(8) Completion of project review by the local govern-
ment, including environmental review and public review and
any appeals to the local government, within any applicable
time periods under RCW 36.70B.090; and
(9) Any other provisions not inconsistent with the
requirements of this chapter or chapter 43.21C RCW. [1995
c 347 § 407.]
36.70B.070 Project permit applications--
Determination of completeness--Notice to applicant. (1)
Within twenty-eight days after receiving a project permit
application, a local government planning pursuant to RCW
36.70A.040 shall mail or provide in person a written
determination to the applicant, stating either: (a) That the application is complete; or
(b) That the application is incomplete and what is
necessary to make the application complete.
To the extent known by the local government, the local
government shall identify other agencies of local, state, or
federal governments that may have jurisdiction over some
aspect of the application.
(2) A project permit application is complete for purpos-
es of this section when it meets the procedural submission
requirements of the local government and is sufficient for
continued processing even though additional information
may be required or project modifications may be undertaken
subsequently. The determination of completeness shall not
preclude the local government from requesting additional
information or studies either at the time of the notice of
I..[..lI
[1995RCWSupp---page 373]
36.70B.070 _ Title 36 RCW: Counties
completeness or subsequently if new information is required
or substantial changes in the proposed action occur.
(3) The determination of completeness may include the
following as optional information:
(a) A preliminary determination of those development
regulations that will be used for project mitigation;
(b) A preliminary determination of consistency, as
provided under RCW 36.70B.040; or
(c) Other information the local government chooses to
include.
(4)(a) An application shall be deemed complete under
this section if the local government does not provide a
written determination to the applicant that the application is
incomplete as provided in subsection (I)(b)of this section.
(b) Within fourteen days after an applicant has submit-
ted to a local government additional information identified
by the local government as being necessary for a complete
application, the local government shall notify the applicant
whether the application is complete or what additional
information is necessary. [1995 c 347 § 408; 1994 c 257 §
4. Formerly RCW 36.70A.440.]
Severability--1994 c 257: See note following RCW 36.70A.270.
36.70B.080 Development regulations--
Requirements. (Expires July 1, 1998.) Development
regulations adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 shall
establish time periods consistent with RCW 36.70B.090 for
local government actions on specific project permit applica-
tions and provide timely and predictable procedures to
determine whether a completed project permit application
meets the requirements of those development regulations.
Such development regulations shall specify the contents of
a completed project permit application necessary for the
application of such time periods and procedures. [1995 c
347 § 409; 1994 c 257 § 3. Formerly RCW 36.70A.065.]
Expiration date~1995 c 347 § 409: "The amendments to *RCW
36.70A.065 contained in section 409 of this act shall expire July I. 1998."
[1995 c 347 § 411.]
*Reviser's note: RCW 36.70A.065 was recodified as RCW
36.70B.080 pursuant to 1995 c 347 § 432.
Severability--1994 c 257: See note following RCW 36.70A.270.
36.70B.080 Development regulations--
Requirements. (Effective July I, 1998.) Development
regulations adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 shall
establish time periods for local government actions on
specific project permit applications and provide timely and
predictable procedures to determine whether a completed
project permit application meets the requirements of those
development regulations. Such development regulations
shall specify the contents of a completed project permit
application necessary for the application of such time periods
and procedures. [1995 c347 § 410; 1994c 257 § 3.
Formerly RCW 36.70A.065.]
Effective date---1995 c 347 § 410: "Section 410 of this act shall take
effect July I. 1998." [1995 c 347 § 412.]
Severability--1994 c 257: See hole following RCW 36.70A.270.
36.70B.090 Notice of final decision--Time limit.s--
Exceptions. (Expires June 30, 1998.) (I) Except as
otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, a local
government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall issue its
notice of final decision on a project permit application within
one hundred twenty days after the local government notifies
the applicant that the application is complete, as provided in
RCW 36.70B.070. In determining the number of days that
have elapsed after the local government has notified the
applicant that the application is complete, the following
periods shall be excluded:
(a)(i) Any period during which the applicant has been
requested by the local government to correct plans, perform
required studies, or provide additional required information.
The period shall be calculated from the date the local
government notifies the applicant of the need for additional
information until the earlier of the date the local government
determines whether the additional information satisfies the
request for information or fourteen days after the date the
information has been provided to the local government.
(ii) If the local government determines that the informa-
tion submitted by the applicant under (a)(i) of this subsection
is insufficient, it shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies
and the procedures under (a)(i) of this subsection shall apply
as if a new request for studies had been made;
(b) Any period during which an environmental impact
statement is being prepared following a determination of
significance pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW, if the local
government by ordinance or resolution has established time
periods for completion of environmental impact statements,
or if the local government and the applicant in writing agree
to a time period for completion of an environmental impact
statement;
(c) Any period for administrative appeals of project
permits, if an open record appeal hearing or a closed record
appeal, or both, are allowed. The local government by
ordinance or resolution shall establish a time period to
consider and decide such appeals. The time period shall not
exceed: (i) Ninety days for an open record appeal hearing;
and (ii) sixty days for a closed record appeal. The parties to
an appeal may agree to extend these time periods; and
(d) Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the
applicant and the local government.
(2) The time limits established by subsection (l) of this
section do not apply if a project permit application:
(a) Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan
or a development regulation;
(b) Requires approval of a new fully contained commu-
nity as provided in RCW 36.70A.350, a master planned
resort as provided in RCW 36.70A.360, or the siting of an
essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or
(c) Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which
case the time period shall start from the date at which the
revised project application is determined to be complete
under RCW 36.70B.070.
(3) If the local government is unable to issue its final
decision within the time limits provided for in this section,
it shall provide written notice of this fact to the project
applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons
why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date
for issuance of the notice of final decision.
(4) This section shall apply to project permit applica-
tions filed on or after April I, 1996. [1995 c 347 § 413.]
Expiration date--Application--1995 c 347 §§ 413 and 421:
"Sections 413 and 421 ofthisact shall expire June 30. 1998. The
11995 RCWSupp--page 374]
provisions of sections 413 and 421 of this act sh. ?ly to project permil
applicalions determined to be complete pursuanl Io~CW 36.70B.070 on or
~fore .lune 30, 1998." [1995 c 347 § 433.]
36.70B.100 Designation of person or entity to
receive determinations and notices. A local government
may require the applicant for a project permit to designate a
single person or entity to receive determinations and notices
required by this chapter. [1995 c 347 § 414.]
36.70B.110 Notice of application--Required ele-
ments-Integration with other review procedures--
Administrative appeals. (1) Not later than April 1, 1996,
a local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall
provide a notice of application to the public and the depart-
ments and agencies with jurisdiction as provided in this
section. If a local government has made a determination of
significance under chapter 43.21C RCW concurrently with
the notice of application, the notice of application shall be
combined with the determination of significance and scoping
notice. Nothing in this section prevents a determination of
significance and scoping notice from being issued prior to
the notice of application.
(2) The notice of application shall be provided within
fourteen days after the determination of completeness as
provided in RCW 36.70B.070 and include the following in
whatever sequence or format the local government deems
appropriate:
(a) The date of application, the date of the notice of
completion for the application, and the date of the notice of
application;
(b) A description of the proposed project action and a
list of the project permits included in the application and, if
applicable, a list of any studies requested under RCW
36.70B.070 or 36.70B.090;
(c) The identification of other permits not included in
the application to the extent known by the local government;
(d) The identification of existing environmental docu-
ments that evaluate the proposed project, and, if not other-
wise stated on the document providing the notice of applica-
tion, such as a city land use bulletin, the location where the
application and any studies can be reviewed;
(e) A statement of the public comment period, which
! shall be not less than fourteen nor more than thirty days
the date of notice of application, and statements of
right of any person to comment on the application,
)~receive notice of and participate in any hearings, request a
Copy of the decision once made, and any appeal rights. A
local government may accept public comments, at any time
prior to the closing of the record of afl open record
[Xedecision heating, if any, or, if no open record predecision
hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project
germit;
(f) The date, time, place, and type of hearing, if applica-
scheduled at the date of notice of the application;
(g) A statement of the preliminary determination, if one
been made at the time of notice, of those development
that will be used for project mitigation and of
:ney as provided in RCW 36.70B.040; and
Any other information determined appropriate by thc
government.
(3) If an open rect ~redecision hearing is required fi~r
the requested project permits, the notice of application shall
be provided at least fifteen days prior to the open record
hearing.
(4) A local government shall use reasonable methods to
give the notice of application to the public and agencies with
jurisdiction and may use its existing notice procedures. A
local government may use different types of notice for
different categories of project permits or types of project
actions. If a local government by resolution or ordinance
does not specify its method of public notice, the local
government shall use the methods provided for in (a) and (b)
of this subsection. Examples of reasonable melhodsto
inform the public are:
(a) Posting the property for site-specific proposals;
(b) Publishing notice, including at least the project
location, description, type of permit(s) required, comment
period dates, and location where the complete application
may be reviewed, in the newspaper of general circulation in
the general area where the proposal is located or in a local
land use newsletter published by the local government;
(c) Notifying public or private groups with known
interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being
considered;
(d) Notifying the news media;
(e) Placing notices in appropriate regional or neighbor-
hood newspapers or trade journals;
(f) Publishing notice in agency newsletters or sending
notice to agency mailing lists, either general lists or lists for
specific proposals or subject areas; and
(g) Mailing to neighboring property owners.
(5) A notice of application shall not be required for
project permits that are categorically exempt under chapter
43.21C RCW, unless a public comment period or an open
record predecision hearing is required.
(6) A local government shall integrate the permit
procedures in this section with environmental review under
chapter 43.21C RCW as follows:
(a) Except for a determination of significance, the local
government may not issue its threshold determination, or
issue a decision or a recommendation on a project permit
until the expiration of the public comment period on the
notice of application.
(b) If an open record predecision hearing is required and
the local government's threshold determination requires
public notice under chapter 43.21C RCW, the local govern-
ment shall issue its threshold determination at least fifteen
days prior to the open record predecision hearing.
(c) Comments shall be as specific as possible.
(7) A local government may combine any hearingon a
project permit with any hearing that may be held by another
local, state, regional, federal, or other agency provided that
the hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the
local government. Hearings shall be combined if requested
by an applicant, as long as the joint hearing can be held
within the time periods specified in RCW 36.70B.090 or the
applicant agrees to the schedule in the event that additional
time is needed in order to combine the hearings. All
agencies of the state of Washington, including municipal
corporations and counties participating in a combined
hearing, are hereby authorized to issue joint hearing notices
[1995 RCWSupp--page 3751
36.70B. 110
Title 36 RCW: Counties
and develop a joint format, select a mutually acceptable
hearing body or officer, and take such other actions as may
be necessary to hold joint hearings consistent with each of
their respective statutory obligations.
· (8) All state and local agencies shall cooperate to the
fullest extent possible with the local government in holding
a joint hearing if requested to do so, as long as:
(a) The agency is not expressly prohibited by statute
from doing so:
(b) Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each
of the agencies' adopted notice requirements as set forth in
statute, ordinance, or rule; and
(c) The agency has received the necessary information
about the proposed project from the applicant to hold its
hearing at the same time as the local government hearing.
(9) A local government is not required to provide for
administrative appeals. If provided, an administrative appeal
of the project decision, combined with any environmental
determinations, shall be filed within fourteen days after the
notice of the decision or after other notice that the decision
has been made and is appealable. The local government
shall extend the appeal period for an additional seven days,
if state or local rules adopted pursuant to chapter 43.21C
RCWallow public comment on a determination of
nonsignificance issued as part of the appealable project
permit decision.
(10) The applicant for a project permit is deemed to be
a participant in any comment period, open record hearing, or
closed record appeal.
(11) Each local government planning under RCW
36.70A.040 shall adopt procedures for administrative
interpretation of its development regulations. [1995 c 347 §
415.]
36.70B.120 Permit review process. (1) Each local
government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall establish
a permit review process that provides for the integrated and
consolidated review and decision on two or more project
permits relating to a proposed project action, including a
single application review and approval process covering all
project permits requested by an applicant for all or part of a
project action and a designated permit coordinator. If an
applicant elects the consolidated permit review process, the
determination of completeness, notice of application, and
notice of final decision must include all project permits
being reviewed through the consolidated permit review
process.
(2) Consolidated permit review may provide different
procedures for different categories of project permits, but if
a project action requires project permits from more than one
category, the local government shall provide for consolidated
permit review with a single open record hearing and no more
than one closed record appeal as provided in RCW
36.70B.060. Each local government shall determine which
project permits are subject to an open record hearing and a
closed record appeal. Examples of categories of project
permits include but are not limited to:
(a) Proposals that are categorically exempt from chapter
43.21C RCW, such as construction permits, that do not
require environmental review or public notice;
(b) Permits that require environmental review, but no
open record predecision hearing; and
(c) Permits that require a threshold determination and an
open record predecision hearing and may provide for a
closed record appeal to a hearing body or officer or to the
local government legislative body.
(3) A local government may provide by ordinance or
resolution for the same or a different decision maker or
hearing body or officer for different categories of project
permits. In the case of consolidated project permit review,
the local government shall specify which decision makers
shall make the decision or recommendation, conduct the
hearing, or decide the appeal to ensure that consolidated
permit review occurs as provided in this section. The
consolidated permit review may combine an open record
predecision hearing on one or more permits with an open
record appeal hearing on other permits. In such cases, the
local government by ordinance or resolution shall specify
which project permits, if any, shall be subject to a closed
record appeal. [1995 c 347 § 416.]
36.70B.130 Notice of decision--Distribution. A
local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall
provide a notice of decision that also includes a statement of
any threshold determination made under chapter 43.21C
RCW and the procedures for administrative appeal, if any.
The notice of decision may be a copy of the report or
decision on the project permit application. The notice shall
be provided to the applicant and to any person who, prior to
the rendering of the decision, requested notice of the
decision or submitted substantive comments on the applica-
tion. The local government shall provide for notice of its
decision as provided in RCW 36.70B.110(4). [1995 c 347
§ 417.]
36.70B,140 Project permits that may be excluded
from review. (1) A local government by ordinance or
resolution may exclude the following project permits from
the provisions of RCW 36.70B.060 through 36.70B.090 and
36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130: Landmark designations,
street vacations, or other approvals relating to the use of
public areas or facilities, or other project permits, whether
administrative or quasi-judicial, that the local government by
ordinance or resolution has determined present special
circumstances that warrant a review process different from
that provided in RCW 36.70B.060 through 36.70B.090 and
36.70B. 110 through 36.70B. 130.
(2) A local government by ordinance or resolution also
may exclude the following project permits from the provi-
sions of RCW 36.70B.060 and 36.70B.1 10 through
36.70B.130: Lot line or boundary adjustments and building
and other construction permits, or similar administrative
approvals, categorically exempt from environmental review
under chapter 43.21C RCW, or for which environmental
review has been completed in connection with other project
permits. [1995 c 347 § 418.]
36.70B.150 Local governments not planning under
the growth management act may use provisions. A local
government not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 may
incorporate some or all of the provisions of RCW
11995 RCW Supp----page 3761