The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/28/96 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 239 4TH STREET BREMERTON, WA 98337 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AUGUST 28, 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 3. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 4. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 5. MAYOR'S REPORT 6 o PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) NEW BUSINESS A. Lease/Agreement With AT&T Wireless Services #AB96-181 ~ (Also Known As Western Telepage) RESOLUTION A. Resolution #2554, In Support Of Recommending That citizens Of Bremerton Vote For "911 Ballot Measure" B. Resolution #2555, Adopting The Capital #AB96-183 ~_ Improvement Program (CIP) For The Years 1996-2001 C. Resolution #2556, Designating Kitsap County ~AB96-184 55 Lead Agency For Development Of A Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan ORDINANCES A. Ordinance (First Reading) Authorizing The Issue Of $346,938.50 LID Bonds And Accepting The Purchase Offer Of Seafirst Bank (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE) #AB96-185 ~ 10. PUBLIC HEARING - 6:00 PM OR LATER A. Appeal Of Planning Commission Decision For Special Use Permit And Site Plan Review For Assisted Living Concepts Group Residential Facility B. Public Hearing and Ordinance (First Reading) To Amend The "Administration" Section Of The Bremerton Zoning Ordinance AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Lease/Agreement with AT&T Wireless Services (Also known as Western Telepage) FOR AGENDA OF: August ,2~i. 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT: Pu~liQ Work~ & Utils ORIGINATOR: P.R.LUCAS. ADMIN DATE SUBMI%-r~o: AUGUST 12, 19~36 CLEAR/kNCES: (Co,~uentpn b~c~.~ 3. Director, PW & ~tL~sJ v~j~ (2) City At torne~~ City Treasurer Operations Cortlm '~~ Fiscal & Budget F~iHIBITS: (1) Copy of Lease/Agreement for Olympus Drive Site Copy of Lease/Agreement for Cheryl Drive Site MAYOR~¢--~ COUNCIL PRESIDERS 4. SUqMb~=RY STA'rw~fENT ~ IAEOUIREM_ElqT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The City of Bremerton formerly had three leases with AT&T (2 for the Cheryl Drive site and one for the Olympus Drive site) . Monthly payments for these three sites was approximately $1100.00. During renegotiations, it was determined that it would be prudent to re-examine monthly rates and to combine the three leases into two. The method of payment would be based on the total number of frequencies utilized by Western Telepage at $250.00 per frequency. They currently had five frequencies and were adding one additional one which brought the monthly rent to $1500.00 (excluding tax) . RECQ~NDATION: That the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the same, subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Public Works and Utilities Director ENFORCEMENT OFFICIkL: Administrative Analyst EXPIRATION DATE: N/A REVIEW DATE: 5 Years from execution PULLED [] TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION [] APPROVED [] DISAPPROV~o [] D34ENDED [] 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 4. SUMMARY STA'r~MENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Loss of revenues of $1500.00 per month to the City. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES. EOUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES: None 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: Communications Site Lease\Olympus Drive THIS LEASE AGREEMENT entered into by and between the City of Bremerton, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, as Lessor (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Western Telepage, Inc., d/b/a AT&T Wireless Services, (hereinafter referred to as "Lessee"). W I TN E S SETH: 1. Premises. The city is the legal owner of the following described real property: A communication facility located in the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M. The parcel is owned by the City of Bremerton and bounded by Olympus Drive on the east, East 31st Street on the north and Sanders Avenue on the west, more particularly described as Municipal Area #2. The City hereby leases to the Lessee and the Lessee hereby leases facilities for Lessee's communication equipment and frequencies, which equipment and frequencies are more particularly described in attached Exhibit "A", included herein by this reference, together with all the rights, privileges, easements and appurtenances thereon (hereinafter referred to as "Premises"), for the uses and purposes described herein. Lessee shall not use any portion of the leased property in any way which interferes with the operations of Lessor or its sublessee. Such interference shall be deemed a material breach by Lessee, and Lessor shall have the right, in addition to any other rights that it may have at law or in equity, to elect to enjoin such interference or to terminate this lease after thirty (30) days notice of such interference and Lessee has not taken measures necessary to prevent its equipment from interfering. Lessor agrees that Lessee shall suffer no interference from users, or equipment, or frequencies located at the site subsequent in time to Lessee. In the event of such interference, Lessor agrees to assist Lessee in satisfactorily terminating the interference. Lessor shall LEASE AGREEMENT --1-- N-W£ST2.ESE - Disk 13 - 2/21/96 0 l ymgus Drive provide Lessee wi~p~d Z. Uses and Purposes. Lessee shall have the use and occupancy of the Premises for the purpose of transmission and reception of radio communication signals in any and all frequencies. Notwithstanding any other provisions herein, the Lessee shall not enter into any sublease of the premises or any portion thereof or any assignment of any interest in this Agreement, except Lessee's affiliates or subsidiaries, whether long or short term in nature, or engaged in any activity with respect to or on the premises, other than the express use(s) and purpose(s) stipulated herein, without obtaining the prior written authorization therefor from the City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Lessee may erect any buildings and structures or perform any other necessary construction required to render service consistent with the purposes stated herein, including installation, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and upgrade, upon receiving the prior written consent of Lessor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. It is understood and agreed that the Lessee's ability to use the property for the "use" as described herein is contingent upon the Lessee obtaining and maintaining after the execution date of the Agreement all certificates, permits and any other approval as may be required by any federal, state, or local authorities. Lessor shall cooperate with the Lessee in its efforts to obtain such approvals and shall take no action which would~ adversely affect the current use of the property with respect to the proposed use thereof by the Lessee. Lessee represents and warrants during the term of this Agreement that it has full power and authority from the Federal Communications Commission (or any state or federal agency having jurisdiction) to install, operate and maintain its equipment in the manner contemplated under this Agreement. Lessee agrees to use the facilities leased hereunder only herein and to comply with all municipal laws and ordinances. LEASE AGREEMENT -2- N-tJEST2.LSE - Disk 13 - 2/21/96 Olympus Drive for the purpose contemplated applicable state, county, or Lessor shall have the exclusive right to inspect the Lessee's facilities and equipment at any time during the term(s) of this Agreement to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions herein; Provided, however, Lessee has the right to be present at all inspections of Lessee's facilities and equipment, and Lessor shall give Lessee at least 24 hours prior notice of such intent. 3. Term. The term of this lease, and any extensions, shall be as follows: Five (5) years commencing on the day this Agreement is fully executed. Lessee shall abide by all of the terms and conditions of this lease and shall pay rent to the City as hereinafter set forth. In addition, the parties mutually agree to a five (5) year renewal of this agreement upon original termination unless either party gives written notice of its intent not to renew at least 120 days prior to the end of the initial term. In the event of the inability of the City to deliver possession of the premises, or any portion thereof, at the time of the commencement of the term of this lease, neither the City nor any of the City's officers, employees, or agents shall be liable for any damage caused thereby, nor shall this lease thereby become void or voidable, nor shall the term herein specified be in any way extended, but in such event, the Lessee shall not be liable for any rent until such time as the City can deliver possession. If the Lessee shall take possession of the premises prior to the commencement date of this lease, the Lessee and the City agree to be bound by all of the provisions and obligations hereunder during such prior period. 4. Compensations. Lessee shall pay Lessor a monthly rental charge of~'T~o Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00)Der month du ' ' r of th~Lease-~i~=~i~c~s leasehold excise tax. At the beginning of each successive year thereafter, the monthly rent shall automatically be adjusted by the increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumer Scale (CPI-U) U.S. All City Average (1982-84=100), as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the last month for which statistics are posted prior to effective date of this agreement (the "Index"). However, rent shall not, in any case, decrease. LEASE AGREEMENT -3- N-WEST2.LSE - Disk 13 - 2/21/96 0 [ yr~pus Drive In the event an additional frequency is added to the above- described site, there will be an increase in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00), per frequency, to Lessee's monthly rental charge. 5. Repairs and Alterations. The Premises used by Lessee shall be kept in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. Lessee shall not permit waste, damage, or injury to the premises. Lessor shall also maintain its real estate and personal property in reasonable, commercial, and tenantable condition. Lessee shall have the right, at its expense, to erect and maintain on the premises improvements, personal property and facilities, including base, radio transmitting and receiving antennas. The Antenna Facility shall remain the exclusive property of Lessee. Lessor shall provide Lessee ingress, egress, and access over the property to the premises adequate to service the premises and the Antenna Facilities at all times during this lease at no additional charge to Lessee. 6. Licenses and Permits. Upon commencement of the lease, Lessee shall be responsible for real property, excise leasehold, business and occupation, and/or other taxes or licenses which may in the future be assessed as a result of the Lessee's operations. 7. Taxes. Lessee shall pay any personal property taxes assessed on, or any portion of such taxes attributable to, the Antenna Facilities. Lessor ~hall pay all real proper~y taxes attributable to the property~ 8. Liability and Insurance. a. Insurance: Lessee, at its own expense, shall provide and keep in force with companies acceptable to City public liability insurance for the benefit of City and Lessee jointly against liability for bodily injury and property damage in the amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00). Lessee shall furnish City with a certificate of such policy within thirty (30) days of the commencement date of this Lease and thereafter shall satisfy city that such policy is in full force and effect. Such policy shall LEASE AGREEMENT -4- N-NEST2.LSE - Disk 13 - 2/21/96 0 [ yn~Dus Drive name City as an additional insured and shall be primary and noncontributing with any insurance carried by City. The policy shall further provide that it shall not be canceled or altered without twenty (20) days prior written notice to City. b. Indemnity: Lessee shall defend, indemnify, and save harmless the City, its appointed and elected officers and employees, from and against any and all liability, loss, costs, damage and expense, including costs and attorney fees in defense thereof because of actions, claims or lawsuits for damages resulting from personal or bodily injury, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained or alleged to have been sustained by any person or persons and on account of damage to property, arising or alleged to have arisen directly or indirectly out of or in consequence of or the performance of this Agreement, by Lessee, its employees and/or agents whether such injuries to persons or damage to property is due to the negligence of Lessee, its subcontractors, agents, successors or assigns. This provision shall be applicable to the City, its agents, employees, representatives or other persons who are judicially, or by mutual agreement between the parties, found to be jointly or solely negligent for such damage or injury. c. Liens: Lessee shall not permit any lien to be imposed upon the property of Lessor as a result of work done by or on behalf of user and shall indemnify and hold Lessor harmless against any and all expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in connection with any such lien. 9. Technical Standards. Lessee shall operate its equipment in complete compliance with rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission and shall furnish Lessor with a copy of its current license and all subsequent renewals for Lessor's files. A copy of said license shall be posted at all times on Lessee's equipment at subject site. Lessee shall operate its equipment in compliance with the applicable standards for this site as established by the Western Washington Cooperative Interference Committee (WWCIC) attached hereto, to wit: Standards l(e), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (except vinyl cladding), 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 LEASE AGREEMENT -5- N-WEST2.LSE - D~sk 13 - 2/21/96 Olympus Dr~ve and 17. 10. Environmental Laws. Lessee represents, warrants and agrees that it will conduct its activities on the Premises in compliance with all applicable Environmental Laws (as defined below). City represents, warrants and agrees that it has in the past and will in the future conduct its activities on the Property in compliance with all applicable Environmental Laws and that the Premises is free of Hazardous Substance (as defined below) as of the date of this Lease. Lessee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any and all claims, causes of action, demands and liability including, but not limited to, damages, costs, expenses, assessments, penalties, fines, losses, judgments and attorney's fees that City may suffer due to the existence or discovery of any Hazardous Substance on the Premises or the migration of any Hazardous Substance to other properties or released into the environment, arising solely from Lessee's activities on the Property. City agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Lessee harmless from and against any and all claims, causes of action, demands and liability including, but not limited to, damages, costs, expenses, assessments, penalties, fines, losses, judgments and attorney's fees that Lessee may suffer due to the existence or discovery of any Hazardous Substance on the premises or the migration of any Hazardous Substance to other properties or released into the environment, that relate to or arise solely from City's activities during this Lease and from all activities on the Premises prior to the commencement of this Lease. The indemnifications in this section specifically include costs incurred in connection with any investigation of site conditions or any cleanup, remedial, removal or restoration work required by any governmental authority. As used in this Lease, "Environmental Laws" means all federal, state and local environmental laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, judicial or administrative decrees, orders, decisions, authorizations or permits pertaining to the protection of human LEASE AGREEMENT -6- ~-WEST2.LSE - D~sk 13 - 2/21/96 O[yT~p~s Drive health and/or the environment, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq., the Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., Planning and Community Right to Know Act, 42 U.S.C. including, but not limited to, the 6901, et seq., Federal Water the Emergency 1101, et seq., the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq., the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2601, et seq. the Oil Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 2701, et seq., and Washington State laws, or any other comparable local, state or federal statue or ordinance pertaining to the environment or natural resources and all regulations pertaining thereto. As used in this Lease, "Hazardous Substance" means any hazardous or toxic substances as defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended from time to time; any hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended from time to time; any and all material waste or substance defined as hazardous pursuant to any federal, state or local laws or regulations or order; and any substance which is or becomes regulated by any federal, state or local governmental authority; any oil, petroleum products and their by-products. This definition includes all federal, state or local land use laws dealing with environmental sensitivity including, but not limited to, laws regarding wetlands, steep slopes, aquifers, critical or sensitive areas, shorelines, fish and wildlife habitat, or of historical or archeological significance. ll. Termination of Lease. a. Either party may terminate this lease upon default of any covenant or term hereof by the other, which shall be effective thirty (30) days following receipt of such notice unless Lessee cures defaults within said period. b. Either party may terminate for convenience upon one hundred twenty (120) days notice. c. Notice of the intent to terminate shall be given in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested. LEASE AGREEMENT -7- N-%4EST2.LSE - Disk 13 - 2/21/96 Olympus Drive 12. Agreement, as good as condition as excepted. Upon expiration of reasonable period of time Surrender. Upon termination or expiration of this Lessee shall surrender such facilities to the Lessor in when initially leased, normal wear this lease, Lessee shall, within a agreed to by both parties, remove its personal property and improvements, except for the concrete foundation for any improvements and the communications tower, unless rejected by Lessor, and restore the property to its original condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted. 13. Notices. All notices to be given by either of the parties hereto to the other party shall be in writing and may either be delivered personally or may be deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, as either certified or regular mail, addressed as specified below, or to such other address as either party may later designate in writing. Notices sent by mail shall be deemed to have been given 48 hours after properly mailed; the postmark affixed by the United States Post Office shall be conclusive evidence of the date of mailing. Lessor: City of Bremerton Department of Public Work & Utilities 3027 Olympus Drive Bremerton, WA. 98337. Lessee: AT&T Wireless Services 3015 ll2th Avenue N.E., #100 Bellevl/e, Washington 98004 Attn: Tech Ops Manager Phone: (206) 803-1599 Copies to: AT&T Wireless Services 110 - ll0th Avenue N.E., #200 Bellevue, Washington 98004 ATTN: One-Way Messaging Dept. Phone: (206) 990-4400 14. Relationship. In no event shall the City be construed, or held to have become in any way or for any purpose a partner, associate, or joint venturer, of the Lessee or any party associated with the Lessee in the conduct of the Lessee's business or LEASE AGREEMENT -8- 14-%4EST2.LSE ~ O~sk 13 - 2/21/96 Olympus Dr~ve otherwise. This lease does not constitute the Lessee as the agent or legal representative of the City for any purposes whatsoever. 15. Amen4ments: The parties hereto expressly reserve the right to renegotiate the provisions hereof, including the term of this lease, from time to time as may be necessary and to amend this lease accordingly; Provided, however, That no alteration or modification of the terms or conditions hereof shall be valid and binding, unless made in writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the parties hereto. 15. Assig~ent: Lessee may assign this lease upon notice to Lessor to any person or entity with an ownership interest in Lessee, any affiliate of such person or entity, or any person or entity that acquires Lessee's business. Additionally, Lessee may, upon notice to Lessor, mortgage or grant a security interest in this lease and the antenna facilities, and may assign this lease and the antenna facilities to any such mortgagees or holders of security interests, including their successors or assigns (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Mortgagees"). Lessor agrees to notify Lessee and Lessee's mortgagees simultaneously of any default by Lessee and to give mortgagees the same right to cure any default as Lessee, except that the cure period for any mortgagee shall not be less than ten (10) days after receipt of the default notice. · 7. Waiver of Default. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants, and conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed as, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the LEASE AGREEMENT -9- N-~EST2.LSE - Disk 13 - 2/21/96 0 [ y~F~JS Drive terms, covenants, and conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 18. Miscellaneous. a. The substantially prevailing party in any litigation arising hereunder shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, including appeals, if any. b. Each party agrees to furnish the other, within ten (10) days after request, such truthful estoppel information as the other may reasonably request. c. This lease constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties, and supersedes all offers, negotiations and other agreements. There are no representations or understandings of any kind not set forth herein. Any amendments to said lease must be in writing and executed by both parties. d. If either party is represented by a real estate broker in this transaction, that party shall be fully responsible for any fee due such broker. e. Lessor agrees to cooperate with Lessee in executing any documents (including a Memorandum of Lease) necessary to protect Lessee's rights hereunder or Lessee's use of the premises. 19. Nondiscrimination. Lessee shall not discriminate in employment or services to the public on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status or disability, except employment actions based qualification. 20. Effectuation of Agreement. on a bona fide occupational In order to be effective, this lease must be (1) LEASE AGREEMENT -10- 0 [Wnpus Drive signed by an authorized representative of the Lessee and returned to the city at the address set forth below accompanied by any required policy of insurance, and (2) Bremerton, and attested to by signed by the Mayor of the City of the City Clerk. LESSEE: WESTERN TELEPAGE, INC. d/b/a AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES LESSOR: CITY OF BREMERTON DATED: DEP~ EN PROVAL: Director of Pu~b~Works & Utilities LYNN HORTON, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: IAN R. SIEVERS City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON) : ss. cou. TY oF KITSAP On this ~ day of ~%~C~/ , 199~, before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn personally appeared~ /~ /~ ~ to me known to be the~/~b~/~ ~ of Western Telepage, Inc., d/b/a AT&T Wireless Services, the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the LEASE AGREEMENT --ll- N-~ES?2.LSE - Disk 13 -- 2/21/96 0 [ ympus Drive uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that _he was/were authorized to execute said instrument. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ~ day of Notary Public in and for ~e ~tate of Washington, residing at My appointment expires: ~/~ ./~ . STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ·· ss. COUNTY OF KITSAP ) On this day personally appeared before me Mayor Lynn Horton, Mayor of the City of Bremerton, the City that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said City, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that she was authorized to execute said instrument. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of , 1995. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Bremerton. My appointment expires: RECEIVED FOR FIL[NG: KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK LEASE AGREEMENT --12-- N-IdEST2.[.SE - Disk 13 - 2/21/96 0 [ ympus Drive (1) D8222 ANTENNA TOP OF ANTENNA @ 65' CHANNEL P-6 FREQUENCY 158.7 D8225 ANTENNA AT 50' CENTERLINE 8' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE 100' ROHN 80 LA,]'lC E TOWER WAVEGUIDE BRIDGE EQUIPMENT SHELTER QT7505 CHANNEL P-6 FREQUENCY 158.7 ROOF MOUNTED SATELLITE -- GENERATOR ROOM SITE PLAN NTS *OTHER ANTENNAS OMI~I'ED FOR CLARITY GWEST ELEVATION NTS AT&T Wireless Services MESSAGING DIVISION 11o - 1lOTH AVE. N.E. sUFrE 200 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 BREMERTON OLYMPUS SITE SITE PLAN & ELEVATION 15 REV: B IDATE: 7/29/96 FILE NAME: OLYM-B ISHEET: 1 DRAWN BY: PBF ISCALE: NTS OF I LEASE ~GREEMENT ~'4~-~:~O~,.~ ~0~- ~tCZ~F~O Communications Site Lease\Cheryl Street THIS LEASE AGREEMENT entered into by and between the City of Bremerton, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, as Lessor (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Western Telepage, Inc., d/b/a AT&T Wireless Services, (hereinafter referred to as "Lessee"). WI TNE S SETH: 1. Premises. The City is the legal owner of the following described real property: A parcel of land located in the N.W. 1/4 of the S.W. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 of Section Township 24 N., Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian. Known as CS-18 Coast Guard Site located at Cheryl Street and Olympus Avenue in East Bremerton; ALSO: A 40' x 80' parcel of land located in the S.W. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 of Section 1, T. 24 N., R. 1 E. of the Willamette Meridian. Parcel is within the boundaries of a ten acre parcel (660' x 660') owned by the City of Bremerton, bounded by Cheryl Street on the North and Forest Drive on the East, more particularly described by City of Bremerton Survey Plat, Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. The City hereby leases to the Lessee and the Lessee hereby leases facilities for Lessee's communication equipment and frequencies, which equipment and frequencies are more particularly described in attached Exhibit "A", included herein by this reference, together with all the rights, privileges, easements and appurtenances thereon (hereinafter referred to as "Premises"), for the uses and purposes described herein. Lessee shall not use any portion of the leased property in any way which interferes with the operations of Lessor or its sublessee. Such interference shall be deemed a material breach by Lessee, and Lessor shall have the right, in addition to any other LEASE AGREEMENT --1-- N-WEST1.LSE - Disk 13 - 2/21/96 Cheryl Street rights that it may have at law or in equity, to elect to enjoin such interference or to terminate this lease after thirty (30) days notice of such interference and Lessee has not taken measures necessary to prevent its equipment from interfering. Lessor agrees that Lessee shall suffer no interference from users, or equipment, or frequencies located at the site subsequent in time to Lessee. In the event of such interference, Lessor agrees to assist Lessee in satisfactorily terminating the interference. Lessor shall provide Lessee with power and an emergency generator. 2. Uses and Purposes. Lessee shall have the use and occupancy of the Premises for the purpose of transmission and reception of radio coFanunication signals in any and all frequencies. Notwithstanding any other provisions herein, the Lessee shall not enter into any sublease of the premises or any portion thereof or any assignment of any interest in this Agreement, except Lessee's affiliates or subsidiaries, whether long or short term in nature, or engaged in any activity with respect to or on the premises, other than the express use(s) and purpose(s) stipulated herein, without obtaining the prior written authorization therefor from the City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Lessee may erect any buildings and structures or perform any other necessary construction required to render service consistent with the purposes stated herein, including installation, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and upgrade, upon receiving the prior written consent of Lessor, which consent sh~ll not be unreasonably withheld. It is understood and agreed that the Lessee's ability to use the property for the "use" as described herein is contingent upon the Lessee obtaining and maintaining after the execution date of the Agreement all certificates, permits and any other approval as may be required by any federal, state, or local authorities. Lessor shall cooperate with the Lessee in its efforts to obtain such approvals and shall take no action which would adversely affect the current use of the property with respect to the proposed use thereof by the Lessee. LEASE AGREEMENT -2- N-WEST1.LSE - Disk 13 - 2/21/96 Cheryl Street Lessee represents and warrants during the term of this Agreement that it has full power and authority from the Federal Communications Commission (or any state or federal agency having jurisdiction) to install, operate and maintain its equipment in the manner contemplated under this Agreement. Lessee agrees to use the facilities leased hereunder only for the purpose contemplated herein and to comply with all applicable state, county, or municipal laws and ordinances. Lessor shall have the exclusive right to inspect the Lessee's facilities and equipment at any time during the term(s) of this Agreement to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions herein; Provided, however, Lessee has the right to be present at all inspections of Lessee's facilities and equipment, and Lessor shall give Lessee at least 24 hours prior notice of such intent. 3. Term. The term of this lease, and any extensions, shall be as follows: Five (5) years commencing on the day this Agreement is fully executed. Lessee shall abide by all of the terms and conditions of this lease and shall pay rent to the City as hereinafter set forth. In addition, the parties mutually agree to a five (5) year renewal of this agreement upon original termination unless either party gives written notice of its intent not to renew at least 120 days prior to the end of the initial term. In the event of the inability of the City to deliver possession of the premises, or any portion thereof, at the time of the commencement of the term of this lease, neither the City nor any of the City's officers, employees, or agents shall be liable for any damage caused thereby, nor shall this lease thereby become void or voidable, nor shall the term herein specified be in any way extended, but in such event, the Lessee shall not be liable for any rent until such time as the City can deliver possession. If the Lessee shall take possession of the premises prior to the commencement date of this lease, the Lessee and the City agree to be bound by all of the provisions and obligations hereunder during such prior period. 4. Compensation. Lessee shall pay Lessor a monthly rental charge of One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) LEASE AGREEMENT -3- N-~ES?I.LSE - D~sk 13 - 2/21/96 Cheryl Street per month during the first year of this lease which includes leasehold excise tax. At the beginning of each successive year thereafter, the monthly rent shall automatically be adjusted by the increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumer Scale (CPI-U) U.S. All City Average (1982-84=100), as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the last month for which statistics are posted prior to effective date of this agreement (the "Index"). However, rent shall not, in any case, decrease. In the event an additional frequency is added to either of the above-described sites, there will be an increase in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00), per frequency, to Lessee's monthly rental charge. 5. Repairs and Alterations. The Premises used by Lessee shall be kept in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. Lessee shall not permit waste, damage, or injury to the premises. Lessor shall also maintain its real estate and personal property in reasonable, commercial, and tenantable condition. Lessee shall have the right, at its expense, to erect and maintain on the premises improvements, personal property and facilities, including base, radio transmitting and receiving antennas. The Antenna Facility shall remain the exclusive property of Lessee. Lessor shall provide Lessee ingress, egress, and access over the property to the premises adequate to service the premises and the Antenna Facilities at all additional charge to Lessee. 6. Licenses and Permits. Lessee shall be responsible for times during this lease at no Upon commencement of the lease, real property, excise leasehold, business and occupation, and/or other taxes or licenses which may in the future be assessed as a result of the Lessee's operations. 7. Taxes. Lessee shall pay any personal property taxes assessed on, or any portion of such taxes Antenna Facilities. Lessor shall pay all attributable to the property. 8. Liability and Insurance. a. Insurance: Lessee, LEASE AGREEMENT -4- H-~EST1.LSE - O~sk 13 - 2/21/96 Cheryl Street attributable to, the real property taxes at its own expense, shall provide and keep in force with companies acceptable to City public liability insurance for the benefit of City and Lessee jointly against liability for bodily injury and property damage in the amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00). Lessee shall furnish city with a certificate of such policy within thirty (30) days of the commencement date of this Lease and thereafter shall satisfy City that such policy is in full force and effect. Such policy shall name City as an additional insured and shall be primary and noncontributing with any insurance carried by City. The policy shall further provide that it shall not be canceled or altered without twenty (20) days prior written notice to City. b. Indemnity: Lessee shall defend, indemnify, and save harmless the City, its appointed and elected officers and employees, from and against any and all liability, loss, costs, damage and expense, including costs and attorney fees in defense thereof because of actions, claims or lawsuits for damages resulting from personal or bodily injury, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained or alleged to have been sustained by any person or persons and on account of damage to property, arising or alleged to have arisen directly or indirectly out of or in consequence of or the performance of this Agreement, by Lessee, its employees and/or agents whether such injuries to persons or damage to property is due to the negligence of Lessee, its subcontractors, agents, successors or assigns. This provision shall be applicable to the City, its agents, employees, representatives or other persons who are judicially, or by mutual agreement between the parties, found to be jointly or solely negligent for such damage or injury. c. Liens: Lessee shall not permit any lien to be imposed upon the property of Lessor as a result of work done by or on behalf of user and shall indemnify and hold Lessor harmless against any and all expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in connection with any such lien. 9. Technical Standards. Lessee shall operate its equipment in complete compliance with rules and regulations of the Federal LEASE AGREEMENT -5- N-~EST1.LSE - Disk 13 - 2/21/96 Cheryl Street Co~munications Com~mission and shall furnish Lessor with a copy of its current license and all subsequent renewals for Lessor's files. A copy of said license shall be posted at all times on Lessee's equipment at subject site. Lessee shall operate its equipment in compliance with the applicable standards for this site as established by the Western Washington Cooperative Interference Committee (WWCIC) attached hereto, to wit: Standards l(e), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (except vinyl cladding), 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. 10. Environmental Laws. Lessee represents, warrants and agrees that it will conduct its activities on the Premises in compliance with all applicable Environmental Laws (as defined below). City represents, warrants and agrees that it has in the past and will in the future conduct its activities on the Property in compliance with all applicable Environmental Laws and that the Premises is free of Hazardous Substance (as defined below) as of the date of this Lease. Lessee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any and all claims, causes of action, demands and liability including, but not limited to, damages, costs, expenses, assessments, penalties, fines, losses, judgments and attorney's fees that City may suffer due to the existence or discovery of any Hazardous Substance on the Premises or the migration of any Hazardous Substance to other properties or released into the environment, arising solely from Lessee's activities on the Property. City agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Lessee harmless from and against any and all claims, causes of action, demands and liability including, but not limited to, damages, costs, expenses, assessments, penalties, fines, losses, judgments and attorney's fees that Lessee may suffer due to the existence or discovery of any Hazardous Substance on the property or the migration of any Hazardous Substance to other properties or released into the environment, that relate to or arise solely from City's activities during this Lease and from all activities on the Premises prior to the commencement of this Lease. LEASE AGREEMENT -6- N-WEST1.LSE - Disk 13 - 2/21/96 Cheryl Street The indemnifications in this section specifically include costs incurred in connection with any investigation of site conditions or any cleanup, remedial, removal or restoration work required by any governmental authority. As used in this Lease, "Environmental Laws" means all federal, state and local environmental laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, judicial or administrative decrees, orders, decisions, authorizations or permits pertaining to the protection of human health and/or the environment, including, but not limited to, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq., the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq., the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, 42 U.S.C. 1101, et seq., the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq., the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2601, et seq. the Oil Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 2701, et seq., and Washington State laws, or any other comparable local, state or federal statue or ordinance pertaining to the environment or natural resources and all regulations pertaining thereto. As used in this Lease, "Hazardous Substance" means any hazardous or toxic substances as defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended from time to time; any hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended from time to time; any and all material waste or substance defined as hazardous pursuant to any federal, state or local laws or regulations or order; and any substance which is or becomes regulated by any federal, state or local governmental authority; any oil, petroleum products and their by-products. This definition includes all federal, state or local land use laws dealing with environmental sensitivity including, but not limited to, laws regarding wetlands, steep slopes, aquifers, critical or sensitive areas, shorelines, fish and wildlife habitat, or of historical or archeological significance. LEASE AGREEMENT -7- N-WEST1.LSE - Disk 13 - 2/21/96 Cheryl Street 11. Termination of Lease. a. Either party may terminate this lease upon default of any covenant or term hereof by the other, which shall be effective thirty (30) days following receipt of such notice unless Lessee cures defaults within said period. b. Either party may terminate for convenience upon one hundred twenty (120) days notice. c. Notice of the intent to terminate shall be given in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested. 12. Surrender. Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, Lessee shall surrender such facilities to the Lessor in as good as condition as when initially leased, normal wear excepted. Upon expiration of this lease, Lessee shall, within a reasonable period of time agreed to by both parties, remove its personal property and improvements, except for the concrete foundation for any improvements and the communications tower, unless rejected by Lessor, and restore the property to its original condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted. 13. Notices. All notices to be given by either of the parties hereto to the other party shall be in writing and may either be delivered personally or may be deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, as either certified or regular mail, addressed as specified below, or to such other address as either party may later designate in writing. Notices sent by mail shall be deemed to have been given 48 hours after properly mailed; the postmark affixed by the United States Post Office shall be conclusive evidence of the date of mailing. Lessor: City of Bremerton Department of Public Work & Utilities 3027 Olympus Drive Bremerton, WA. 98337 Lessee: AT&T Wireless Services 3015 ll2th Avenue N.E., #100 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attn: Tech Ops Manager Phone: (206) 803-1599 LEASE AGREEMENT -8- N-WESTI.LSE - Disk 13 - 2/21/96 Cheryl Street Copies to: AT&T Wireless Services 110 - ll0th Avenue N.E., #200 Bellevue, Washington 98004 ATTN: One-Way Messaging Dept. Phone: (206) 990-4400 14. Relationship. In no event shall the City be construed, or held to have become in any way or for any purpose a partner, associate, or joint venturer, of the Lessee or any party associated with the Lessee in the conduct of the Lessee's business or otherwise. This lease does not constitute the Lessee as the agent or legal representative of the City for any purposes whatsoever. 15. ~endments: The parties hereto expressly reserve the right to renegotiate the provisions hereof, including the term of this lease, from time to time as may be necessary and to amend this lease accordingly; Provided, however, That no alteration or modification of the terms or conditions hereof shall be valid and binding, unless made in writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the parties hereto. 16. Assignment: Lessee may assign this lease upon notice to Lessor to any person or entity with an ownership interest in Lessee, any affiliate of such person or entity, or any person or entity that acquires Lessee's business. Additionally, Lessee may, upon notice to Lessor, mortgage or grant a security interest in this lease and the antenna facilities, and may assign this lease and the antenna facilities to any such mortgagees or holders of security interests, including their successors or assigns (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Mortgagees"). Lessor agrees to notify Lessee and Lessee's mortgagees simultaneously of any default by Lessee and to give mortgagees the same right to cure LEASE AGREEMENT -9- N-WEST1.LSE - Disk 13 - 2/21/96 Cheryl Street any default as Lessee, except that the cure period for any mortgagee shall not be less than ten (10) days after receipt of the default notice. 17. Waiver of Default. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants, and conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed as, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants, and conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 18. Miscellaneous. a. The substantially prevailing party in any litigation arising hereunder shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, including appeals, if any. b. Each party agrees to furnish the other, within ten (10) days after request, such truthful estoppel information as the other may reasonably request. c. This lease constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties, and supersedes all offers, negotiations and other agreements. There are no representations or understandings of any kind not set forth herein. Any amendments to said lease must be in writing and executed by both parties. d. If either party is represented by a real estate broker in this transaction, that party shall be fully responsible for any fee due such broker. e. Lessor agrees to cooperate with Lessee in executing any documents (including a Memorandum of Lease) necessary to protect Lessee's rights hereunder or Lessee's use of the premises. LEASE AGREEMENT --10-- N-WEST1.LSE - Disk 13 - 2/21/96 £hery[ Street 19. Nondiscrimination. Lessee shall not discriminate in employment or services to the public on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status or disability, except employment actions based on a bona fide occupational qualification. 20. Effectuation of Agreement. In order to be effective, this lease must be (1) signed by an authorized representative of the Lessee and returned to the city at the address set forth below accompanied by any required policy of insurance, and (2) signed by the Mayor of the City of Bremerton, and attested to the City Clerk. by LESSEE: WESTERN TELEPAGE, INC. d/b/a AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES LESSOR: CITY OF BREMERTON DATED: Director of Public Works & Utilities APPROVED AS TO FORM: LYNN HORTON, Mayor IAN R. SIEVERS City Attorney LEASE AGREEMENT --ll-- N-WEST1.LSE - Disk 13 - 2/21/96 Cheryl Street STATE OF WASHINGTON) : SS. CO TY oF KITSAP On this ~ day of ~t.~/ , 199~ before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn personally appeared/~//~/~3~/d~ ~ to me known to be the ~a~ ~ of Western Telepage, Inc., d/b/a AT&T Wireless Services, the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that _he was/were authorized to execute said instrument. L VEN under my hand and official seal this day of , 199~. /Notary Public in and for~h~state of Washington, residing at~'~9'~' My appointment expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) : SS. COUNTY OF KITSAP ) On this day personally appeared before me Mayor Lynn Horton, Mayor of the City of Bremerton, the City that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said City, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that she was authorized to execute said instrument. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this , 1995. day of Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Bremerton. My appointment expires: RECEIVED FOR FILING: KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK LEASE AGREEMENT --12-- N-%JEST1.LSE - Disk 13 - 2/21/96 Cheryl Street 60' 10' WIDE GATE ONE-WAY EQUIPMENT WIDE GATE QSITE PLAN NOT TO SCAL~ (3) ONE-WAY (1) DIPOLE TX ANTENNA 0 140' (1) D~POL[ TX ANTENNA O 100' 0) ~ o*s. o 20' · ALL OTHER ~N~TENNAS OMITTED FOR CLARF~f oNORTH ELEVAIION AT&;T Wireless Services MESSAGING DIVISION 1~0 - 1lOTH AVE. N.E. SUITE 200 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 BREMERTON COAST GUARD SITE & ELEVATION IREV: B I DATE: 7/29/96 FILE NAME: BREM-EI ISHEET: 1 OF 1 DRAWN BY: PBF I SCALE: N.T.S. AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: RES'0LUTION #2554 FOR AGENDi~ OF: Auaust . 19q6 REQUESTING CITY COUNCIL UNIFICATION/ ORIGINATING DEPT: Fire SUPPORT IN RECOMMENDING THAT CITIZENS ORIGINATOR: Chief Mi~k M~k:;n!~y OF BREMERTON VOTE FOR BALLOT MEASURE "911" DATE SUBMI~ED: August ?0~ 1996 2. ~: (cogent on if necessar~ >~f/~/ 0 ty Attorney Cas to form>__< ~hief of Police DuFrense ~ ]~ %~,~ 3. EXHIBITS: Attached Resolution ENDORSEMENT/`< I~FOP~TION __ APPROVED BY COUNCILPR~S~-{~DENT FOR SUBNIT~AL: 4. SUt~Y STATEMENT A_ND REOUIREMENT FOR'COUNCIL ACTION: I am coming before the City Council to ask your support in a unified message to our citizens in that they have the opportunity to vote a do pass vote to upgrade our county-wide 9-1-1 Emergency and Public Safety Dispatch Center. The Building, equip- ment and tower all need upgrading in order to adequately handle the growing volume of emergency calls. COI~ENDATION: I recommend the City Council support the 911 Bond issue on the September 17, 1996, ba I I ct. Motion: To pass Resolution ~/2554. 9 o RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: Chief McKinley Chief M~Kinl~y N/A N/A PULLED __ TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED __ DATE: 11. AMENDED __ AGENDA~ILL NO: 2. CLEARANCE COM]4ENTS: 5. IMPkCT ON NON-PASSAGE: No financial however, if levy fails, because of. the 'dated-equipment, building and tower, cai Is may be delayed, delaying emergency cre~s to those needing their help. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RES0b~CES: N/A 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: 30 RESOLUTION SUBJECT: CENCOM 800 MHz LEVY WHEREAS, The City of Bremerton is a member organization of the consolidated county-wide 9-1-1 Emergency and Public Safety Dispatch Center known as Kitsap County Central Communication (CENCOM); and, WHEREAS, The City of Bremerton is also a represented member of the CENCOM Policy Board by interlocal Agreement; and, WHEREAS, the existing emergency radio communication system within Kitsap County is functionally obsolete, lacks the capacity to efficiently manage daily public safety operations, and is unable to accommodate predicted future growth; ahd, ' WHEREAS, the CENCOM policy Board has determined it is imperative to the safety and well being of the citizens of Kitsap County to implement a countywide 800 MHz Radio and Microwave Net work and a Mobile Computer Terminal systems for public safety and government operations as soon as possible; and, WHEREAS, The Policy Board further determined the need to replace the existing consolidated Emergency Communication (911) Dispatch facility which is functionally obsolete, inadequate in size, unable to accommodate predicted future growth, does not satisfy current standard practices for connection between structural elements, in some cases does not meet current building code requirements, and is at risk of substantial structural damage and/or partial collapse during an earthquake, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the elected Council of the City of Bremerton do hereby confirm their support for the placement of a countywide excess levy measure on the September 17th, 1996 Primary Election Ballot to secure funding in the amount of $18,400,000 for the 800 MHz Radio and Microwave Network, Mobile Computer Terminal Systems, and the Construction of a 9-1-1 Dispatch Facility. ADOPTED this 28st day of August, 1996 at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Bremerton City Council. John Law, Council President Attest: AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. c~-~'.~'.~' Adopting the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the Years 1996 - 2001 FOR AGENDA Of:~ DATE SUBMITTED:July 19, 1996 2. CLEARANCES; Comment of back if necessary) Dir Ad min Ser. Operations Co~ Fiscal & Budget Comm. ~ ~ c~ /~1~ ~ tf~'' Draft 3. EXHIBITS: ENDORSEMENTS MAYOR~ ~]. '-~L_. INFORMATION APPROVED BY C .O. UNCIL PRESIDENT FOJ~ SUEMtTTA COUNCIL PRESIDF_.~~ 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION; The Mayor and staff have produced the attached CIP document for the years 1996 - 2001. Copies of the draft document have been provided to Council for review and it has been presented to Council committees. It is now requested that the Council adopt the CIP for the years 1996 through 2001. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to pass Resolution No. ~j.~.'.'.'.'.'.'.'~ adopting the City of Bremerton CIP for the years 1996 through 2001. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:Treasurer ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Mayor EXPIRATION DATE: June 30, 2001 REVIEW DATE:June 30, 1997 PULLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED __ 11. AGENDA BILL NO: ~6 - ( ~'3 8B 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Continued work on and revision of the draft CIP. 6, IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES. EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: As presented in the attachment. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: Financial forcasts Utility and other Comp. Plans Community Development CFP RESOLUTION NO..~z~...~-~'""' A RESOLUTION adopting the City of Bremerton 1996-2001 Capital Improvement Program. WHEREAS, THE CITY OF BREMERTON has determined that it is in its best interest to adopt a Capital Improvement Program document; and, WHEREAS, such program document has been prepared based on goals and policies adopted by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, priorities have been set based on input from the involved City Departments, the Mayor as well as the City Council, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton that the 1996-2001 Capital Improvement Program filed in the Office of the City Clerk is hereby adopted. PASSED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, this __ day of , 1996. JOHN LAW Council President AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Solid Waste Management FOR AGENDA OF: Auqust 28, 1996 Resolution ~/2556 Desi§natin§ Kitsap CountyORIGINATING DEPT: Admin. Services As The Lead A~ency For Development Of A ORIGINATOR: K. McCluske¥ Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan DATE SUBMITTED: Auqust 16, 1996 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back Attorney ~~~ utility MAYOR]Q~3,~- 3. EXHIBITS: APPROVED BY COUNCIL PR~TyDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: COUNCIL P ESIDEN SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL/~CTION: The current Solid Waste Management Plan was completed and adopted by all participating parties (cities, Tribes and County) in 1992. RCW 70.95 requires review and revision of solid waste management plans every five years. The RCW allows for cooperative development of the plans and encourages regional solutions to solid waste management. In the past, Kitsap County Public Works, with concurrence from the cities and tribes, has been the lead agency for development of plans for the region. The County is prepared to continue in the role of coordinating the solid waste planning efforts for the Unincorporated county, cities and tribes. We have the option of developing our own plan or participating in coordinated regional planning. The city of Bremerton participated in the advisory committee for the previous plan development and were pleased with the results. Funding will come from an Ecology grant and a county solid waste reserve fund earmarked for planning purposes. There will be no cost to the city. It is recommended that the council adopt the attached resolution assigning Kitsap County lead agency status for the review and update of the current solid waste plans. 8. RECOM~ENDATION: Motion to approve Resolution #~ designating Kitsap County lead agency for development of a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Executive ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Executive EXPIRATION DATE: N/A REVIEW DATE: N/A PULLED TABLED __ COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. APPROVED DATE: 11. NOTICE OF ACTION DISAPPROVED AGENDA BILL NO: 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS ~cont. ): 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (cont.): IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: We would have to develop our own plan. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES None. Bill McKinney will be the representative to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION designating Kitsap County as the Lead Agency for development of a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan WHEREAS, Chapter 70.95.020 RCW assigns primary responsibility for solid waste planning to local government; and WHEREAS, Chapter 70.105.007(3) RCW assigns responsibility for moderate risk waste planning to local government; and WHEREAS, for solid waste and moderate risk waste planning purposes, KJtsap County attributes to the federally-recognized tribes the same status as a city, as referred to in Chapter 70.95 RCW and Chapter 70.105 RCW; and WHEREAS, Chapler 70.95.090 RCW requires the comprehensive solid waste management plan to include the estimated long-range needs for solid waste handling facilities projected twenty years into the future; and WHEREAS, Chapter 70.95.110 RCW requires all solid waste management plans to be reviewed and revised periodically as may be required by the Department of Ecology; and WHEREAS, Chapter 70.95.130 RCW requires a city preparing an independent solid waste management plan to provide for disposal sites wholly within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, Chapter 70.95.080 RCW requires each City to (1) prepare an independent solid waste management plan for integration into the county plan; or (2) enter into an agreement with the County to participate in the preparation of a joint City-County plan; or (3) authorization of the County to prepare a plan for the City's solid waste management for inclusion in the County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan; and WHEREAS, Chapter 70.105.220 RCW requires each local government to prepare a local hazardous waste managernent plan which may be amended as the need arises; and WHEREAS, local governments may choose to either include a moderate risk waste element in their solid waste plans, or develop moderate risk waste plans separately from their solid waste plans, recognizing that if a local government chooses not to combine the two plans, both plans should be coordinated; and WHEREAS, the 1990 Kitsap County Final Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan is separate from the Kitsap County Solid Waste Plan and, in the interest of management and administrative efficiency Kitsap County is desirous of including this plan as an element of the solid waste management plan; and WHEREAS, Chapter 70.95.010 RCW, as amended by SHB1671, state that solutions to the state's solid waste management problems require regional solutions by local governments as well as intergovernmental cooperation; and WHEREAS, KJtsap County has established a Solid Waste Advisory Committee in accordance with Chapter 70.95.165 RCW to assist in the development and review of programs and policies concerning solid waste handling and disposal; and WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee consists of representatives of the incorporated cities, Indian tribes, federal facilities, County Commissioners' districts, and solid waste industry of KJtsap County; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton participated in the preparation of the 1990 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, the 1992 Amendment, and the 1990 Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan through its representative on the Solid Waste Advisory Committee; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for grant application purposes to designate the lead solid waste planning agency, establish the size of the planning area, and for local governments participating in the solid waste management planning process to obtain resolutions for the planning process; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved: 1. Kitsap County, shall act as lead agency for review of the 1990 KJtsap County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (1990 CSWM P) and the 1992 Amendment to the 1990 Kitsap County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (1992 CSWMP Amendment), and for preparation of a Revised Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Revised CSWMP). 2. Kitsap County is authorized to review solid waste planning for the City of Bremerton for inclusion in the Revised CSWMP. 3. Kitsap County is authorized to review the moderate risk waste planning for the City of Bremerton contained in the 1990 Kitsap County Final Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan, and to prepare a Revised Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan for the City of Bremerton to be incorporated into the Revised CSWMP. 4. It is understood that the work associated with resolution items #2 and #3 will be coordinated through the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, and that the Department of Ecology will consider approval of the Revised CSWMP only after all local jurisdictions participating in the Revised CSWMP planning process have adopted the Revised CSWMP by resolution. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this __ 1996. day of JOHN LAW Council President Kitsap County Department of Public Works 614 Division Street (MS-27), Port Orchard, WA 98366-4699 R. W. Casteel, P.E., Director June 10, 1996 Mayor Lynn Horton City of Bremerton 239 4th St. Bremerton, WA 98337 Dear Mayor Horton: The current Solid Waste Management Plan was completed and adopted by all participating parties (Cities, Tribes and Coun¢') in 1992. RCW 70.95 requires review and revision of solid waste management plans every five years. Public Works is proposing to begin this process in 1996. Funding for the SWMP update will come from an Ecology grant and a solid waste reserve fund earmarked for planning purposes. One of the key requirements for solid waste plans is to ensure disposal capacity for the expected waste stream generated over a twenty year period. The present landfill that serves the Kitsap region is expected to reach capacity in approximately ten years. It is important that we address the future solid waste needs and examine the various disposal options now. RCW 70.95 allows for cooperative development of solid waste management plans, and encourages regional solutions to solid waste management. In the past, Kitsap County Public Works, with concurrence from the cities and tribes, has been the lead agency for development ora regional solid waste management plan for the Kitsap region. We are prepared to continue in the role of coordinating the solid waste planning efforts for both the unincorporated county and the cities and tribes. Cities have the option of developing their own plan if they do not choose to be ~ a c~ordinmed regional solid waste management,olax .~. The i:~ management plans are outlined in Cha~ ~te .are requ. esting a ~Re. solution of Concurrence from the City of Brem~c ting your intent to ) c~ntinue, to be~ part of. the .regional planning effort and to have Kitsap~ as the lead agency in th/e/ Pus~.Paration of the updated solid waste management plan. An example of a resolution is enclosed for~r usx If you s~m~uld have any questions in regards to the plan update process o~li~stions in general, please contac-X~ke&chen Olsen at 360-895-3931. -~- Sincerely, Randy W. Casteel Director, Public Works Roads/Engineering 360-876-7121 · Utihties Information 360-876-7124 · FAX 360-895-4926 · The Open Line 360-895-5777 Toll free from Poulsbo/Kingston 860-779-1095, Bainbridge Island 206-842-2061 and Olalla 206-851-4147 -- printed on recycled paper -- PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES 3027 Olympus Drive · Bremerton, WA 98310-4799 * (360) 478-5318 · FAX (360) 478-5018 August 13, 1996 TO: From: Subj: Kathleen McCluske¥, Director of Administrative Services Paul Lucas, Administrative Analyst~~ SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING In response to your memorandum of June 14, 1996, the proposal has been routed through the Public Works & Utilities Department. No objections, changes or additions are needed. Recommend the resolution be adopted as written. Attachment: Randy Casteel Ltr w/Attachment Equal Opportunity Employer AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF A $346,938.50 LID BOND AND ACCEPTING THE PURCHASE OFFER OF SEAFIRST BANK FOR AGENDA OF: August 28, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT: Treasure~E , ~ ORIGINATOR: R. Hanr~a DATE SUBMITTED: August 16, 1996 Z~ Comment of back if necessary) Council Fiscal & Budget ~.~Y~"- 3. EXHIBITS: Proposed Ordinance Draft Official Statement Bond Purchase Offer (at Councit meeting) ENDORSEMENTS /~ INFORMATION APPROVED BY Cx(DUN~OL PRE~'UBMITTA MAYOR ?//~-'" ',,~ - ~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT _ ,~'~~'~'~ 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION; The proposed Ordinance will authorize a bond issue which will finance the construction of LID's No. 327 and 328. The bonds will be repaid from the assessments paid by the adjoining property owners as stipulated in the Ordinances which adopted the respective assessment rolls. 8. RECOMMENDATION: MOTION TO APPROVE ON FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. MOTION TO PASS ON SECOND READING ORDINANCE NO. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFiCIAL:Treasurer ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Mayor EXPIRATION DATE: Sept. 1,2011 REVIEW DATE: N/A PULLED · TABLED 10. NOTICE OFACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED 11. AGENDA BILL NO: .AMENDED__ 9A 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: These LID's will be financed with City rather than external money. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES. EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Budgeted. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: Bond Counsel. Negotiations with underwriting bank. file=lidpre LID NO 327 AND 328 ASSESSMENT ROLL AND PREPAYMENTS 16-Aug-96 ASSESSMENT ROLL PREPAYS BALANCE TO FINANCE LID 327 349,243.23 80.821.63 LID 328 107,157.90 28,641.00 78.516.90 TOTAL 456,401.13 109,462.63 BOND NO. 1 BOND NO. 2 thru 69 6,938.50 340,000.00 /43 CITY OF BREMERTON LID NO. 327 WEST KITSAP LAKE SEWER ASSESSMENT NO. TOTAL RECEIVABLE ACTIVITY DATE REFERENCE P_RINCIPLE INTEREST PENALTY INT. 7'_OTAL ASSESSMENTJULY8,1996 PREPAYMENT FIRST YEARINTEREST TOTAL ACTIVITY FINAL ROLL 349,243.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (80,579.44) 0.00 0.00 (242.19) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 268,421.60 0.00 349,243.23 349,243.23 268,663.79 268,421.60 268,421.60 268,421.60 268,421.60 268,421.60 268,421.60 268,421.60 268,421.60 268,421.60 268 421.60 268 421.60 268 421.60 268 421.60 268 421.60 268 421.60 268 421.60 268 421.60 268 421.60 268 421.60 268,421.60 268,421.60 268,421.60 268,421.60 268,421.60 268,421.60 268,421.60 268,421.60 268,421.60 268,421.60 0.00 268,421.60 0.00 268,421.60 0.00 268,421.60 0.00 268,421.60 0.00 268,421.60 0.00 268,421:60 0.00 268,421.60 0.00 268,421.60 0.00 268,421.60 0.00 FILEILID327 CITY Of BREMERTON Lid328 Wh EATON WAY ASSESSMENT NO. TOTAL RECEIVABLE ACTIVITY DATE~ REFERENCE PRINCIPLE INTEREST PENAL,~( !N% TaT_AL ASSESSMENT JULY 8, 1996 PREPAYMENT FIRST YEAR INTEREST TOTAL ACTIVITY FINAL ROLL 107,157.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (28,641.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78,516.90 0.00 0.00 1071157.90 107,157.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.9O 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,5t6.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 78,516.90 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE relating to local improvement districts; amending Ordinance No. 4450; establishing Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 327/328 and Consolidated Local Improvement Fund, District No. 327/328; fixing the amount, form, date, interest rates, maturity and denominations of the Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 327/328 Bonds; providing for the sale and delivery thereof to Bank of America NW, N.A., doing business as Seafirst Bank in Seattle, Washington; and fixing the interest rate on local improvement district assessment installments. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington (the "City") , by Ordinance No. 4450, formed Local Improvement District No. 327 ("LID 327") , intending it to be a local improvement district for sewer utility purposes, but by clerical error had named LID 327 as utility Local Improvement District No. 327; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to confirm the correct name of LID 327 as Local Improvement District No. 327; and WHEREAS, the City heretofore has created Local Improvement Districts Nos. 327 and 328 for various purposes; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.45.160 authorizes the establishment of consolidated local improvement districts for the purpose of issuing bonds only and provides that if the governing body of any municipality orders the creation of such consolidated local improvement district, the money received from the installment payment of the principal of and interest on assessments levied within the original local improvement districts shall be deposited in a consolidated local improvement district bond redemption fund to be used to redeem outstanding consolidated local improvement district bonds; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF BREMERTON DO ORDAIN: Section 1. Amendment of Ordinance No. 4450. Section 3 of Ordinance No. 4450 shall be amended to read as follows: "Section 3. There is hereby established and created a local improvement district, utility Local Improvement District No. 327. Payment of the costs and expense of the improvement herein ordered to be assessed shall be paid from available city funds. The collections of special assessments, interest and penalties thereon shall be deposited in the City fund incurring the expense of constructing the improvements." Section 2. Consolidation of Local Improvement Districts. The 30-day period for making cash payments of assessments without interest in LID No. 327 expired on August 12, 1996, and the total amount of assessments paid in cash was $80,821.63, leaving a balance of assessments unpaid on the assessment roll in the sum of $268,421.60. The 30-day period for making cash payments of assessments without interest in LID No. 328 expired on August 5, 1996, and the total amount of assessments paid in cash was $28,641.00, leaving a balance of assessments unpaid on the assessment roll in the sum of $78,516.90. For the purpose of issuing bonds only, those local improvement districts of the City established by the following ordinances, respectively, the 30-day period for making cash payment of assessments without interest in each local improvement district having expired as described above 0252216.02 in the case of the assessments for each local improvement district, are consolidated into a consolidated local improvement district to be known and designated as Consolidated Local Improvement District NO. 327/328: Local Improvement Created by District No. Ordinance No. 327 4450, as amended 328 4460 Section 3. Bond Fund. There is created and established in the office of the City Treasurer for Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 327/328 a special consolidated local improvement district fund to be known and designated as Consolidated Local Improvement Fund, District No. 327/328 (the "Bond Fund"). All money presently on hand representing collections pertaining to installments of assessments and interest thereon in each of the local improvement districts listed in Section 2 shall be transferred to and deposited in the Bond Fund, and all collections pertaining to assessments on the assessment rolls of those local improvement districts when hereafter received shall be deposited in the Bond Fund to redeem outstanding Consolidated Local Improvement District No. Section Consolidated 327/328 bonds. 4. Authorization and Local Improvement District Description of Bonds. No. 327/328 bonds (the "Bonds") shall be issued in the total principal sum of $346,938.50, being the total amount on the assessment rolls of Local Improvement Districts Nos. 327 and 328 remaining uncollected after expiration of the 30-day interest free prepayment periods. Bonds shall be dated September 1, 1996, shall mature 0252216.02 -3- the The on September 1, 2011, and shall be numbered from 1 to 69, inclusive, in the manner and with any additional designation as the Bond Registrar (collectively, the fiscal agencies of the State of Washington located in Seattle, Washington, and New York, New York) deems necessary for the purpose of identification. Bond No. 1 shall be in the denomination of $6,938.50 and Bonds Nos. 2 to 69, inclusive, shall be in the denomination of $5,000.00 each. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds shall bear interest, payable annually on September 1 of each year beginning September 1, 1997, in accordance with the following schedule: Bond Numbers Interest (inclusive) Amounts Rates [INSERT MATURITY OR BOND SCHEDULE] Section 5. Registration and Transfer of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and interest and shall be recorded on books or records maintained by the Bond Registrar (the "Bond Register"). Such Bond Register shall contain the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and the principal amount and number of each of the Bonds held by each owner. Bonds may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner provided thereon and surrendered to the Bond Registrar. The transfer of a Bond shall be by the Bond Registrar's receiving the Bond to be transferred, cancelling it and issuing a new certificate in the form of the Bonds to the transferee after registering the 0252216.02 -4- name and address of the transferee on the Bond Register. The new certificate shall bear the same Bond number as the transferred Bond but may have a different inventory reference number or control number. Any exchange or transfer shall be without cost to the owner or transferee. The Bond Registrar shall not be obligated to exchange or transfer any Bond during the 15 days preceding any principal payment or redemption date. Section 6. Payment of Bonds. Both principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable solely out of the Consolidated Local Improvement Fund, District No. 327/328 (the "Bond Fund"), and from the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City, and shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Interest on the Bonds shall be paid by check or draft mailed to the registered owners on the interest payment date at the addresses appearing on the Bond Register on the 15th day of the month preceding the interest payment date. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable upon presentation and surrender of the Bonds by the registered owners at either of the principal offices of the Bond Registrar, at the option of the owners. Section 7. Redemption Provisions. The City reserves the right to redeem the Bonds prior to their stated maturity on any interest payment date, in numerical order, lowest numbers first, at par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, whenever there shall be sufficient money in the Bond Fund to pay the Bonds so called and all earlier numbered Bonds over and above the amount required for the payment of the interest payable on that interest payment date on all unpaid Bonds. 02~2216.02 -5-- All Bonds redeemed under this section shall be cancelled. Section 8. Notice of Redemption. The City shall cause notice of any intended redemption of Bonds to be given not less than 15 nor more than 30 days prior to the date fixed for redemption by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the registered owner of any Bond to be redeemed at the address appearing on the Bond Register at the time the Bond Registrar prepares the notice, and the requirements of this sentence shall be deemed to have been fulfilled when notice has been mailed as so provided, whether or not it is actually received by the owner of any Bond. Interest on Bonds called for redemption shall cease to accrue on the date fixed for redemption unless the Bond or Bonds called are not redeemed when presented pursuant to the call. In addition, the redemption notice shall be mailed within the same period, postage prepaid, to Bank of America NW, N.A., doing business as Seafirst Bank, at its principal office in Seattle, Washington, or its successor, and to such other persons and with such additional information as the City Treasurer shall determine, but these additional mailings shall not be a condition precedent to the redemption of Bonds. Section 9. Failure to Redeem Bonds. If any Bond is not redeemed when properly presented at its maturity or call date, the City shall be obligated to pay interest on that Bond at the same rate provided in the Bond from and after its maturity or call date until that Bond, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the Bond Fund and the Bond has been called for payment by giving notice of that call to the registered owner of each of those unpaid Bonds. 0252216.02 -6- Section 10. Form and Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be printed, lithographed or typed on good bond paper in a form consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and state law, shall be signed by the Mayor and the City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon. Only Bonds bearing a Certificate of Authentication in the following form, manually signed by the Bond Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance: CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Bond is one of the fully registered City of Bremerton, Washington, Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 327/328 Bonds described in the Bond Ordinance. Washington State Fiscal Agency Bond Registrar By Authorized Signer The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Bond so authenticated has been duly executed, authenticated and delivered and is entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. If any officer whose facsimile signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bonds bearing his or her facsimile signature are authenticated or delivered by the Bond Registrar or issued by the City, those Bonds nevertheless may be authenticated, issued and delivered and, 0252216.02 -7- when authenticated, issued and delivered, shall be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds. Any Bond also may be signed on behalf of the City by any person who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds, although he or she did not hold the required office on the date of issuance of the Bond. Section 11. Bond Reqistrar. The Bond Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, at its principal corporate trust office, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds which shall be open to inspection by the City at all times. The Bond Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the City's paying agent for the Bonds and to carry out all of the Bond Registrar's powers and duties under this ordinance and City Ordinance No. 3862 establishing a system of registration for the City's bonds and obligations. The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the Bond Registrar's Certificates of Authentication on the Bonds. The Bond Registrar may become the owner of Bonds with the same rights it would have if it were not the Bond Registrar and, to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect the rights of Bond owners. 0252216.02 -8- Section 12. Bonds Neqotiable. The Bonds shall be negotiable instruments to the extent provided by RCW 62A.8-102 and 62A.8-105. Section 13. Preservation of Tax ExemDtion for Interest on Bonds. The City covenants that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Bonds or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Bonds at any time during the term of the Bonds which will cause interest on the Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City certifies that it has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that it is a bond.issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon. ~ection 14. Small Governmental ExceDtion and Desiqnation of Bonds as Issuer Arbitraqe Rebate "Qualified Tax-Exempt Obliqations." The City finds and declares that (a) it is a duly organized and existing governmental unit of the State of Washington and has general taxing power; (b) no Bond which is part of this issue of Bonds is a "private activity bond" within the meaning of Section 141 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"); (c) at least 95% of the net proceeds of the Bonds will be used for local governmental activities of the City (or of a governmental unit the jurisdiction of which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the City); (d) the aggregate face amount of all tax-exempt obligations and other obligations not 0252216.02 (other than private activity bonds required to be included in such -9- calculation) issued by the City and all entities subordinate to the City (including any entity which the City controls, which derives its authority to issue tax-exempt obligations from the City or which issues tax-exempt obligations on behalf of the City) during the calendar year in which the Bonds are issued is not reasonably expected to exceed $5,000,000; and (e) the amount of tax-exempt obligations, including the Bonds, designated by the City as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the purposes of Section 265(b) (3) of the Code during the calendar year in which the Bonds are issued does not exceed $10,000,000. The City therefore certifies that the Bonds are eligible for the arbitrage rebate exception under Section 148(f) (4) (D) of the Code and designates the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the purposes of Section 265(b) (3) of the Code. Section 15. Use of Bond Proceeds. The accrued interest on the Bonds received from the Bond purchaser shall be deposited in the Bond Fund and used to pay debt service on the Bonds on the first interest payment datel The principal proceeds of the Bonds shall be used to repay certain City funds used to carry out improvements in Local Improvement Districts Nos. 327 and 328, and to pay the costs of issuance of the Bonds. Until needed to pay those costs, the City may invest principal proceeds temporarily in any legal investment, and the investment earnings may be retained in the respective local improvement district funds or accounts therein and be spent for the purposes of those funds probably will be exempt from rebate this year. 0252216.02 -10- Section 16. ADproval of Bond Purchase Contract. Bank of merica N-W, N.A., doing business as Seafirst Bank of Seattle, ashington, has presented a purchase contract (the "Bond Purchase !ontract") to the City offering to purchase the Bonds under the erms and conditions provided in the Bond Purchase Contract, which ,ritten Bond Purchase Contract is on file with the City Clerk and .s incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council finds .hat entering into the Bond Purchase Contract is in the City's best .nterest and therefore accepts the offer contained therein and ~uthorizes its execution by City officials. The Bonds will be printed at City expense and will be ~elivered to the purchaser in accordance with the Bond Purchase ~ontract, with the approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper & ~hefelman, municipal bond counsel of Seattle, Washington, regarding 2he Bonds printed on each definitive Bond. Bond counsel shall not De required to review and shall express no opinion concerning the Eompleteness or accuracy of any official statement, offering uircular or other sales material issued or used in connection with the Bonds, and bond counsel's opinion shall so state. The proper City officials are authorized and directed to do everything necessary for the prompt delivery of the Bonds to the purchaser, including without limitation the execution of the official Statement on behalf of the City, and for the proper application and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof. Section 17. Fixinq Interest Rate on Assessments. The interest rate on the installments and delinquent payments of the special assessments in Local Improvement Districts Nos. 327 and 328 0252216.02 -11- been fixed at the rate of 8.2% per annum pursuant to Ordinances Nos. 4560 and 4559, respectively. Section 18. Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect ten days following its passage and publication. APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, this 28th day of August, 1996. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, this 4th day of September, 1996. APPROVED this day of JOHN LAW, Council President , 1996. ATTEST: LYNN HORTON, Mayor KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: George M. Mack, Bond Counsel Publication Date: Ordinance Number: 0252216.02 -12- I, KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk of the City of Bremerton, Washington, certify that the attached copy of Ordinance No. is a true and correct copy of the original ordinance passed on the 4th day of September, 1996, as that ordinance appears on the Minute Book of the City. DATED this day of , 1996. Kathleen L. McCluskey City Clerk -13 - PRELl/ ~RY OFFIClAL STATEMENT DATED AUGU _, 1996 NEW ISSUE D~el~b~ RATING:Not Applied For NEGOTIATED In the opinion of Bond Counsel, a ! the City of Bremerton, Washington (the "ci~) with applicable requirements of ti~e Internal Revenue Code of 1986. as amended (the "Code"), including arbitrage and arbitrage rebate requirements, interest on the BOnds is excluded from gro~ income of registered owners for federal income fax purposes under existing federal law and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to indivk~uals. However, while interest on the Bonds also is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum tax ap~ticable to corporations, interest on the Bonds received by corporations is taken into account in the computation of adjusted current eamfogs for purposes of the alternative m~nimum tax applicable to corporations, interest on the Bonds received by certain corporations may be subject to an environmental tax, interest on the Bonds received by certain S corporations may be subject to tax, and inlerest on the Bonds received by foreign corporations with United States branches may be subject to a foreign bcanch profits tax. Receipt of interest on the Bonds may have other federal tax consequences for certain taxpayers. See the captions ~-AX EXEMPTION' and "CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL TAX CONSEQUENCES' herein. CITY OF BREMERTON KITSAP CO U~N_TY,~N CONSOLIDATED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 327~328 BONDS Dated: September 1, 1996 Due: SePtember 1,2011 The City of Bremerton, Washington (the "City") Local improvement District No. 327/328 Bonds, (the "Bonds") will be issued in tully reqistered form in the denomination of $5,000 each with the exception of Bond No. 1 which wilt be issued in the amount of ~ Pdncipal of the Bonds will be paid upon presentation and surrender of the Bonds, at maturity or early redemption (se~ "Estimated Maturities" below), by the registered owners at the principal corporate offices of the Fiscal Agent of the State of Washington (the "Paying Agent"), currently Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Seattle, Washington and The Bank of New York, New York, New York. Interest on the Bonds will be paid commencing September 1, 1997 and on September 1 of each year thereafter to the maturity or earlier redemption of the Bonds. Interest on the Bonds will be paid by check or draft of the Paying Agent mailed on the payment date to the registered owners at the addresses appearing on the Bond Register on the last business day of the month immediately preceding each interest payment date. Estimated Redemption · September 1 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ESTIMATED REDEMPTION SCHEDULE ~¢~I~I~R~-~ Estimated Principal Bond Redemption Principal Bond Amount Numbers Rate Price September 1 Amount Numbers Rate Price 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 The amount of Bonds to be retired each year is an estimate only. Depending on the rate of payment of assessments, Bonds may be called earlier or later than shown, but in no event later than September 1,2011. Redemption: The City reserves the right and option to redeem the Bonds prior to their stated maturity date in numerical order, lowest number first, on any interest payment date commencing September 1, 1997, at par plus sccrued interest to the date fixed for redemption whenever there shall be sufficient money in the Consolidated Local Improvement Fund District No. 327/328 to pay the Bonds so called and all earlier numbered Bonds over and above the amount required for the payment of the interest on all unpaid bonds. See "DESCRIPTION OF THE BONDS~ herein. Security: The Bonds are special limited obligations of the City, are payable from assessments in Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 327/328. The Bonds are further secured by the City's Local Improvement Guaranty Fund. See "SECURITY" and "LOCAL IMPROVEMENT GUARANTY FUND" herein. The Bonds are not a general obligation indebtedness of the City. The City has designated the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" under Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. See "CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL TAX CONSEQUENCES" herein. The Bonds are subject to the approving legal opinion of Foster, Pepper & Shefelman, Seattle, Washington, Bond Counsel. The Bonds, in definitive form, are expected to be available for delivery in Seattle, Washington on ,1996. This cover page contains certain information for quick reference only. It is not a summary of this issue. Investors must read the entire Official Statement to obtain information essential to making an informed investment decision. Representations Neither the City nor the Underwriter have authorized any dealer, broker, salesperson or other persons to give any information or make any representations other than those made in this Preliminary Official Statement, and, if given or made, such other information or representations must not be relied upon as having been authorized by the City or the Underwriter. This Preliminary Official Statement does not constitute an offer to sell, nor shall there be any sale of the Bonds by any person in any jurisdiction in which it is unlawful for such person to make such a sale. The information contained in this Preliminary Official Statement has been obtained from City officials and other sources believed to be reliable. Neither a representation, warranty nor guarantee is made by the Underwriter as to the accuracy or completeness of any information in this Preliminary Official Statement and nothing contained in this Preliminary Official Statement is or shall be relied upon as a promise or representation by the Underwriter. The delivery of this Preliminary Official Statement does not imply that the information contained herein is correct as of any time subsequent to the date of the Preliminary Official Statement as shown on the cover page. Disclosure Statement The City will deliver to the Underwriter at the time of delivery of the Bonds a signed statement substantially to the effect that this Preliminary Official Statement, as of its date and as of the date of the Bonds, neither contains any untrue statement of a material fact nor omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the cimumstances under which they were made, not misleading in any material respect and that there has not been any material adverse change in the normal operations or financial condition of the City nor, to the best of the City's knowledge', in the general economy of the City since the date of the Preliminary Official Statement. Secondary Market It has been the practice of the Underwriter to maintain a secondary market in municipal bonds which it sells. The Underwriter intends to engage in secondary market trading of the Bonds, subject to applicable securities laws. The Underwriter, however, is neither obligated to engage in secondary trading nor to repurchase any of the Bonds at the request of the registered owners thereof and no assurance can be given that a secondary market for the Bonds will be available. In connection with the offering of the Bonds, the Underwriter may over-allot or effect transactions that stabilize or maintain the market price of the Bonds at a level above that which might otherwise prevail in the open market. Such stabilizing, if commenced, may be discontinued at any time. This Preliminary Official Statement, as of its date, is in a form that is expected to be "deemed final" by the City for purposes of SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(1) but is subject to revision, amendment and completion in a final Official Statementthat will be available within seven (7) days of the sale date of the Bonds. ii CITY OF BREMERTON 239 4TH STREET BREMERTON, WASHINGTON 98310 MAYOR Lynn Horton TERM EXPIRES DECEMBER31 1997 CITY COUNCIL il Huff-Me~-~ olvin ie Dawkins Richard Neville Lon Overson Robert Winters Carlos Montgomery Ch~rpe~on 1997 Member 1997 Member 1999 Member 1999 Member 1997 Member 1997 Member 1999 Member 1997 Member 1999 APPOINTED OFFICIALS Richard Hanna Kathleen McCluskey John Koch lan Sievers Gene Sampley Randy Witt Treasurer Administrative Services Director/City Clerk ' Auditor Attorney Director, Public Works & Utilities Engineer BOND COUNSEL Foster Pepper & Shefelman Seattle, Washington UNDERWRITER Bank of America, NW, N.A. doing business as Seafirst Bank Capital Markets Division Seattle, Washington iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction ........................................................................................................................... l Description of the Bonds ....................................................................................................... 1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 2 Authorization ........................................................................................................................ 2 Security ................................................................................................................................. 3 Transferability ....................................................................................................................... 3 Guaranty Fund ....................................................................................................................... 3 Impact of State Homestead Exemption ................................................................................. 4 No Default ............................................................................................................................. 4 Future Financings .................................................................................................................. 4 Local Improvement Districts ................................................................................................ 4 LID No. 327/328 Description ............................................................................................... Map of LID No. 327 ............................................... : ............................................................. 7 Map of LID No. 328 ............................................................................................................. 8 General and Economic Information ...................................................................................... 9 Tax Exemption ...................................................................................................................... 14 Certain Other Federal Tax Consequences ............................................................................. 14 Preservation of Tax Exemption ............................................................................................. 15 Absence of Material Litigation ............................... : ............................................................. 15 Approval of Bond Counsel ................................................................................................... 15 Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................................... 16 Continuing Disclosure ........................................................................................................... 16 Underwriting ......................................................................................................................... 17 Concluding Statement ........................................................................................................... 17 Form of Bond Counsel Opinion ..................................................................................... Appendix A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT THE CITY OF BREMERTON KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON CONSOLIDATED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 327~328 BONDS INTRODUCTION The City of Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington (the "City"), a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of tl~ State of Washington, furnishes this Official Statement in connection with the ,o, ffefing of $ ~.~W~ ~'~/,76 principal amount of Consolidated Local Improvement District (CLID") No. 327/328 Bonds (the "Bonds"). This Official Statement provides information concerning the City and the Bonds. DESCRIPTION OF THE BONDS Principal Amount, Dates, Interest Rates, and Maturities The Bonds will be issued in the principal amount of $ , will be dated September 1, 1996, and will mature on September 1,2011. The Bonds will bear interest as set forth on the front cover hereof, payable on each September 1, commencing September 1, 1997, until redeemed. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year comprised of twelve 30- day months. Form and Denomination The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form as to both principal and interest in the n of $5,000 each, except for Bond No. 1, which will be in the amount of Early Redemption The City reserves the fight and option to redeem the Bonds prior to their stated maturity date on any interest payment date commencing September 1, 1997, in ascending numerical order, lowest numbers first, at par plus accrued interest due to the date of redemption, whenever there is sufficient money in Consolidated Local Improvement Fund District No. 327/328 (the "Bond Fund") to pay the Bonds so called and all earlier numbered bonds over and above the amount required for the payment of the interest due on all unpaid Bonds· Estimated Redemption September 1 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ESTIMATED EARLY REDEMPTION SCHEDULE Estimated Principal Bond Redemption Principal Bond Amount Numbers Rate Price September 1 Amount Numbers Rate Price 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Notice of Redemption Notice of any such redemption of the Bonds will be given not less than 15 nor more than 30 days prior to the date fixed for redemption, by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the Owners of each Bond to be redeemed at their respective addresses appearing on the Bond Register on the day notice is mailed. The requirements of notification will be deemed to be complied with when notice is mailed as provided by Ordinance No. __ (the "Bond Ordinance") whether or not it is actually received by the Owner of any Bond. If such notice shall have been given and the City shall have set aside, ou the date fixed for redemption, sufficient money for the payment of all Bonds called for redemption, the Bonds so called shall cease to accrue interest after such redemption date, and all such Bonds shall be deemed not to be outstanding hereunder for any purposes, except that the Owners thereof shall be entitled to receive payment of the redemption price and accrued interest to the redemption date from the money set aside for such purpose. Registrar, Paying Agent and Transfer Agent Both principal of and interest on the Bonds are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Principal of the Bonds will be paid by the Fiscal Agent of the State of Washington (the "Registrar," the "Paying Agent" and the "Transfer Agent") to the Registered Owner of the Bonds whose name appears on the Bond Register maintained by the Registrar upon presentation and surrender of the Bonds at either the principal officers of the Fiscal Agent in Seattle, Washington or New York, New York. Interest on the Bonds will be paid by check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered owners whose names appear on the Bond Register 15 days prior to the interest payment date. Currently, the Fiscal Agent of the State of Washington is Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Seattle, Washington, and The Bank of New York, New York, New York. PURPOSE The proceeds of the Bonds will be used to make sanitary sewer extensions and improvements as follows: · For LID No. 327, sanitary sewer service will be extended along Northlake Way and West Kitsap Lake Road. · For LID No. 328, sanitary sewer service will be extended along Wheaton Way. AUTHORIZATION LID No. 327 was created by Ordinance No. 4450 passed by the City Council on March 16, 1994. LID No. 328 was created by Ordinance No. 4460 passed by the City Council on May 13, 1994. The final assessment roll for LID No. 327 was am>roved and confirmed by Ordinance No. passed by the City Council on ~J6u~q qtt;, . The final assessment roll for LID No. 328 was approved and confirmed by Ordihance No.qS$~ passed by the City Council on The Bonds are issued pursuant to Washington State Law, Chapter 39.50 RCW and the Bond Ordinance passed by the City Council on SECURITY The Bonds are secured by special assessments levied against property within the boundaries of LID No. 327/328 (the "District") and are payable out of the Consolidated Local Improvement Fund District No. 327/328 (the "Bond Fund"). The assessments enjoy a lien on the improved and unimproved properties within the District superior to mortgages and other encumbrances, junior only to any lien for general property taxes. The assessments are payable in thirteen equal annual installments. The interest rate on the installment payments of special assessments in the District is established to be a rate which exceeds the effective interest rate on the Bonds one-half of one percent. Property owners may elect to accelerate or pay in full the balance of their assessments on any annual payment date. If property owners fail to make assessment payments when due, the City can pursue foreclosure and sale of the liened property for which delinquencies occur to recover unpaid assessments, interest and penalties. The Bonds will be guaranteed by and to the extent of monies in the City's Local Improvement Guaranty Fund (the "Guaranty Fund") in accordance with the laws of Washington State. Bondowner remedies against the City are confined to mandating City officials to perform their statutory duties in enforcing assessments and applying proceeds thereof, and applying Guaranty Fund monies to the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds. TRANSFERABILITY The registered ownership of any Bond may be transferred, but no transfer of any Bond shall be valid unless it is surrendered to the Registrar, with the assignment form appearing on such Bond duly executed by, or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer in form satisfactory to the Registrar duly executed by the Registered Owner or such Registered Owner's duly authorized agent. Upon such surrender, the Registrar shall cancel the surrendered Bond and shall authenticate and deliver, in exchange and without charge to the new Registered Owner therefor (other than any governmental fees or taxes payable on account of such transfer), a new Bond or Bonds in any authorized denomination of an equal aggregate principal amount, naming as Registered Owner the person(s) designated as the assignee(s) or transferee(s). The Registrar shall not be obligated to transfer any Bond during the 15 days preceding its maturity or redemption date. The City and the Registrar, each in its discretion, may deem and treat the Registered Owner of each Bond as the absolute owner thereof for all purposes, and neither the City nor the Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. GUARANTY FUND The laws of the State of Washington provide that a city must establish a Local Improvement Guaranty Fund for the purpose of guaranteeing the payment of its Local Improvement District bonds, notes and warrants issued to pay for any LID ordered in the City or in any area wholly or partly outside its corporate boundaries. As of June 30, 1996, the outstanding City of Bremerton LID bonds, notes, and/or warrants total $205,000. The current balance in the City's Guaranty Fund is $109,487 as of June 30, 1996. For the purpose of maintaining the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund, every city is required, at the time of making its annual budget and tax levy, to provide for the levy of a sum sufficient, along with the other sources available to the fund, to pay any warrants issued against the fund during the preceding fiscal year and to establish a balance therein, provided that the levy in any year shall not exceed the greater of a) 12% of the outstanding obligations guaranteed by the fund or b) the total amount of delinquent assessments and interest accumulated on the delinquent assessments before the levy as of September 1, whichever is greater. The taxes levied for the maintenance of the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund shall be in addition to and, if need be, in excess of all statutory and charter limitations applicable to tax levies in any city or town, as long as the total tax levies for the General Fund and Guaranty Fund do not exceed $3.60/$1,000 of assessed valuation. The City of B remerton's regular levy rate for 1996 is $3.33/$1,000 of assessed valuation. IMPACT OF STATE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION The State Homestead Exemption, pursuant to RCW 6.13, permits any head of a family to protect a certain portion of the homestead (residence) from forced sale. On January 4, 1982, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, Division I, filed its decision in the City of Algona vs. Sharp, et al, wherein it announced that the filing for a homestead exemption before a scheduled foreclosure sale of residential property valued at $20,000 (the then amount of the statutory homestead exemption) or less effectively exempted that property from a forced sale to enforce delinquent special assessments in a special benefit assessment district such as a local improvement district or utility local improvement district. The collection of special assessments to pay the Bonds of this issue may be enforced against any residential property only to the extent that the foreclosure sale proceeds of that property exceed the amount of the statutory exemption (currently $30,000). The City's records show that there are no residential properties located within CLID No. 327/328 having an assessed value of $30,000 or less. NO DEFAULT The City of Bremerton has not defaulted on any notes or bonds since the LID Guaranty Fund was established, nor any other obligation previously issued. FUTURE FINANCINGS (to come) LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS Local improvement projects are initiated either by petition of property owners or by resolution of the City Council. Projects must conform to those local improvements described in RCW 35.43.040. The Council sets the boundaries of the area to receive special benefits from the improvement projects; this area is referred to as a Local Improvement District. If the project is initiated by petition, the petition describes the boundaries. The Council passes a resolution declaring its intention to initiate the improvement project and orders the preparation of an engineering report. The engineering report describes the project, estimates the cost and lists the affected properties. It may also specify the formula for apportioning the cost. The determination of feasibility and benefits are based on this report. Before the improvement project is approved, a public notice and hearing is required (RCW 35.43.125). Notices are mailed to the affected property owners as well as published. The notice provides each owner with the proposed project description and an estimate of benefits and costs. After the hearing the Council will determine whether the LID should be formed. For LIDs initiated by the Council without a petition, within thirty days after passage of the Ordinance forming the District, property owners representing at least sixty percent of the proposed assessments Crotest LID formation the improvement district becomes ineffectual. Within a period of thirty day[ following the 30 day protest period a lawsuit challenging the LID formation may be filed. Upon completion of construction, the final costs may be determined and assessments calculated and levied after a hearing. The method of assessment is also selected at this time. When a property owner receives a notice of assessment, he or she has the option of making a cash 4 payment in full or making installment payments. This assessment liability places a lien against the property whereby the property owner is responsible for paying the assessment in installments as prescribed by Council. There is no pre-payment penalty. Payments may be made without penalty or interest during a period of thirty days following the publication of notice of collection of Note assessments. RCW 35.50.030 states that if, on the first day of January in any year, two installments of any local improvement assessment are delinquent, or if the final installment has been delinquent for more than one year, the City must commence foreclosure proceedings shall ensue in the Superior Court of the County in which the LID is located. The proceedings shall be commenced on or before March 1st of the year, after 30 days prior notice to the owner, by filing a certificate describing the property, date of delinquency and name of the owner with the clerk of the court. A summons is published in the local paper once each week for six weeks, requiring the owner to answer it within 60 days. If there is no answer, a default is declared and the court may enter a judgment of the foreclosure and sell the property. RCW 35.50.010 states, "The lien shall be paramount and superior to any other lien or encumbrance theretofore or thereafter created except a lien for general taxes." CLID NO. 327/328 DESCRIPTION LID No. 327 was created for the purpose of constructing the necessary sewer system, together with any and all other work in connection therewith as may be necessary to make such improvement a complete job. The improvement area includes West Kitsap Lake Road and Northlake Way. The total assessed value of the property in LID No. 327 is estimated at $10,567,189. LID No. 327 is comprised of 78 parcels and 65 property owners. Individual assessments range from $4,517 to $5,370. Zoning for LID No. 327 is in 100% single-family residential. The final assessment roll for LID No. 327 was $349,243.2~. There were prepayments in the total amount of $ 5~0~ 5~'n,-,~ , (~, resulting in a balance of LID No. 328 was created for the purpose of constructing the necessary sewer system improvements, together with any and all other work in connection therewith. The improvement area includes most of Block 30 along Wheaton Way. The total assessed value of the property in LID No. 328 is estimated at $1,243,900. LID No. 328 is comprised of 11 parcels and 11 property owners, one of which is the City of Bremerton. Individual assessments range from $3,658 to $33,650 (on an individual assessed valuation of $282,500). Zoning for LID No. 328 is 100% small commercial. The final assessment~r~le of LID No. 328 is $1 ¢,~, 1G7..30. The~ were prepayments in the total amount of $~l,~ff'~,5~resulting in a balance of $ <i~q, CLID NO. 327/328 FINANCIAL INFORMATION O Final Assessment Roll per Ordinance Less: Prepayments Final Assessment Roll Balance after Prepayments LID No. 327 LID No. 328 Total $349,243.23 *N}gf-H37~0 $458,351.13 Assessed Value of the CLID No. 327/328 Number of Parcels Average Assessed Value per Parcel Average Assessment per Parcel Assessments as a Percentage of Assessed Value Ratio of Assessed Value to Final Assessment Roll Balance $10,567,189 $1,243,900 $11,811,089 78 11 89 $135,476.78 $110,354.55 $132,709 $4,477.48 $9,918.90 $5,150.01 3.31% 8.77% 3.88% 6 MAP OF LID NO. 327 LID BOUNDARY LEGEND LID NUMBER ASSESSORS TAX LOT NUMBER 7 MAP OF LID NO. 328 Z 0 Z I-- 0 J X r~ ~ ®®~ J rY Z Z o~ GENERAL AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION The City The City of Bremerton, is located on Puget Sound, approximately 15 miles west of Seattle and 35 miles north of Tacoma. The largest city in Kitsap County (the "County"), Bremerton was incorporated in 1901 and has an estimated 1996 population of 38,370. Kitsap County, covering 393 square miles of land, has the following other incorporated areas: Bainbridge Island (population 18,350), Port Omhard (population 6,610) and Poulsbo (population 6,070). Military Presence. The economy of the City is closely tied to the United States Navy. The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton ("PSNS") is the largest Naval shipyard on the Pacific Coast and is the only West Coast shipyard capable of working on nuclear ships. With over 10,008 civilian employees, 8,954 military personnel, and 225 contractors, the shipyard is also the only facility capable of decommissioning and recycling nuclear submarines which are being disassembled in accordance with Strategic Arms Limitations Treaties. The Naval Supply Center is another local military facility in the City, with about 200 employees. Located a few miles north of the City of Bremerton is the Naval Submarine Base at Bangor. The Base serves as a home base for Trident submarines and provides employment to 3,111 civilians. Additionally, 5,632 military and 1,665 contracted personnel are employed at the Base. As the only operational base of its kind, it is considered important to the country by the Department of Defense. Another military installation located near the City is the Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station at Keyport. The station tests and maintains torpedoes, provides maintenance support for fire control equipment and mines, and provides other engineering-related services for undersea warfare. The Undersea Warfare Station employs approximately 3,500 civilian, 300 military and 1,400 contracted personnel. Base closures in other geographic regions outside of Washington have had a positive impact on growth in the City and Kitsap County. Five naval commands are scheduled to move to Bangor from out-of-state. The most significant of these is the Ocean Systems Engineering Command which is anticipated to bring 700 employees to the County. Approximately 520 housing units at Bangor and 170 housing units in Bremerton's Jackson Park have received funding (combined total of both projects is $65.6 m/llion) and are being built to house additional military personnel being assigned to bases in the area. The Navy currently has a waiting list of approximately 1,900 families for military housing. Current PSNS Projects. The aircraft carrier USS Nimitz, lead ship in the world's largest class of aircraft carriers, and its escort ships are temporarily homeported in Bremerton. The USS Nimitz is just completing a complex overhaul. Current Navy plans have the USS Nimitz leaving the Puget Sound Area in 1997 when it becomes due for a refueling overhaul. The nuclear cruisers USS Arkansas and USS California and three combat support ships, USS Camden, USS Sacramento and the newly commissioned USS Rainier are also homeported at the shipyard. The USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Carl Vinson, both Nimitz class aircraft carriers, each with crews of over 3,000 personnel (net of air wing personnel), are currently being overhauled at the shipyard and are expected to be re-homeported either in Everett or Bremerton at the completion of that overhaul since their current home ports are being closed. The USS Abraham Lincoln recently arrived at Bremerton and the USS Carl Vinson is expected to arrive in late 1996 for overhaul. The Navy is currently completing a $20 million capital project on 17 acres west of downtown to be used primarily for Navy administration. 9 Other Major Employers The Port of Bremerton operates the Bremerton National Airport and the 560-acre Olympic View Industrial Park, both located approximately 10 miles southwest of the City. The park includes 22 firms which employ a total of approximately 500 people. The Port is beginning development of a 90-acre high tech business park nearby. Several companies are planning expansions near or adjacent to the Bremerton National Airport, including an aircraft parts recycling company, and an electro-mechanical products manufacturer that needs 50,000 to 70,000 square feet of building space and which would employ up to 65 people within five years. Bremerton National Airport is the largest airport in the County, with a 6,200-foot runway and full instrumentation and lighting systems. The airport can handle all general aviation aircraft and most transport and military planes. Charter passenger and air freight services are available to SeaTac Airport, the major international airport in the Puget Sound area. The airport is currently undergoing improvements. As part of the redevelopment of the City of Bremerton waterfront, the City of Bremerton Parks Department recently completed an inner-harbor park project featuring the decommissioned destroyer USS Turner Joy, which is being used as a floating museum. The park also includes a 46,000 square-foot boardwalk, harbor tour boat and ticket office. An adjacent floating pier that is used as a fishing pier, a 70-slip marina and breakwater was built by the Port of Bremerton and the Washington State Department of Fisheries in 1993. Health care needs are met by several facilities in the Bremerton area including the Naval Hospital - Bremerton with 370 employees and Harrison Memorial Hospital in Bremerton with 1,350 employees. A number of nursing homes and retirement complexes are also located in Bremerton. In late 1993, Harrison Memorial completed a $20.5 million expansion which doubled the number of operating rooms; expanded the laboratory and administration areas; and provided additional space for patient education and an outpatient mental health clinic. Olympic College is a two-year public community college located in Bremerton, with an enrollment of approximately 4,310 (full-time equivalents). The college offers associate of arts degrees in four fields, as well as adult education and non-credit courses, and began a four year degree program (called 2-Plus42) in 1994. The 2-Plus-2 degree program is associated with the University of Washington, Tacoma branch. The Olympic College campus will be expanding in the years ahead due to a private donation of 20 acres of land for that purpose near Poulsbo. New Developments Among the projects recently completed or proposed for development in Bremerton are the following: · Kitsap County and the Port of Bremerton recently announced plans to provide up to S6 million in funding toward acquiring the USS Missouri, the World War II battleship known as the site of the Japanese surrender. To further support this proposal, the Washington State Governor has requested $3 million contribution from the Washington State Legislature. The proposal is to permanently moor the USS Missouri in Bremerton, its homeport since its deactivation. The U.S. Navy is considering bids from communities in several states. If the effort to retain the Missouri in Bremerton is successful, operation of the ship as a historical attraction is expected to increase tourist visitation to and spending in Bremerton and the Puget Sound area. · A master plan for the development of Bremerton's downtown waterfront, known as Sinclair Landing, is being developed. A combination of public and private uses is foreseen for this project, including: a transit center, new ferry terminal, expansion of the waterfront park, expansion of the marina, a new terminal for passenger-only ferries, parking, retail use, restaurants, offices, an 80-room inn, a six-plex cinema and multi-family housing, all connected with pedestrian corridors. A not-for-profit corporation would be the owner of the public portion of the project. Once the plan is finalized, the project is expected to take three 10 7..2 years to complete at a cost of $130 million. At this time it is not known when this project will be completed. · The Washington State Department of Transportation ("DOT") provides ferry services between Seattle and Bremerton. Bremerton became the headquarters for all ferries with routes south of Seattle in 1994. DOT is designing a new $21.3 million ferry terminal for Bremerton, for construction after the year 2000. · Wal-Mart is building a new store in East Bremerton. · A Safeway superstore opened in Bremerton about a year ago and another one is now being built near the new Wal-Mart site in East Bremerton. The Bremerton Black Entrepreneurs Association is reviving the Roxy Theatre in downtown Bremerton for use as a concert hall and for other live entertainment. Following are economic indicators of the City and the County. CITY OF BREMERTON AND KITSAP COUNTY POPULATION ! City of Other Breme~on Incorporated 1996 38,370 31,210 1995 39,610 29,915 1994 35,920 28,625 1993 36,380 28,160 1992 38,990 27,405 1991 37,040 26,639 4 1990 38,142 12,913 Kitsap County Unincorporated 155 120 151 075 148 655 145 460 139 205 132 821 138 676 Kitsap Number of County Resident Armed Total Forces Personnel2 224,700 N/A3 220,600 11,916 213,200 9,716 210,000 11,817 205,600 15,631 196,500 12,310 189,731 t5,050 TAXABLE RETAIL SALES 5 Year Kitsap County Ci~ of Bmme~on 1995 $ 1,768,304,057 $ 451,277,414 1994 1,774,185,000 461,026,409 1993 1,658,975,823 422,329,475 1992 1,551,862,692 409,553,371 1991 1,438,615,382 390,094,567 Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management and U.S. Census. 2 Estimated. 3 Not Available 4 The large increase is due to the annexation of the unincorporated areas of Bainbridge Island to the new City of Bainbridge Island. 5 Source: Washington State Department of Revenue 11 75 MAJOR TAXPAYERS IN THE CITY OF BREMERTONl Puget Sound Power and Light US WEST Inc. HMI, Inc. Michael Connolley Viewcrest Villages Lirrdted Partnership Charles & Joan Haselwood Oveflake Management Company Merit Company Homing Thiery Partnership Bremerton Cascade Associates Business Electric Utility Telecommunications Developer Olympic College Business Svcs Apartments Retail Retail Retail Apartments Apartments Assessed Valuation $ 22,603,320 16,370,144 9,817,460 8,022,400 7,800,000 7,010,000 6,000,000 5,865,0O0 5,765,000 5,400,000 SEATTLE-BREMERTON FERRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS 2 Year Number of Vehicles Number of Passenaer~ 1995 751,266 1,545,417 1994 719,125 1,456,706 1993 676,031 1,399,354 1992 667,251 1,493,650 1991 659,827 1,439,648 KITSAPCOUNTY WASHINGTON STATEAND USA LABOR FORCEAND AVERAGE ANNUALUNEMPLOYMENT3,4 Kitsao County Unemolovment as a Percent of Labor Force United Resident Civilian Average Annual Total Kitsap County Washington States Year Labor Force Unemployment Employment (%) (%) (%) 1995 90,900 6,000 84,900 5.5 6.4 5.6 1994 89,500 5,400 84,100 6.0 6.4 6.1 1993 90,100 6,000 84,100 6.7 7.5 6.8 1992 88,900 5,400 83,500 6.1 7.5 7.4 1991 85,800 4,200 81,600 4.9 7.5 6.7 1990 84,600 3,400 81,200 4.1 6.3 5.5 Source: Kitsap County Assessor's Office. 2 Source: Washington State department of Transportation, Marine Division 3 Includes nonagricultural wage and salary, self-employed, unpaid family workers, domestics, agricultural workers, labor disputants. 4 Source: Washington State Department of Employment Security 12 KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON STATE AND USA INCOME ESTIMATESl Total County Per Capita Income Personal Income Kitsap Year ($000) County Washington USA 1994 $ 4,246,000 $ 19,264 $ 22,526 $ 21,896 1993 4,081,000 18,962 21,832 20,812 1992 3,923,000 18,607 21,313 20,147 1991 3,601,000 17,971 20,168 19,201 1990 3,323,997 17,318 19,268 18,677 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce and Washington State Office of Financial Management. 13 7.5 TAX EXEMPTION Exclusion from Gross Income In the opinion of Bond Counsel, assuming compliance by the City with applicable requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), including arbitrage and arbitrage rebate requirements under Section 148 of the Code, interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income of registered owners for federal income tax purposes under existing federal law and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to individuals. Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax While interest on the Bonds also is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to corporations, under Section 55 of the Code, tax-exempt interest, including interest on the Bonds, received by corporations is taken into account in the computation of adjusted current earnings for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable tO corporations (as defined for federal income tax purposes). Under the Code, alternative minimum taxable income of a corporation will be increased by 75% of the excess of the corporation's adjusted current earnings (including any tax-exempt interest) over the corporation's alternative minimum taxable income determined without regard to such increase. A corporation's alternative minimum taxable income, so computed, that is in excess of an exemption of $40,000, which exemption will be reduced (but not below zero) by 25% of the amount by which the co.~oration's alternative minimum taxable income exceeds $150,000, is then subject to a 20% minimum tax. Corporate Environmental Tax Section 59A of the Code imposes for tax years beginning on or before January 1, 1996, an environmental tax of 0.12% ($1.20 per $1,000) on the amount of a corporation's alternative minimum taxable income (increased for certain book income and adjusted current earnings, including any tax-exempt interest) that exceeds $2,000,000. Tax on Certain Passive Income of S Corporations Under Section 1375 of the Code, certain excess net passive investment income, including interest on the Bonds, received by an S corporation (a corporation treated as a partnership for most federal tax purposes) that has Subchapter C earnings and profits at the close of the taxable year may be subject to federal income taxation at the highest rate applicable to corporations if more than 25% of the gross receipts of such S corporation is passive investment income. Foreign Branch Profits Tax Interest on the Bonds may be subject to the foreign branch profits tax imposed by Section 884 of the Code when the Bonds are owned by, and effectively connected with a trade or business of, a United States branch of a foreign corporation. CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL TAX CONSEQUENCES Bonds Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations for Financial Institutions Section 265 of the Code provides that 100% of any interest expense incurred by banks and other financial institutions for interest allocable to tax-exempt obligation acquired after August 7, 1986, will be disallowed as a tax deduction.' However, if the tax-exempt obligations are obligations other than private activity bonds, are issued by a governmental unit that, together with all entities subordinate to it, does not reasonably anticipate issuing more than $10,000,000 of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds and other obligations not required to 14 '76 be included in such calculation) in the current calendar year, and are designated by the governmental unit as "qualified tax-exempt obligations," only 20% of any interest expense deduction allocable to those obligations will be disallowed. The City is a governmental unit that, together will all subordinate entities, reasonably anticipates issuing less than $10,000,000 of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds and other obligations required to be included in such calculation) during the current calendar year, and has designated the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of the 80% financial institution interest expense deduction. Therefore, only 20% of the interest expense deduction of a financial institution allocable to the Bonds will be disallowed for federal income tax purposes. Reduction of Loss Reserve Deduction for Property and Casualty Insurance Companies Under Section 832 of the Code, interest on the Bonds received by property and casualty insurance companies will reduce tax deductions for loss reserves otherwise available to such companies by an amount equal to 15% of tax-exempt interest received during the taxable year. Effect on Certain Social Security and Retirement Benefits Section 86 of the Code requires recipients of certain Social Security and certain Railroad Retirement benefits to take receipts or accruals of interest on the Bonds into account in determining gross income. Other Possible Federal Tax Consequences Receipt of interest on the Bonds may have other federal tax consequences as to which prospective purchasers of the Bonds may wish to consult their own tax advisors. PRESERVATION OF TAX EXEMPTION The City covenants, by Bond Ordinance, that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Bonds or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Bonds at any time during the term of the Bonds which will cause interest on the Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City certifies that it has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that it is a bond issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon. ABSENCE OF MATERIAL LITIGATION There is no lit!g.ation of any kind now pending or, to the knowledge of the City, threatened to restrain or enjmn the issuance or delivery of the Bonds or in any manner questioning the proceedings and authority under which the Bonds are issued or affecting the ability of the City to pay the principal of or the interest on the Bonds. APPROVAL OF BOND COUNSEL Legal matters incident to the authorization, issuance and sale of Bonds by the City are subject to the approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper & Shefelman, Bond Counsel. A copy of the opinion of Bond Counsel will be printed on the Bonds. Bond Counsel has reviewed this document only to confirm that the portions of it describing the Bonds and the City's authority to issue them conform to the Bonds and the applicable laws under which they are issued. 15 7'7 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Some or all of the fees of the Underwriter and Bond Counsel are contingent upon the issuance and sale of the Bonds. Furthermore, Bond Counsel from time to time serves as counsel to the Underwriter with respect to issuers other than the City and transactions other than the issuance of the Bonds. None of the councilmembers or other officers of the City have interests in the issuance of the Bonds that are prohibited by applicable law. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE Basic Undertaking to Provide Annual Financial Information and Notice of Material Events To meet the requirements of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 15c2-12 (b) (5) (the "Rule"), as applicable to a participating underwriter for the Bonds, the City will undertake (the "Undertaking") for the benefit of holders of the Bonds to provide or cause to be provided, either directly or through a designated agent, to each nationally recognized municipal securities information repository designated by the SEC in accordance with the Rule ("NRMSIR") and to a state information depository, if any, established in the State of Washington (the "SID"), timely notice of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds, if material: (i) principal and interest payment delinquencies; (ii) non-payment related defaults; (iii) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (iv) unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (v) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (vi) adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of the Bonds; (vii) modifications to rights of holders of the Bonds; (viii) Bond calls (other than scheduled mandatory redemption of Term Bonds); (ix) defeasances; (x) release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds; and (xi) rating changes. Type of Annual Financial Information Undertaken to be Provided. The annual financial information that will be provided with respect to each issue of local improvement district ("LID") bonds covered by the Undertaking will consist of (i) the aggregate total amount of unpaid assessments in the LID; (ii) the aggregate total assessed valuation for property tax purposes of all property within the LID subject to assessment; (iii) the ratio of the aggregate total unpaid assessments with respect to property in the LID subject to assessment to the aggregate assessed valuation for property tax purposes of the property in the LID subject to assessment; (iv) the fair market value of investments in the City's LID guaranty fund; (v) the total amount of delinquent assessment payments in the LID; (vi) the principal amount of bonds redeemed on the most recent interest payment date; and (vii) the remaining principal amount of the bonds outstanding. The annual financial information may be provided in single or multiple documents, and may be incorporated by reference to other documents that have been filed with each NRMSIR and the SID, or, if the document incorporated by reference is a "final official statement" with respect to other obligations of the City, that has been filed with the MSRB. Amendment of Undertaking The Undertaking is subject to amendment after the primary offering of the Bonds without the consent of any holder of any Bond, or of any broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, participating underwriter, rating agency, NRMSIR, the SID or the MSRB, under the circumstances and in the manner permitted by the Rule. 16 The City will give notice to each NRMSIR or the MSRB and the SID, of the substance (or provide a copy) of any amendment to the Undertaking and a brief statement of the reasons for the amendment. If the amendment changes the type of annual financial information to be provided, the notice also will include a narrative explanation of the effect of that change in the type of information to be provided. Termination of Undertaking. The City's obligations under the Undertaking shall terminate upon the legal defeasance of all of the Bonds. In addition, the City's obligations under the Undertaking shall terminate if those provisions of the Rule which require the City to comply with the Undertaking become legally inapplicable in respect of the bonds for any reason, as confirmed by an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel or other counsel familiar with federal securities laws delivered to the City, and the City provides timely notice of such termination to each NRMSIR or the MSRB and the SID. Remedy for Failure to Comply with Undertaking. If the City or any other obligated person fails to comply with the Undertaking, the City will proceed with due diligence to cause such noncompliance to be corrected as soon as practicable after the City learns of that failure. No failure by the City of other obligated person to comply with the Undertaking will constitute a default in respect of the Bonds. The sole remedy of any holder of a Bond will be to take such actions as that holder deems necessary, including seeking an order of specific performance from an appropriate court, to compel the City or other obligated person to comply with the Undertaking. UNDERWRITING All of the Bonds are being purchased by the Underwriter for __% of the par value and will be moffered at an average price of __.%, which results in an underwriting spread of__ %. The Underwriter intends to offer the Bonds to the public at the offering prices set forth on the cover page of this Official Statement. The Underwriter may allow concessions from the public offering prices to certain dealers who may reallow concessions to other dealers. After the initial public offering prices may be varied from time to time by the Underwriter. CONCLUDING STATEMENT All estimates, assumptions, statistical information and other statements contained herein, while taken from sources considered reliable, are not guaranteed by the City or the Underwriter. So far as any statement herein includes matters of opinion or estimates of future expenses and income, whether or not expressly so stated, they are intended merely as such and not as representations of fact. The information contained herein should not be construed as representing all conditions affecting the City or the Bonds. Additional information may be obtained directly from the City or the Underwriter. The foregoing statements relating to the Bond Ordinance and other documents are in all respects subject to and qualified in their entirety by provisions of such documents. 17 ?q APPENDIX A FORM OF BOND COUNSEL OPINION AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing: FOR AGENDA OF: August 28, 1996 Appeal of Planning CommissionORIGINATING DEPT: Dept. of Comm. Dev. decision for special use permit ORIGINATOR: Jack Allingham, Sr. Planner and site plan review for Assisted Living Concepts Group Residential Facility DATE SUBMITTED: August 22, 1996 CLEARANCES: (Comment on backAif necessary) D%rector of Comm~: ._~~ City Attorney: ~~--~ Operations Co]~n. ~-17-96 3. EXHIBITS: I. Letter of Appeal; II. Planning Comm. Findings and Conclusions; III. Planning commission Minutes 6-18-96; IV. Written Testimony - 2 letters. Vo Six additional exhibits submitted to the Planning commission are on file at the Council's office. Rebuttal - 3 Parties. Plan~/ng Commission Transcript. ENDORSEMENT Az INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRES~ENT FOR SUBMiTtAL: ~ f ~ ~/ / -- COUNCIL PRESID~T~' '~'~-~ . On June 18, 1996, the Planning Commission approved a special use permit and site plan for Assisted Living Concepts' Group Residential Facility - Class I Large. The 39-unit facility is intended to provide housing for elderly persons. These approvals are being appealed by adjoining property owner, Bremerton Cascade Associates on the grounds stated in their Letter of Appeal received by the Council's office on 8/12/96. The written arguments pertaining to this appeal and Planning Commission's exhibits are on file at the Council's office and are available for the Council's and the public's review. The City Council, when hearing an appeal, shall either: 1) Affirm the decision under review; 2) Reverse the decision under review; 3) Modify in whole or part the decision under review; or 4) Remand the matter back to the approving authority for further consideration. Such action shall be decided by a majority vote of the members present. That vote may be taken at the same or any subsequent meeting. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends upholding the Planning Commission's decision. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Donald Pratt ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Donald Pratt EXPIRATION DATE: NA REVIEW DATE: NA PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED 11. AMENDED DATE: A~.NDA EILL NO.: BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL A~END/% BILL (CONT.) 2 · CLEi%RANCE COMMENTS: IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: The decision of the Planning commission will be overturned IMPACT ON STAFFINGt BUDGETSt FACILITIESt EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Additional staff resource will be required to review future building development. RESEARCH SOURCES: DCD file No's. SUP-02-96/SPR-08-96 "RECEIVED. CI1~ COUNCIL OFFICE" DATE KtLUVtU Lily LUUIILIL UI'I'ILI:" BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF BREMERTON ) ) In re Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. ) ) ) ) APPEAL OF GRANT OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT I. Procedural and Factual Background This is an appeal of the special use permit granted to Assisted Living Concepts, Inc., by the Bremerton Platming Commission on June 18, 1996. Appellant Bremerton Cascade Associates submits this statement of issues and supporting argument pursuant to Rule 12 of the newly enacted procedures governing closed record appeals to this Council. The relevant factual background is contained in the record from the heating below. Under the new procedures, the record is the transcript of the Planning Commission hearing and materials received in evidence at that hearing. Rule 12 (1)-(2). In addition, as will be shown below, there is an exception for additional evidence in a closed record appeal where there is an allegation of procedural irregularity which, by its nature, was not revealed in the record below. Very briefly, Appellant Bremerton Cascade Associates owns and operates an assisted care facility near the proposed project called The Willows Retirement Center. The Willows is situated between Pine Road and Rickey Road, with vehicular access off Pine Road. Pine Road is a minor arterial improved to urban levels of service. Rickey Road is a narrow, two-lane, unimproved rural neighborhood access street. Because of the increased levels of use associated APPEAL OF GRANT OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT with such projects, The Willows was required to access Pine Road. For reasons relating to the Growth Management Act and safety, the appellant requested that the proposed project likewise be conditioned on access to Pine Road. The Planning Commission declined to impose the condition, based at least in part on the testimony of the only witness to testify in favor of the project other than the applicants, Linda Gibbs. II. Issues The hearing and decision by the Planning Commission raise two important issues. The first concerns a procedural irregularity which tainted the hearing and deliberations below and which requires the Council to remand this matter for rehearing by the Planning Commission. The second concerns the twin requirements under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to link urban growth activities with urban levels of service and to ensure the character and vitality of established residential neighborhoods. III. Argument A. This matter must be remanded to the Planning Commission for rehearing because of procedural irregularity or misconduct that appears to have occurred at the prior hearing. Although this is a closed record review, when a petition for review alleges procedural irregularities or an appearance of fairness violation, the reviewing body may consider evidence outside the record. Responsible Urban Growth Group v. Kent, 123 Wn.2d 376, 384, 868 P.2d 861 (1994). Bremerton Cascade requests this matter be remanded back to the Planning Commission for rehearing because of procedural irregularity or misconduct in the first hearing. As the City Council will note, one of the "neighbors" of the property, Linda Gibbs, who resides on Rickey Road, testified at length before the Planning Commission. Ms. Gibbs vigorously supported the APPEAl, OF GRANT OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT -2- position of the applicants. Ms. Gibbs stated that the project's access onto Rickey Road was compatible with the neighborhood. She also argued there were no safety issues concerning access to Rickey Road. While Ms. Gibbs acknowledged that a few of her bunnies had been killed by cars on Rickey Road, her dogs had been successful in negotiating the crossing. She humorously noted that she assumed the elderly and infirm residents of The Willows and the proposed assisted care living center would fare at least as well as her dogs. Indeed, so vigorous in her testimony about the safety of Rickey Road was Ms. Gibbs, that she even sought to cross- examine representatives of Cascade Associates on that issue. Her testimony was an unusually forceful defense of the project as proposed, especially coming, as it apparently did, from a disinterested neighbor. No doubt the Plarming Commission was impressed by energetic testimony from a member of the neighborhood with no interest in the project who would be in a position to speak to actual local traffic conditions. There is only one problem with this scenario. It now appears Ms. Gibbs was anything but a detached and disinterested neighbor. Subsequent to the hearing, the appellant has learned that Ms. Gibbs, either on her own or through a relative or through some other association, has a direct business and/or financial interest in the subject parcels including the adjoining parcel that is being subdivided. Ms. Gibbs' testimony was highly persuasive. She was the only person who testified in favor of the project other than the developers. She specifically rebutted the appellant's testimony and concerns regarding the safety and other access issues relating to Rickey Road. Yet she failed to disclose her business or financial interest, or that of her family or relatives, to the Plarming Commission. She appears to have had a direct conflict of interest, yet appears to have deliberately failed to reveal that fact to the Commission, testifying instead in the guise of a APPEAL OF GRANT OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT neutral neighbor. Since this is a factual matter, the Council should remand this matter for rehearing to the Planning Commission with instructions to take sworn testimony from Ms. Gibbs concerning any business and/or financial interest she or members of her family or relatives may have in the subject parcel or adjoining parcels. At the very least, there should be a sworn affidavit in the record from Ms. Gibbs which denies in detail that she or any member of her family or relatives has or had any business and/or financial interest in the subject parcel, adjoining parcels, or nearby parcels that might be affected by the Planning Commission's decision. The Commission's decision was tainted by Ms. Gibbs' deliberate failure to disclose what appears to be a direct conflict of interest. The new closed record procedures adopted in July require a remand to the Planning Commission. Precisely because no new evidence or testimony can be taken at the City Council level, the investigation of this procedural irregularity or misconduct can only be accomplished through a remand to the Planning Commission. B. Access to the proposed pro_iect should be off of Pine Road rather than Rickey Road. Appellant's objection to the proposed project is a limited one regarding access to the project. While it is a single objection, however, it is an important one. It is grounded in the requirements of the Growth Management Act as well as in considerations of safety. First, the GMA was recently amended to underscore that one of the paramount objectives of the statute is the protection of the residential character of single family neighborhoods. The GMA now requires city comprehensive plans to include a "housing element ensuring the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods..." RCW 36.70A.070(2). Prior to 1995, the housing element needed only to "recognize" the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods. In 1995, the Legislature changed "recognize" to "ensure," thus APPEAL OF GRANT OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT -4- creating a binding requirement that cities must "ensure ... the character of established residential neighborhoods." RCW 36.70A.070(2); Laws 1995, ch. 337, § 1. By allowing access of Rickey Road when it could require access off Pine Road, the city is altering the character of the established residential neighborhood serviced by Rickey Road and violating a paramount objective of the Growth Management Act. Athough now a requirement of the GMA, the same policy was already present in Bremerton' s comprehensive plan. Subpolicy (4) of the plan's "Land Use Policy Goal 1" states that the city should endeavor to "Group higher intensity development convenient to community activities and busy streets to strengthen the identity of Bremerton's neighborhoods." Bremerton Comprehensive Plan, Element E at page 2. Pine Road was developed to provide urban infrastructure for higher density parcels. Rickey Road was not. Rickey Road is not classified in the city's street plan as any kind of urban access arterial, minor collector, or even neighborhood collector. When streets do not fall within one of the specified categories, they fit into the lowest category, which is essentially neighborhood access. The proposed project will generate at least 45 additional vehicular trips per day. It makes no sense to allow access for the proposed project to Rickey Road. By the same token, allowing access off of Rickey Road plainly jeopardizes, rather than ensures, the character of the established residential neighborhood surrounding Rickey Road. See RCW 36.70A.070(2). Rickey Road is a neighborhood street serving primarily single-family homes. It is not up to urban standards. In contrast, the other available access point, Pine Road, is designated as an arterial and is developed in part as an arterial. Clearly Pine Road, rather than Rickey Road, should provide the primary access for higher intensity uses on that block. APPEAL OF GRANT OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT Second, as the Council knows from its involvement in the Growth Hearings Board matter of Bremerton v. Kitsap County, it is a central premise of the Growth Management Act that urban growth activities requires urban governmental services. RCW 36.70A.030(14). The proposed project is an urban use and it requires urban services. Rickey Road is not up to urban standards and Pine Road is. Moreover, 45 additional vehicular trips per day is not a single-family or residential neighborhood type of traffic. It is more consistent with multi-family, low density commercial activity. Perhaps that is why, when The Willows was permitted, it was required to be accessed offofPine Road. The contrast is clear and the choice is simple. Pine Road should provide the access to the proposed project. Both common sense and the Growth Management Act require that. Third, plausible safety problems with access off Rickey Road remain, including line of sight issues relating to the crest of the hill and a statistically increased danger to pedestrians generated by increased vehicular traffic. The road was not designed for the purpose to which it would be put. Pine Road is designed for that purpose. IV. Conclusion The city has the clear ability through the special use process and site plan review process to impose access restrictions. For the reasons stated, appellant Bremerton Cascade Associates requests this Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission with respect to access onto Rickey Road and require access off of Pine Road. In the alternative, we request that the APPEAL OF GRANT OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT Council remand this matter for reheating. Only a reheating will remove the taint of procedural irregularity created by Ms. Gibbs' failure to disclose her or her relatives' business of financial interest in the properties involved. DATED this 12 day of 1996. CAIRNCROSS & I-IEMPELMANN, P.S. John W. Hempelmarm, WSBA No. 01680 Patrick D. Brown, WSBA No. 23033 Attorneys for Bremerton Cascade Associates APPEAL OF GRANT OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT ~7- Bremerton Planning Commission June 18, 1996 Public Hearing Chairman Olsen: Title Assisted Living Plan Concept. Review of 39 unit Assisted Living Facility on a 2.4 acre site of R.icky Road. Appearance of fairness does any member of the Commission have a potential conflict of interest. Unidentified Commissioners: No. Chairman Olsen: Does any member of the public abject to the participation by any member of this Commission. Hearing none we will go to staff. Jack Allingham: This is a application for a Assisted Living facility the best use that the Zoning Ordinance can describe it as is a Group Residential Facility class one larch. The applicant is the Assistant Living Concepts Inc. with Robert Dunn the main contest person the site is located along the east side of Rickey Road about 900 and some odd feet, 950 feet south of the intersection of Rickey Road and Sylvan Way. This map is a copy of the adopted Compressive Plan Map and it shows that the area has a Comprehensive Plan designation of High Density Residential the zoning of the site is zoned MR Mixed Residential and the Mixed Residential allows a group residential facility with a Special Use Permit. The allowable density allowed by zoning is 1 dwelling unit per 1,000 square feet of lot area. This is for 39 dwelling units and the site area is about 2.4 acres which is well below the allowable density for this facility. The Planning Commission is also being requested to review and approve a site plan for this facility that is potentially what I am showing here on the view coil. Site plan and the MR zone requires a 20 foot front yard set back a 25 foot rear yard set back and a 5 and a 15 foot set back on the side yards. The site plans accentual conforms to the set back requirements the profile elevations of the structures that have been forwarded to the Planning Commission show a structure which has a height of about 20 feet the MR zone allows structures up to 120 feet. The maximum lot coverage is 45% in the MR zone and the structure covers 24 1/2% of the site. So accentual proposal is within the allowable density and the lot requirements of the zoning ordinance. The Special Use Permit process allows the Planning Commission to review the parking requirements, the zoning ordinance doesn't speak to a specific use called Assistant Living but it does look at boarding and rooming houses. The zoning ordinance allows the Planning Commission on a case by case bases to reduce the parking requirements which typically for a residential unit is approximately 2 spaces. In this case the applicant has provided data on similar facilities on which they have operated. The parking requirements that they are requesting is 1 space for every 2 units and this reduction can be granted if it is based on the age of residence and the typical maximum of employees at any one time at this facility. The applicant states that the approximately 6 employees maximum at any one particular time would be at the facility and that the due to the typical age of the residence very few of them drive. The plan shows 20 parking spaces at the rear of the structure away from Rickey Road with do mobility accessible parking spaces sort of at the front entry way along the south side. There is also a Type 3 stream in intermittence drainage that flows along the north side of the complex which the applicant is proposing to place in a culvert. The applicant has provided a wetland and stream evaluation, evaluating the placement of this stream and culvert and that accordance accentual concludes that there will not be a detrimental affect to water quality use storm water mn off by placing this stream in the culvert. In regard to lighting a plan doesn't give us details as to the lighting however the zoning ordinance has regulations which prohibit production of glare onto adjoining properties not anticipated that this type of facility would be a glare procuring facility. Storm water a preliminary storm water management plan has been submitted to the City and has been reviewed, the storm water will be collected detained on site and then discharged through a to the City Storm Water Collection System located on Pine Road. I do have some photographs of the site that I would like to show the Planning Commission. This is a view the site is located to the right hand site of the screen it is heavily vegetated along Rickey Koad this is a view to the north ward Sylvan Way. This is a view at the south west comer of the site just north of an adjoining property the Willows you can see that the site is relativity level there is some undulation to the topography but it doesn't have any significant topographic features. This is a view of the south property line and the adjacent similar complex the Willows to the south. This is a view to the neighboring property to the north, this is a Market Rate Apartment Complex I believe it is called Shadow Creek Apartments. This is a view down into the stream which is located on the site from Rickey Road it is not radically discernible that this is about the best that I could get a picture of the stream from the road. This is another view looking north across where the stream is located and to the north property line for the Shadow Creek Apartments. This is aview ora signal family residence located directly across Rickey Road to the west. When a site plan is submitted to the Planning Commission and then later submitted to the Department of Community Development for Building Permits sometimes there are modifications to the actually site plan and also sometimes during construction when a construction project gets under way the site plans become modified so Planning Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve this site plan is concept and give the final authority to the Director of Community Development for issuing the Building Permit. Accentual the recommendation is that the Planning Director approve a Building Permit if the general use character of the development doesn't change, there is no increase traffic or circulation problems, that the total number of residential dwelling units has not increased by more than 5% over the number here shown on the preliminary plan on 39 units, and that the amount of open space is not decreased by 3%. Finally the Planning staff recommend approval subject to a street frontage landscaping with street trees provided in conformance of the Zoning Ordinance and that the applicant provide a Parking Agreement that is recorded with the County Auditor stating that they will provide additional parking if the circumstances or the type of views of this facility changes to a market rate housing facility and finally the Zoning Ordnance requires that the Special Use Permit be acted on with in a period of one year or else it expires. Based on those conditions the planning staff recommends approval of'this proposal. That concluded my staff report. Chairman OIsen: Thank you, Jack. Has there any written testimony. There was one letter that is in our packet. Jack Allingham: I believe there is two letters. Chairman OIsen: That we have already received. Robert Dunn: I am will First Mark and I am the developer and represent the applicant and the Conventional Operator which is the Assistant Living Concepts in our presentation tonight we would like to we have a representative owner Michael Deschane here this evening. Our engineer which is Norm Olsen, Norm Olsen and Associates and architect representing the architectural firm Kurt Wood Associates is for Shannon we would like to break our presentation up into basically 3 categories. We will have Michael Deschane speak about Assisted Living and what really what we believe Assistant Living really is. I will speak a little about the Site Plan and address some of the letters, the two letter that were written. Then Norm Olsen who could address the engineering standpoint Photography Utilities access of Rickey Road brought up in the letters the stream development which has been an issue, for storm drainage and any environmental issues. So I would like to have Deschane come up at this point. Chairman Olsen: OK. Michael Deschane: Good evening, I am from Portland Oregon with Concept of Community Living and I am also an alumni of Olympic College so by coming home. A little about Assisted Living, Assisted Living is a fairly new designation in the State of Washington which extends aborting care home that they have has for years and years. Licensed Boarding Homes to a some what higher level of care. Assisted Living is a policy of the State of Washington as an attempt to limit inappropriate places to nursing facilities. We have Assisted Living Concept and other companies have operated Assisted Living our first in Oregon was in 1984. We also helped developed the first one in Washington State which is Pike Place Market in Seattle, run by Sister Provenance. Assisted Living at best be at simplest way to describe it is were self contained apartments pretty much end of tape 1 Michael Deschane: self contained apartments where individuals have their own apartment they are no shared units have their own bathroom which is fully accessible and have some cooking facilities in Assisted Living case usually consist of a microwave and a small refrigerator and a sink. With that apartment and the doors lock and everything is individually controlled it is very much like an apartment. We have the capability of providing an extensive ray of services, services that would have normally been associated with nursing homes of 10 or 15 years ago. Not skilled services not 24 hour nursing care, but fairly heavy personal care. Our average tenant or average tenant is about 86 87 years old. Is female usually and has 2 or more functional impairments that they need assistance with a live in may be problems remembering medication and taking medications and may be mobility problems, problems dressing and personal care and bathing assistance, it may be some memory problems, and contingent of impairments that require sort of protective over sight. That's a basic look at what we are really about. Assistant Living Concept is a Public Corporation been public since November 2 years ago this November. Originally was concepts which I am still with and a are building a number of facilities in the State of Washington, Oregon and a few other states. We are a Oregon cooperation have been in the q/e_ business since 1984 doing these planned to be in the business until I move into one of these places and probable even after that. There are a couple things that I have looked at some of the letters and some of the comments and I would like to comment briefly on some of those things. One is emergency vehicles and I notices that there was a comment about the Willows next door has a lot on emergency vehicles one thing is important is that they are three times four times the size that we are. At relatively little staff our staff takes care of most of the problems that people have on site. We would average and I have talked to two facilities today less than one emergency vehicle that is with sirens and that is with less than one a month. In Tillamock I think we have been open there just over an year and they have had 5 in the times when other have had two the last month so. We very seldom have actual lights going we do have transportation once and a while. But is is seldom that 911 is called to come, because our staff is there 24 hours. We are staffed also considerable lighter than nursing facilities. We will have probable the highest number of staff at any given time in the building will be sever or eight. In that will stager sometimes our biggest care area is fight around 8:30 to 9:00, 8:00 to 10:00 another bunch of care needs come around dinner time and the rest is fairly light. Normally we would have about 6 people on site, at night will at the swing shift or grave yard shift we will have one or two people on site. There is not alot of staff associated with not an unreasonable amount. The other issue is we don't have a lot that I have read in the letter that has to vans coming and going, we don't have vans per say, they people don't go out. Remember the people are very very frail. Almost none of them drive they seldom leave the facility unless it is usually most after with family. As much as we can get the family to stay involve. So we don't have alot of traffic in the development. Indeed in terms in trip ins and the research we have done in the past we have fewer trip in than signal family homes on the same that we have standard lots on a signal form family home would have and far less than an apartment building would have, so we are really light on traffic. And I think that is all I will say are there any question later on I will be glad to answer. Thank you. Chairman Oisen: Thankyou. Robert Dunn: We have a color site plan of the project going back to the letters that we have received or that were mailed into the City, it was mentioned several times why we don't access our property out of Pine Street and the truth of the matter is we didn't make an offer to buy the property on the Pine Street side. Our project as you can tell just we use a very small percentage of the density that is normally required for multi-family type of projects. At this point the cost of realestate as it is today makes almost imperative to buy more than we need. This was a 4.4 acre site Pine Street astound in this area the owner of the property agreed to accommodate us to divide the property into two parcels or at least attempt to divide the property into two parcels so that we could have the Rickey Road parcel. The reason we chose the Rickey Road site is one we have low density a very very low traffic it is our projects are very residential in a can I give these to the Commission? Chairman OIsen: They will become our property Robert Dunn: That's right. Chairman Olsen: And that's exhibit a but Unidentified Commissioner: Those proposals start reporting Chairman Oisen: Three Robert Dunn: These are just photo copies of photographs, it is only to show the residential style of these are two of our facilities one from Cambia Oregon and I believe the other is from Silverton Oregon. So Chairman Olsen: Joan Robert Dunn: This is a front view or and entry to the exact project judgment built in a couple locations as well. So as you can see they are very residential in style, they are always one level. We try make sure the reason we keep the project small we always try to make sure that at no time it is more than 150 feet from a signal living unit to the main common area were there is dining and social activities. Because of that concept that we try to live with keeps our projects small and special from one level to be expected. Going back to the Rickey Road issue we chose Rickey Road basically because it has low traffic volume we wouldn't create a problem for Rickey Road, Pine Road is a very busy street and probable better use for a high density type project. If we maximize out this one parcel of land we could see the potential with height 100 foot height limitation it is essential for 104 units of family multi-family type apartments could go here. If you just multiply the number of trips per day or even the number of people you could get up to 3 or 4 hundred people could be residing here. Were in this particular project we would estimate 39 people would reside here when it is full. Even by State Law you could have two people in one bedroom units there will be six one bedroom about 33 of them will be studios, they very maximum residents will be 45. Compared to the potential of a 104 units could be developed to the maximum height. Based on this and the fact that we have done studies and Norm Olsen will talk about the street access and the visibility we just felt that the Rickey Road site was were we should be if there is openly going to be high density someday it should be accessing on Pine Street. And at this point and time there is an offer on this other parcel and I understand that there is a back up offer of that parcel and both of those particular purchasers and the owner of the property are not particularly interested in giving us the sort of right away through here even if the project amortized it. I think that Michael pretty much addressed the emergency issues as far as ambulance and that sort of type of thing. We also developed and own some quite a few large facilities for just standard residential type apartments and a number of police calls, dispute calls, and those assault call standard to an apartment facility probably will be nominal higher than what would be here. Anyway that is a little history how we happen to shake this pierce of realestate over the other one. We do meet all our set backs we have in the middle of our project it won't show in that rendering that this is an open court yard which is all landscaped with a gazebo in the center and the majority that is 99% of any out door activities by the residence is always done in the court yard. So they have 4 or 5 different ways of getting back into the building so this would be the outside recreational areas and there is inside recreational areas to be used, craft room, TV, craft room, library that type of facility as well. As Michael said our clientele is a little don't leave the building unless they leave with family members or chaperones. Our lot coverage as it was stated earlier were the city we have the ability we have the ability for 45% lack coverage of somewhere in the neighborhood of 24.5% landscaping open area is far beyond the requirement which we do is our preference obviously have open area of landscaping green grass just makes it a nicer place for clientele to live. Again our density were way below the density that could be utilized on this property utilities are available to the site we have a letter of availability on those so I think we have covered that criteria. And then the only other thing that we did talk that Mike did talk a little bit about is parking and I have another exhibit I would like to this is just an update of the parking facilities for the parking ratios and we will just add 7 or 8 facilities they are all run and owned by . They just show additional percentages. Chairman Olsen: OK, the parking pattern for Approved Assisted Living Concept Facilities Exhibit 5. So should be also number Iris Exhibit he is pointing to too? Unidentified Person: I did Chairman Olsen: You did, OK Robert Dunn: The only other thing that I would like to touch on is the lighting which again Jack did touch on. We tried for a parking in the back so that you wont have head light parking towards the street and in the same we would like to have our landscaping to make a front and more open areas of the project, so we have landscaping out front and not parking out front. As far as the conditions that the city has set of the approval of project or the agreement with all of them. If there is no questions on me, is there any questions? Commissioner Dingfield: I do have a question, I am curious about the ratio of studios, one bedroom apartments could you speak maybe a little bit to the what the demand is for the studios versus the one bedrooms in your experience in the other facilities and along that line if you with what the city has given us in terms of the perimeters of the 5% increase if you saw an increase that you might consider would you consider it in the studios or the one bedroom area? Robert Dunn: Probably Michael could address that. Commissioner Dingfield: Mike address that better. Commissioner Stone: OK Unidentifiable Person: Do you have any questions for me. Unidentifiable Person: We do have some Unidentifiable speaIdng Chairman Olsen: I'll let John go first. Commissioner Hancock: The clientele are from the Kitsap Mountain Health and they are assigned to that facility. qlY' Robert Dunn: We will let Mike test that one too. Robert Dunn: Stated a majority of our clientele are local addresses, well as far as other funded also they are. Chairman OIsen: Mike would you want to come up to the podium there, we have a few questions that you could answer. Michael Deschane: The one bedroom ratio we do number of reasons for a 20% ratio and we do that just about every where. One is remember what I said before people are fairly frail and the amount of space they need a frailer more frail it is much less we have demands primarily for a little bit better than 20% of one bedrooms. They usually go first, but the cost of those space and what we can get in terms of service isn't everything make it much better for us to due, the studio unit at 20% mixed has worked just about every where. With a few rare acceptation were we are sort a combining uses of the facility. Where there may be some congest none less some flail people and it will have more one bedroom. They other question was about the mental health. We get most of our clients from DSHS or Social Health Services and a almost all of them are ancient most of the people we may have 1% that are under 65 years old, actually probably about 3 or 4% that are under 75 years old. Number of reasons for this one we are not equipped to really handle alot of mental health issues. I am a gerontologist and most of the commentators are gerontolologiest we studies most of our life old people and we are not as good with younger people and we don't deal well we don't know how to deal professionally with people that represent other mental health kinds of issues. We do have some congible impaired not that we don't have mental health problems. The conginent of the impairment are generally a loss of memory. What would happen very early stages ofalzimers. Any thing else? Commissioner Dingfield: To carry that one step further than that, than this there is not really a you don't run into security types of issues or having to restrain patients that's not the level of care giving. Michael Deschane: No we do not restrain the all of the exterior doors will be alarmed so that any body that does leave those doors we will first of all will know about we do have once and a while people that will tend to go out not run out so much but they will go out and get lost some where but we know when their there. Because this is very expensive all the staff will have a pager so anytime the door is opened or fire alarm goes off it pages the staff they are on duty and it tells them where that occurred. Unidentifiable talking. Commissioner Dingfield: Thank you. Commissioner Olsen: Anything else Michael Deschane: I'll come back I'm not going any where Unidentifiable Person: What my impression have to do it is not take qlc- Commissioner Oisen: Any other questions of the two gentlemen? Norman Olsen: I am of Chairman Olsen: I'll let John go first. Commissioner Hancock: The clientele are fi.om the Kitsap Mountain and they are assigned to that facility. Robert Dunn: I'll let Michael test that one to. The majority of our clientele in our are local addressees well as far as other funded also. Norman Olsen: __ and Associates representing Assisted Living Concepts, we stated the project work here about February and the first thing I did was retained a Wetland Biologist and Streams Certified Biologist to take a look at the water course and a because if you have a problem but that the project what is the first thing that would come up. The project limited itself well we saw no problems topographical or anything that could cause you alot of heart aches and alot of future maintenance. The __ indicated the interests on Rickey Road and this is where all of our utilities are coming fi.om We are extending the sewer fi.om down by the willows up towards our north boundary. Which is over 600 feet and Rickey Road. At the request of public works and I might at this point, Jack indicated that when the building permits are coming in at the same time the planning issues are being resolved. Sometimes some of the issues are some what mixed at this time that public works are full set of engineer drawings that they have reviewed and gone through final storm drainage analysis that they have reviewed and agree with so all of the bugs have been worked out of the engineering aspects. The water line is in Rickey Road and we will be bringing a loop that goes all away around the project and putting hydrants at locations where the Fire Marshal and the Building Department would like to see them. The loop is necessary to maintain the flow of the maximum rate for the spfinlder system cause the entire complex is put. Alot of indication or some indication this is a neighbors that object to the use of Rickey Road for any more increase of traffic and the way I look at it, Rickey Road is a city street, has a 60 foot fight away, 2 inch traffic we did an analysis of it in accordance with the American Association State Highway and Transposition Officials which is a book about that big and established a point here where we get a site distance measurement. We can see 333 feet to the south and I can see all the way to Silver way which is over 960 feet to the north. Those distances will give you a stopping site distances at a speed of about 40 MPH you can, someone pulling out of here can see a car 330 some feet south which is more than what the posted speed limit is. Analyzed the maximum traffic flow that you are going to get out of this complex. Versus 104 unit apartment complex. Now this feature is because it is assisted living is not really established in the institute of transportation engineer manuals that have come fairly close. What I have come up with is at PM, P Traffic which is were you usually get the highest move in. You are going to get 9 vehicles and hour out of here. PM? traffic at an apartment complex you will get 37. In the morning when people are coming in and people are going out of the apartment complex to work, you are going to get 9 unit in the mooning peak in over an hour which you should get 70 out of 170 units here. So there really not much of contest as far as I'm concerned, where the biggest issue on Rickey Road is. The biggest issue is the average weekly, daily traffic, now this is, ail the traffic that going to come out and back in one day. it's who's about 45 cars a day. Out of 104 units should get you about 950, every day. During the week, so not much of an comparison to which best fits the site. The a stream which I indicated earlier starts here in the north west comer, in the 18 inch culvert under Ricky Road, and its maunders to this point and we have biologist look at it, the concurrence with the Department of fish and Wildlife a Mr. Steve Calanostkey is that there are no wetland there, ail of the criteria are not available for wetlands it is a type 3 frame. But the functionai value to habitat and preparing habitat is extremely low and that the enclosing this stream in a culvert to this point dose not a have an environmental effect, detrimental effect. Pine Road out here this flow goes in to a 48 inch culvert that goes all the way out to Port Washington Narrows, from this point on it never reaches open air. It in a culvert all the way. The storm drain system that we have designed and, and a submitted to public works. Is a according to the King County Surface Water Management Manual which is used by the city of Bremerton Public Works. And it calls for detention of storm water which we were doing an under ground barrels at this point, and were the release rate is dictated by the Department of Ecology at the rate of a two year storm. That would occur if this thing was undeveloped. In other word you release the water at a rate of two years undeveloped, which is very slow. Cause it is a fairly small storm. The bio filtration which is a requirement of the Department of Ecology is right here and is amply room to get the water quality that required by Department of Ecology and King County Surface Water Management before its back into the stream. Through out the a putting the project a documents together I found nothing in here that would cause a detrimentai effect to the environment. I think that if this project fits that site better then most project I have done in the City of Bremerton and in Kitsap County. And I been at it for about 25 years here so I can see no reason why it should not obtain approval and it would be really good for this project, if that was done this evening. Any question? Commissioner Stone: Ugh Mr. Olsen your green slot is what 600 and some feet from bottom, assume the lower left hand comer is adjacent to Willows. Norman OIsen: Yes willows is here. Commissioner Stone: OK well the other property boundary then is about 600 some feet north of there? Norman Oisen: Yea 350 some feet. Commissioner Stone: And I understand the parcel itself is about 950 feet south of Sylvan Ave. Norman Olsen: This point is 966 feet south of Sylvan. Commissioner Stone: OK the reason for the question I have spent about 15 minutes standing at the comer of 31 st and Rickey. Norman OIsen: Which is about 1,000 feet to the south. ql z Commissioner Stone: Yea, I am a short guy but that's an awfully steep hill and I do have a concern my concern first of all let me show you I am sold on Assisted Living my mother has spent the last 8 years of her life in Assisted Living. My mother in law has spent the last years of her life at W'fllows. So I am familiar with the concept I think it is great. Why do we have the exit at that point? It seemed to me that it is just about the brow of the hill. What would prohibit a flop of that, there's got to be a good reason I know. Norman Olsen: Yes there is Commissioner Stone: OK Norman Olsen: OK if you move this further up here you are actually shorting your sight visibility that you can get, because the brow of the hill is about in here. You would only get you'd get less than 300 feet looking South from the location here. If you are sitting here in a vehicle your eye is about 3 1/2 feet above ground. At sitting here you can look South 333 feet and see a top of the vehicle that is 4 1/2 feet high which is about here, that's a small car. Commissioner Stone: So you exit is coming out at the brow of the hill. Norman Olsen: We are at the best part because wc are right at the top where you can see. Unidentified Person: OK Jean you are saying that we can see both ways Commission Stone: That is a good explanation. Norman Olsen: Thank you. Commissioner Stone: Is there a reason why you couldn't flop it? Norman Olsen: Put it here? Commissioner Stone: Yea you would have less Pardon Norman Olsen: You'd have less sight distance than Commissioner Stone: 650 feet to Sylvan only 3 down there. Norman Olsen: OK actually you would have less than 300 feet Commissioner Stone: Thank you. Norman Oisen: Any other questions? Chairman Olsen: Thank you Mr. Olsen. ql s Unidentifiable Talking Chairman OIsen: Bill Commissioner Robinson: Well yea I.~ust have a question of dimension on this plat map that we got. This open community area is the center of the complex. Chairman Olsen: I have to stop you you are going to have to identi~ your self. Forrest Shannon: Kirwood Architects Chairman OIsen: Thank you. Commissioner Robinson: Can you tell me the dimensions of that square footage of that or g~ve me the two dimensions. The reason I asked I scaled it off and it looks out of proportion I got 6390 sq. feet in that open area. Forrest Shannon: I have the actual construction documents and I could check them, we have calculated about 6400 sq. feet for the court yard. Commissioner Robinson: So I missed 10 feet. Unidentifiable Talking: Commissioner Robinson: We have a good engineer with in 15 to 20% like all engineers, ah Unidentified Person: Retired. Commissioner Robinson: Retired, ugh but probably from a service area a access area and so on that is not out of proportion to the other four dimensions surrounding it. Getting engrafts or E- graphs into the leni units on adverting the length in necessary I see you have a resident that lives down here in this area that's not unusually to perverse up to here. Forrest Shannon: No it is not. Commissioner Robinson: Because I get that about 140 feet. Forrest Shannon: That's close. Commissioner Robinson: OK I was just, I can just appear to be a little out of proportion it appeared to me to be a little large but if its not its not. So Forrest Shannon: Correct, Well the reason we have tried to make it so large is because that's the primary outdoor space that these residents will use. Commissioner Robinson: I understand that Forrest Shannon: and also we want to maximize the amount of sun light that can get into that area. The smaller the courtyard the more in shadow it will be. So Commissioner Robinson: So making it an open area right with the Forrest Shannon: Right, its open to the sky. There is no roof over it at all. Commissioner Robinson: OK thank you very much. Chairman Olsen: Is there any other questions. Thank you very much then. Forrest Shannon: That basically raps up our presentation. The only thing that I was going to mention to Norms part as to sight visibility. I mean we fially intend to meet all the road standards and I am sure Jack mentioned that you that, as far as visibility. Thank you. Chairman Olsen: Is there any testimony then is favor of this proposal. Secretary: We do have one letter that is kinda Commissioner Dingfield: Neutral Secretary: Neutral Chairman Olsen: OK Secretary: As one of the existing residents living in very close close proximity to the opposed Assisted Living Concept Project on Rickey Road I would like you and the Planning Commission to carefully consider the following issues and comments before approving this development as proposed. We can happily accept this proposed facility into our neighborhood with some relatively small revisions. The particular access to this project should be required to be from Pine Road for the following reasons. In it's current confederations this parcel fronts Pine and Rickey Roads and there for requiting developers to commentate access to Pine Road for this entire parcel, it is not an unreasonable request, and will not require any additional land from the developer. If some for thought in planning is used. Developers must be required to coordinate their site developments so to minimize the impacts to existing neighborhoods and residents. Particularly with parcels are being subdivided as part of the project proposal. A similar project constructed to the south Willows was required to access from Pine Road. The current proposed access location for this project as for sight is then in both directions of the steep hill to the south which climbing speed an issue and a dip to the north providing less than desirable site distance. There is a bus stop at or very near the proposed access. The area west of Rickey Road is signal family residential and accessing commercial development here will reduce our quality of life and unnecessarily when it comes when it could easily be avoided through site planning and coordination. In addition to the project accessing required from Pine Road I request that the buffer whips of the project above Rickey Road right away be expanded to the width sufficient to shield our neighborhood from noise and lighting impacts associated with facility operation, traffic and service and emergency vehicles that will frequently be visiting the facility. Existing vegetation in the Rickey Road right away should not be considered as adequately buffering the site and enhanced buffer which could also for habitat loss associated with hyping of the seasonal stream which currently crosses the sight. Please consider this project carefully and imply the proper conditions of approval so that our neighborhood and quality of life is not unnecessarily granted. Thank you for your careful consideration in this matter and it is signed Christine and Vernon Search. Chairman Oisen: Thank you. Well get is it a neutral Secretary: Yea it is basically neutral it is kind of a Chairman Olsen: OK we will go to the testimony for the neural habit. Ida Mae Cooper: I do not live in this area but I would like to warn the condition of one thing. I highly recommend you put the stipulations in here that this remain a one story Assisted Living only. Or you will have another Koma Village. I have heard them commenting many times about the maximum occupancy he has changed his term from Assisted Living to Multiple Family Dwellings and so forth. Horror story Koma Village is really a one story nursing home. That is what we were told when they rezoned it and we got a four story apartment house with no bumper and we were suppose to have a 20 foot greenbelt so I highly recommend that you as a Planning Commission put a restriction in your approval that it be a 1 story only. I noticed some of the pictures he handed you were two story buildings, and I highly recommended that the residents around there for their guarantee that this is what they will get. Chairman Olsen: Thank you very much, any other neutral comments? OK we will come back now any one in favor of this proposal who would like to testify? Linda Gibbs: I live about 300 feet I say from the sight and my drive way comes out just across where they have there access drawn on that sketch. There has been a number of points mentioned and I would like to just go over a few of those. The density I really pleased with that because I think we all realize that that zoned for a very high density and this is a very light use for that high density zoned property which being a neighbor I am very pleased about that and I think that's one of the plus side. The people who will be living there you know they are kinda by themselves and then there is the employees um and the appearance of the building makes it more like there neighbors rather than an Social Facility. Which is another plus I noticed in the packet that we got that for the lighting that it must be restricted, that the light must fall only on the sight which is good to and I don't want any glaring halogen lights shining down my driveway because its not really needed. As far as ambulances are concerned I think that they addressed that well in the one visit per month. I am home alot I don't work outside of the home and I maybe noticed one or two visits per month at the Willows and they don't bother me beyond the fact that I am concerned for who ever it was called for it is not a nuisance. The road access I can see valued points on both sides um a good illustration might be though that 2 of my 3 rabbits were mn over on Rickey Road, rabbits aren't known to be very intelligent my 2 dogs do cross from time to time. The beagle is number 72 on the intelligence list and that the lab is pretty well near the top so if a person has at least the intelligence of my beagle they should be OK I think. So I am in favor of this and I hope you approve it as it is. Thank you. Chairman OIsen: Thank you, any other person speak in favor. Hearing none and either in favor or neutral anyone in opposition, must step forward. John l][empleman: I don't know if it is appropriate to say that my client is opposition but they would request a condition be imposed on the project. My address is 701 5th Avenue in Seattle and I am a land use lawyer doing alot of work in planning, zoning, environmental, and growth management matters. My client is Bremerton Cascade Associates which owns the Willows and I come here tonight on behalf of the owner of the Willows and many of the residence. Who are requesting the Commission to compose a condition on the proposal the querying that the proposal be accessed off of Pine Road as opposed off of Rickey Road. Let me explain you have heard some discussion on this already there was one fairly cogent letter written but from whom appears to be a neighbor who has quite a bit of familiarity with the area. Rickey Road is a narrow 2 lane unapproved rural neighborhood access street. Pine Road on the other hand is a minor arterial improved to urban levels of service. As we approach increasing density in our urban growth areas. One of the most important principles that we have to keep in mind is that to accommodate urban growth we need urban levels of service, and I know you've heard alot of that over the last few years in the contents of the Growth Management Act. That principle is confirmed in the cities adopted comprehensive plan let me refer you to Land Use Policy Goal 1 which is encouraged development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficiency manor. Sub Policy 4 Goal 1 is group higher dense consistency development convent to community activities and busy streets to strengthen the amenity of Bremertons neighborhoods. So on one side of the parcel that is proposed for sub division you have a unimproved 2 lane road, yes it has a 60 foot right away but it is only paved to approximately 26 to 28 feet. It has no sidewalk no curb and no gutter. There is a C Grade on the road which does present issues in terms in the particular speed sight distance or some safety issues. You can not classify that as an Urban Street, in fact it isn't even classified in the City Street plan. AS any kind of Urban access __ minor collector or even neighborhood collector there for it is just on the lowest category when it isn't categorized at all which is essentially neighborhood access. Pine Road was developed to provide the Urban info structure for these higher density parcels. We are not talking about a 104 unit apartment building, that's not what is proposed here and I think it is unfair to compare that with the 39 unit Assisted Care Facility that is proposed. So lets look at the 39 unit Assisted Care Facility. Mr. Olsen, acknowledges that there looking on average at 45 vehicle trips per day. That is also not a signal family residential neighborhood type of traffic. It is more consistent with multi-family, low density, commercial activity. The record is correct in Noting that when the Willows was put in it was required to be accesses offofPine Road, and that was for good reason because Pine Road was built by the city to provide urban levels of service or urban densities and Rickey Road was not. That same condition should be consistently compiler to all of the multi-family proposed issues between Rickey Road and Pine Road South of Sylvan Way. That is good planning that is good implication of the Public Growth Management Act. Now you have the clear ability through the Special Use Permit process and also through the Site Plan Review process. Both of these of matters being before you tonight to impose this condition as you probably know cause you've dealt with a number of Special Use Permits before you can impose conditions to make sure the project is not result in a adverse environmental consequence. And you can impose a condition and make Sure the adequate public facilities for available and public utilizes include streets and roads and other kinds of access. I think its interesting to note that the preliminary site plan that is proposed for you review and approval tonight does include a design for a connection of Pine Road. You see that the access point off of Rickey Road Chairman Olsen: Sir, could you take the mike with you. John Hempleman: As you can see the sight plan from there I can see it from here you can see that in the lower right hand comer for what appears to be the south west comer of the site and there main driveway across the front of the facility has what appears to be a access point across the adjoin property. Keep in mind that separate application is pending before the city for a subdivision of this larger parcel. This larger this is part of a large parcel that is proposed to be subdivided the other parcel would be fronting on Pine Road. It is entirely appropriate and constant with the way realestate is done. For an owner who is sub dividing property to provide access to a minor arterial. It is entirely appropriate and it has been a condition imposed in many cities and counties. My own personal experience is to require access across the adjoining parcel. Particularly when it is being sub divided increase the use of it. The letter that was read earlier tonight made as I said some good points. The parcel to the east will need to have access off of Pine Road, it is high density it is zoned for high density it is likely to be multi-family. There is every reason in the world for both safety reasons and for efficient use of the transportation facility in the city. There for needed access. And on behalf of the owner of the Willows hum met this condition and on behalf of the residents of the Willows who would like to see the City protect the quiet relatively rural nature of the unapproved nature of Rickey Road. To allow that there is a couple other letters in the file indicate to be used for passive kinds of activities like walking in the neighborhood which is not a good idea on Pine Road. For those reasons it is requested that access be provided off' of Pine Road and that's the only condition that our client is requesting, other wise the proposal appears to be well designed and is not only constant with the zoning. I think that from the stand point of our client well say it provides a much needed kind of facility for the City. So we can support it with the condition of access off of Pine Road. Chairman OIsen: Thankyou, is there any questions? End of tape 2 Chairman Oisen: Any other person is opposition. Linda Gibbs: Can a ask these gentlemen some questions, please? Chairman Olsen: OK, One moment please. Jack Allingham: In form of cross examination I Linda Gibbs: I would just like him to verify something. Or request something. Chairman Olsen: You can talk to him privately but not as a Linda Gibbs: Unidentifiable talking Chairman Olsen: Do you want to come up to the mike please. Linda Gibbs: He was discussing the difference between Rickey Road and Pine Road and I was a little confused. He mentioned that Rickey Road was kinda a rural road 28 feet in width and that Pine Road was a minor arterial. I do walk up and down Rickey Road and there's a nice walking lane towards the bottom of it, is there a sidewalk on Pine Road other than maybe a couple of hundred feet in front of the apartments? Do you know the answer to that? Unidentified Person: I was on Pine Road and I some side walks. Linda Gibbs: I believe it is a couple of hundred feet in front of the apartments. Um apart from that a couple of hundred feet of sidewalk is there any actual physical difference between the two roads? Unidentifiable talking Linda Gibbs: That is the question is there a difference between the roads rather than the paper designation? Chairman Olsen: One moment were cross examining a person who just Linda Gibbs: I am trying to clarify what the meaning is between a rural road and a minor arterial. I don't see any physical difference between the two roads. Chairman OIsen: If he so desires he may.....is that all your questions? Linda Gibbs: That is, thank you. Chairman Olsen: The gentleman Mike come forth if he wants but he does not have any obligation because this would be a cross examination of the opponent. Linda Gibbs: Thank you, I just didn't want the council to be miss lead. Chairman Olsen: OK thank you very much. John Hempleman: I think it is entirely appropriate that once and a while a lawyer gets crossed examined. You've if any of you that have driven out there can see that the a the right away is much improved on Pine Road the width of the pavement is wider the traffic control, stop signs, qt t' and stripping and clearing on both sides of the road. The shoulders is dearly a upgraded urban type physicality. I did note that it appears staffis recommending that frontage improvements be a condition per gutter and sidewalk on Rickey Road. Is that a Jack Allingham: The short plat approval is being conditioned that the a proponent participate or agree to participate in future LID for improvements for both Rickey and Pine Road. John Hempleman: The problem with that I am sure you can appreciate is the zone on the west side of Kickey Road is signal family and I wouldn't say its fully built out a signal family in fact it looks like there are some vacant lots there, but it's not at all typical in fact that it's almost a typical to require signal family to do any frontage improvements. The east side of Willows Road is not fully developed but its primarily its already developed. So it is unlikely that if there were any frontage improvements on the Rickey Road side of this parcel that they would be of any value to anyone they would be improvements that would go no where and be linked with nothing. Were on the other side on Pine Road as development progresses and has already occurred and I believe in some instances because there are some right away improvements. There is some sure, gutter, and sidewalk connections is more likely and there is going to be a path of safe travel area because of the wide shoulder that is already there and the existing sidewalk is already there on part of the road so hopefully that answers the questions. I don't know if you typically do a sight visit rather than here from people providing testimony you can drive it and clearly see the difference in the level of service provided by the two facilities. Commissioner Stone: I have a question Chairman Olsen: Mr. Stone. Commissioner Stone: The a I did a sight visit today and as I indicated my mother-in-law lived there for 8 years at Willows. So I walked it, chased the cats around. I move to see the relevance you did a great presentation if I need an attorney I might have higher you one of these days but. The question I have at this point is admiditaly to Willows now runs from Rickey to Pine and a great facility. I don't totally understand there the depth of there concern that this will come out on Pine Road other than just a even playing field. Explain to me what their concern is. John Hempleman: The residents of the Willows the ones that talked to the client and relayed their concerns to us. See Rickey Road and use Rickey Road as a kinda walking path it has very little traffic on it because it is primarily serving the signal family residences that are on the a west side of the road. Um they are they believe that if there is any of the higher density which includes 39 units. Any of the higher density development that is on the east side of the road accessing Rickey Road. It changes the character of the road introduces more traffic, lets take Mr. Olsens number as a given I don't know if its a correct number but I am certainly willing to accept it at 45 more trips a day to a road that is accentualy a neighborhood access ahh street. They would prefer to keep it quiet, low travel as possible so that they can walk on it. Commissioner Stone: Primarily pedestrian concerns. John llempleman: To a lesser to extend safety. Commissioner Stone: Does Willows does not access Rickey in any way. John ~empleman: They walk if there is a you can walk through the landscaping on the Rickey Road and apparently that's the common path and emergency vehicular access is possible there is a rolled curbed there I believe when the Willows was approved it couldn't have access off of Rickey, but the curbed and landscaping had to be designed. So that if there was blockage on Pine Road that emergency vehicles could go over that curb onto the Willows. That would be entirely appropriate for this parcel as well. They could have a emergency access a crash gate or a rolled curbed on Rickey Road because the same I think the same principle applies. But the people at the Willows would like to see Rickey remain the quiet street that it is. Pine Road which is the city street the minor arterial be used for that purpose. Thank you. Linda Gibbs: The attorney has brought up a very good point and it has gotten me thinking yes I've seen the Willows people walking on Rickey Road and as Mr. Allingham has said it is part of the condition that the owners of this parcel install a sidewalk and a curb as part of a LID in the future. As I understand it the parcel to the south of the Willows on Rickey Road is being short platted and I assume that there will be a condition of that short plat also. Would they participate in curb and gutter and sidewalk? Is that likely Jack? Jack Allingham: ! hate to commit to that kind of answer on an application that is not here before the Planning Commission. Linda Gibbs: I understand that, it would be a good walking path though, with this sidewalk and the ones south of the Willows for the residence of the Willows to come up to that landscaping either go north shortly or go south and walk along east 3 1st and then they can come right back up into the Willows. It will make a circular path. My husband and I make probable ten trips a day that's __ and we are just two people I think that this is a very low density and I would really like to see this project go through. Chairman Olsen: OK Linda Gibbs: It is alot better than what will happen if this isn't approved Chairman Olsen: Understand, thank you. Any one else opposed? Yes Sir. Dave Dixon: P.O. Box 1465 Bremerton I would like to thank the Commission for the opportunity to speak. I have a letter in the file most of the concerns that I have expressed in the letter have been addressed by others here. I would like the Planning Commission to keep in mind that this is contingent on a sub-division of the land. This should be looked at as an overall project for commercial PUD regardless of how they are fazing the project and who are the partners in the phasing it is not adopting path for these guys to figure out access to Pine Road that serves both of these projects. It would also benefit the ability to get improvements on Pine Road for additional traffic mediation. So I ask that you condition the project to access onto Pine. Thank you. Chairman Olsen: Thank you, any one else opposed? Hearing none, no other persons well go to the rebuttal. Robert Dunn: I will go through these step by step to answer the one all of our projects are one level projects and this will be a one story building. We have no problem committing to that. Um to answer the last questions, we are not partners or involved in any way in the other half of this sight so we are not involved and wont be involved. What was suggested is making future access onto Pine Road is a requirement by the fire department and is called a hammer head turn around. Personally we will not have it on our sight if we could find a better way to deal with it, but that is not a planned access road. I am not sure. If this particular sight was divided into four signal family residential lots it would create some of the neighborhood of 40 45 passenger trips per day. So even at the very very slightest density or the shortest possible use we create as much as far as the street approvements on Rickey Road we signed the owner of this property today signed and LID agreement with the city agreeing that any point in time that sidewalks, curbs, gutters, sidewalks should be required or developed on that property that he would put them in immediately. So we are in the agreement to make any improvements necessary on Rickey Road. I feel as far as the Willows projects is concerned is that the reason that they are accessing Pine Road obviously is much different than ours, they have property that does site both on Rickey and Pine Road and for a project of 145 units in it and the majority of those people probably drive it makes sense that they would want to access that project under Pine Road and they have access to Pine Road. We do not on our site. The west side of Rickey Road in my opinion is quite farce actually and I am sure that in the future will be developed but already on Rickey Road without causing as far as I know not causing any problems there is a 32 unit apartment project right to the north of ours. That does already access onto and is a regular family multi-family medium income type project. So that is pretty much my report. Chairman Olsen: You are part of the rebuttal Michael Deschane: We take care of fairly frail people and some of them are memory impaired from an operators stand point we would much rather they would have to get out before we catch them, that they get out on a less busy road than a busier road. One of ours is unliking the Rickey Roads side is for the safety of the tenants. Although I realize that isn't necessary the land use that is one as an operator one of our prime concerns. Thank you. Chairman OIsen: Thank you, OK final staffreport Jack Allingham: Well it is my understanding the Willows was developed prior to annexation into the city so a condition on the Willows to access via Pine Road wasn't a condition in precedence set by the city of Bremerton. It has also probable been a decade since the Willows was constructed and staff really can't second guess as to what the conditions were 10 years ago. What the conditions of Rickey Road was then vs now that would of made the county place that type of condition of the Willows. I mean City Engineer has reviewed the issue regarding access and the sub division and whether or not to require access to this parcel via Pine Road in the condition that and that our city engineer sees no reason for that kind of condition. Chairman Olsen: Does any one have any questions? Jack, has Rickey Road always been as a city or was that a county that just came that just recently came into the city? Jack Allingham: In recently annex or a portion of it recently annexed. Chairman Olsen: About 3 years ago, or less give or take, so city has had time to update that road to Jack Allingham: You know with out access to records I am sure there has been upgrades to Rickey Road, new asphalt over lays. The photographs showed this evening showed a road that looked like it was in good condition. John llancock: Doesn't Kitsap Transit go up Rickey Road and turn right onto Seldon. Jack Allingham: Yes, Kitsap transit does have a bus stop. Chairman Olsen: The hearing is now closed to the public. Is there any questions that the Commissioners would like to ask any of the persons testifying tonight? Commissioner Stone: I do have a question for a Mr. Olsen you have been upset, do you have any plans for doing anything on the road side of Rickey Road? At the present time it is kinda a abrupt end of a road. Norman Olsen: OK we do have as a requirement of public works to put a sewer line in Rickey Road. Commissioner Stone: OK Norman Olsen: Which will be in the pavement portion of the road, the road will be disrupted at between that time period and repairs. But as far as on the road side we have side walks if there are any of that. No we do not. Commissioner Stone: Unidentifiable talking Chairman OIsen: Does anyone else have a question? Commissioner Dingfield: Yes, I have a question of staff' actually. Part of the recommendation you made for a model motion on number 2 you said the street frontage landscaping was street trees shall be provided in conformance with zoning ordinance requirements is that generally tied to sidewalk or is that maybe I'm a little confused here. Jack Allingham: The Bremerton zoning ordinance has been interpreted to include street trees being trees planted with the front yard setback. Commissioner Dingfield: OK Chairman OIsen: Any other. I have a question Jack for you, that a there was a nursing home they called an apartment house and added a few more stories to it. Can we put it in or do they lets see here we prove it for assisted living that's the only thing that is going to built and if any thing else they have to come back to the planning department or once we give them a green light they can really do anything they want. Jack Allingham: No, this is an application of Special Use Permit for group residential facilities within a mixed residential zoning district. I professionally find it almost unreasonable that this type of facility requires a Special Use Permit, but a market rate multi-family housing development which I think would have much more significant land use impacts. Doesn't require this kind of hearing. But this tonight if they are going to change to a different type of project the zoning ordinance required that minimum a sight plan review which requires public notice to affected property owners for a apartment complex. Chairman Olsen: OK so we are pretty safe, they are not they are going to do I would like to ask why the owners of the construction, who is going to be in charge of construction. I would like to ask you then a question. Because this is in a very high residential area I mean the Willows the one side of view to things I've noticed when building a new building one have clearing of land. Burning of stumps, burning vegetation when then intern creates alot of smoke and causes maybe alot of health problems. And also the hours of working some contractors seem to want to start at 4:00 in the morning and work all day long until dusk until dusk and work Saturday and Sunday. What is your intentions, one on clearing the land how are you going to handle the smoke problem? Robert Dunn: Well I am not sure what the city position is on burning but typically this day and age it is rarely that you could burn on site. So it would be hauled away. Chairman Olsen: No it can be burnt on sight cause we have already have had our problems in that area. Jack Allingham: Burning is regulated by the Bremerton Fire Department on site burning is permitted I believe the requirement is that the get all the surrounding property owners written approval that they don't object. That from time is difficult to do, I have heard of cases where a where and adjacent property owner had and asthma condition and the developer actually put that person up in a hotel room remote from the area. And the city has a noise ordinance which restricts construction noises generally between 7 am and 10 pm. Chairman Olsen: On weekday but what about weekends, I see some of the construction companies have to work Saturday and Sunday are you planning on doing this? Robert Dunn: No, No, Chairman Olsen: Or is this a normal 8 to 12 hour day q l-Ct Robert Dunn: I have never been able to find the guys that will work more than 10 hour days. If they are out there, one is we will conform with city requirements and seven days a week is not a problem for us to agree to that and on there is so little underbrush on that property that reality we have no problem not burning it. Chairman Olsen: I would like to add those stipulations. So that it will protect the neighbors. We are going to have to amend the motion or if he agrees his testimony know is.....I already know one case where they cleared the land I think for the trailer park that we had an apartment house that you couldn't see during the day time and they disturbed all the neighbors at night because they burnt right on up to midnight. Robert Dunn: We have no problem working with the city on that. I have talked to Bill Reaves and I believe he is the owner of the Willows project and we have agreed to work because we understand who his clients are and be have agreed to work with him. Chairman Olsen: OK that is all I need to know. As long as it is on our record now. OK Chairman Robinson: Well I have one more question ifI could, we have gone this far this is for staff. Jack what we are doing here tonight is a Special Use Permit Approval and a Site Plan is a little bit somewhat back wards from what we normally do on a development. Like this it is usually that all the plans are in hand. All the specifications are done they are not in process they are not being worked upon. Both the middle package both that we review and a approve or not. I understand that. They have some work that is now public works, engineer drawings, and some specifications and more to come I am sure you have the resolvement of the lighting the number of lights ......... sign age they are specifying in this 50 sq. feet but are they going to have additional signs and how big are ...... having said all that to get to my point if the developer is some of his proposals and some of the design plans and criteria specifications are at odds with what the city zoning regulations or what in the staffbest judgment is not appropriate and you two parties arrive at an impasse as to we have already lets assume that we do approve this where do we go do those things come back to the Planning Commission? Are you able to resolve them? Is there another procedure or another mechanics to do so? Or do you even anticipate any problems? Jack Allingham: Before they can under take this project they need a building permit and unless they concords to all of our city regulations Commissioner Robinson: Are they going to bring you in a big package, that you are going to look at. JackAIlingham: Thanks, correct. Commissioner Robinson: Are you going to say something that is terTibly long or terribly __ at your opinion they some how forgotten to put in the storm water or accommodate the storm water or the are to small, what do we do. What do you do? Jack Allingham: Well, the Planning Commission isn't improving the storm water system Commissioner Robinson: I realize this but it's bugging me. Jack Allingham: The building permit is the license to under take this project and an additional license and without that they can not undertake the project. The city would not grant them a building permit. Commissioner Robinson: OK Chairman Olsen: OK is there any one else Unidentified Person: I believe the concern expressed is very valued but I also think the concerns are adequately recovered by the conditions __ and Unidentified Person: And you are right Larry Commissioner Robinson: Well that was my question to staff. Unidentified Person: Now I am not concerned about that I am here to make a motion: Chairman OIsen: OK Commissioner Stone: I move for adoption of the model motion, be it resolved that the Bremerton Planning Commission after considering oral and written testimony and the staff report, approve the special use permit for Assisted Living Concepts, as the application meets the criteria for approval of a special use permit and site plan review as stated in the zoning ordinanc~ Approval subject to the conditions noted in the motion there I am sure. Commissioner Hancock: I second it Chairman Oisen: It has been made to second question, Stone, yes; Robinson, yes; Hancock, yes; Dingfield, yes; Olsen, yes: Motion Passes. Jack Allingham: The Planning Commission has approved the Special Use Permit and Site plan review for Assisted Living Concepts this action may be appealed to the Bremerton City Council with in fourteen days of this action to make an appeal please contact the Department of Community Development, for assistance. qt JAMES C. TRACY i, ¢iVED CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" August 19, 1996 Bremerton City Council City Hall 239 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98377 In Re: Bremerton Cascade Associates' Appeal of the Special Use Permit Granted to Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. Dear Council Members: On behalf of my client, Assisted Living Concepts, Inc., please accept this Response/Rebuttal Memorandum in the above referenced Appeal. I have provided a courtesy copy of this material to the appellant's counsel, Mr. John Hemplemann. I look forward to your deliberations in this closed record appeal. Sincerely, James C. Tracy / WSBA rtl 5656 L~// Attorney for Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' RECEIVED. CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" DATE '~ - ,"? -~'(,. ,m,r-~ /~: ~, BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF BREMERTON IN RE ASSISTED LIVING CONCEPTS, INC APPEAL OF GRANT OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT COMES NOW Assisted Living Concepts, Inc., and in response/rebuttal to the Appeal brief filed on August 12, 1996 by John W. Hemplemann on behalf of Bremerton Cascade Associates, states as follows: I. BACKGROUND 1.1 The Bremerton Planning Commission granted a Special Use Permit to Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. (ALC) for a 39 unit assisted living complex located on Rickey Rd.., immediately adjacent to the North of the Willows Retirement Living Community in Bremerton, Washington, on June 18, 1996. 1.2 An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision in this matter was filed on July 1, 1996, by Bremerton Cascade Associates, owners of the Willows. 1.3 Bremerton Cascade Associates (BCA) filed a brief in support of their appeal on August 12, 1996. 1.4 In their brief, BCA raises two issues, and alleges that: (1) a "procedural irregularity" occurred which tainted the hearing and deliberation of the PREHEARING BRIEF - 1 The Law Offices of James C. Tracy 18520 Hwy #305 - Suite 500 Poulsbo, Wa. 98370 Ph: (360) 779-7889 Fax: (360) 779-8197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 t7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Planning Commission in this matter; and, (2) the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the City to "...link urban growth activities with urban levels of service and to ensure the character and vitality of established residential neighborhoods". II, ALLEGED PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY OR MISCONDUCT 2.1 As a threshold matter, BCA asks the City of Bremerton to consider evidence outside of the record despite the fact that this proceeding is a "closed record review" pursuant to RCW 36.70B and Rule 12 of the City Code, citing as authority Responsible Urban Growth Group v. Kent, 123 Wn.2d 376, 384, 868 P.2d 861 (1995). 2.2 As applicable to this matter, Responsible Urban Growth is a Washington Supreme Court case regarding the actions of a trial court in reviewing a decision by a municipality pursuant to a Writ of Review. The Writ of Review was completely replaced in the State of Washington by virtue of the adoption by the State Legislature of RCW 36.70C in 1995. Known as the Land Use Petition Act, RCW 36.70C now determines the procedures by which a land use action by a local government may be brought before a judicial body for review of the type of"errors" alleged by BCA herein 2.3 The City should not allow the injection of this allegation into the closed record appeal after the filing of the original appeal on July 1, 1996. Appellant's have presented only one argument as to why the City of Bremerton's consideration of this appeal in a "closed record hearing" should be expanded by a finding in a Supreme Court case regarding the actions of a trial court under a procedure that no longer exists. Appellant's assert (without proof) that the testimony of Linda Gibbs was at least in part relied on by the Planning Commission in reaching their decision. Further, they allege that Ms. Gibbs' testimony failed to disclose a conflict of interest because she has "...a direct business and/or financial interest in the subject parcels including the adjoining parcel that is being subdivided." (See BCA Brief at page 2) They further argue that it is precisely because this is a closed record appeal hearing (and no new evidence or PREHEARING BRIEF - 2 The Law Offices of James C. Tracy 18520 Hwy #305 - Suite 500 Poulsbo, Wa. 98370 Ph: (360) 779-7889 Fax: (360) 779-8197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 testimony can be taken) that a remand is required to "investigate" this mere allegation of"irregularity or misconduct". 2.4 BCC Rule 12 (2)(b) clearly states that: "The Council may consider the following limited evidence not set forth in the record on apeal: (1) The Council may take official notice of information such as any law, ordinance, resulution, rule or other fact generally known and verifiable from reliable sources. (2) Members may view the area in dispute, but shall note the time, manner, and circumstances of such view on the record." The Council is clearly barred by Rule 12 from considering ~lny other evidence other than that contained in the record and that allowed by Rule 12 (2)(b). Further, appellants have submitted no such "evidence" to be considered. 2.5 To accept a mere allegation of procedural irregularity or misconduct at the Planning Commission (even if made in a timely manner as part of an otherwise valid appeal) as a basis for remand would essentially provide any opponent of any project with a "trump card" that would virtually guarantee delay for any proposal with any opposition. This is exactly the kind of procedural "mischief" that RCW 36.70C was exacted to remedy. The City of Bremerton should not allow this abuse of the closed record review process which would clearly thwart the Legislature's objectives in enacting RCW 36.70B. 2.6 If the City agrees to entertain BCA's unsubstantiated allegation in this appeal over ALC's objection and the clear rquirements of RCW 36.70B and Rule 12, then it is incumbent upon the City as a matter of fundamental fairness and due process to inquire into the truth or falsity of the allegation before ordering any remand on that basis. 2.7 In summary, for the reasons stated herein, the City of Bremerton should bar BCA from now injecting an issue that was not contained in the original appeal. In the event that the City allows this issue to be raised in the appeal, it should demand specification and proof of the allegation from appellants and allow for presentation of rebuttal evidence to the allegation before using it as the basis for a rcmonct. Such PREHEARING BP, ZEF - 3 The Law Offices of James C. Tracy 18520 Hw3, #305 - Suite 500 Poulsbo, Wa. 98370 Ph: (360) 779-7889 Fax: (360) 779-8197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 an action would cause ALC substantial damage by virtue of the unnecessary delay that a remand would entail. III. ACCESS TO PINE RD.. RATHER THAN RICKEY RD.. 3.1 BCA argues that a requirement for the ALC Proposal to access from Pine Rd.. is compelled by: (1) the Growth Management Act (GMA) which requires local government to "ensure the vitality and character of established residential neighborhood." RCW 36.70A.070 (2); (2) appellant's concern that "..plausible safety problems with access off Rickey Rd.. Remain, including line of sight issues relating to the crest of the hill and a statistically increased danger to pedestrians generated by increased vehicular traffic. 3.2 With regard to appellant's GMA based arguments, the appellant's have failed to note that the City of Bremerton ha~ a valid, adopted GMA Comprehensive Plan which includes a Housing Element as required by RCW 36.70A.070 (2). The entire area (and significantly beyond the site of the proposed action) is designated "urban" and is that area targeted in a GMA Comprehensive Plan for urban growth consistent with the goals, purposes, and requirements of the ~tatute. This "urban designation" may not be reexamined or challenged in the project review process (See RCW 36.70B.030 (2)). 3.3 BCA's argument that allowing access of Rickey Rd.. somehow alters the character of the neighborhood is specious of its face. The record discloses that the southern boundary of the site is the Willows and the northern boundary is a multi family residential development. Therefore, the use character of the "neighborhood" is already clearly "mixed-use". The record already discloses that the project will generate the same or less trafic on Rickey Rd. than single-family residential development (appellant has provided IL0. proof that this proposal's traffic generation is not at the comparable level, only a mere allegation that it is not a single-family trip generation rate) ). It must be remembered, however, that this PREHEARING BRIEF - 4 Tho Law Offices of James C. Tracy 18520 Hwy #305 - Suite 500 Poulsbo, Wa. 98370 Ph: (360) 779-7889 Fax: (360) 779-8197 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 site is currently zoned for multi-family use, and if used for that purpose, would generate significantly greater traffic volumes than either single-family development or the ALC proposed use. As a component Df the total traffic carried by Rickey Rd., the contribution of the proposal is a small faction. 3.4 Appellant is correct that under Bremerton's GMA Plan urban uses must be served by urban ;ervices and infrastructure. The combination of existing services, along with those new service/infrastructure improvements that are required to be provided by ALC as a condition of the approval of this project, clearly provides the OMA required services and infrastructure to the site. Further, the new infrastructure to be provided as a result of the development of this proposal (i.e. expanded road shoulder on Rickey Rd., sewer, water, and landscaping accomplishes the purposes of the City's GMA Plans for compact, appropriately serviced and supported urban development. 3.5 Applicant's assertion that there is a material difference between the nature of the improvements on Pine Rd. And Rickey Rd. is in clear opposition to the facts. (See Exhibit 1, Analysis by Norm Olson, and Exhibit 2, Road Photographs) This summary of the information already in the record clearly demonstrates that the physical improvements on these two roads in this area are virtually identical. The record already indicates that the sight distance of the proposal's access meets engineering requirements of the City. (See also Exhibit 2) Further, the record already discloses that transit traffic utilizes both roads. 3.6 Apellant's characterization of this proposal as a "higher intensity use" is in opposition to the facts that are already on the record. This proposal generates the same or less traffic than uses already in the "neighborhood" and is allowed by current zoning subject to Special Use Permit.. There will be no pets running the area, no noisy outside recreational activity by families and children, lighting fixtures are tightly conditioned, landscaping is a condition of approval. All in all, this proposal will have less impact on the surrounding area than single-family homes, so the charactertzatmn of a hl,h intensity use" is totally without merit. 3.7 The entire "neighborhood" of the proposal, to the north, south, east, and west are designated urban. The area on the west side of Rickey Rd. is primarily residential in character as is the area on the east side of Pine Rd. There can be no justification from a community impact basis for directing the PREHEAR1NG BRIEF - 5 Tho Law Offices of James C. Tracy 185'20 Hwy #305 - Suite 500 Poulsbo, Wa. 98370 Ph: (360) 779-7889 Fax: (360) 779-8197 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~mpacts of all of the future traffic generated from the development of both of these adjacent parcels to only one of the roads, particularly when that the record here indicates that Rickey Rd. is perfectrly adequate to handle the traffic proposed. 3.8 Appellant's have submitted no evidence for the record that the Willows was required to access from Pine Rd., nor have they briefed this issue. Therefore, this allegation/justification for appellant's )osition regarding Pine Rd. access should be totally disregarded. If such evidence is produced it should be examined to determine exactly what factors led the approving authority to make such a requirement, and an evaluation conducted as to to whether those factors are still applicable under today's changed circumstances. 3.9 Appellant's "plausible safety concerns" are the most quixotic element of their appeal. The proposal, according to the record, will generate an equivalent amount of traffic to single-family development of the site. The appellant's allege that this traffic raises safety concerns due to "line of sight" issues and a "statistically increased danger to pedestrians from increased vehicular traffic". There are no "line of sight" issues that have been factually demonstrated; rather, the record and Exhibit 2 show that line of sight is adequate. No factual showing is made as to the exact (or even estimated) nature of this alleged "statistically increased" danger to pedestrians. It is apparent from this argument, that appellant's would also oppose single family development on the site accessing Rickey Rd., since the traffic generation rates of the proposal are single-family development are equivalent. CONCLUSION Both the record and the arguments presented herein clearly demonstrate that the appellant's bases for this appeal are either factually incorrect, lolgically inconsistent, or unsupported by any real evidence. Neither common sense, nor the GMA, nor the record support this appeal. The City of Bremerton is urged to dismiss the Appeal by Bremerton Cascade Associates with prejudice, and approve the Special Use RESPONSE BRIEF - 6 The Law Offices of James C. Tracy 18520 Hwy #305 - Suite 500 Poulsbo, Wa. 98370 Ph: (360) 779-7889 Fax: (360) 779-8197 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Permit for Assisted Living Concepts consistent the recommendation and action of the Bremerton Planning Commission. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS /~;~&Y OF4,r.$~7 ~~g Concepts, RESPONSE BRIEF - 7 The Law Offices of James C. Tracy 18520 Hwy #305 - Suite 500 Poulsbo, Wa. 98370 Ph: (360) 779-7889 Fax: (360) 779-8197 Inc. "RICKEY ROAD" RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH = 60 FEET POSTED SPEED = 25 MPH TWO-LANE TRAVELLED WAY WIDTH = 21.0 TO 22.0 FEET SHOULDER WIDTH = 0.5 FEET (ALONG LOT 'B' SP-09-96 FRONTAGE) (PAVED) *SHOULDER WIDTH AND SHOULDER MATERIAL VARY ALONG RICKEY ROAD. "RICKEY ROAD" Lookinq North - South ProDerty line of Lot 'B' City of Bremerton Short Subdivision No. SP-09-96 "P INE ROAD" RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH = 60 FEET POSTED SPEED = 25 MPH TWO-LANE TRAVELLED WAY WIDT~ = 21.0 TO 22.0 FEET SHOULDER WIDT~ = 1.8 FEET (ALONG LOT 'A' SP-09-96 FRONTAGE) (PAVED) 5.5 FEET (ALONG T~E WILLOWS FRONTAGE) SIDEWALK WIDT~ = 5 FEET (ALONG THE WILLOWS FRONTAGE) CURB AND GUTTER WIDT~ = 2 FEET (ALONG THE WILLOWS FRONTAGE) "PINE ROAD" Lookinq North - South Property line of Lot 'A' City of Brennerton Short Subdivision No. SP-09-96 Ric'-y Road 344.68 ...... N 3'23'13" g 344.77' / N 726~8" E 346.57'/ 32608 E N-S Center-of-Sec[ion Line Basis of Bearings: S 88'00'16" g along the South mine of the Southwest quarter of Sec 2 ? o~_~ ':~Ul'8*le!:~ o88y',l, UO.lO'TN ~,~ /o¥ CITY OF BREMERTON · 239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 Date: Augllst 19, 1996 To: Bremerton City council From: Jack Allingham, Planning Department Subj: Appeal of Assisted Living Concepts special use permit by Bremerton Cascade Associates The arguments submitted by Bremerton Cascade Associates contends that comments provided by a neighboring property owner, Ms. Linda Gibbs was inappropriate, and access should be provided via Pine Road. Public hearings before the Planning Commission invite public comment regardless of a person's specific interest. Ms. Gibbs comments were invited by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission accepted testimony regarding access to the site from Rickey Road. The access location was not identified by the City Engineer as a problem, and the Planning Commission accepted the plan as proposed. /07 · Celebrating 50 Years of Freedom · PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 18, 1996 future docks would have to follow the same road that this dock has and doesn't think that everyone has the $30,000.00 - $40,000.00 to build a dock. Intends to vote as he did last meeting. Commissioner Hancock stated that he has concerns about the precedence. Feels that within a year there may be several more docks, if this is allowed. Intends to vote against the dock. Don Pratt clarified the options available to the Commission. 1. Uphold the Director's decision 2. Overturn the Director's decision 3. Remand the Director's decision 4. Change or Modify the Director's decision ChaLrman Olsen suggested sending it back to the Director because of the safety concerns. Motion by Commissioner Stone to overturn the Director's decision. Seconded by ChaLrman Olsen. Question called: Stone, yes; Robinson, no; Hancock, yes; Dingfield, no; Olsen, yes. Motion passes. Don Pratt advised the public on the next process. The decision by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. The appeal must be made within 14 days. That appeal, according to new state law, will be held on the record, no new evidence may be in~'oduced. The City Council will review the record that was created this evening. Dick Wright asked if the information from the previous meeting would be allowed before the City Council? Don Pratt indicated that it would. Chairman Olsen passed out a Draft Resolution regarding the Location of Docks. The Secretary read into the record the draft Resolution. Commissioner Stone proposed that the resolution be held over until the July 16th meeting. Public Hearing g2-Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. Chairman Olsen asked the appearance of fairness question. No response. Jack Allingham presented the staff report for the group residential facility. 39 units assisted living facility on 2.4 acres. The site is located on the east side of Rickey Road approximately 995 feet south of Sylvan Way. Presented a map of the Comprehensive Plan Map, Exhibit 1, showing the designation of High Density Residential. The zoning is Mixed Residential. PAGE -4- log Mixed Residential allows a group residential facility with a Special Use Permit. The allowable density is 1 dwelling unit per 1,000 square feet of lot area. This project is way below the allowable density. The Special Use Permit process allows the Planning Commission to review the parking requirements. The applicant has provided data on similar facilities that they have operated and the parking requirement requested is one space for every two units. This reduction can be granted based on the circumstances. There is a Type 3 stream which flows along the north side of the property. The applicant has provided a stream and wetland evaluation, the reports essentially concludes that there will not be a detrimental affect to water quality, storm water run-off by placing this stream in a culvert. It is not anticipated that this type of facihty would be a glare producing facility. A preliminary storm water management plan has been submitted and reviewed by the City. Jack Allingham presented slides of the site. Stated that the staff is recommending approval of the site plan and give final approval to the Director of Community Development for issuance of the Building Department. The Planning Director approve the Building permit if the use and character of the development does not change, there is no increased traffic or circulation problems, that the total number of residential units has not increased by more than 5 % of the 39 units identified, that the amount of open space does not decrease by more, than 3 %. The staff is recommending approval subject to street frontage landscaping with street trees, in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and that the applicant provide a parking agreement that is recorded with the County Auditor stating that they will provide additional parking if the circumstances or the type of use of this facility changes to a market rate housing facility, and that the Special Use Permit be acted on within 100 days. Robert Dunn, developer, introduced his partners in the project. Michael Deschane, with Concepts of Community Living. Stated that assisted living is a concept to place appropriate individuals in a living environment other than nursing homes. Assisted living is described as self-contained apartments, no shared units, have their own hathroom and have some cooking facilities. Have the capability to perform heavy personal care. Average tenant is about 86, female, has two or more functional impairments. Assisted Living Concepts is a public corporation. Feels that this facility would average 1 or less emergency vehicles a month. Feels that they are extremely light on traffic. Robert Dunn, presented a colored site plan of the project (Exhibit 2). Stated that they do not own the property on the Pine Road side and that is why they are accessing Rickey Road. They chose the Rickey Road site because the project is very residential. Presented tour colored photocopies (Exhibit 3) showing the residential style of the proposed facility. Presented (Exhibit 4) which is a front view of the proposed project. Presented (Exhibit 5) which shows parking patterns for approved assisted living facilities. Stated the parking is in the back to help eliminate lighting problems. Stated he is in agreement with all conditions placed by the City. Commissioner Dingfield questioned the rationale between the ratio between one bedroom and studio apartments. Robert Dunn, presented (Exhibit 6) which shows the layout of a studio and a one bedroom apartment. PAGE -5- /o? Commissioner Hancock questioned where the clientele come from? Robert Dunn stated that the majority of the clientele are local residents. Michael Deschane responded that with regard to the ratio between studio and one bedroom, the majority of the clients served are extremely frail and do not require much space. The studios are more cost effective. With regard to clientele, most come from DSHS and are aged. Stated they are not equipped to handle mental health issues. Commissioner Dingfield stated that it appears with the clientele there would not be security issues? Michael Deschane stated that occasionally someone may get out and get lost, however the doors will all be alarmed for occasions such as that. Norman Olsen, stated his first roll in the project was to retain a wetlands biologist to take a look at the water situation. They found no problems topographically. All of the utilities will be coming off of Rickey Road. Public Works has reviewed the storm drainage analysis and is in agreement with the plans. The entire complex will be sprinkled. With regard to traffic on Rickey Road, an analysis was done and it was determined that this complex will not generate much traffic at all, 9 vehicles per hour during the peak times. Feels the project fits the site and should not be a detriment to the neighborhood. Commissioner Stone had some concerns about the location of the entrance. Norman Olsen stated the location was determined to have the best site visibility. Commissioner Robinson questioned the size of the open area. Forrest Shannon, stated that the open courtyard is about 6,400 square feet. The secretary read into the record a letter from Christine and Vernon Search. They basically support the project but would like to see the vehicular access from Pine Road. Ida Mae Cooper suggested that the stipulation be put in the this facility that it remain one story. She Stated that four story Kona Village is really a one story nursing home--that is what we were told when it was rezoned. We were supposed to have a 20 foot greenbelt. Linda Gibbs, lives across the street from the proposed facility. Pleased with the density, stated it is zoned for higher density and this project is much lower. Feels that the appearance of the buildings make it look more like neighbors than a facility. Does not feel that the emergency vehicles will be an issue. Has no problems with the access on Rickey Road. Supports the project and recommends approval. John Hempleman, attorney representing the owners of the Willows and many of the residents PAGE -6- Iio basically supports the project with one condition requiring the project to be accessed off of Pine Road as opposed to Rickey Road. Stated Rickey Road is a rural neighborhood access stxeet and Pine Road is a minor arterial improved to urban levels of service. Stated that the plans show an access point across the property which could access Pine Road. Stated when an owner is subdividing property it is entirely appropriate to provide access to a minor arterial. The parcel to the east will need to have access off of Pine Road and stated there should be coordinated access. Supports the project with access off of Pine Road. Linda Gibbs questioned the difference between Rickey Road and Pine Road'? John Hempleman stated that the right-of-way is much improved on Pine Road, the width of pavement is wider, the traffic control is better. Pine Road is an upgraded urban type facility. Questioned if curbs and sidewalks would be required on Rickey Road? Jack Allingham responded that the short plat approval is being conditioned that the proponent agree to participate in any future LID's for improvements to both Rickey and Pine Road. Commissioner Stone questioned why the Willows is so concerned that this facility also access Rickey Road? John Hempleman stated that the residents of the Willows see and use Rickey Road as a walking path because of the low traffic volume. Linda Gibbs questioned whether the site to the south of the Willows which she has heard is being short-plated would be required to participate in the same LID? Jack Allingham stated that he would hate to comment on a project that is not before the Planning Commission. Dave Dixon stated that this project is contingent on sub-division of the land, and this should be looked at overall tbr a commercial PUD, regardless of how they are phasing or who the partners are in the phasing. The access should be on Pine Road for both of the projects helping to get improvements for Pine Road for additional Izaffic mitigation. Robert Dunn confirmed that the project will be one story. We are not parmers or involved in any way with the other piece of the property. The access onto Pine Road identified earlier is actually a requirement of the Fire Department called a hammer-head turn around, not a planned access to Pine Road. Stated the owner is in agreement to put in curbs, gutters, and sidewalks when required by the City. Michael Deschane reiterated that the clientele are fairly flail with memory problems and if they were to get out before the staff could catch them, that they are on a less busy road. Jack Allingham stated it was his understanding that the Willows was developed prior to annexation into the City, so a condition on the Willows to access Pine Road was not a condition PAGE -7- III set by the City. The City Engineer has reviewed the issue of access and sees no reason to impose the Pine Road condition. Chairman Olsen asked if Rickey Road has always been in the City? Jack Allingham responded that a portion of Rickey Road had been recently annexed. John Hancock questioned if Kitsap Transit goes up Rickey Road and tums right on Sylvan. Jack Allingham responded yes. Commissioner Stone asked if there are any plans tbr the road side of Rickey Road? Norman Olsen responded that there is a requirement of Public Works to put a sewer line in Rickey Road. Commissioner Dingfield questioned the street trees requirement--feeling it was generally tied to sidewalks? Jack Allingham responded that the zoning ordinance requires street trees be placed in the front yard setback. Chairman Olsen questioned the Kona Village statements made earlier. Jack Allingham stated that this was a special use permit application for a group facility and if they were to change the project the zoning ordinance requires that there be a site plan review and that there be public notice to affected property owners. Chairman Olsen questioned the hours of construction and if there would be any burning while cleating the land? Robert Duma responded that there would be no burning, it would be hauled away and that the project would conform to city requirements with regard to noise and burning. Stated he has talked with Bill Reeves, owner of the Willows and has agreed to work with them. Chairman Robinson wondered if the developer plans are at odds with the City zoning regulation, what happens? Jack Allingham responded that the Building permit process is the license to undertake the project and if there were any problems, the City would not issue a permit. Commissioner Stone moved for adoption of the model motion, be it resolved that the Bremerton Planning Commission after considering oral and written testimony and the staff report, approve the special use permit for Assisted Living Concepts, as the application PAGE -8- meets the criteria for approval of a special use permit and site plan review as stated in the zoning ordinance. Approval subject to the conditions noted in the motion. Seconded by Commissioner Hancock.. Question called. Stone, yes; Robinson, yes; Hancock, yes; Dingfield, yes; Olsen, yes. Motion Passes. Jack Allingham stated the appeal process. Public Hearing #3-Harrison District Plan Kay Wilson, stated this was the second public hearing on the draft plan of the Harrison District. Stated there have been five neighborhood meetings over the past year. Tonights meeting is to talk about proposed revisions to the draft plan. Chapters 1 thru 4 are background information and there are no substantive changes proposed. Chapter 5 is the vision for the Harrison District and there are not changes proposed. Chapter 6 is the heart of the plan and there are several changes. Regarding a parking structure, the question was asked if it would require a public hearing. The answer is no, it is treated like any other building structure and would be treated as such. Regarding helipads, this would require a public hearing. Kay Wilson went through all of the changes in detail. Discussion tbllowed with regard to the requirement of view protection and public access. Kay Wilson introduced (Exhibit 1) showing the Harrison District Waterfront Access "Link" Plan and (Exhibit 2) which is a discussion outline. Kay Wilson responded to Gladys Buskirk-Weeks letter regarding the pathway along the beach line. Under the current regulations that would not be allowed. With regard to a letter submitted by Paul Schmidt regarding parking lots, Kay Wilson stated that they would be allowed under support uses, non-accessory parking. Stated she received a call from the State Department of Transportation requesting an extension of the time to comment. There will be some comments coming in from them. The Secretary read into the record a letter from Paul Schmidt regarding parking. Ida Mae Cooper, 1042 Walnut Street, identified several housekeeping issues and expressed concerns about the statement of "97 new units". Expressed disappointment that when Kona Village was put in they were told there would be a 20 foot greenbelt around the complex--they currently have cars parked against their fence. Suggested changing Wheaton Way to North Warren Avenue and leaving lower Wheaton Way, Wheaton Way. Concerned about St. Luke's selling out and allowing apartments to be built. John Arthur, has an office on Campbell Way, stated that the east end of Campbell Way be closed. They did not have an opinion on exactly where to close it. With regard to long term issues, has some concerns about not being in the process sooner. Regarding the path at the top of the bluff, feels it is not practical. Properly owners are paying taxes on the property and PAGE -9- FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAtv Bremerton Plan.~nq Commission REGARDING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP) ..SITE PLAN REVIEW (SPRk .ASSISTED LIVING CONCEPTS (Files: SUP-02-96, SPR-08-96) Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 18, 1996 I. SUMMARY A. A I_A_A_A~: C. Location: Assisted Living Concepts. Inc./Robert Dun Special Use Permit (SUP) and Site Plan Review - Group Residential Facility - 39 unit assisted living facility on 2.4 acre site. East side of Ricky Road approximately 995 feet south of Sylvan Way D. Attachments: L II. Ill. IV. V. Applications: SUP & SPR Site Plan Letter from Theresa Dunn, April 25, 1996 regarding parking Wetland and Stream Evaluation, 1996 Written comments - 2 letters BASED ON THE RECORD DEVELOPED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED ON JUNE 18, 1996, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENTERS THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: IL BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background: The Planning Commission has been requested to approve a Special Use Permit and site plan which will allow the construction of a Group Residential Facility -- Class 1 (Large) within the MR zone. The project consist of 39 individual apartments units (33 300-s.f. studios and 6 450-s.f. 1- bedroom) with common kitchen, dinning, and activities room facilities and an administrative office. The building will be one story in height with an interior court yard to provide for outdoor recreation which will be secure and sheltered from the wind. Significant landscaping surrounds //¢ the building and parking areas with 55% of the site left in open space. B. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for the site is High Density Residential 18 or more dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure an adequate housing supply to meet the changing needs of Bremerton residents. C. Zoning ordinance considerations: The Zoning Map Designation for the site is Mixed Residential (MR). The use 'Group Residential Facility Class I - Large' is allowed within the MR zoning district by Special Use permit as provide for in Chapter V, Land Use Table 1. The Zoning Ordinance defines a group residential facility as follows: GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY, CLASS I. A group care residence for children and adults who for various reasons cannot reside in their nataral homes; and/or for persons who have severe chronic disabilities or physical handicaps that cause substantial functional limitations. This facility may provide physical therapy and training in social skills. 1. Class I - Small: A total of six or fewer persons, including staff, whose permanent residence is the group residential facility. 2. ~ A total of seven or more persons, including on-duty staff. This class of facility does not include facilities to which persons are assigned as a result of criminal conviction or those where residents, individually or by their legal guardians, are not free to terminate their residence at will. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: ZONING _USE North: M R retirement/residential South: MR multi-family East M R vacant West SF-2 single family E. SEPA: A Threshold Determination of Non-significance pursuant to WAC 197-11-34 was issued by the 2 City's Responsible Official on May 24, 1996. An .environmental impact statement was not required. A. Total Lot Area: F= II1. SITE DATA 2.4 acre (104,544 Sq. Ft.) Topography: Relatively level with moderate slope along the south property line Utilities: Water, power, and sanitary waste water utilities are available to the site. LOT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS: The following table compares the development requirements of the MR zone to that the development shown on the site plan. Ftn~: 20 ft. rYr~: 25 ft. Side Yard Setback: 5 & 15 ft. Heiqht: 120 ft. Lot Coverage; 45% Allowed ~: YES 20+ ft. 25+ ft. 15+ ft. 20 ft. 24.5% reviewed at building permit Parking: The parking requirement for an "assisted living" use is not specifically listed with the zoning ordinance. However the use Can be most closely related to a boarding and rooming houses use. Zoning Ordinance Chapter VII, Section 10, A. 2: REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES: Boarding and Rooming Houses allows the Planning Commission to authorize a reduction in the number of required parking spaces if there is a clear indication that the requirements of this Chapter are excessive, due to such factors as the residents' ability to drive, age, or mental or physical abilities or disabilities. In order to accomplish the parking reduction, an agreement must be flied with the 3 County Auditor following approval by the City Attorney and shall continue no longer than the particular situation exists. The applicant states that due to the age of the residents and typical maximum of 6 employees at the facility at any one time, the facility demands no more than one space per two units. A comparison of similar facilities has been provided to document this. (See letter to City of Bremerton from Theresa L. Dunn, First Mark, Inc dated April 25, 1996 attached) Given the type of the facility and the anticipated age of residents, 20 parking space (plus two accessible spaces) will be adequate for this development. The permit should be conditioned to require a recorded agreement filed with the County Auditor requiring additional parking if circumstances change. Access onto neighborhood streets: One vehicular access point is shown on the site plan, and is located along the east side of Ricky Road. This access will be designed to City right-of-way approach standards and must be approved by the City Engineer. Streets and sidewalks: Ricky Road does not have curbs, gutters or sidewalks. A Short Plat application to divide the site into two parcels (one fronting Pine Road and one fronting Ricky Road) has been applied for. As a condition of the plat approval, the property owners will be required to agree to participate in a Local Improvement District (LID) for future sidewalk improvements to Ricky Road. Stream Development: A type Ill stream is located along the northern portion of the site. The Bremerton Critical Lands Ordinance defines a Type III streams as: Those streams that are intermittent or ephemeral during years of normal rainfall and are not used by salmonids and do not have significant salmonid habitat or flow directly into streams used by salmonids or which have significant salmonid habitat. Type III streams may be relocated or placed in culverts, provided it can be demonstrated that: a. No significant habitat area will be destroyed; b. The new channel or culvert is designed and installed to allow passage of fish inhabiting or using the stream; c. The channel or culvert is large enough to accommodate a lO0-year storm; d. The applicant will, at all times, keep the channel or culvert free of debris and sediment to allow free passage of water and/or fish; and 4 117 The applicant will provide a bond or other financial security to ensure maintenance as provided in Section 1.280 hereof. The relocated stream channel will result in improved stream function and value. A Wetland and Stream Evaluation has been prepared to evaluate the culverting of this stream and is attached to this report. The report concludes that placement of the stream in a culvert will not adversely affect water quality, stormwater runoff or be detrimental to the other properties or the City as a whole. Lighting: Details of the lighting system have not been designed, but such system should be adequate to provide safety and security without producing glare onto surrounding properties. Exterior parking lot lights should consist of concealed sources and illuminate only the parking areas on the site. Pedestrian pathway lighting usually consists of semi concealed light sources and have a warmer appearance. All lighting will comply with the Zoning Ordinance's chapter IV Section 10 Liqhting Regulations which requires light source to be selected and placed so that glare produced by any light source does not extend to adjacent properties nor onto the right of way (except for Sidewalks), Storm Water: A preliminary stormwater plan has been provided. Stormwater will be collected via an on-site collection system and detained on site. The water will then pass through bio- filtration swales to achieve water quality. Discharge at the pre-development rate will be into the City's stormwater system which drains the Pine Road corridor. Development meetings: An informal development meetings was conducted on May 22, 1996. City staff, the applicant and surrounding residents attended to review the project and discuss the approval process. IV. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Criteria For Special Use Permits: The Planning Commission may approve special use permits only if the following are true: 1. Is the proposal substantively consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Will the proposal bear a substantial relationship to the public welfare and not result in adverse environmental consequences? 5 3. Will the proposal comply with the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance other than t~pe of use? Are essential public facilities and services presently available and adequate, or can they reasonably be made available? Criteria For Site Plan Review: Bremerton Zoninq Ordinance Chapter X, Section 6-B includes the Criteria for Site Plan Review. Normally the Director shall approve a Site Plan, but in order to consolidate the land use decisions, the planning Commission will review the site plan accompanying the special use permit application. The Director shall review the site plan submitted for building permit approval and shall verify that it is in substantial compliance with the approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall approve the site plan unless the Commission makes one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development: The bulk, height, location, or placement of structures or the intensYq/ of uses of the proposal would: a. Be detrimental to other development in the neighborhood; or Result in loss or damage to unique natural or topographic features of the site that are important to the quality of life in the City. The provisions for vehicular and pedestrian circulation and parking on the site and on adjacent streets would: Create hazards to public safety; or Result in serious loss of natural or topographic features. The landscaping provisions do not adequately protect neighboring properties from the development. The Site Plan fails to provide for soft and drainage problems that will be caused by the development. The provisions of exterior lighting are inadequate or will adversely impact adjacent properties. The appficant has not set forth a reasonable plan for the private care and maintenance of open spaces provided on the site. The proposed development will impose an undue burden upon pubfic services such as sewer, water, and streets. 6 //? 4. 5. 6. 7. V. CONCLUSIONS The 'Group Residential Facility Class I - Large' use is allowed within the Multi-Family Residential zoning district subject to a special use permit. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan High-Density Residential uses. The use bears a substantial relationship to the public welfare. Adequate areas for parking and landscaping are provided. Essential public services are available and adequate to serve the proposed use. No significant adverse environmental consequences will result by this development. The applications meet the minimum criteria for granting approvals for Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review. VI. DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSlOH BASED ON THE RECORD DEVELOPED, THE BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVES THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ASSISTED LIVING CONCEPTS AS THE APPLICATION MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW AS STATED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE APPROVAL SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: The Director of Community development shall review and approve the building permit site plan if it is determined to be in substantial compliance with the approved plan reviewed by the planning commission. Minor administrative adjustments to the Final Plan may be approved by the Director and the Plan shall be deemed in substantial compliance if the following are true: 1. The general use or character of the development is not changed. 2. There are no new or increased traffic or circulation problems. 3. The total number of residential dwelling units has not increased by more than five percent (5%) over the number shown on the Preliminary Plan. 4. The amount of approved open space has not decreased by more than three percent (3%). Street frontage landscaping with street trees shall be provided in conformance with zoning ordinance requirements. 7 /.2-0 An agreement allowing required parking to be provided at one space for every two units plus two accessible spaces shall be filed with the County Auditor following approval by the City Attorney and shall continue no longer than the facility is used for assisted living. The applicant shall comply with Bremerton Zoning Ordinance Chapter X, Section 4.C. which states: "If a Special Use Permit is not acted upon within one (1) year of final approval, it shall expire". Bremerton Planning Commission Date DONALD L. PRATT Executive Secretary City of Br~erton APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT ] Planning Commission [] Administrative FEE: $476.00 A Special Use Permit may be approved by the Bremerton Planning Commission or, in some cases, by the Director of Community Development for a land use that is not specifically listed in the Land Use Tables of Chapter V as an "Allowed Principal Use" or an "Accessory use", and for uses that are listed in the tables as "SUP" (Special Use Permit required). To apply for a Special Use Permit, please complete this application form with as much detail as possible about your proposal and submit it along with the application fee. 1 APPLIC.~NT: Name:ASSISTED LIVING CONCEPTS, INC./C/O-FIRSTMARK~ iNC. {AGENT) Address: P.O. BOX 380 City: GASOUET State: CA ZIP: 95543 Telephone: Work: (707) 457-3909 FAX: (707) 457-9607 2 CONTACT PERSON (If other than applicant). Name: ROBERT DURTN Telephone: Work: (707) 457-3909 Home: TITLE HOLDER: (If other than applicant). NAME: M&P INVEST~ENT$, A PARTNERSHIP Address: 12339 CLEAR CREEK ROAD City: SILVERDALE State WA Telephone:(360):692-4972 ZIP:. 98383 o PROPERTY LOCATION: Address: N/A Assessor's Acct. No: Legal Description: 022041-3-033-2000 (Attach extra sheet if necessary) CURRENT ZONING: M R SPECIAL USE REQUESTED: Please describe your proposal as clearly and completely as possible. Attach separate pages if necessary and attach any maps, sketches, or other illustrations that will help describe the proposal or its location. APPROVAL OF A GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY WITH A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF PARKING SAPCES AND SERVICE LOADING AREAS. PROPOSAL: Please describe your proposal as clearly and completely as possible. Attach separate pages if necessary and attach any maps, sketches, or other illustrations that will help describe the proposal or its location. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR A 39 UNIT, SINGLE STORY ASSISTED LIVING COMPLEX ON 2.40 ACRES, SERVED BY CITY WATER AND SANITARY SEWER. WITH ACCESS OFF OF RICKEY ROAD. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL: Your requested Special Use Permit can be approved only if all of the following criteria can be answered "Yes": A. Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? 2 /23 Is there a clear relationship to the public interests and well-being of the neighborhood or community with no adverse environmental consequences? Does the proposal comply with the requirements of the Zoning ordinance, other than type of use? Are all essential public facilities and services presently available and adequate, or can reasonably be made available? Please provide below (or on separate paper) detailed explanations or other information that will help show that your proposal meets these tests: THE pROPOSAL IS A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT IN A MULTIFA~ILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE ADJOINED ON TWO SIDES BY MULTIF~ILY TYPE USES. ALL ESSENTIAL UTILITIES ARE AVAILABLE A~D THE PROJECT WILL NOT PLACE A DEManD ON SCHOOLS OR THE ROADWAY SYSTEMS~ AS WOULD OTHER MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS. ATTACHI~ENTS: Notification List: Typed name/address labels for the owners of all property within a radius of 300 feet of the subject property are required for applications requiring Planning Commission approval. These may be provided by the applicant, or the City Planning Division will assemble the labels at a cost to the applicant of $2 per label, at the applicant's option. Site Plans: The applicant shall provide a Site Plan, drawn to scale, showing the following information: Location, size, bulk, height, number of stories and use of all structures and areas, existing and proposed. Locations of entrances, exits, and off-street parking and loading areas, including the locations of each parking and loading space. 3 Layout of all existing and proposed rights- of-way, driveways, internal roads, pedestrian walks, landscaped areas, fences, signs, and fire hydrants. Existing and proposed utility systems and drainage structures and easements. Shorelines, bluffs, wetlands and other environmental or topographic features. Other information necessary to fully understand the nature and scope of the proposal and its impacts on surrounding people, property and other land uses. Other information that may be applicable. Pre-aoolication Conference: The Planning Division should be consulted to discuss the proposal and specific information needs prior to submittal of the application. 10. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW & DECISION: The special Use Permit Request will be scheduled for a public hearing before the Bremerton Planning Commission. Followin~ the hearing, the Commission will (1) approve, approve with conditions, or (3) deny the request. (2) 11. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OPTION: A Special Use Permit may be approved administratively by the Director of Community Development, using the criteria listed above, provided the owners of all adjoining properties have indicated in writing that they have no objections to the proposal. A form entitled "Adjoining Owners Statement" is attached for this purpose. (NOTE: The administrative option and the signatures of all neighbors does not guarantee approval of this request). 4 12 APPLICAN"r' S STA'i'a24~NT: I hereby certify that the statements contained herein are correct. ! understand that conditions of approval may be required to adequately protect the zone or neighborhood within which ~he subjec: use is located, ~nd I agree to abide by those conditions. i understand that the decision on this application may be apDea!ed and possibly overturned. I also u~derstand that approved Special Use Permit is subject to Planning Commission or City Council review and could be te_~m~nated for any violation of terms or limitations. I understand that approval of this Soecial use Permit may be appealed and possibly overturned by. %he Planning Commission or City Council. I have r/~d, understand, and agree with all of the above ~Blicant Dat~ ' The City of Bremerton does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, or disability in the provision of services, in programs or activities, or employment opportunities and benefits. N.L. Olson & Associates, Inc. Engineering, Planning and Land Surveying LEGAL DESCRIPTION (FOR FIRSTMAR. K, INC.) That portion of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 2, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., in Kitsap County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast comer of the Southwest quarter of said Section 2; thence North 3°26'08" East, along the East line of said Southwest quarter, a distance of 323.00 feet to an intersection with the easterly prolongation of the South line of that certain pamel of land conveyed by instrument recorded under Auditor's File No. 8207020031; thence North 88°01'30" West, along said South line, a distance of 331.76 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNI2XrG; thence continuing North 88°01'30'' West a distance of 332.40 feet to the West line of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 2; thence North 3°23'13" East, along said West line, a d/stance of 344.68 feet to the Northwest coruer of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter said Section 2; thence South 88°11'42" East, along the North line of said Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter, a distance of 332.71 feet; thence South 3°26'08'' East, parallel with the East line of said Southwest quarter, a distance of 345.68 feet to the True Point of Beginning; EXCEPT the West 30 feet thereof for Rickey Road as conveyed by Right-of-Way Deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 984389; Containing 104,409 square feet, more or less. EXPIRES 10/9/97 April 5, 1996 2453 BETHEL AVENUE, P.O. BOX 637, PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON 98366 (206) 876-2284 FAX (206) 876-1487 PARKING PATTERNS FOR ASSISTED LIVING CONCEPTS, INC. FACILITIES Facility Location # of units # of stalls Ratio Avg. # cars ff- of tenants Name per facility per facility in lot owning cars Brookside Redmond, OR 37 19 51% 8 1 Hillside Lincoln City, OR 33 11 33% 5 1 Huffman I Newberg, OR 33 11 33% 5 1 Juniper I Pendleton, OR 30 11 37% 5 1 Ra. ckleff I Canby, OR 25 14 560/01 5 1 Alpine I Joseph, OR 30 15 50°/o! 11 2 APPLIrCATION & FOR SITE PLAN (FILE #: SPR- FEE: Provide 5 copies of Applicatlon/CheckHst and Site REQUIREMENT: Zoning Ordinance Chapter X, Section 6 (Site Plan Review) requires a Site Pian Review for ail land use and development proposals involving residenfia/ sfrucfures of ~hree or more dwe/lincr un/ts and all non-res[dent]a/uses and strucfures. INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete the following application according to the requirements cf the zoning district in which your project is located, and as it ~ppears on the Site Plan. The apofication must be complete or Orocessinq will be delayed. APPLICANT & ADDRESS: ASS];STED LIVING CONCEPTS, INC c/o FiRSTMARK, INC. (AGENT) P.O. BOX 380 GASQUET, CA 95543 CONTACT PERSON & PHONE #: 'ROBERT DUNN or NORi',{ OLSON (~'07) 457-3909 (360)' 87f~-2284 3. BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: N/A PROPOSAL (describe nature of the development}: 39 UNIT, ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY COHPLEX 0~ 2.4 ACRES SINGLE~STORY 5. LOCATION (inctude streef: address, if any}: SEX ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRZPTIO?¢ 6. TAX ASSESSOP.'S PARCEL#: 022041-3-033-2000 7. PA~.C~- ~ZE: 2. ~0 Acres 8. COMPREHEN~NE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: LOT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS Yam S~mack: , ,, y~ ........... ~ ..... Height: [20' 35' ~ -'~ t r 000 2 r 677 ~eiling Un~: ~ Can~pe Plan: 10. PARKING: ~_xJ~#¢q Spacos: N/A Perkinc Lot ?-Foe: (circle applicable ) Lot ('A",) "B", or "C" features: PARKING CALCUIJ TION TABLE ~ ~ 25,540 UNLIS'r~D N/A .......... -.:= ............... ~ ~ Total Soaces Required: Total Soaces Provided: Handicapped Provided: 2 Motorc~;le & Bicycle Provided' _. N/A 18+2 He = 20 (from parking calculation} (exJsfing + required) MOTORCYCLE & 4 ~[CYCLE /3o 11. ~ S~GN NO LARGER ~%N 50 squa.re feet. NONE 12. PROPOSED lANDSCAPING: (dimensions of areas/s~ps & square footage) 50' x 300' = 15,000 square feet 100' x 34§' 15' Str~p ~ (PARKING INCLUDED) 32'From P.L. %c parking = 34,500 sq. Ft. South / 45' Str~p at North Island(s) under free-standinq .siqns: Park/nqtoftnferforAreas.(.'lOsc, ff. perspece): 1,925 aqua. re fee~c 13. OPEN SPACE (required for projects of one acre or mere). Please include plan for reasonable care and maintenance of open space areas: AmountRequ/redfacre$&,~ercentace]: 15% = 15,662 square fee%. Total Amount Propose~: 58,380 Active.: 6,400 Passive:. 51,98o 14, CRITERIA FOR SITE ,PLAN REVIEW: PLEASE INCLUDE ANY NECESSARY INFORMA T/ON ON THE SITE PLAN THAT ILLUSTR. A TES COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CRiTERiA. STAFF MUST SEE THIS INFORMA T/ON IN ORDER TO MAKE ADEQUATE FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL. REVIEW THESE CRITERIA CAREFULLY. Bremerfon Zen/no Ordinance Chapter X, Section 6-B includes the Criteria'for Site Plan Review. The Director of Community Development shall approve a Site Plan unless the Director finds that one or more of the foiiowing conditions occur with respect to ghe proposed developmenL' (Do not write in "Findin,q" space, it is for staff ~nalysis). The bulk, height, location, or placement of structures or the intensity of uses of the proposal would: a. Be deMmenta/ ~o other development in ~he neighborhood; or b. R~su/t in toss or damage to unique natural or topographic features of the si~e that are [mporfant to the quality cf iife in the City. 131 2. T'~e ~r~v~c~$ for vet~ic~la~ a. C~a~ ha~ ~ ~ubtfc ~fe~; ~r Resu~ [n ~edou~ /c~ of natu~l or ~pcg~phic features. 3, ~e land~ping provisions do not adequately pmt~t nei~h~Nng p~pe~es ~m the development. 4. The SUe Plan fails to provide for so/i and drainage pmb/ems ~hat wN be ~u3~ by the development. 5. The provt~Jon~ of exterior I~hb~ are inadequa~ or ~ll adve~e/y impact adjacent E. The appEcant has not set ~h a ~asonab/e p[sn for the care and maintenance of open spaces on the site. 7. The proposed de~lopment will impose an undue burden upon pub/ir se~es such as sewer, water and st~ets. 15. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: f hereby oeFtify that the statemenLs contained herein are correct. I under's'tand that oonditions oF appcovat may be required to adequately protect the zone and nelgh,bo~ood ~n'~thin which the subject uselstr~cl, ure L~ located, and [ agree to abide by those conditions. I understand that the decJsion on this application may be appealed and possibly overturned. [ aL~o understand that an approved Site Plan is subjec~ to Planning Commission and CAy Counci( review and could ~ terminated for violation ot~ terms or ~imfta~Jens. I understand that APPROVAL oi' this Site P an may be apbeaied and possibly overturned Lhe Planning Oo/~,tssion or City Council. by I have re~T~under~,~nd, and agree v.d~ all ,of the above statements. /:7.% E F 'rsrmark. Inc. Real Estate Investments Duma April 25, 1996 City of Bremerton Depa,'h~,ent of Community Development 286 - 4th Street Bremetton, WA 98337 RE: SLIP 02-96 M,&Y 1 1996 BUILDING DEPARTMEN1 P.O 8ex .~80 707-,~--,)~- Fax Attached please find five copies of the completed Site Plan Review application for a proposed assisted living facility located offRickey Road. An application for a special use permit has been previously submitted requesting approval of this use (Group Residential Facility - Class I - Large) within this M~R zone. This project includes 39 individual apartment units (33 300-s.£ studios and 6 450-s.f. 1-bdrms) with common facilities such as a kitchen, dining area, activities room, and an administrative office. The building is one story and very residential in design and appearance, with nicely landscaped areas surrounding the building and parking lot. Due to the typical age of our residents (average 85 and older) the project will have minimum impact on the surrounding community as it relates to traffic and other serv/ces The building is designed with an enclosed interior courtyard to provide residents an outdoor recreation area which is safe and wind- protected. This proposal requests a reduction in the number of parking spaces. The Group Residential Facility use is not listed in Figure VII-6 of the city's Zoning Ordinance therefore we have made the assumption that the Boarding and Rooming Houses use is most similar to our use. As per Section 10.A.2 Boardin~ and Roomin~ Houses, a reduction in the number of required parking spaces can be authorized if there is a clear indication that the requirements are excessive, due to such factors as the residents' ability to drive, age, mental or physical abilities or disabilities. We are requesting approval of 20 parking spaces, with one service loading area, which provides for one space for every two units. Our experience shows that the average age of our residents will be 85 with less than 1% owning or driving their own vehicles. Staffing for this facility will require no more than six employees at any g/ven time and typically due to the wages paid, these employees do not own their own cars but are dropped off and picked up by family members. The applicant's experience has shown that the ratio of 1 parking space for every two apartments is more than adequate for the residents, staff, visitors, and guests. I have attached a table showing other projects the applicant has built and their parking patterns. /33 City of Bremerton April 25, 1996 Page Two Providing for 1 space for each dwelling unit would require us to construct a 39-space parking lot which is not practical for this project and prevents us from providing more open space which is aesthetically pleasing for the residents and surrounding properties. This project creates minimum impact on the neighborhood and the reduction in parking more than accommodates the off-slzeet parking needs and further enforces the project's residential feel and compatibility with its surrounding environment. Under the current zoning, up to 104 units of multi-family residential apartments could be built on this project which is consistent with the neighboring properties. We are only proposing to construct 39 units. All essential utilities are available for this project and other services such as schools and roadways will be minimally impacted by this use. The project meets all applicable zoning codes including landscaping and open space criteria which will be maintained by the application with the use of a fully-automatic underground irrigation system to irrigate all landscaped and lawn areas. A final landscape plan will be submitted by the landscape contractor at the time of building permit application. This site plan is in compliance with the criteria necessary for the city to approve this proposal. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 707-457-3909 or Norm Olson at 876-2284. Sincerely, FIRSTMARK, INC. Theresa L. Dunn Attachments PARKING PATTERNS FOR ASSISTED LIVING CONCEPTS, INC. FACILITIES Facilit'/ Location # of units # of stalls Ratio Avg. # cars # of tenants Name per facility per facility in lot owning cars Brookside Redmond, OR 37 19 510/'o, 8 1 Hillside Lincoln City, OR 33 11 33°,4 5 1 Huffman Newberg, OR 33 11 33°,4 5 1 Juniper Pendleton, OR 30 11 37°,4 5 1 Canby, OR 25 14 I 56~ 5 1 Rackleff Alpine Joseph, OR 30 15 50% 11 2 Kilchis Tillamook, OR 30 15 50°,4 11 4 Oakwood St. Helens, OR 30 15 50°,4 8 0 125 PROJECTED EMI~LOYEE STAFFING PATTERNS. Day Shift Program Director M-F 8 Hours Nurse M-W-F 4 Hours Cook 7 Days 10 Hours Aide 7 Days 8 Hours Aide 7 Days 8 Hours Aide M-F 6 Hours Swing Shift Aide 7 Days 8 Hours Aide 7 Days 8 Hours Graveyard Aide 7 Days 8 Hours This pattern was projected based on typical staffing arrangements by shift for an assisted living facility serving an average level of care for 39 units. The starting times of these shifts are staggered where not more than two employees arrive to the facility at the same time. It is important to note that shift length changes depending upon desires of staff and needs of residents. Maximum number of staff at any given time is six. It is also important to note that our experience shows about 30 percent of our employees do not have autos and are dropped off and picked-up by family members. WETLAND AND STREAM EVALUATION Firstmark Property ~ Bremerton, WA. Prepared by: Jon K. Dueker (206) 489-0790 Prepared for: N.L. Olson & Associates, Inc Port Orchard, WA (360) 876-2284 1996 /37 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a wetlands investigation and a subsequent stream study conducted by ]'on K. Dueker, a Professional Wetland Scientist and Certified Wildlife Biologist. The wetland investigation was conducted on February 14, 1996 and the stream study on March 27, 1996. The 4.8 acre ~roperty (two ownerships of 2.4 acres each) is located within the City of Bremerton between Rickey Road and Pine Road in Section 2, Township 24N, Range 1 E. Fibre I shows the general location of the property and Figure 2 is a large scale map showing surveyed locations. No wetlands were found on the site although a small drainage course runs throuah the property from west to east. This drain;ge does not meet the definition of a stream for approximately one half of it's lengh on the property. The other half, while meeting the exact definition, appears to be a man-made channel. Figure 1. General location. METHODOLOGY Wetlands:_ Areas suspected to be wetlands were examined using the I989 Unified Federal Methodology (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989). The 1989 interagency approach requires the examination of three wetland parameters: mils, hydrology, and vegetation. For an area to be considered wetland, a positive indicator for all three parameters must be present. Hydric (wetland) soils are defined as those soils wNch are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the o_rowing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the grow-ih and regeneration of hydr4hydc (wetland) vegetation. Indicators of hydric soils include low soil cb. roma. mottles, gley/ng, and high organic content. During the field investigation, soils were examined for these hydric indicators. Hydrophytic vegetation consists of plants that grow in water or in a substrate that is at least periodically saturated. Corrumonly'occurring plant species have been rated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv/ce ('Reed 1988) as to their frequency of occurrence in wetlands. The rating system uses a range from obligate upland (those occurring in wetlands less that 1% o~'the time) to (acultative (those occurring in wetlands 33% to 66% o£the time) to obli~te wetland (those occurrinz more than 99% ortho time in wetlands). For a area to be considered a wetland veuetative~ community, more than 50% of the dominant species in that area must be rated as facultative or wetter). Streanl~; The site was also examined for the presence of'streams using the definition as stated in the Washington State Department of Ecolo~ publication .W'ashinmon State Wetlands Ratina System ~3-74, Western Washington, 1994 and the Bremerton Critical ~.ands Ordinance No. 442~ as amended by Ord. No. 4476. The DOE definition of a stream is when there is at least a seasonal flow of water that is predominantly in one direction and there is a defined bank or series of'banks conta/ning the water. The Bremetton Critical Lands Ordinance classifies streams as Type I, H or III in accordance with the fo[lowing criteria: Type I streams: Those streams inventoried as shorelines of the state and regulated by the Shoreline Master Program of the City of Bremerton and the state Shoreline Management Act. Type II streams: Those streams which are smaller than Type I streams and flow year round during periods of normal rainfall. Streams used by salmonids andior have significant salmonid habitat whether flowing year-round or intermittent. Streams which flow directly into streams that are used by salmonids or have si~onificant salmonid habitat whether flowing year-round or intermittent, are Type II streams. Type III streams: Those streams that are intermittent or ephemeral during years of normal ralrffall and are not used by salmonids and do not have sitnificant salmonid habitat or flow directly into streams used by salmonids or which have significant salmonid habitat. SITE CONDITIONS This 4.8 acre property is located in the City of Breme,~on (East), Kitsap County, Washinzon. It is bordered to the west by Rickey Road, to the east by Pine Road and to.the north and sout~h by mdt/family structures. The topo~aphy of'the site is gentfy rolling with a depression in the northern portion. The Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soils onsite as Aiderwood very gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes. Aiderwood soils are moderately deep, moderately wetl drained soils formed in glacial till. WNIe Aiderwood soils are not listed as hydric soils, hydric inclusions may occur. These inclusions usually con}ist of small areas of McKenna and Norma soils wNch are listed by the SCS (1985) as hydric. 2 The upland vegetative community is dominated by Douglas-fir (?seudotsuga met~ziesii), · Pacific Madrone (Arbuttt$ raenziesii), and red alder (Abms rltbt'a). Himalayan blackberry (.Rltbtt$ discolor), salal (Gaultheria shallon), and Oregon ~ape (Mahonia ner~'osa) are present in the understory. WETLANDS No areas were found on this site that met the definitive parameters set out in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (1989). Some areas within the topographic depression displayed the necessary hydrology but hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation were lackSng. The Appendix to this report contains the field data sheets describing sampling transects. STREAMS The topogaphic depression contained a small amount of running water (t/: inch deep) which was spread out in braided rivulets with no defined banks. The boundary of this sheet water flow was delineated and flagged. The professional surveying of the delineation was performed by N.L. Olson & ,azsodates, Inc. The eastern t/: of the property displays a channel which meets the DOE definition ora stream but this appears to have b~n excavated in the past as a drainao_e ditch. The sides (banks) are for the most part nearly vertical with an average depth or' no more ~han 12". The width of the course varies from 18" to 36" with the ~eater width being caused by additional human disturbance. Figure 2 shows the drainage area and the centerline of the excavated "stream". The in:flow to the site is from an 18 inch CM:P culvert and the outflow is into a 48" city storm drain under Pine Road. This short section of uncovered drainage does not support salrnonids, contain salmonid habitat or flow into such a stream. CONCLUSIONS An evaluation of this site using the I989 Unified Federal Methodolo=-%, for delineating wetlands showed that no wetlands are present on the property. The hydrology was present but the mils, while saturated in some areas, were not hydric and hydrophytic vegetation did not occur to a sufficient degee to classify the area as wetland. Approximately 350 feet of water course meets the definition of a "stream" but this was probably ori~nally farmed artificially as a drainage ditch. Stream function and value to fish and wildlife is extremely law. Riparian habitat associated with tiffs water course is also very Iow in value as the area appears to have a long history of disturbance. This site is nat used by species classified as endangered, threatened or sensitive. Tiffs "stream" would be classified as a Type III. Placement of this water course in a culvert would not si~aificantly affect storm water runoff or adversely affect water quality. In addition, it is felt that culverting would not be detrimental to any other properties in the area or to the City as a whole. Submitted by: ,Ion K. Dueker, C.W.B., P.W.S. April, t996 CITATIONS Federal Interagency Corem/tree for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Eng/neers, U.S. Env/ronmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv/ce, and U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). St. Petersburg, FL. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Set,Ace wetland inventory,, Washington, D.C. WashJ. n~on Department of Ecolo=%,. 1993. Washin~on State Wetlands Rating System - Western Washington. Publication # 93-74 U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1980. Soil survey of the Kitsap County area, Washin~on. U.S. Department ofA~m-iculture. Washin~on, D.C. 4 P Pine Road FIELD DATA SHEETS Do Normal Ciz~umst~ces e.x~az on s~e? yes No ~ Pl~t ID: ~ -- / Is the ~i~ si~ifica~d¥ & r,~mtly di~urbe4? (At}~ic~l S~uation) ~e~ap~ai~bl~.~7 Y~ No ~ Co~mkylD: ~ Pe~c~t of Dominant Spies that are Hydroph)x c Vege~adc~ OBL,F~CW or FAC (excluding FAC-) ~' ~,6 Basis for de~,~rd~ation: h~DROLOGy Recorde~ D~a('Der~b~ in Remarks): PKI~L-~.Y Indicators SECON'DARy Indic~.ot~ HydHc Soil Indicators ~.~.r.~.i~.: .......... ~ .............................. ~ ~,'~ 7. ........................ 14¢ Do Norma C' ' ' ~ I~ th~ ~ke fignificantly & r~'~.ly d/~urbed? (Alypic= Skuation) Is the ~re: ~ potmti:l Yrobl~'n ..re. tm 7 6. Dominant $. I0. Percent of Dominant Speciea that ar~ Hy&oph>~ c 'v'~e.~ on ~t ? YES ~ I~'DROLOGY Rec~rd~ Data(Eh~be in Remart~): $~ream. Lake or Tide Gauge A~ial Ph eXographz Other None /'2-. (in.) SOILS Taxonomy (S~-'~ex and Phase): Profile D,~mpdm: Eh:pga Mat,'/x Color MccJe Color~ Nlertl¢ Drainage Cl~sa: Field Obs,x~miomCml~--, Mapped T>p¢? ~ NO //./5 June 1, 1996 Ci.ty of Breme~on Planning Commission 286 Fourth Street Breme.mon Wash. 98310 BRF ERTON 8UI~ING Re: Assisted Living Concepts Pro em at Rickev Road Planning Commissioners, The following comments are offered in regard to the Assisted Living Concepts project proposed on R.ickev Road. While a land use of this type fits reasonably wdI with other recendv constructed projects on tb~ east side of R.ickey Road, the Assisted Living Concepts project, as propose~, is seriously flawed. The major problem with the project is the proposed vehicular access onto Rickey Road. When the Willows project directly to the south was developed, vehicle access to Pine Road ~as a requirement of approval. This requirement should be applied to the Assisted Living Concepts proiect as well. In its e.xJsdng configuration the parcel of land that t_hSs project is proposed to built upon abuts both the Pine and Ricke.v Road rights-of-way. As a par~ of the current project proposal me existing parce will be subdivided into taro separate parcels one (Assisted Living Concepts) accessing Rickey Road and the other (unknow'n at this time) presumably accessing Pine Road. AS a condition of approval for this project and the subsequent subdivision of the e.,cisting parcel, coordinated access to Pine Road for both parcels should be required. Developing commercial land must be required to coordinate internal access and u'affic circulation in order to limit the impact of their projects on neighborhoods and the traveling public, in addition to noise and lighting impacts associated with the access it must be noted that Rickey Road to the south of the proposed access is very steep and cars climbing the Nil routinely exceed the posted speed Limit in order to gain climbing ability. There are ve~cal curves in Rickey Road both north and south of the proposed access location providing less than optimal sight distance. ~oupling the aforementioned speed and sight distance problems with slo~v moving vans or busses ~uiI of elderly people may prove to be a deadly mix. The west side of P,.ickev Road remains a peaceful residential neighborhood pardallv due to the way access issues have been hanc~led in the past, please don't rain our neighborhood by alloying this project to access Rickey Road, when ali it requires is some parldng lot and access coordination between developers to avoid it. We have discussed this proposal with many of our neighbors and believe the neighborhood would fullv support the project if ail vehicle access was to be provided from Pine Road. Although access is the major overriding issue other issues that should be addressed through conditions of approval include control of glare fi.om outdoor lighting, buffering with native vegetation, and mitigation of habitat and runoff quality enhancement losses assokiated with piping of the seasonal stream which passes through the site. Thank you for you careful consideration in this matter. Sincerelv, David E. &. Sandie A. Dickson /% AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE To amend the "Administration" section of the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance. FOR AGENDA OF: August 28, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT: DCD/Planning ORIGINATOR: Ron W. Houqh DATE SUBMll-I'ED: Auo. 20. 1996 2. CLEARANCES/;/(O.~ck if necessary) City Attor~-~- ~ Dir. Comm. Dev. ,~ _~~ Operations C~~ 3. EXHIBITS: Staff Report Revised "Aministration" section draft. Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes (8/13/96) ENDORSEMENT/~ INFO~R~ATION__ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRE/S~/ENT FOR SUBM___.~AL: MAYOR cou,c,L P.ES,DE.T 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIE'ACTION: The "Administration" section of the Zoning Ordinance contains the procedures for processing most land use permits. The proposed revisions will classify those permits into four "types", will simplify the advertising and notification requirements for each type, will standardize the steps in permit processing, and will amend and clarify permit approval criteria. The proposed changes also incorporate the requirements of ESHB 1724. These changes will improve our notice requirements, will provide a "consolidated process" for multiple permits, and will integrate SEPA (environmental review) with the Site Plan Review process. The Bremerton Planning Commission, following several study sessions and a special meeting on August 13, recommends City Council approval of the proposed amendments. 8. RECOMMENDATION: City Council approval of the attached Ordinance on first reading. City Council passage of the Ordiannce on second readinq. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED TABLED APPROVED__ DISAPPROVED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: AMENDED DATE: 11. AGENDA BILLNO: (~(O' [~? -OB 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: $. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Bremerton has an interim ordinance in effect to comply with the mandates of ESHB 1724, which had a compliance date of April 1, 1996. The proposed amendments will cover the 1724 requirements by making the necessary changes within our Zoning Ordinance where they belong. The changes are much more specific than the interim ordinance and will provide clear requirements that are easier to understand and implement through the permitting process. Non-passage means the interim ordinance will remain in effect, or be extended as necessary, as our way of complying with 1724. Since the interim ordinance is very general, the exact rules for the permitting process will continue to be difficult and unclear. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: In some ways, the proposed changes will reduce the time and hours needed to process permits by combining permits, integrating SEPA, and reducing the number of hearings and appeals. In other ways, the requirements for "clock watching" (to ensure the 120-day permit process) and additional notification requirements will add somewhat to the staff work load. Either way, the overall effect of the proposed changes should minimal on City staff and budgets. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: ESHB 1724 --- Regulatory Reform Act Pilot Projects (state grants) for 1724 Implementation: City of Olympia City of Mill Creek >- City of Kennewick >- Clark County Pierce County STAFF REPORT Amendments to the "ADMINISTRATION" section of the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance --- BMC Chapter 21.02 OF :g :~ ~ Ron W. Hough, Planning Manager :g DCD/Planning ~ 360-478-5275 ~: August 22, 1996 INTRODUCTION: The Bremerton Zoning Ordinance underwent a major revision in 1988. Following adoption of the City's new Comprehensive Plan in April 1995, a new review was begun to correct inconsistencies between the maps and texts of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Earlier this summer we adopted three revised sections of the Zoning Ordinance and a revised Zoning Map. Other sections are currently undergoing review and revision. Of immediate concern is the City's need to comply with ESHB 1724, the Regulatory Reform Act. In the spirit of"streamlining", 1724 mandated a number of changes to our permitting process. We must offer an optional "consolidated" process that allows several applications to be processed simultaneously as a package. We must integrate our environmental review (SEPA) with site plan review, give specific notice for various steps in the process, and decide most permits within 120 days. We must also limit the number of public hearings. In May of this year, the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 4550 to comply with ESHB 1724. It provided general guidance and coverage of the new law while the Zoning Ordinance was being amended. The interim ordinance was extended with the passage of Ordinance No. 4564 on August 14. The Administration section of the Zoning Ordinance contains the application requirements, approval criteria for various types of permits, notification and public meeting/hearing requirements, and other general processing procedures. DCD staff and the Planning Commission have been drafting amendments to this section for the past several months. The Planning Commission held several study sessions to consider the proposed amendments and made a recommendation for City Council approval during a special meeting on August 13, the minutes of which are attached hereto. The Commission reconsidered its recommendation during its regular meeting of August 20, recommending that the open record public hearings for Types II and III applications be conducted by the Planning Commission. StaffReport --- Page I The City Council considered all staff and Planning Commission proposals at a study session on Wednesday, August 21. As a result of that meeting, the following proposals will be offered at the August 28 public hearing as the preferred alternative that best meets the objectives of 1724 as well as the needs of the City: Type I decisions: (simple permits, minor amendments, plan review, etc.) ~ Administrative decisions--- no predecision hearing required. · One local appeal -- heard by Planning Commission in open hearing. Type II decisions: (short plats, variances, special exceptions, interpretations, etc.) ~ Administrative decisions --- no predecision hearing is required. · One local appeal -- heard by City Council in open hearing. Type III decisions: (Subdivisions, rezones, PUDs, dev. agreements, etc.) · Staff makes recommendation directly to City Council. · City Council holds open record public hearing and makes decision. Type IV decisions: (Legislative-- exempt from 1724 requirements) Staff makes initial recommendation to Planning Commission. Commission holds open record hearing and makes recommendation. City Council holds open record hearing and makes final decision. NOTE: The draft text of the Administration section included with this staff report has been adjusted to include the process suggested above. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: The following is a summary of the changes that are proposed for the Administration section of the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. P. 2: Categorized land use decisions into four types --- plus shorelines. P. 6: Standardized processing procedures for each permit category type --- table. P. 8: New section on "planned actions" that are already proposed in other documents. P. 9: Provided an "optional" Consolidated Permit Process. P. 9: Pre-application conferences encouraged, and required for consolidated process. P. 9: Clarified process for "technical review" prior to Determination of Completeness. P. 9: New process for Determination of Completeness --- within 28 day of submittal. P. 10: Notice of Application -- described on P. 10 and 15 with table on P. 16. P. 10: Public Meeting -- purpose and description. P. 11: Standardized the Public Comment Period. P. 11: Notice of Public Hearing --- described on P. 11 and 17. P. 11: Notice of Decision --- two types required. Staff Report --- Page 2 15.9- 13. P. 11: New requirements for for a complete Project Permit Application. 14. P. 12: Public Hearings -- Types of meetings and procedures better defined. (a) Open Record Public Hearing (b) Public Meeting (c) Study Session 15. P. 13: Section on Decisons outlines how decisions are made, by whom, and findings. 16. P. 14: New section on Time Limits on Decisions describes the 120-day limit on project permits, limits on closed and open record appeals, etc. 17. P. 15: New Notice section provides details on when, how, and the contents of different types of required public notices. Notice of Application table on P. 16. 18. P. 17: New Public Hearing notice requirements listed and procedures outlined. 19. P. 19: Added a new table to summarize notice requirements. · 20. P. 21: New section on Development Agreements -- state guidelines coming later. 21. P. 22: Revised format for the sections dealing with the most common types of land use permits, including Special Use Permit, Variance, Special Exception, Rezone, Development Regulation Amendment, Site Plan Review, and Appeal. 22. Permit section format is as follows for most permits: Authority Applicant Procedure Criteria for Approval (Worded to be answered "YES") Conditions of Approval Lapse of Approval 23, Special Use Permit: P. 22 24. The proposal must be found consistent with the Comp. Plan --- not "substantively consistent" as presently worded. Either it is consistent, or it isn't. The "substantial relationship to the public welfare" test was removed because it tends to question the use rather than the design or other physical characteristics. Allowing the use (by SUP) was decided when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted and shouldn't be questioned again during the SUP request. SUP is good for one year with one 6-month extension possible. Variance: P. 23 The justification for a Variance would include a hardship related to an existing improvement on or adjacent to the site. Item (a), P. 23 ~ Cannot be used "to grant relief for a personal or financial hardship or inconvenience." P. 24: (d)(7) ~- Requires that other solutions, uses, or design options be considered. (d)(8). 25. Special Exception: P. 24 Tightened up the criteria. We want to grant relief "when a regulation is found to be inappropriate to the situation and/or results in an unreasonable inconvenience or difficulty in the use or development of the property." StaffReport --- Page 3 > New criteria include "...result in enhanced use of the site" and "... other innovative improvement that will be cleady beneficial to the subject property and neighborhood." Results must "be compatible with the design and development characteristics of similar properties in the neighborhood and zone." ~- Can't be approved to solve problems of a personal or financial nature. 26. Rezone: (P. 25) >- Small area or single-parcel rezones are quasi-judiciak Large areas are legislative. Must be consistent (not substantively consistent) with the Comp. Plan. This should be easier with the Plan/Zone consistency table in Chapter V. Added a criterion to accommodate a phasing process. (d)(2) The often difficult criterion "substantial relation to the public interest or welfare" has been replaced with "Is there a public need for the proposed Rezone that will cleady benefit the local neighborhood and/or the community of Bremerton." > Added a criterion to discourage "spot zones", 27. Development Regulation Amendment: (P. 26) Modified to accommodate all land use and development regulations so we're not limited to only the Zoning Ordinance. > This is legislative -- Both the Commission and Council get open record hearings. > Approval Criteria simple -- consistency with the Comp. Plan and other codes. 28. Site Plan Review: (P. 27) Applies to all new development with flexibility built into the process so that small projects aren't put through the same scrutiny as large ones. Site Plan is part of most applications. Conceptual, speculative or other independent Site Plan may also be reviewed -- but a fee will be charged. >- Site Plan list of requirements modified a little here and there. >- Criteria for approval simplified. If everything meets code, it gets approved. No determinations of whether or not it is detrimental to the neighborhood, a safety hazard, protection of neighboring properties, etc. All of those considerations should be dealt with through existing code requirements during the plan review. > Conditions may be attached to the approval. Plan approval is good for one year. It becomes void if building permits are not applied for or construction has not begun. 29. Appeal: (P. 30) Standard appeal period of 14 days. Defines "parties of record" who are allowed to bring an appeal. Modified timing of decisions and a new specific list of the contents of an appeal. 1724:ch-10.SR Staff Report --- Page 4 Chapter 21.02 BREMERTON DEVELOPMENT CODE ADMINISTRATION 2t.02.850 21.02.855 21.02.860 21.02.865 21.02.870 21.02.875 21.02.880 21.02.885 21.02.890 21.02.895 21.02.900 21.02.905 21.02.910 21.02.915 21.02.920 21.02.925 21.02.930 21.02.935 21.02.940 21.02.945 Type I Administrative Decisions Type II Administrative Decisions with Notice Type III City Council Decisions Type IV Legislative Decisions Shoreline Decisions * Permit Processing (table) Planned Actions General Processing Procedures (a) Determination of Proper Procedure (b) Optional Consolidated Permit Process (c) Pre-application Conference (d) Official File (e) Technical Review (f) Determination of Completeness (g) Incomplete Application (h) Notice of Application (I) Public Meeting (i) Notice of Public Hearing (k) Notice of Decision Project Permit Application Public Hearings Decisions Time Limits on Decisions Notice (a) Determination of Completeness (b) Notice of Application * Contents of Notice of Application (table) (c) Notice of Appeal (d) Notice of Public Hearing (e) Notice of Decision (f) Notice of Final Decision (g) Optional Public Notice * Notice Requirements Table Development Agreements Special Use Permit Variance Special Exception Rezone Development Regulation Amendment Site Plan Review Appeal Page 2 2 3 4 4 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 12 13 14 14 14 15 16 16 16 17 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 29 ADMINISTRATION: Page 1 /35 21.02.850 TYPE I --- ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (a) Actions: The following permits and approvals involve direct application of adopted codes and standards with many of the decisions made immediately at the customer counter. The decisions are administrative and public notice is not required. An asterisk (*) denotes permits and approvals that are excluded from the 120-day processing and notification requirements of this section. (1) Building and sign permits.* (2) Home occupation.* (3) Land uses permitted outright. (4) Structures permitted outright. (5) Boundary line adjustment.* (6) Minor amendment to approved PUD. (7) Minor amendments to other permits. (8) Temporary emergency wetland or stream permits.* (9) SEPA exempt:* -- Clearing less than 2 acres. -- Grading less than 100 cu. yds. (10) Landscape plan. (11) Site Plan Review. (12) Recreational vehicle 90-day permit.* (b) Final decision: The Director's decision shall be final on the date issued. (c) Appeal: Type I decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission which will conduct an open record appeal hearing. 21.02.855 TYPE II --- ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS WITH NOTICE (~) Actions: The following permits and approvals require limited public notice. Pre- decision comments are encouraged and the Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request. (1) Short Subdivision (short plat) (2) SEPA Determination. (3) Wetland or stream assessment. (4) Wetland or stream development permit. (5) Variance. (6) Administrative Special Use Permit. (7) Zoning Ord. Special Exception. (8) Design Review. (exempt from 120 day processing requirement) (9) Plan or Code Interpretation. (10) Minor alteration of approved plat. ADMINISTRATION: Page 2 (c) (d) Decision format: The decision shall be in a written format that clearly indicates the findings of fact, evaluation of approval criteria, conclusions, the decision, any conditions of approval, and any maps, designs, site plans, or other related graphic materials. Final Decision: The Director's decision (or SEPA Official's decision in the case of a SEPA-related action) shall be final at the end of an appeal period of fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of decision. Appeal: Type II decisions may be appealed to the City Council which will conduct an open record appeal hearing. 21.02.860 TYPE III --- CITY COUNCIL DECISIONS (a) Actions: The following actions may be approved, approved with conditions, denied, or remanded by the City Council following an open record pre-decision public hearing, unless noted otherwise. Recommendations will be provided by staff. Public notice is required for all Type III actions. Neighborhood meetings will be conducted by staff when required or when otherwise warranted by the Director for public information or data gathering purposes. An asterisk (*) denotes actions that are exempt from the 120-day permit processing requirement. (I) Preliminary Subdivision Plat. (2) Final Subdivision Plat. (3) Vacation of existing subdivision. (4) Vacation of street right-of-way. * (5) Surplus or sale of other public properly. * (6) Planned Unit Development (PUD). (7) Major amendment to a previously approved Type III decision. (8) Binding Site Plan. (9) Non-administrative Special Use Permit. (10) Rezone for specific properties or small area. (11) Development Agreement. * (b) Decision Format: Type III decisions shall be made by resolution, ordinance, or other form appropriate to that particular decision and suitable for recording. (c) Final Decision: Type III decisions are made by the City Council and are final when issued for purposes of appeal. (d) Appeal: Type III decisions may be appealed to Superior Court within the fourteen (14) day appeal period, or on the effective date of the ordinance, whichever is longer. ADMINISTRATION: Page 3 21.02.865 TYPE IV--- LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS (a) (b) (c) (c) Actions: The City Council may approve, modify, or deny the following legislative decisions following an open pre-decision public hearing. These decisions are exempt from the 120-day processing and single open ~'ecord hearing rules and most will be considered by the Planning Commission in open public hearing prior to making its recommendation to the City Council. Public notice is required. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Annexation. Urban Renewal Plan. District, community, neighborhood, or other special area plan. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Development regulation adoption or amendment. Zoning Map Amendment (other than single lot or small area rezones). Decision Format: Type IV decisions shall be made by ordinance. Final Decision: Type IV decisions are made by the City Council following its open record public hearing and are final when issued, for purposes of appeal. Appeal: Type IV decisions may be appealed to Superior Court within the fourteen (14) day appeal period, or on the effective date of the ordinance, whichever is longer. 21.02.870 SHORELINE DECISIONS (a) Actions: The following are subject to the requirements of Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program but shall be decided within 120 days. Recommendations and hearings shall be conducted as described in the "Permit Processing" table that follows. (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Shoreline Variance Shoreline Permit Revisions Shoreline Master Program Amendments (b) Decision Format: Completion of a prepared form or statement of findings, conclusions and the decision of the approving body. Adoption of and amendments to the Shoreline Master Program shall be made by ordinance. (c) Final Decisions: (1) Substantial Development Permits and amendments to existing permits are decided administratively, in the same manner as other Type II permits. ADMINISTRATION: Page 4 (d) (2) Conditional Use Permits and Variances are decided by the Planning Commission and may be approved, rejected, or modified by the Department of Ecology. A neighborhood meeting or study session is optional. (3) All Shoreline Permit decisions must be submitted simultaneously to the applicant, the Department of Ecology (DOE), and to the attorney general. DOE may approve or disapprove the permit. (4) Shoreline Master Program Amendments are decided by the City Council and may be approved, rejected, or modified by the Department of Ecology. Appeals: An appeal of a local shoreline permit decision may be filed with the City Council first, with a second appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB), or may be filed directly with the SHB. (1) Decisions on Substantial Development Permits, Variances and Conditional Use Permits may be appealed to the City Council within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision, and considered in an open record appeal hearing, or (2) Those decisions listed in (d)(1) above or City Council decisions on appeals of earlier decisions, may be appealed to the Shorelines Hearings Board by filing a Petition for Review within twenty-one (21) days of the date of the Department of Ecology's review and decision. (3) The decision of the Department of Ecology pertaining to the adoption of, or amendment to, the Shoreline Master Program may be appealed to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board per RCW 36.70A.250 through 320. (4) Appeals to the City Council shall be decided within thirty days of the filing date. Appeals to the Shoreline Hearings Board will be decided within 180 days. ADMINISTRATION: Page 5 PERMIT PROCESSING Plan. Comm. Plan. Comm. City Council DECISIONS Admin. Admin. Open Open Open (Recommend) Decision Hearing Hearing Hearing (Recommend) (Decision) (Decision) Type I Decisons ¢~ ¢¢ (on appeal) Type II Decisions >- Short Subdivision * * (on appeal) ~ Variance a~ * (on appeal) >- Admin. SUP ak * (on appeal) >' Z.O. Spec. Exception * * (on appeal) >' Minor Plat Amend. * :~ (on appeal) ~- SEPA Determination * * (on appeal) >' .Env. Area Determin. * * (on appeal) >- Design Review ak ak (on appeal) >- Interpretation ak ak (on appeal) Type III Decisions ~- Prelim. Subdiv. Plat ak ak >- Final Subdiv. Plat ak ak >- Vacation of Subdiv. ak ak >- Planned Unit Dev. 8t ak ~- PUD Major Amend. ak ak >' Binding Site Plan ak ak I ~>. Non-admin. SUP ak ak Rezone ak ak >- Develop. Agreement ak ak Type IV Decisions >- Annexation ak ..... ak >- Urban Renewal Plan ak ak ak >- Dist./Neigh. Plan ak ak ak >' Comp. Plan Amend. ak ak ak >- Dev. Reg. Adopt. ak ak ak ~ Dev. Reg. Amend. ak * :¢ Shoreline Decisions > Sub. Dev. Permit ..... ak .......... ak (on appeal) >' Cond. Use Permit ak .......... ak ak (on appeal) >- Variance ak .......... * * (on appeal) >- Permit Revision ..... ak .......... * (on appeal) ~ Master Program ak ..... * ..... , Amendment (legislative) ADMINISTRATION: Page 6 21.02.875 PLANNED ACTIONS (a) A Planned Action does not require a threshold determination nor the preparation of an environmental impact statement under State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). However, an environmental checklist may be requested as part of the initial application to help disclose, review and mitigate environmental impacts through the Site Plan Review process. (b) To qualify as a "Planned Action", a project action must: (1) Be a clearly designated or proposed action within a plan, ordinance or resolution that was adopted by the City, and be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; (2) Have had any significant impacts adequately addressed in an environmental impact statement prepared in conjunction with the City's Comprehensive Plan or related neighborhood, subarea, urban renewal, or other special area plan; (3) Be a subsequent or implementing project for proposals contained in the Comprehensive Plan or related plans; (4) Be located within the City limits or Urban Growth Area; and (5) Not be an essential public facility, as defined in RCW 36.70A.200. (c) Planned actions may be limited to certain types of development, to specific geographical areas of the City, and/or to a time period identified in the EIS, plan, ordinance or resolution that designated the planned action. (d) Project review of a planned action shall not address its appropriateness nor question the basis of its proposal in a comprehensive plan or other adopted document. Project review shall be used to identify specific project design and conditions relating to the character of development, such as the details of site plans, related public facilities and services, payment of impact or other fees, or other measures that may be needed to mitigate probable adverse environmental impacts. 21.02.880 GENERAL PROCESSING PROCEDURES (a) Determination of proper procedure: (t) The Director or his/her designee shall determine the proper procedure for the processing of each development application. (2) Disputes shall be resolved in favor of the higher category of decision (Type I-IV). ADMINISTRATION: Page 7 (3) A permit or approval involving the siting or development of important public facilities or utilities, or related to the use of public areas or facilities for public purposes, may be excluded from the 120-day permit process by passage of a resolution that presents the special circumstances that warrant a different process. (b) Optional Consolidated Permit Process: An application that involves two or more permits or procedures may be processed one of two ways, at the option of the applicant: (1) Individually according to the established process for each permit or approval; or (2) Collectively under the highest category of decision (Type I-IV) required for any part of the application. This Consolidated Review process may combine an open record pre-decision hearing on one or more permits with an open record appeal hearing on other permits. (c) Pre-application Conference: A conference with DCD staff to preview the proposal and ensure that all regulations are considered prior to submitting an application is strongly encouraged for a Type II, III or IV approval and is required for anyone choosing the Consolidated Permit Process. (d) Official File: The Department shall establish an official file containing all applications, correspondence, and other materials related to the application(s). The file is a public record and available for inspection at DCD during normal working hours. (e) Technical Review: (1) Most Type II, III, and IV applications will be distributed to other City departments, agencies, and interested organizations for their review and comment during a specified comment period of 14 days. The comment period may be as long as 30 days if necessary for the review of unique or complex applications. (2) The review shall include both land use and environmental impact analysis so that the governmental and public reviews will run concurrently. An appeal ora SEPA determination, other than a Declaration of Significance (DS), will be heard at the open record pre-decision public hearing. (3) The technical review shall determine consistency of the project with applicable plans and regulations in at least these four areas: (1) the type of land use allowed; (2) the level (density or intensity) of development allowed; (3) the adequacy of needed infrastructure; and (4) the character of the proposed development, as determined by its compliance with specific development standards and/or guidelines. Determination of Completeness: Within twenty-eight (28) days of acceptance of a project permit application, the City shall mail or personally provide a written notice of complctcocss to tl~¢ applicaot which states that the application is complete or incomplete. ADMINISTRATION: Page 8 (g) (i) (1) A complete application will meet the basic submission requirements and include other application requirements contained in this chapter and any data determined to be reasonably necessary by the Director or through the pre-application conference. (2) An application shall be deemed complete if the City does not provide a written determination within 28 days of submittal. (3) The Determination of Completeness shall not preclude the City from requesting additional information or studies that may be required later, or resulting from changes to the proposal. Incomplete Application: (i) The Determination of Completeness shall provide 90 days for the applicant to submit the information necessary to make an application complete. (2) If the applicant does not provide the necessary information within 90 days, or refuses in writing to do so, the application shall lapse and may not be resubmitted for one full year. (3) If the application has lapsed for any reason prior to becoming a complete application, the application fees unrelated to the technical review and Determination of Completeness shall be refunded, if requested by the applicant. Notice of Application: This notice shall be issued for Type II and III project permit applications, within 14 days of the Determination of Completeness. It is not required for Type I or IV applications, nor for other exempt project permits. (See Section 21.02.905(b) Notice.) Public Meeting: If not specifically required for a particular permit, the Director may initiate a public meeting to be conducted by City staff, the Planning Commission, neighborhood organization, or other appropriate body. (a) Purpose: To explain the proposal, discuss its characteristics and alternatives, and receive questions and comments from citizens or other interested parties. (b) Informal Meeting: The meeting may be held in the Council Chambers of City Hall or in any other suitable location and shall be conducted informally. It may be referred to as a study session, neighborhood meeting, or other public meeting, but shall not be conducted as a formal public hearing. If not a requirement of the body conducting the meeting, the meeting need not be recorded electronically. Written minutes or a meeting summary shall be produced and made part of the record. (c) Notice: Shall be posted in accordance with Section 21.02.905(b)(3). ADMINISTRATION: Page 9 0) (k) O) Public Comment Period: (1) A comment period of at least fourteen (14) days but not longer than thirty (30) days shall follow the Notice of Application and be specified in that Notice, except that a twenty (20) day comment period shall be provided for Shoreline permits. (2) The City may accept written comments at any time prior to the close of the open record pre-decision hearing, or prior to the decision on the project permit if no hearing is required. Notice of Public Hearing: Notice for all applications that require a public hearing and all appeals that will be heard in an open record hearing shall be given public notice at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing, as provided in Section 21.02.905(d). Notice of Decision: (1) (2) A written Notice of Decision shall be issued within ten (10) days of any Type II decision and any shoreline permit decision, and will be followed by an appeal period of fourteen (14) days. The Notice of Final Decision follows all local appeals and City Council decisions. It shall be issued following all Type III and IV decisions and at the conclusion of all local appeals of Type II decisions and shoreline permit decisions. This notice must be issued within 120 days, as adjusted, following the Determination of Completeness. 21.02.885 PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATION (a) Basic Information: The following information shall be provided for all development- related applications, unless found by the Director to be unnecessary for the particular application: (1) Completed application form for the permit(s) requested. (2) Legal description for the subject property. (Assessor's plat map and the parcel's account number may be adequate in most cases.) (3) Vicinity Map showing the location of the subject property and including surrounding major streets, shorelines and other reference points. (4) A Site Plan of the subject property if any physical changes will result from approval of the request. ADMINISTRATION: Page 10 (5) (6) (7) (8) Mailing labels with names and addresses of all owners of record of parcels within the notification radius for the type of permit requested (not required for Type I). At the applicant's option, DCD staffwill provide this service for an additional fee. The names, addresses, and phone numbers of the applicant and all owners of the subject property, along with a signed letter or other verification of the owner(s) consent to the application. An Environmental Checklist, Environmental Impact Statement, wetlands or stream delineation, or other necessary environmental documentation. Any additional information that may be specifically required for the permit being considered or that has been determined by the Director as reasonably necessary for a decision on the application(s). A survey may be required to resolve questions pertaining to property lines, locations of structures, etc. (9) The application fee(s) for the permit(s) requested. 21.02.890 PUBLIC HEARINGS (a) Definitions: (1) (2) (3) Open Record Public Hearing: Permits that require a pre-decision public hearing shall be heard by the designated hearings body. The hearing shall afford everyone present the opportunity to comment on the proposal prior to the decison. Public Meeting: City staff or the Planning Commission may conduct meetings to explain proposals and/or gather information and comments from the residents of specific areas or neighborhoods on either quasi-judicial or legislative proposals and plans. Informal public participation shall be encouraged and documented. The information gathered shall be used to formulate a recommendation to the decision- making body but shall not be the record upon which the decision is made for a project permit. These public meetings shall not be considered public hearings. Study Session: The Planning Commission or City Council may conduct study sessions to discuss procedures, plan details, development proposal alternatives, or other matters that demand staff clarification or study. A study session is not a permit requirement but is often followed by a public hearing or other required action. Although a study session is an open meeting, it is not a public hearing where public comment is taken. (b) Prc-decisiou and appeal open record public hearings shall be conducted by the City Couucil in accordance with its rules for public hearings and appeals. ADMINISTRATION: Page 11 (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) In hearing matters, including appeals, that require application of law and determination of facts which predominantly affect particular parties rather than the public generally, or a class or group, the hearing body sits as a quasi-judicial body and will conduct the hearing in accordance with established rules for such hearings. An open record public hearing is intended to supplement other materials and complete the record on the application. Testimony will be accepted from the public, evidence and arguments will be heard, and new material will be entered into the record. Type IV decisions are legislative, not quasi-judicial, and exempt from the 120-day processing requirement and the limitation on the number of open record hearings. They may include open record hearings before both Planning Commission and City Council. When two or more public agencies must conduct public hearings on an application, the hearings shall be combined and held within the local jurisdiction whenever possible. Staff Support: The Director shall: (1) Schedule an application for public hearing when required. (2) Provide the required public notice. (3) Provide a single Staff Report stating all of the decisions made as of the date of the report, including recommendations on project permits in the consolidated permit process that do not require an open record pre-decision hearing. The report shall describe the alternatives that were considered, forward testimony and comments that were given, evaluate the approval criteria, and state any mitigation required or proposed under the development regulations or the City's authority under SEPA. If the threshold determination, other than a determination of significance (DS), has not been issued previously, the report shall include or append this determination. The staff report may function as the permit for a Type I or II administrative decision. (4) Provide the required Notice of Decision. 21.02.895 DECISIONS (a) (b) Burden of Proof: The applicant has the responsibility of providing all maps, materials, and other documentation required for the processing of the application and demonstrating that the project or request meets the City's regulations and approval criteria. Decision Hierarchy: Decisions on applications of different types that are being processed under the optional consolidated permit process shall be made together by the highest ADMINISTRATION: Page 12 (c) (d) (e) (f) decision maker or decision-making body. Permit Decision: The decision on a permit application shall be to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. Appeal Decision: The decision on an appeal shall be to affirm, reverse or remand the decision that is being appealed. Decision goes with the Land: Approval of any development application applies only to the specific property for which it was approved. It does not go with the owner or applicant and may not be transferred to any other property or structure. General Findings: In addition to findings addressing the approval criteria for a specific permit, all proposals must meet the following tests to be approved or recommended for approval: (1) The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans. (2) The propoal conforms to all applicable City development regulations, minimum standards, and design guidelines. 21.02.900 TIME LIMITS ON DECISIONS (a) Final Decisions on all Type I, II, and III decisions shall be made within 120 days of the City's acceptance ora complete application. (Issuance of a Determination of Completeness is not necessary for Type I applications.) (b) The 120-day clock shall stop during the following periods: (1) A period during which the applicant has been requested to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional information. The clock stops at the time the applicant is notified of the requests and resumes when the request has been satisfied, per Section 21.02.880(0. (2) Any period during which an Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared following a Determination of Significance. The applicant and City shall agree in writing to a time period for completion of the ElS. (3) Any period required to process an administrative appeal of a project permit. The clock may stop for a period of up to ninety (90) days for an open record appeal hearing and up to sixty (60) days for a closed record appeal. This period begins on the filing date of the appeal and ends on the date of the Notice o1' Decision. Thc parties may agree to an extension of the appeal period. ADMINISTRATION: Page 13 (4) Any other extension of time mutually agreed upon by the City and applicant. (c) Time limits do not apply if a project permit application: (1) Requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or a development regulation. (2) Requires approval of a Fully Contained Community, a Master Planned Resort, or the siting of an essential public facility. (3) Is substantially revised by the applicant. The clock begins when a new Letter of Completeness is issued. (d) If the City is unable to comply with any of the time limits provided herein, it shall provide written notice to the applicant (or appellant), along with a statement of reasons why the time limits could not be met and an estimated date for the anticipated action. (e) A Type I or II approval shall become void if not acted upon within one year unless stated otherwise at the time of approval or within a related development agreement. A six~month extension may be granted by the Director if requested in writing prior to the expiration date. (f) An applicant may not submit an application that is substantially the same as an application that was denied until at least one full year has passed since the denial. 21.02.905 NOTICE Requirements for notices for different types of permits and approvals is shown in the Notice Requirements table. (a) Determination of Completeness: Provided by regular mail to applicant only. This notice triggers the 120-day permit approval clock. (b) Notice of Application: Shall be provided as follows: (l) Timing: Notice shall be given within fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Determination of Completeness and at least fifteen (I 5) days prior to a scheduled open record pre-decision public hearing. (2) Distribute: Notice shall be given to affected City departments and mailed to agencies with jurisdiction or that may be significantly impacted. The Secretary of Transportation shall be notified of preliminary subdivision plats when adjacent to the right-of-way of any State highway or within two miles of the boundary of a state or municipal airport. The secretary must respond within fifteen days. ADMINISTRATION: Page 14 (3) (4) (5) Post: Notice shall be posted in at least one location on or adjacent to the subject property and clearly visible and legible from an adjacent street or public area. Publish: A summary of the Notice of Application shall be published in the City's official newspaper of general circulation. If the notice includes a Notice of Public Hearing, it shall include the requirements for that notice as well. Notice Contents: The table entitled "Contents of Notice of Application" describes the minimum contents of the notice: CONTENTS OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION DISTRIBUTE I POST Date of initial application. ~ Date of the Letter of Completeness :~ Date of the Notice of Application ~t Description of the proposed project and its location 1~ :~ (include map when appropriate) List of all permits/approvals that are part of the ~ ~ application package Identification of other permits needed, if any, not 1~ included in the application Identification and location of any known related ~ environmental documents Time limitations for the public comment period and statement of the right of any person to submit ~ ~: comments or to request notification of the decision Statement of the public's right to participate in public ~ ~ meetings and hearings, when scheduled Statement of any appeal rights :~ ~ Date, time and place of any scheduled public meeting ~ ~ or hearing SEPA threshold determination and scoping notice in ~ ~S the case of a Determination of Significance (DS) Name and phone number of staff contact person. 1~ ~: ADMINISTRATION: Page 15 (c) Notice of Appeal: Shall follow the same procedure as the Notice of Application, except the issues of the appeal will be presented rather than the details of the application. (d) Notice of Public Hearing: (1) Timing: Notice shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to any pm-decision or appeal public hearing. (2) Distribute: If a hearing notice was not included in the Notice of Application, a Notice of Public Hearing for a legislative approval shall be mailed to outside agencies with jurisdiction and to anyone who has requested notice. Notices of quasi-judicial hearings shall be distributed to the owners of record of all parcels within a radius of three hundred (300) feet of the subject parcel and also to affected agencies and anyone who has requested notice. (3) Post: Notice for a quasi-judicial hearing shall be posted in at least one location on or adjacent to the subject property and clearly visible and legible from an adjacent street or public area. Posting is not required if the hearing notice was included earlier in the posted Notice of Application. (4) Publish: Notice shall be published in the City's official newspaper of general circulation (5) Notice Contents: The Notice of Public Hearing shall include at least the following, as applicable: g. h. i. j. Name of the applicanffappellant or representative. Location of the site (vicinity description, address or legal description). Nature of the proposed use or development and requested permits. Nature of the appeal and relief sought (in the case of an appeal). Date, time and place of the scheduled public hearing. Statement that all interested persons may appear and provide testhnony. Instructions for submittal of written comments or other exhibits. Where and when staff report and related materials are available for review. How copies of related materials may be obtained. Name and phone number of a staff contact person. (e) Notice of Decision: (l) Timing: Shall be issued within ten (10) days of most Type II decisions and all shoreline permit decisions. ADMINISTRATION: Page 16 17o (0 (g) (2) Distribute: Shall be provided to the applicant or appellant and to any person who, prior to the rendering of the decision, requested notice of the decision or submitted substantive oral or ~vritten comments on the application or appeal. (3) Post: Not required. (4) Publish: Notice shall be published one time in the City's official newspaper of general circulation. (Shoreline permits may require additional notice.) (5) Notice Contents: The Notice may be a copy of the report or decision on the project permit application and shall include, when available, the SEPA threshold determination, the pemfit decision, conditions of approval, and general procedures and time limits to file an appeal. Notice of Final Decision: Must be issued within 120 days following the Determination of Completeness, and providing for adjustments per Section 21.02.905(b). The same procedures as required for the Notice of Decision shall be followed, except that this notice is only issued following a Type III or IV decision and at the conclusion of all local appeals of a Type I or II decision or a shoreline permit decision. Optional Public Notice: In addition to required public notice, the City may provide public notice of applications, meetings, hearings or decisions to other individuals or organizations known to be interested or possibly affected by the subject proposal. Failure to provide optional notice shall have no effect on the validity of the permitting process or the ultimate decision on an application. ADMINISTRATION: Page 17 17( NOTICE REQUIREMENTS Determination Notice of DECISIONS of Notice of Pre-decision Notice of Notice of Notice of Completeness Application Public Hearing Decision Appeal Final Decision Type I Decisons No None No No Yes If appealed Type II Decisions appeals to Council ~- Short Subdivision Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed ~ Variance Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed >- Admin. SUP Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed >- Z.O. Spec, Exception Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed ~ Minor Plat Amend. Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed 3~ SEPA Determination Yes No No Some cases Yes If appealed >- Env. Area Determin. No No No Yes Yes If appealed >- Design Review Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed >- Interpretation No No No Yes Yes If appealed Type III Decisions appeals to court ~- Prelim. Subdiv. Plat Yes Yes Yes No No Yes >- Final Subdiv. Plat Yes Yes Yes No No Yes >- Vacation of Subdiv. Yes Yes Yes No No Yes >- Planned Unit Dev. Yes Yes Yes No No Yes >- PUD Major Amend. Yes Yes Yes No No Yes >- Binding Site Plan Yes Yes Yes No No Yes >- Non-admin. SUP Yes Yes Yes No No Yes 3.- Rezone Yes Yes Yes No No Yes >- Develop. Agreement Yes No Yes No No Yes ADMINISTRATION:' Page 18 Determination Notice of ACTIONS of Notice of Public Notice of Notice of Notice of Completeness Application Hearing Decision Appeal Final Decision Type IV Decisions appeals to court >. Annexation No Yes Yes No No Yes 3~ Urban Renewal Plan No Yes Yes No No Yes >- Dist./Neigh. Plan No Yes Yes No No Yes ~- Comp. Plan Amend. No Yes Yes No No Yes > Dev. Reg. Adopt. No Yes Yes No No Yes >- Dev. Reg. Amend. No Yes Yes No No Yes Shoreline Decisions >- Sub. Dev. Permit Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed >- Cond. Use Permit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes If appealed :~ Variance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes If appealed 3.- Permit Revision Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed ~- Master Program Yes Yes Yes Yes No * YES Amendment * Appeals of Master Program decisions are heard by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. ADMINISTRATION: Page 19 21.02.910 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS (a) The City may enter into a development agreement with a person having ownership or control of real property within the City limits, or outside the City limits but within the Urban Growth Area as part of a proposed annexation or service agreement. (b) The agreement shall set forth the development standards and other provisions that shall apply to, govern, and vest the development, its land uses, and mitigation of the development's impacts for the duration of the specified period, consistent with applicable policies and goals of the City of Bremerton. (c) The development agreement shall specify the following, as applicable to the project: (1) All major project components, including the specific uses to be allowed, residential densities, commercial or industrial site and floor areas, off-street parking, etc. (2) Landscaping, buffers, parks, recreation areas, open space and similar features. (3) Provision for affordable housing. (4) Required mitigation measures, development conditions, and other requirements of project approval. Financial arrangements, including any required impact fees, in-lieu fees, inspection fees, dedications, financial contributions, and reimbursement provisions, if any. (6) Design and development standards to be applied to the project, including architectural treatment, maximum heights, setbacks, landscaping, drainage, utilities, parking, signage, and any others. (7) Review procedures, phasing program, and criteria for project decisions. (8) The build-out or vesting period during which the agreement wilt be in effect. (9) Any other appropriate requirements or procedures that are based on City policies, rules, regulations, or standards. The agreement may impose new or different regulations to the extent necessary to resolve a threat to public health or safety. (d) Enforceability: A development agreement, including all development standards, is enforceable during its term by any party to the agreement. The agreement protects the approved development from changes to the zoning or other development regulations that may be adopted during the term of the agreement. ADMINISTRATION: Page 20 (e) Form and Processing: (1) Development agreements shall be in a form provided by the City Attorney's office. The City Attorney shall review and approve all proposed agreements prior to consideration by the City Council. (2) A development agreement shall be approved as a Type III decision by the City Council following an open record public hearing. (3) The agreement shall be recorded with the real property records of Kitsap County and shall be binding on the parties and their successors during its term. 21.02.915 SPECIAL USE PERMIT Authority: A land use that is designated "SUP" in specific zones in the Laod Use Tables of Section 5 of these regulations may be permitted on sites within those zones, provided all identified adverse impacts of the specific use can be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level through design or conditions of approval of the Special Use Permit. (b) Applicant: Any property owner or the owner's agent may apply. (c) Procedure: A Special Use Permit is processed in accordance with the procedures outlined in section 21.02.880 and the notice requirements of section 21.02.905 and is approved administratively. (d) Criteria for Approval: A Special Use Permit may be approved if all of the following questions can be answered "YES": (1) Is the proposal consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and either designated "SUP" in the Zoning Ordinance, or is being processed as an "Unlisted Use"? (2) Will the proposal comply with all applicable development standards and requirements, including the availability of all needed utilities and services? (3) Will the proposal, along with any mitigation measures or other conditions of approval, avoid adverse environmental consequences? (4) Will the proposal be compatible with adjacent uses and surrounding neighborhood? (5) Does the proposal comply with all other criteria or design guidelines that are applicable to the specific use or type of development? ADMINISTRATION: Page 21 (e) (f) Conditions of Approval: Such conditions as site orientation, fencing, buffering, parking location, lighting, access, hours of operation, or others may be imposed as conditions of approval if needed to prevent adverse impacts and/or ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. Lapse of Approval: If not acted upon within one year from the date of decision, the SUP approval shall expire. Expiration is automatic and notice is not provided. The Director may grant a single written six-month extension upon a showing of good cause, provided the applicant submits a written request for such extension prior to expiration. 21.02.920 VARIANCE (a) Authority: A Variance from a specific provision'of the City's development regulations may be approved to grant relief when those requirements result in an unusual or unreasonable hardship due to the physical characteristics of the site or existing improvements on or adjacent to the site. A Variance may not be granted to alter a definition or interpretation, nor to change or circumvent adopted permit processing procedures. (b) Applicant: Any property owner or the owner's agent may apply. (c) Procedure: A Variance is processed in accordance with the procedures outlined in section 21.02.880 and the notice requirements of section 21.02.905 and is approved administratively. (d) Criteria for Approval: A Variance may be approved if all of the following questions can be answered "YES": (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Will the proposal avoid conflicts with the City's Comprehensive Plan? Will the variance accommodate a use or structure that is allowed by the zoning? Will the Variance benefit the surrounding neighborhood and/or avoid adverse impacts on other properties and residents? Will the Variance, along with any proposed mitigation measures or conditions of approval, minimize adverse environmental impacts? Is the Variance necessary to overcome a hardship related to the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the subject property, or related to a legal nonconformity that may exist on or adjacent to the site? Will the Variance allow a developmcnt or improvement that is consistent with that o1' similar properties in the vicinity and zone? ADMINISTRATION: Page 22 17(,, (7) Is the Variance needed to solve a specific code-related design problem and not to grant relief for a personal or financial hardship or inconvenience? (8) Have other solutions, uses, or design options that might achieve a similar result without the need for a Variance been evaluated and rejected? (e) Conditions of Approval: Conditions may be imposed as conditions of approval if needed to prevent adverse impacts and/or ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. (f) Lapse of Approval: If not acted upon within one year from the Notice of Final Decision, the Variance approval shall expire. Expiration is automatic and notice is not provided. The Director may grant a written six-month extension upon a showing of good cause, provided the applicant submits a written request for such extension prior to expiration. 21.02.925 SPECIAL EXCEPTION (a) Authority: A Special Exception from a specific provision of the City's development regulations may be approved to grant relief when the regulation is found to be inappropriate to the situation and/or results in an unreasonable inconvenience or difficulty in the use or development of the property. The Special Exception process encourages creative design solutions to site planning problems and does not require the presence of physical obstacles to development, as required for a Variance. Special Exceptions shall not be granted to residential densities, to definitions or interpretations, nor to permit processing procedures. (b) Applicant: Any property owner or the owner's agent may apply. (c) Procedure: A Special Exception is processed in accordance with the procedures outlined in section 21.02.880 and the notice requirements of section 21.02.905 and is approved administratively. (d) Criteria for Approval: A Special Exception proposal may be approved if all of the following questions can be answered "YES": (I) Will the proposal avoid conflicts with the City's Comprehensive Plan? (2) Will the Special Exception benefit the surrounding neighborhood and/or avoid adverse impacts on other properties and residents? (3) Will the Special Exception, along with any proposed mitigation measures or conditions of approval, minimize adverse environmental impacts? (4) Will thc Special Exception result iu the cuhanccd usc o£ thc site fora development, expansion of an existing structure, or other innovative improvement that will be ADMINISTRATION: Page 23 177 (e) (0 clearly beneficial to the subject property and neighborhood? (5) Will the resulting improvements will be compatible with the design and development characteristics of similar properties in the neighborhood and zone? (6) Have other solutions, uses, or design options that might achieve a similar result without the need for a Special Exception been evaluated and rejected? (7) Is the Special Exception needed to solve a design problem or to allow a unique or innovative design, and not to grant relief for a personal or financial nature? Conditions of Approval: Conditions may be imposed as conditions of approval if needed to prevent adverse impacts and/or ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. Lapse of Approval: If not acted upon within one year from the Notice of Final Decision, the Special Exception approval shall expire. Expiration is automatic and notice is not provided. The Director may grant a written six-month extension upon a showing of good cause, provided a written request for such extension is submitted prior to expiration. 21.02.930 REZONE (a) (b) (c) Authority: The City Council may approve a change in zoning classification of property within the City limits by passage of an ordinance, following a public hearing, provided the new zone is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted approval criteria. Approval of a Rezone results in a change to the Official Zoning Map. Applicant: The following may initiate a Rezone: Private party: The owners, or their designated agents, representing at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the assessed valuation of the area proposed for rezoning. (2) City: The Bremerton Planning Commission or City Council may initiate a Rezone upon passage of a resolution of intent. Procedure: (l) A single-parcel or small area rezone is a quasi-judicial action that is processed in accordance with the procedures outlined in section 21.02.880 and the notice requirements of section 21.02.905. (2) The Staff Report shall include a recommendation for City Council action. ADMINISTRATION: Page 24 (d) (3) The City Council shall make the decision following an open record public hearing, and after considering the recommendation of staff, all oral and written testimony, and comments from the public, other agencies and City departments. Criteria for Approval: A Rezone may be approved if all of the following can be answered "YES": (1) (2) Is the proposed Rezone consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? (See Section 21.02.245 "Plan/Zoning Consistency" of this code.) Is the Rezone justified for one or more of the following reasons? El It is in the public interest to approve the Rezone to accommodate needed changes within the immediate vicinity or neighborhood. It will correct a zone classification or boundary that was inappropriate when established. (3) (4) It is a planned step in a phasing process to gradually bring zoning into consistency with the 20-year Comprehensive Plan when appropriate. It will place or remove an overlay zoning designation without affecting the underlying zoning. Is there a public need for the proposed Rezone that will clearly benefit the local neighborhood and/or the community of Bremerton? Are all essential public facilities and services available and adequate, or can be made available, to serve the types and levels of development permitted in the requested zone? (5) Will the area being proposed for rezoning become part of a larger zoning district or form a new district which will not be considered an isolated "spot zone"? 21.02.935 DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENT (a) Authority: The City Council may approve by passage of an ordinance, a change to the text of any City of Bremerton development regulation, including the Zoning Ordinance, large area amendments to the Zoning Map, Shoreline Master Program, Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and others. These are Type IV legislative decisions and exempt from the processing, timing, and other requirements for quasi-judicial permits. ADMINISTRATION: Page 25 (b) Applicant: The City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor, City department, agency, or other interested party may initiate an amendment to a development regulation: (c) Procedure: The Planning Commission will conduct an open record public hearing for all amendments that are proposed to land use, environmental, or other related regulations and shall make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council, following its own open record public hearing, may approve, approve with modifications, deny, or remand the proposal for additional study. (d) Criteria for Approval: The City Council may approve an amendment if the following questions can be answered "YES": (1) Is the proposed change consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan? (2) Will the proposed change be consistent with all other provisions of the affected code and avoid conflicts with other codes? 21.02.940 SITE PLAN REVIEW (a) Applicability: (1) A technical site plan review shall be conducted for all projects that involve new development or expansion of existing structures or other exterior improvements that will change the physical condition of the site. (:2) The intent of the review is to ensure that the proposal meets all site development requirements of applicable regulations. (3) Site plan application requirements and the extent of the review shall be adjusted to the size, nature and complexity of the development proposal. (b) Applicant: Same as the applicant for the related building or development permits. (c) Review Procedures: (l) A Site Plan shall be submitted as part of the application for a proposal that involves a new or modified structure, or other physical improvements or changes to its site. Site Plan Review shall be included as one step in the processing of the requested permit(s) and a separate fee is not required. A request to review a conceptual, speculative, or other Site Plan that is not part of a development application shall be treated as an independent application and shall be accompanied by a Site Plan Review fee. ADMINISTRATION: Page 26 (d) (3) A cursory review of a conceptual or Sketch plan during a pre-application conference shall be provided at no charge to assist the potential applicant. Such review shall not be an official review for decision-making purposes. (4) The Site Plan shall be reviewed for consistency with applicable regulations and development standards. Based on the size and complexity of the project, the Director shall determine whether the review is done by DCD staff or by the Technical Review Committee consisting of representatives from all affected departments and agencies. Application Requirements: A Site Plan Review shall include the following components. The Director may waive one or more of these requirements when it is clear that the information obtained would not be relevant or helpful to an informed decision. (1) Vicinity Map: Shall show the subject property in relation to all other properties and major structures within a two-hundred fifty (250) foot radius of the property. (2) Site Plan: Shall contain the following information: Location, size, bulk, height, number of stories, and use of all structures and areas on the subject parcel, both existing and proposed. Existing and proposed pedestrian walkways, bikeways, parks, playgrounds, recreational areas, activity centers, landscaped areas, and other areas and facilities of a public or recreational nature. Existing and proposed utility systems, drainage structures, fire hydrants, and related features. ga~ environmental summary, including such features as shorelines, bulkheads, creeks, culverts, wetlands, steep slopes, unstable soils, rock outcroppings, significant trees, other "sensitive areas", etc. All property lines, easements, fences, walls, signs, and other points of reference. (3) Other information, maps or data that is helpful or that was requested at the pre-application conference to better understand the nature and scope of the proposal and its impacts on surrounding properties, people, and land uses. Parking Plan: The following information may be shown on the Site Plan or provided as a separate parking plan, and shall include: All parking spaces, aisles, handicapped and motorcycle spaces, loading spaces, transit facilities, and parking lot access and internal circulation. ADMINISTRATION: Page 27 (e) Dimensions of all parking areas, spaces, driveways, setbacks, distances from curb cuts to intersection comers, and similar details. (4) Landscape Plan: A plan showing the locations of ali existing trees and other vegetation proposed to remain, all proposed new trees and other vegetation, and the overall plan for landscaping the entire site. This information may be shown on the Site Plan or may be a separate plan. (5) Narrative: A written explanation of the proposal, including: Calculations of gross residential density, size of the site in square feet, and square footage of structures, parking areas, landscaped and recreational open space areas. [3 Elevations and/or perspective drawings of proposed structures and other major improvements being proposed. Identification of parties responsible for the continued care and maintenance of all common open space, buffers, and similar areas. The specific nature of any agreements, covenants, or other provisions that govern or affect the proposal. Signatures, mailing addresses, and phone numbers of all owners of record or agents of the subject property. (6) Maps: All maps shall be drawn to scale, legible, in a reproducible black and white format no larger than 18" x 24", and shall include a north arrow and a title block that consists of at least the following: The map title and name of the related project application. [3 Name and registration stamp (if necessary) of the person preparing the maps. Signature line for City approval and date of approval. Criteria for Approval: A Site Plan that complies with all applicable land use and development requirements and guidelines shall be approved. Decision & Appeal: The Director or his/her designee may approve, approve subject to conditions, or reject a Site Plan. (2) A rejection shall be accompanied by a written explanation of the deficiencies and a deadline (90 days suggested) for submittal of any additional information that is ADMINISTRATION: Page 28 (g) (h) (i) needed to complete and approve the Site Plan. (3) An administrative decision on a Site Plan may be appealed to Superior Court. Recording of Decision: A Site Plan that was approved with conditions intended to remain with the land or project longer than one year, or indefinitely, shall be recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor. Typically, a Site Plan will be implemented and satisfied as development occurs and will remain active as long as construction is taking place. Time Limits on Approval: (1) With the exceptions of a Binding Site Plan, a PUD, or a project covered by a Development Agreement, Site Plan approval shall become void if building permits are not applied for or construction has not begun within one (1) year. The expiration is automatic and notice is not given. (2) The specific conditions of a Binding Site Plan, Planned Unit Development, or Development Agreement may specify different times or a phasing program for development. (3) The Director may grant one six-month extension in writing to the one-year approval period of a non-binding Site Plan upon good faith shown, provided the applicant requests the extension in writing prior to the expiration date. Compliance Required: No person shall violate or fail to comply with an approved Site Plan or any conditions thereof. Nor shall a building permit be valid for any structure which violates or fails to comply with any approved Site Plan for the parcel(s) on which such structure is to be located. 21.02.945 APPEAL (a) Finality of Decision: (1) Those land use and development decisions that are subject to administrative appeal shall become final unless an appeal is filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision, or the date of the Notice of Decision when such notice is given. City Council decisions shall be final when issued. (2) A Zoning Ordinance Interpretation may be appealed at any time. (b) Appealable Decisions: (l) Type I administrative decisions may be appealed to Superior Court. ADMINISTRATION: Page 29 (c) (2) Type II administrative decisions with notice may be appealed to the City Council. (3) Type III City Council decisions may be appealed to Superior Court. (4) Type IV legislative decisions may be appealed to Superior Court. (5) Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Variances and Conditional Use Permits may be appealed within fourteen (14) days to the City Council, or within twenty-one (21) days to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Parties of Record: Only parties of record may initiate an appeal to the City Council. Parties of record shall include: (d) (e) (0 (g) (I) The applicant. (2) Anyone who testified at the open record public hearing on the application. (3) Anyone who submitted written comments concerning the application (excluding persons who have only signed petitions or mechanically produced form letters). Time to File: An appeal of an administrative or Planning Commission decision must be filed within fourteen (14) days following issuance of the written decision. Appeals may be delivered to the Department of Conmaunity Development (DCD) by mail, personal delivery, or by FAX before 5:00 PM on the last business day of the appeal period (see: Computation of Time). Timing of Decisions: (1) An open record appeal shall be decided within ninety (90) days from the date thc complete appeal was filed. (2) Should an occasion arise that would require a closed record appeal hearing, such an appeal shall be decided within sixty (60) days. Computation of Time: For purposes of computing the time for filing an appeal, the day the decision is rendered shall not be included. The last day of the appeal period shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, a day designated by RCW 1.16.050 or by the City's ordinances as a legal holiday, then it also is excluded and the filing must be completed on the next business day. Content of Appeal: An administrative appeal shall not be accepted unless it is written, accompanied by the required appeal fee, and contains at least the following information: (1) Appellant's name, address and phone number. ADMINISTRATION: Page 30 (i) O) (2) Appellant's statement describing his or her standing, as a party of record, to appeal. (3) Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal. (4) Statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based. (5) Statement of the relief sought, including the specific nature and extent. (6) A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the appellant's signature. Effect: The timely filing of an administrative appeal shall stay the effective date of the decision until such time as the appeal is either decided or withdrawn. Notice of Appeal: The Director shall provide public notice of the appeal as provided in the Public Notice section of this code. The appellant shall bear the burden of proving the administrative decision was not supported by substantial evidence. 1724:ch-10.bdc Amended: Aug. 22,1996 ADMINISTRATION: Page 31 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE adopting the revised ADMINISTRATION section of Chapter 21.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. WltEREAS, major revisions to Bremerton's Official Zoning Ordinance were adopted in November 1988; and WHEREAS, ESHB 1724, the Regulatory Reform Act, mandated a number of changes to the City's land use and development permitting process, including a 120-day time limit on some permit approvals, new notification requirements, integration of SEPA and site plan review, limitations on the numbers and types of public heatings, and others; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton passed Interim Ordinance No. 4550 to meet the State's April 1, 1996 compliance deadline, and extended the interim ordinance by passage of Ordinance No. 4564 on August 14, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission has reviewed the requirements of ESHB 1724 and the Administration section of BMC Chapter 21.02 and, following several study sessions and a special meeting on August 13, 1996, recommended City Council adoption of the revised Administration section; now, therefore, THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Repeal/New Sections. Sections 21.02.850 through 21.02.945 of the Bremerton Municipal Code are hereby repealed and the following new sections are adopted to read as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto. 21.02.850 21.02.855 21.02.860 21.02.865 21.02.870 21.02.875 21.02.880 21.02.885 21.02.890 21.02.895 21.02.900 21.02.905 21.02.910 21.02.915 21.02.920 21.02.925 Type I Administrative Decisions Type II Administrative Decisions Type III City Council Decisions Type IV Legislative Decisions Shoreline Decisions Planned Actions General Processing Procedures Project Permit Application Public Hearings Decisions Time Limits on Decisions Notice Development Agreements Special Use Permit Variance Special Exception 21.02.930 21.02.935 21.02.940 21.02.945 Rezone Development Regulation Amendment Site Plan Review Appeal Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days from passage and publication. APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ,1996. day of PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this , 1996. day of JOHN E. LAW, Council President APPROVED this day of ,1996. LYNN HORTON, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk Effective Date: Publication Date: Ordinance No: ZO-COD:ZO-ADMIN.ORD Bremerton Planning Commission MINUTES August 13, 1996 STUDY SESSION: Chairman Wayne Olsen called this public study session to order at 4:20 pm in the offices of the Bremerton Permit Center, located at 286 Fourth Street in Bremerton. Commissioners present were Robinson, Dingfield, Boyd, Stone, Adams and Olsen. Others in attendance were City Council President John Law, Councilman Montgomery, City Attorney lan Sievers, Planning Manager Ron Hough, Senior Planner Kay Wilson, and Building Development Specialist James Coombes. The purpose of this study session was to discuss the revised draft of the "Administration" section of the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance. The draft included a number of changes and new permit processing procedures dictated by ESHB 1724. Of greatest concern was the processing of Type III decisions. The proposal called for the City Council to make the decisions, following an open record public hearing. The Planning Commission's role would be to hold an earlier "public meeting", which might be a study session or neighborhood meeting, but not a public heating. The Commission would then make a recommendation for Council action. The City Attorney felt that the Planning Commission could conduct public meetings to discuss issues informally and not have those meetings be confused with more formal public hearings. The 1724 legislation is loose enough to allow that kind of flexibility. Even so, some Commissioners were uneasy about using an informal meeting process to gather public input on quasi-judicial proposals. Some felt the public would not participate but would save their energy for the Council's open public hearing. The options were to (1) recommend the proposal that includes public Commission meetings and recommendations, (2) remove the Commission from any involvement in Type III decisions, or (3) ignore the mandate of 1724 and recommend that a public hearing be held by both the Commission and City Council for Type III decisions. The Study Session was adjourned at 5:00 pm. SPECIAL MEETING: Chairman Olsen called this Special Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 5:04 pm in the offices of the Bremerton Permit Center. Attendance was the same as for the study session. Page 1 Following a very brief discussion of the Type III decision process, Commissioner Boyd moved that the Planning Commission hold nublic hearings on Type III decisions before making rec0mntcnd,lfions to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Adams. Following additional discussion, the motion passed with four affirmative votes (Boyd, Adams, Stone and Dingfield). Commissioners Robinson and Olsen abstained. Robinson's reason for abstaining was a lack of information about how the hearings would be structured. Mr. Hough proposed a fast track schedule for adoption of the revisions. The schedule would have the draft distributed to the Council this week and would include a Council public hearing on August 28. Hough suggested a City Council study session prior to the hearing and proposed August 21, following the regular Council meeting. Councilman Law agreed with that proposal. The Commission continued to review the proposed changes to the Administration section of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hough answered questions and accepted comments and suggestions for minor changes. No major or significant changes were made and the document will be "cleaned up" to correct grammar and typographical errors before distribution to the City Council. This special meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 5:18 pm. Ron ~. Hough Acting Secretary ~Va~-Ols~n, C~air / Date Page 2