Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/2017 AGENDA PACKETCITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 I Phone (360) 473-5280 MAY 10, 2017 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 5:00 PM in COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 603 The Study Session is open to the public but there will be no opportunities for input or participation; no action is anticipated during the Study Session; and the content of these items is subject to change. If approved by Council, the items will be placed on the May 17, 2017 Council Meeting Agenda: A. INFORMATION BRIEFING 1. "1 st Special Session" of the 2017 Legislative Session Report - Brian McConaughy, BMcConsulting B. NO PRESENTATION PLANNED -The following items are budgeted items or subjects that have been raised by the appropriate Council Committee Members: 1. Confirm Appointment of Dan Nelson to the Design Review Board 2. Amendment No. 1 to Forestry Pre -Commercial Thinning Contract No. 2016 with D & D Forestry, LLC C. BRIEFINGS AND FULL PRESENTATIONS 1. Confirmation of 2018 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Priorities - Sarah Achaoui, CDBG Administrator (Information only) 2. Proposed Public Hearing and Ordinance to amend Chapter 20 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) entitled "Land Use" 3. Proposed Public Hearing and Ordinance to approve Annexation of approx. 24.5 acres near Corbet Drive in the West Bremerton Urban Growth Area 4. Ordinance to amend Chapter 15 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) entitled "Municipal Utilities" D. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS Public Works Committee Briefing (5/2/17 Meeting) — Chair Dino Davis Public Safety & Parks Committee Briefing (5/10/17 Meeting) — Chair Leslie Daugs Other General Council Business (As necessary...) E. ADJOURNMENT OF STUDY SESSION ® Americans with Disabilities Act accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special accommodations should contact the City Clerk's Office at (360) 473-5323 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. INFORMATION ONLY ITEM CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: 1St Special Session" Report of Study Session Date the 2017 Legislative Session Presenter: Phone Ek May 10, 2017 Bryan McConaughy, BMcConsulting (206) 953-6026 SUMMARY: A briefing on the "1St Special Session" of the 2017 Legislative Session will be provided. HANDOUTS: Report STUDY SESSION AGENDA Form Created 5/4/15 ❑ No Presentation 0 Full Presentation BMcConsulting City of Bremerton REPORT — May 4, 2017 Regular Session Review o The Regular Session of the 2017 Legislature wrapped up its work on Friday, April 21, with official adjournment on Sunday, April 23. As expected, the Governor called the Legislature back for a Special Session beginning at 10:00 am on Monday, April 24. While many issues were addressed during the regular session, including passage of a biennial Transportation Budget (see below), much work remains prior to beginning of the new fiscal biennium on July 1. A new Operating Budget, a fix for the McCleary education funding challenge, as well as other high-priority issues such as a Capital Budget, are still left to be considered during the special session(s) that many expect to run deep into the summer. o Negotiations are ongoing with an expectation that the full Senate and House will reconvene the week of May 15tH Interim Preview o While this is an off year for state elections, there are some seats that have vacancies that will be filled in the November 2017 election. Since the Senate has a slim one vote Republican majority, focus on the Senate elections will be high with the 45th Legislative District drawing a lot of attention and money. The 45th Legislative District is located east of Seattle, in the high-tech suburbs of Kirkland, Redmond, Woodinville, Duvall, and Sammamish. The other races include Senate seats in the 7, 31, 37 and 48 and House seats in the 7, 31 and 48 Legislative Districts. They will likely stay with the same party that currently occupies those seats. Capital Budget o The Capital Budget was not finalized before the end of the regular session. The Capital projects will be used as leverage for operating budget negotiations. Here are some highlights that are pertinent to Bremerton: o Public Works Trust Fund Support — both the House and Senate have budgeted money for this program and thanks to the city's Public Works Department developing two very highly regarded projects, funding is included for: Ostrich Creek Culvert - $4,688,000 Pine Basin Sewer - $3,881,000 o WA Wildlife Recreation Grants — similar to Public Works, thanks to the Parks Department for having their project in the top 10, it currently would receive funding in both the Senate and House budget. Manette Park Renovation - $500,000 o Local and Community Projects via Dept of Commerce Quincy Square on 4th - $250,000 (included in House not in Senate) Puget Sound Industrial Center Sewer Extension - $515,000 (included in House not in Senate) Admiral Theatre - $150,000 (included in House not in Senate) Transportation Budget o Prior to finishing their work on April 21 st, the Legislature passed bipartisan legislation in the form of SB 5096, the two-year Transportation Budget. It is expected that the Governor will sign the bill into law. This marks the first budget to fully realize funding from the 2015 Connecting Washington Transportation Revenue Package. The legislation allocates approximately $8.7 billion in much needed funding to Washington state's transportation network. It secures over $3 billion for highway projects including maintenance and preservation of the system, additional funds to continue removing culverts to improve fish passage, funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects across the state, and completing a fourth 144 -car ferry. The transportation budget also includes an operating portion that provides funding for ferries, Washington State Patrol trooper training, Department of Licensing operations, investments in information technology upgrades, and fully funds the state employee contracts. o There were no negative reductions in Kitsap transportation projects funded in 2015-17 biennium. o 5th Auto Ferry: Local Legislators advocated for a 5th 144 -car vessel in the 2017-19 Transportation Budget, unfortunately it was not included in the budget — there was not an opportunity to introduce/include new significant budget items in the budget. o VW Settlement Funds: Language pertaining to the VW Settlement Funds was included in the transportation budget. Section 702 of the Transportation Budget includes direction on the VW settlement funds, though no specific spending of the settlement funds was allocated. As background, in 2016, Volkswagen settled a major case with the federal government and states where it agreed to pay roughly $15 billion to settle claims brought by the US EPA and others for rigging software to skew emissions tests in violation of the Clean Air Act. Washington State is set to receive approximately $112 million as part of the settlement. These funds will be available for projects that reduce Co2 emission by replacing vehicles such as trucks, buses, trains, boats, and cargo -handling or construction equipment with lower emissions vehicles. Operating Budget o The Operating Budget was not finalized before the end of the regular session. The spending levels of each budget differ: $43.3 billion in the Senate and $44.9 billion in the House. When leaders start negotiating, they typically work toward a compromise which would be somewhere in the middle of the $1.6 billion difference. The good news is that both chambers included enough funding in the Public Works Trust Fund to support both of Bremerton's projects. Possible Special Session Issues — Family & medical leave insurance - SHB 1116 Requires the employment security department to: (1) Establish and administer a family and medical leave insurance program; and (2) Pay family and medical leave insurance benefits. Allows workers to: (1) Care for family members with a serious health condition or to recover from their own serious health condition; and (2) Deal with exigencies arising out of the military service of a family member. Changes the name of the family leave insurance account to the family and medical leave insurance account. Requires the state treasurer to, on July 1, 2017, transfer forty-two million dollars from the state general fund to the family and medical leave insurance account. The transfer is a loan for start-up costs of the program. Taxes — SHB 2186 Concerning investing in Washington families by improving the fairness of the state's excise tax system by narrowing or eliminating tax preferences, imposing a business and occupation tax surcharge while eliminating tax liability for small businesses, enacting an excise tax on capital gains, modifying the real estate excise tax, making administrative changes, and implementing marketplace fairness in Washington. Addressing paid family leave - SB 5829 Addresses the provision of paid family leave for the birth or placement of a child for adoption or foster care with an employee and for a qualifying exigency under the federal family and medical leave act. PERS Underfunded Liabilities Account: SB 5900 remains on the Senate floor calendar, and could be part of final negotiations. It appropriates $700,000,000 from the budget stabilization account to the Public Employees' Retirement System Plan 1 (PERS) for the purpose of reducing the plan's unfunded pension liability (of $5 billion). A PERS 1 surcharge on all employer PERS payments (to repay the $700 million) would begin in 2017. SUBJECT: Confirm Appointment of Dan Nelson to the Design Review Board AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL Study Session Date: COUNCIL MEETING Date: Department: Presenter: Phone: May 10, 2017 May 17, 2017 Executive Mayor Lent (360) 473-5266 SUMMARY: There is a vacancy on the Design Review Board for Position 1, due to a resignation. It is recommended that Dan Nelson, a building inspector for the City of Seattle and eight year resident of the City of Bremerton, be appointed to fill the vacancy and complete the term which expires December 31, 2019. ATTACHMENTS: Application is available in the Mayor's Office. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: 0 No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to confirm the appointment of Dan Nelson to the Design Review Board for the term expiring December 31, 2019. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve Form Updated 01/07/15 ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON B2 CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Forestry Study Session Date: May 10, 2017 Pre -Commercial Thinning Contract No. 2016 COUNCIL MEETING Date: May 17, 2017 with D&D Forestry, LLC Department: PW&U/Forestry Presenter: Pat Coxon Phone: (360) 473-5448 SUMMARY: In December 2016 D&D Forestry, LLC was awarded the contract for pre -commercial thinning (PCT), in the Bremerton watershed. Initially we had included 269.5 acres to be thinned, but after some consideration we pulled 43.5 acres as we had some questions on how viable the thinning would be on units 13 A -G. Staff returned to these units to conduct a survey of the trees and found that it would be a viable option to include these units for thinning. The original contract amount was for PCT on 226 acres at a cost of $23,504.00. With the addition of the remaining 43.5 acres at a total cost of $4,524.00, it increases the total contact amount to $28,028.00, which requires City Council authorization. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Amendment No. 1; 2) PCT Contract No. 2016 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): This is budgeted through the Forestry O&M budget of $300,000. 534.5334.54830 STUDY SESSION AGENDA: 0 No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Contract Amendment No. 1 of the Pre -Commercial Thinning Contract No. 2016 with D&D Forestry, LLC for 43.5 additional acres at a cost of $4,524.00, and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the amendment with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PRE -COMMERCIAL THINNING CONTRACT NUMBER 2016 This is the first amendment to the Pre -Commercial Thinning Contract Number 2016 (the "Contract") entered into between the City of Bremerton ("City") and D&D Forestry LLC ("Contractor") on January 10, 2017. Whereas, the City and Contractor entered a contract whereby the Contractor would perform a pre -commercial thinning on 226 selected acres at a cost of $104.00 per acre; and Whereas, additional thinning work has been identified beyond that required under the original contract, and additional compensation to the Contractor is required to accomplish the work; Whereas, the City and the Contractor wish to amend the Contract under Section III -A to include the additional acreage and compensation, with all other conditions and specifications of the original Contract remaining the same. NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration and by mutual consent of the parties, the Contract is hereby amended as follows: Section III -A is amended to add 43.5 acres to the original acreage and $4,504 to the original contract price. The original acreage was 226 and the original contract price was $23,504. This document will become a supplement of the Contract and all provisions will apply hereto. All other terms of the Contract not specifically amended herein shall remain in full force and effect. It is understood that this Contract Amendment shall be effective when approved by the City of Bremerton. THINNING CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1 — Page 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Contract Amendment on the day and year indicated below. D&D FORESTRY LLC LIM Its DATE: THE CITY OF BREMERTON By Patty Lent Its Ma DATE: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bremerton City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk THINNING CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1 — Page 2 CITY OF BREMERTON PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES INVITATION TO BID: PRE -COMMERCIAL CONTRACT You are invited to bid on the following Pre -Commercial Thinning Contract and are advised to examine the Work Units prior to bidding. The implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and all other warranties express or implied, are excluded. For example, the City of Bremerton (COB) does not warrant the acreage for each unit. Any acreage descriptions appearing in each contract are estimates only, solely for administrative and identification purposes. A draft contract is attached to this invitation. BID PROCEDURES Bid Delivery The bidder shall prepare and complete bid form for the contract, available in Section III of thedraft contract. Each bid shall be delivered to the City of Bremerton Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) office at 1600 Oyster Bay Ave. S, in its own envelope marked and addressed to the City Forestry Division Manager as specified below or an e-mailed copy of the bid form may be submitted to: Patric.Coxoii dci.bremerton.�;-a.u.�; If multiple bids are submitted by one bidder, those sealed bids can be submitted inside a single envelope. Bids will be accepted until 2:00 PM on Thursday, December 8, 2016. Questions pertaining to this Invitation to Bid can be answered by contacting Ken Donleycott at 360473- 5928 or Ken.Donle,veott (a.ci.hremerton.wa.us Oral explanations, interpretation, or instructions given before the award will not be binding. Bid Contents Each bid shall include all of the following items: l) Bid Form (Contract Section III -A); 2) Contractor's Declaration of Industrial Insurance Status (Contract Section III -B); 3) Solicitation to Offer (Contract Section III -C); and 4) Photocopy of Washington State Farm Labor Contractors License. All documents must be legible and properly completed. Each bid envelope should be prepared in the following manner: Addressed to: City of Bremerton WWTP Attn: Patric Coxon, Forestry Division Manager 1600 Oyster Bay Avenue, S Bremerton, WA 98312 Bid Form Requirements Bids must be submitted on the Bid Form (Section III -A) attached to the draft contract. The following information must be entered on the Bid Form: I) Bids should include all costs related to the completion of the Work. 2) A Unit Bid Price and a Unit Total must be entered for all of the Units in the contract. All Unit Totals for the contract must be summed and entered as the Contract Price. In the event of a difference between the sum of all Unit Totals and the Contract Price, the individual UnitTotals shall prevail. 3) All Bid Forms (Contract Sections III -A, B, & C) must be signed in ink. If the bid is made by a corporation, it shall be signed by the corporation's authorized designee. Incomplete or unsigned bids may be rejected. Offer to Contract Your Invitation to Bid is a solicitation to offer to contract with the City of Bremerton. All bids shall remain firm foraperiod of 60 calendar days after the bid opening. Your bid becomes part of a contract if it is officially awarded by the City of Bremerton with a contract award letter. Bidder Insurance All insurance and surety bonds should be issued by companies admitted to do business within the Stateof Washington and have a rating of A-, Class VII or better in the most recently published edition ofBest's Reports. Any exception shall be reviewed and approved by City's risk manager before the contract is accepted. If an insurer is not admitted, all insurance policies and procedures for issuing the insurance policies must comply with Chapter 48.15 RCW and 284-15 WAC. Bid Opening At the time and date specified in the bid delivery clause above, all bids will be opened. Withdrawal of Bid A bidder's authorized representative may withdraw a bid in person before the opening of any one ofthe bids. Bidder's representative will be required to show photo identification and sign on the bid summary sheet before the bid will be released. Rejection of Bids To be considered, bids must conform to the above requirements, except that the City of Bremerton may waive informalities and minor irregularities in bids received. The City of Bremerton reserves the right to reject any orall bids received. Lowest Responsible Bidder Award of the contract shall be to the lowest responsible bidder as determined by the City of Bremerton. In determining the lowest responsible bidder, in addition to price, the following may be considered (RCW 39.26.160): (a) the bidder's ability, capacity, and skill to perform the contract; (b) the bidder's character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience, and efficiency; (c) whether the bidder can perform the contract within the time specified; (d) the quality of the bidder's previous contract performance with the City of Bremerton or other landowners; and (e) the bidder's previous and current compliance with laws relating to the contract or services. The City of Bremerton determination that a bidder is not qualified may result in rejection of the bidsubmitted. Any bidder who has had unsatisfactory performance resulting in the termination of a City of Bremerton silviculture contract, will not be considered a responsible bidder unless the bidder provides forest industry references demonstrating acceptable performance on at least one contract with like work (same activity as they are bidding on) since the time of termination. The City of Bremerton reserves the right to contact references and make its own judgment regarding bidder's reliability. Award Letter The City of Bremerton will make every effort to mail an award letter with instructions and the contract to thesuccessful bidder within fifteen (15) business days of bid opening. Conditions on Award Within ten (I0) business days after the bidder receives their award letter, the City of Bremerton must receive the insurance certificate at the City of Bremerton WWTP. The Forestry Division Manager specified in the contract may extend this time upon written request. If the bidder fails to submit the above items within the time specified, the City of Bremerton may consider thecontract award rejected. Right to Amend Invitation to Bid The City of Bremerton reserves the right to amend this Invitation to Bid, in which case City of Bremerton will notify all known bidders prior to bid opening. Special Remarks • Term of contract: December 19, 2016 to May 31'1,2017. • Unique or special requirements: All Scotch broom over two (2) feet in height shall be cut regardless of proximity to conifer trees. • It is the contractor's responsibility to check the IFPL (Industrial Fire Precaution Level) and comply with conditions and restrictions. + Gate keys can be checked out at: The City of Public Works & Utilities Office, 100 Oyster Bay Avenue North, Bremerton WA 98312 (Chris Mottner Facilities Supervisor) Monday through Thursday from 8 AM to 4:30 PM. 0 If you would like to be considered for future contracts, please submit a valid E -Mail address. City of Bremerton PRE -COMMERCIAL THINNING Contract Number #2016 Contract Digest: ■ Definitions SECTION I — CONTRACT CLAUSES A. General Provisions B. Specifications for the Activity C. Compliance inspection and Payments SECTION II — MAPS AND UNIT INFORMATION A. Unit Descriptions B. Unit Maps C. Vicinity Map SECTION III -- FORMS FOR BIDDER TO COMPLETE A. Bid Form B. Contractor's Declaration of Industrial Insurance Status C. Solicitation to Offer and Contract Award DEFINITIONS 'Buffer Zone' means an area designated to be left along roads or other features in which there will not be cutting. `Compliance Forester(s)' means the City of Bremerton (COB) staff person(s) identified in the Pre - Work Conference who per the compliance inspections, approve Work, recommend payment to the Forestry Manager, manage the Work Schedule, and assist with sapling distribution. 'Conifer' means a tree that is a Douglas -fir, true fir, pine, hemlock, spruce, orcedar. 'Forestry Division Manager' means the COB staff person who processes this contract, makes payments, provides and facilitates dispute resolution, provides technical advice to the Compliance Forester, and is the first point of contact for questions relating to this contract or interpretation of Work. The Forestry Division Manager may perform the duties of the Compliance Forester. 'Contractor' means the business entity engaged with COB to complete the terms of thiscontract. `Contractor Selection of Leave Trees' means crop and leave trees are unmarked and will be selected by the Contractor. 'Crop Tree' means the largest undamaged conifer trees with good form and free of disease. 'DBH' means Diameter at Breast Height, a point on the tree stem four and one-half feet above ground level. 'Designated Contract Representative(s)' means those individual(s) designated by Contractoron the Pre -Work Form during the Pre -Work Conference. 'Force Majeure' means those acts that are unforeseeable and beyond the control of either party to the contract. Acts of Force Majeure include, but are not limited to acts of God, the public enemy, fire, or other casualty. 'Hardwood' means any tree or tall shrub with broad leaves. Examples include alder, elderberry, big leaf maple, vine maple, madrone, cottonwood, cherry, and willow. 'Inspection Plot' is a systematic field measurement used by the Compliance Forester to assess and rate Contractor performance. 'Leader' is the topmost shoot of a tree. While some trees may have multiple tops, the 'Leader' is the tallest and most dominant. 'Mechanical Treatment' means the use of power saws, axes, or other approved tools to remove trees. 'Pre -Work Conference' is the meeting between COB and Contractor after award of the contract and before commencement of Work. Its purpose is to agree upon logistics and the Work Schedule. 'Severely Suppressed Conifer' means a Conifer which is unlikely to respond to release treatment or likely to be damaged during the felling of Hardwood trees less than 5" dbh. These typically are found under a heavy canopy of Hardwood trees and are less than half the height the Hardwood trees, and are often spindly, sparsely needled, and leaning. Douglas -fir, true fir, or white pine with drooping or bending stems (other than fresh new growth) should be considered 'Severely Suppressed. 'Slash' means all debris created on the Work area by the pre -commercial thinning operation. 'Surplus Trees' means all trees designated for cutting. 'Thinning' means the cutting down of trees according to the specifications of this contract. 'Unit' is the individual geographical area on which Work will be done. Each Unit is specifically identified by number on the Unit Description (Section II -A), corresponding Unit Map (Section II -B), and Bid Form (Section III -A). 'Unit Bid Price' is the rate per acre, written in the Unit Bid Price column of the Bid Form (Section III- A). 'Unit Total' is the total amount (in dollars) that Contractor agrees to be paid for each Unit, written in the Unit Total column of the Bid Form (Section III -A). 'Work' means the services the Contractor is required to satisfactorily complete in this contract, according to the requirements of Section I (Contract Clauses), and within the Units described in Section II (Maps and Unit Information). 'Work Schedule' means the approved order and timeline for how the requirements of this contract, including Work on individual Units or groups of Units, will be fulfilled by the Contractor. SECTION I -A: GENERAL PROVISIONS A-1 Contractor's Warranty Contractor warrants that it has had an opportunity to fully inspect the contract area and enters this contract based upon its own judgment of the costs of performing the Work, formed after its own examination and inspection. Contractor also warrants to the City of Bremerton (COB) that it enters this contract without any reliance upon the sapling estimates, acreage, pre-bid documentation, or any other representation by COB, including but not limited to: A. Conditions bearing upon transportation, disposal, handling, and storage of materials; B. Availability of labor, water, electric power, and road; C. Uncertainties of weather, river stages, tides, or similar physical conditions at the Unit(s); D. The confirmation and conditions of the ground; E. Seasonal conditions that may affect the timing and use of materials needed for the Work; and F. The character of equipment and facilities needed to complete the Work. Any failure of Contractor to take the actions described in this Clause will not relieve Contractor from responsibility for properly estimating the cost of completing this contract. A-2 Modifications Waivers, modifications, or amendments of the terms of this contract must be in writing signedby Contractor and COB to become effective, except, the Forestry Division Manager may modify or cancel this contract pursuant to A-5 without a writing signed by the Contractor. A-3 Contract Complete This contract is the final expression of the parties' agreement. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, expressed or implied, which are not specified in thiscontract. A-4 Scope of COB Advice No advice by any agent, employee, or representative of COB regarding the method or manner of performing shall constitute a representation or warranty that said method, manner or result thereof will conform to the contract or be suitable for Contractor's purposes under the contract. Contractor's reliance on any COB advice regarding the method or manner of performance shall not relieve Contractor of any risk or obligation under the contract. Contractor retains the final responsibility for its operations under this contract and COB shall not be liable for anyinjuries resulting from Contractor's reliance on any COB advice regarding the method or manner of performance. A-5 Contract Modification or Cancellation The Forestry Division Manager reserves the right to modify or cancel this contract in part or whole without cause upon thirty (30) days' notice. Contractor shall be paid only for Work performed satisfactorily prior to cancellation ofthe contract. Any modification or cancellation of this contract by the Forestry Division Manager under this section does not require consent of the Contractor or a writing signed by the Contractor. A-fi Compliance with all Laws Contractor shall comply with all laws and regulations of the United States, State of Washington, Kitsap County and the COB where the Work is located. Contractor will make any payments, contributions, remittances, and reports or statements required under those laws. A-7 Licenses and Permits Contractor shall, without additional expense to COB, obtain all required licenses and permits necessary for executing the contract. A-8 Performance Security Contractor agrees to furnish, within ten (10) business days of receipt of the award letter, security in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the total awarded contract price. The security shall be in the form of certified check or cashiers' check made payable to the City of Bremerton (COB), an irrevocable letter of credit, or a savings account assignment. A letterof credit must comply with Title 62A RCW, Article 5. This security guarantees performance ofthis contract and payment of any damages resulting from Contractor's noncompliance with any contract provisions, negligent or imprudent actions, or the law. Performance security must remain in full force over the duration of the contract. In the event COB needs to utilize the security, Contractor may be required to replace the portion(s) utilized within five (5) business days of receiving written notice from COB. Contractor shall not operate unless the performance security has been accepted by COB. If at any time COB decides that the security document or amount has become unsatisfactory, Contractor agrees to suspend operations and, within 30 days of notification, to replace the security with one acceptable to COB or to supplement the amount of the existing security. A-9 Indemnity To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless COB and all officials, agents and employees of COB, from and against all claims arising out of or resulting from the performance of the contract. "Claim" as used in this contract means any financial loss, claim, suit, action, damage, or expense, including but not limited to attorneys'fees, for bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or injury to or destruction of tangible property including loss of use resulting therefrom. Contractor's obligations to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless includes any claim by Contractor's agents, workers, or representatives. Contractor expressly agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless COB for any claimarising out of or incident to Contractor's performance or failure to perform the contract. Contractor's obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless COB shall not be eliminated or reduced by any actual or alleged concurrent negligence of COB or its agents, employees and officials. Contractor waives its immunity under Title 51 RCW to the extent it is required to indemnify, defend and hold harmless COB and its agencies, officials, agents oremployees. A-40 Insurance The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees, sub -Contractors or sub -Contractors. All insurance should be issued by companies admitted to do business within the State of Washington and have a rating of A-, Class VII or better in the most recently published edition of Best's Reports. If an insurer is not admitted, all insurance policies and procedures for issuing the insurance policies must comply with Chapter 48.15 RCW and 284-15 WAC. Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, the Contractor shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: 1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and 2. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single Iimit per occurrence and no less than $2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury, property damage, advertising injury and products/ completed operations. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: Iogger's broad form; blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property damage; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU) if applicable; and 3. Workers Compensation insurance as statutorily required by the Industrial Insurance Act of the State of Washington, Title 51, Revised Code of Washington and employer's liability with limits not less than $1,000,000. If Contractor fails to comply with all state of Washington workers' compensation statutes and regulations and COB incurs fines or is required by law to provide benefits to or obtain coverage for such workers, Contractor shall defend and indemnify COB. Any payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. All required policies shall be provided on an "occurrence" basis except professional liability insurance (if required), which may be provided on a "claims -made" basis. COB shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy and Automobile Liability, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Contractor and a copy of an endorsement that is acceptable to COB, which names the COB as an additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. COB reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all the required insurance policies and endorsements. COB further reserves the right to reject any unacceptable policies and/or endorsements. The Contractor's Commercial General Liability insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. The Contractor's insurance shall be primary and non-contributory insurance as respects the COB and shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the COB for claims arising out of any operations, liabilities and obligations to which coverage applies. It shall be an affirmative obligation upon Contractor to advise the City of Bremerton Risk Management Specialist by fax at (360) 473-5161, or by certified mail, return receipt requested to City of Bremerton, attn: Risk Management, 345 61 Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 within two days of the cancellation, suspension or substantive change of any insurance policy set out herein, and failure to do so shall be construed to be a breach of this Agreement. COB also reserves its unqualified right to require at any time and for any reason, proof of coverage in the form of a duplicate of the insurance policy with all endorsements as evidence of coverage. A-11 Safety Compliance Contractor shall be responsible for initiating, maintaining, and supervising all safety precautions and programs in connection with the performance of the Work. A. During the contract performance, Contractor shall protect the Iives and health of workers performing the Work and other persons who may be affected by the Work and prevent damage to property at the Unit or adjacent to it. Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and orders of any public body having jurisdiction forthe safety of persons or property or to protect them from damage, injury, or loss; and shall erect and maintain all necessary safeguards for such safety and protection. B. In an emergency affecting the safety or life of its workers or adjoining property, Contractor is responsible to act to prevent such threatened loss or injury. Within 24 hours of any emergency, Contractor shall notify the Compliance Forester. Contractor shall prepare an incident report and submit it to COB's Forestry Division Manager within five (5) business days following an emergency if directed to do so by the Compliance Forester. C. The Compliance Forester reserves the right to shut down the work site when any condition of imminent danger is present. The work site will remain shut down until the danger has been removed by the Contractor. A-12 Venue Disputes arising under this contract shall first be submitted to the City of Bremerton Public Works & Utilities Office. If the parties are not able to resolve the dispute using the Dispute Resolution process described below, venue shall be in Kitsap County Superior Court. A-13 Dispute Resolution Before initiating any litigation over the terms of this contract, Contractor commits to the following process: D. Any concerns or disputes which Contractor has relating to this contract shall first be brought to the attention of the Compliance Forester. E. If the Compliance Forester is unable to resolve the dispute to Contractor's satisfaction, Contractor will notify the Forestry Division Manager in writing of its dispute with specificity. The Forestry Division Manager will review and provide a written suggestion for resolution within ten (10) business days. F. If Contractor is not satisfied with the Forestry Division Manager's response, it will notify the Public Works Director in writing of its dispute. The Public Works Director will review and set a meeting with Contractor within fifteen (15) business days, unless Contractor agrees to a longer period. After the meeting, the Public Works Director will provide a written response. A-14 Subcontracting Contractor shall not enter into any subcontract or assignment of this contract. A-15 Nondiscrimination During the performance of this contract, Contractor shall comply with all federal, state and COB nondiscrimination laws, regulations, and policies. In the event of Contractor's noncompliance or refusal to comply with any nondiscrimination law, regulation, or policy this contract may be rescinded, canceled, or terminated in whole or in part, and Contractor may be declared ineligible for further contracts with COB. Contractor shall, however, be given a reasonable time in which to cure this noncompliance. A-16 Pre -Work Conference Contractor shall attend a Pre -Work Conference before beginning Work. The Compliance Forester will notify Contractor of the time and place of the Pre -Work Conference. A-17 Purpose of the Pre -Work Conference The purpose of the Pre -Work Conference is for COB and Contractor to agree upon and document the following on the Pre -Work Conference Form: A. Name(s) and contact information for Contractor and Designated Contract Representative(s), including all personnel authorized to sign Unit completion forms and payment invoices; B. Names(s) and contact information for the Forestry Manager and Compliance Forester(s); C. The Work Schedule for this contract; Time interval(s) at which Units will be processed for payment; and D. Clarification of any unique requirements or conditions of the Work within this contract prior to commencing Work. A-18 Work Delay Contractor shall promptly notify the Compliance Forester of any actual or anticipated event which is delaying or could delay the Work, including the expected duration of the delay, the anticipated effect of the delay on the schedule, and the action being or to be taken to get back on schedule. The notification does not relieve Contractor of its obligation to complete the Work within the time required by this contract. A-19 Non -conformances with Work Schedule If Contractor is not in conformance with the Work Schedule for reasons other than acts ofForce Majeure, Contractor shall bring its activities into conformance with the schedule or request the Compliance Forester to revise the schedule to reconcile with the actual progress of the Work. The Compliance Forester may require a meeting prior to granting a revision. A revision to the Work Schedule for one Unit shall not change the timing for any other Unit unless expressly authorized. In the event the Contractor stops Work or if the initial start-up is delayed for a period of one (1 } week or more, a new Pre -Work Conference may be required. A-20 Work Days Work shall only proceed on regular Monday through Friday work days. Work on weekends oron designated State holidays requires written permission from the Compliance Forester. A-21 Breach of Contract Contractor's unsatisfactory performance of contract requirements shall constitute breach of contract. COB may require reworking of portions of Unit(s). A. If Contractor violates any provision of this contract, Compliance Forester, by written notice, may suspend the Work that is in breach. If the breach is capable of being remedied, Contractor has 15 days after receipt of a suspension notice to remedy the breach. Ifthe breach cannot be remedied or Contractor fails to remedy the breach within 15 days after receipt of a suspension notice, COB may terminate the rights of Contractor under this contract and collect damages. B. If the contract expires without Contractor having performed all its duties under this contract, Contractor's right to operate is terminated and Contractor shall not have the right to remedy the breach. This provision shall not relieve COB of any payment obligations for work already completed by Contractor, subject to any expense incurred by COB, per subparagraph C below. C. COB has the right to remedy the breach in the absence of any indicated attempt by Contractor or if Contractor is unable, as determined by COB, to remedy the breach. Any expense incurred by COB shall be charged to Contractor and shall be paid within 30 days of receiptof billing. For any breach by Contractor, including failure to comply with the Work Schedule, Contractor may be considered to have defaulted on the contract. If COB determines that the contract is in default, it may exercise its right to terminate the contract, and/or recover damages from Contractor. The remedies available to COB in this section are in addition to its right to modify or cancel the contract, per section A-5 of the contract. A-22 Washington State Forest Fire Protection Requirements Contractor and workers shall be familiar with the Washington State Forest Fire Protection Requirements and adhere to them. These requirements are found in Revised Code of Washington Chapter 76.04. A-23 Fire Extinguishers Personal fire extinguishers are required for each saw operator. Any fire waiver must be applied for through the DNR's Region Fire Control Manager, who may be reached at soulhpucet.reeion(r�dnr,%%a.gav,jane pottet(cr,dnr.wa.go%, or 360-8?5-1631 . If afire waiver is granted, Contractor shall abide by the provisions of the waiver, and provide a copy of the waiver to the Compliance Forester. A-24 Spark Arresters All of Contractor's spark emitting engines will be equipped with spark arresters. The National Wildfire Coordinating Group(NWCG) provides lists of approved spark arrestors. The lists can be found at www.fs.fed.us. A-25 Inspection COB may inspect the Units for adherence to regulations, as well as presence, functionality, and serviceability of fire tools. Any inspections by COB shall not limit Contractor's liability for failure to adhere to applicable regulations. A-26 Open Fires Contractor shall not build any open fres at any time of the year in the contract area without first obtaining written permission from the Compliance Forester. A-27 Removal of Merchantable Products Contractor is prohibited from removing merchantable or potentially merchantable products from the Units for commercial use. Separate approval by agreement or contract with COB is required for removal of firewood, poles, posts, and other merchantable or potentially merchantable material. A-28 Garbage Contractor shall dispose of garbage brought onto COB lands in garbage disposal areas meetingall state, county, and local requirements. Garbage includes materials used for equipment maintenance, abandoned equipment, containers, and other expended materials. A-29 Camping Contractor is prohibited from using or authorizing its workers to camp on City managed lands. A-30 Abbreviations The following Seedling species abbreviations will be used: AF Subalpine fir; AS Quaking aspen; BC Black cottonwood; DF Douglas -fir; GF Grand fir; LP lodge pole pine; MA Big leaf maple; MH = Mountain hemlock; NF Noble fir; PP Ponderosa pine; RA Red alder; WRC = Western red cedar; SF Pacific silver fir; SS Sitka spruce; WH Western hemlock; WL—.- Western larch; WO Willow; WP = Western white pine; YC Alaska yellow cedar. A-39 Term of Contract The term of this contract is from Monday, December 19, 2016 to Wednesday, May 31, 2017. The contract shall not be extended without written permission from the COB Forestry Manager. A-32 Restroom Facilities Contractor to have workers use provided sani-can when working within the Union River Basin. SECTION I -B: SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ACTIVITY B-9 Precedence between Sections Section I -B covers the general standards that apply over the whole contract. If a change is required on a site by site basis those differences will be outlined on the Unit Description Form (Section III -A). The site specific details found on the Unit Description Form should take precedence over these general guidelines when they exist. If special requirements noted in the Unit Description (Section II -A) conflict with requirements in this Section, the special requirements will prevail. B-2 Workers, Supervision, and Equipment Contractor shall provide: A. A minimum crew size of I0 workers, and a maximum crew size of Irl workers, unless otherwise approved by the Compliance Forester; and B. Adequate crew supervision, including at least one qualified, English speaking forepersonper crew, unless otherwise allowed by the Compliance Forester. The foreperson must have one season (at Ieast three (3) months) of hand cutting experience in a forest setting. Documentation of a foreperson's experience shall be provided to COB upon request. B-3 Boundaries The boundaries depicted on Unit Map (Section II -B) delineate the Work area. Contractor is responsible for completing all Work to boundaries. The Work boundaries will consist ofeasily identifiable features (including but not limited to roads, streams, or abrupt changes in forest type or age). Flagging will be used for areas where identifiable features are absent. Contractor is responsible for understanding the location of all boundaries. Failure to complete Work to boundaries in any Unit renders Work in that Unit incomplete, and no payment will be made to Contractor for any Work on that Unit. No payment will be provided for Unit(s) with Work that extends beyond Unit boundaries. Work extending beyond Unit boundaries will be considered breach of contract. B-4 Treatment Specifications Thinning Methods Selection of leave trees or crop trees will be made by the Contractor according to the following specifications as well as those found in the Unit Description table (Section II -A). Two contrasting thinning procedures are recognized. The particular method to be used is designated for each unit on the Unit Description Table. These are Simple Spacing Thinning and Diameter Limit Thinning. A. Simple Spacing Thinning When thinning on a spacing basis, Contractor will select and leave uncut the largest live conifer trees of good form and vigor that will maintain the average spacing designated in the Unit Description Table. To maintain average spacing, Contractor may not need to cut as many trees immediately adjacent to gaps. However, clumps or patches should not be left un -thinned to make up gaps in the stand. If the Compliance Forester determines that narrower spacing is appropriate for portions of a Unit, 10'x 10' spacing will be used. Spacing is the average distance between trees that will result in the correct number of tree left per acre. The number of trees left per acre will be measured by COB to determine compliance with the Per Acre Zone of Acceptance as described in Clause C-02. B. Diameter Limit Thinning When thinning on a diameter limit basis, Contractor shall cut trees smaller than the diameter Iimit, specified in the Unit Description, and will leave uncut the largest live conifer trees of good form and vigor that will maintain the spacing designated in the Unit Description. Contractor will only cut trees larger than the diameter limit when individual trees are clearly diseased, damaged, or deformed. As a general rule, small trees growing into the canopy of the larger trees will be cut. Spacing will be determined by the average number of trees left uncut per acre, including trees both above and below the diameter limit. Contractor shall not damage the stand by cutting trees that will create undesirable gaps in the stand. The number of trees left per acre will be measured by COB to determine compliance with the Per Acre Zone of Acceptance as described in Clause C-02, except when desirable trees exceeding the diameter limit comprise a majority of the total tree count. In that case, the Per Acre Zone of Acceptance will be increased by the number of trees above the diameter limit exceeding a simple majority. C. All damaged or deformed trees as described below shall be cut, except when their removal will create gaps in the stand with dimensions greater than twenty-five (25) feet in width. 1. Trees with scars or open wounds on the lower stem involving more than one-half (112) of the circumference of the stem. 2. Trees with more than twenty (20) degrees lean or trees with crook or sweep in the lower stem protruding outward from a straight line more than twelve (12) inches. 3. Trees with broken stems or girdling of the stem where only the lower part of the living crown remains. 4. Trees with double tops of forked trees when other more suitable trees are available. D. All diseased trees as described below shall always be cut, regardless of gaps created. 1. Trees with thin, ragged crowns with yellowing needles typical of Phellinus (Poria) weirii and Armillaria mellea infection (root rot). 2. Western hemlock infected with dwarf mistletoe in western Washington. 3. Any white pine that exhibits traits of white pine blister rust, such as stem cankers and red -flagged foliage, when other more suitable trees are available. E. Conifer trees shall not be cut when their removal will create gaps in the stand larger than twenty-five (25) feet in width. B-5 Cut Trees will be cut below the lowest live limb and cut completely free of the stump. Cut trees must not be left "hung up" or leaning against crop trees. Stumps shall not exceed a twelve (12) inch height unless snow conditions prevent this. In no case shall stumps exceed an eighteen (18) inch height. B-6 Progression of Daily Work Contractor work shall progress in an orderly fashion to avoid accidentally leaving untreated areas, with workers regularly connecting treated areas. At the end of each work day, no "islands" of untreated areas shall be left within areas that have been treated. B-7 Trees felled into streams shall be removed and streams shall be left in their original state. If certain streams will be protected and cutting will not be permitted within the specified area, they will be marked on the ground and designated on the Unit Map. B-8 Fences and Improvements Contractor shall not damage fences and other improvements within or adjacent to the Units during the thinning operation. Any such damage will be repaired at Contractor's expense. Trees adjacent to fences or other improvements shall be felled away. All slash falling on fences and other improvements shall be removed and distributed back into the unit by Contractor. Trees and slash felled onto lands not owned by the COB shall also be removed and distributed back into the unit. B-9 Slash in Roads and Buffer Zones Slash or debris resulting from the pre -commercial thinning operation, that falls into roads, ditches, 5 feet from top of road banks, within 10 feet of inlets & outlets of culverts, or designated buffer zones, shall be removed by Contractor and redistributed within the thinned Unit(s) at the end of every day, or more often on well -traveled roads. SECTION I -C: UNIT COMPLIANCE INSPECTION AND PAYMENT C-1 Determination of Payment Compliance and payment for work performed will be based on the following: A. Work completed to boundaries (see Clause B-3). If work extends beyond unitboundaries, charges may be levied against the Contractor by the COB for damages suffered, or other parties suffering damages. C-2 Determination of Satisfactorily Completed Work Satisfactorily completed work will be determined using the following criteria: A. The Compliance Forester will establish circular plots, generally either 11100th acre (11.8 foot radius horizontal distance) or 1,500iacre (16.7 foot radius horizontal distance), to check contract specifications compliance and as a basis for determining satisfactory quality. B. The Compliance Forester will attempt to measure a minimum of two (2) 1/50"' acre plots or four (4) I 1 OO'h acre plots for each five (5) acres accomplished. C. The Compliance Forester will determine acceptable s a� cing and number of trees per acre as specified in the Unit Description Table for the unit based on the following Per Acre Zone of Acceptance: PER ACRE ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE Number of Crop Trees Minimum Average Maximum -Spacing 10.5' x 10.5' 365 395 415 1 i' x 11' 330(16) 360(18) 380(20) 12'x 12' 273(13) 303(15) 320(17) 13'x 13' 228(11) 258(13) 278(15) 14'x 14' 192{9) 222(11) 242(13) 15'x 15' 164(8) 194(10) 214(12) 16'x 16' 140(6) 170(8) 190(10) 17'x 17' 121(6) 151(7) 171(9) 18'x 18' 104(5) 134(6) 154(8) 19' x 19' 100(5) 121(6) 140(7) D. The required number of "crop trees" per acre must fall between the maximum and minimum as listed in the Per Acre Zone of Acceptance and as specified by spacing in the Unit Description Table, or Work on the Unit will be considered unsatisfactory. Example: In a 12'x 12' spacing basis, every plot should contain 13 to 17 properly selected crop trees except for gaps (Clause B-4). C-3 Unsatisfactory Work Compliance The COB Representative will inspect the contract work to determine if treatment is satisfactory. The Contractor will be notified of any unsatisfactory unit(s) or parts thereof. A. Removal of crop trees or poor selections of crop trees for any reason is defined as stand damage. B. If overcutting of acceptable crop trees leaves a maximum treeless space (dimensions shown below) on one- half (112) of the compliance plots installed, or if any one such gap exceeds three times the spacing requirement, the work on that unit will not be paid for. More severe damage will result in cancellations of the contract and forfeiture of theperformanceldamage deposit. C. If undercutting occurs according to the contract specification, payment will be withheld on the unsatisfactory unit(s). The Contractor shall return at no additional expense to theCOB, and re -treat unsatisfactory unit(s) or parts thereof. In the event the contract is terminated for unsatisfactory performance, payment will be made as set forth in Clause C-05 below for work satisfactorily completed. D. All undercutting work must be corrected to the satisfaction of the COB Representative before work may be performed in any other portion of the unit or other units. C-4 Payment Schedule The default payment schedule will be one monthly payment to Contractor, following completion of each full calendar month, unless otherwise approved by Forestry Division Manager. If a different schedule is requested by either party, it will be agreed upon during the Pre -Work Conference (Clause A-16) and will be set forth in the Work schedule. Payment shall be made as follows: A. LSI Insurance Premiums COB shall retain ten percent (10%) of all payments due to Contractors who hire workers as security for Labor & Industries industrial insurance premiums owed for its workers. After completion of the contract, and upon determination that Contractor has met all financial obligations for industrial insurance prenuums related to the contract, the 10% retainage will be returned to Contractor. B. Partial Payment Contractor may request partial payment when part of a Unit is completed. C. Unit Completion Form Contractor or Designated Contract Representative shall sign the Unit Completion Form after completion of each Unit or partial Unit being submitted for payment, or at the conclusion of work and completion of the Compliance Inspection for each Unit. The Compliance Forester will make payment recommendations for the invoice and forward the Unit completion form to the Forestry Division Manager for processing. D. Final Payment Maximum Treeless Spacing ft. Space Permitted ft. 11' x 11' 22'x 22' 12'x 12' 24'x 24' 13'x 13' 26'x 26' 14'x 14' 28'x 28' 15'x 15' 30'x 30' C. If undercutting occurs according to the contract specification, payment will be withheld on the unsatisfactory unit(s). The Contractor shall return at no additional expense to theCOB, and re -treat unsatisfactory unit(s) or parts thereof. In the event the contract is terminated for unsatisfactory performance, payment will be made as set forth in Clause C-05 below for work satisfactorily completed. D. All undercutting work must be corrected to the satisfaction of the COB Representative before work may be performed in any other portion of the unit or other units. C-4 Payment Schedule The default payment schedule will be one monthly payment to Contractor, following completion of each full calendar month, unless otherwise approved by Forestry Division Manager. If a different schedule is requested by either party, it will be agreed upon during the Pre -Work Conference (Clause A-16) and will be set forth in the Work schedule. Payment shall be made as follows: A. LSI Insurance Premiums COB shall retain ten percent (10%) of all payments due to Contractors who hire workers as security for Labor & Industries industrial insurance premiums owed for its workers. After completion of the contract, and upon determination that Contractor has met all financial obligations for industrial insurance prenuums related to the contract, the 10% retainage will be returned to Contractor. B. Partial Payment Contractor may request partial payment when part of a Unit is completed. C. Unit Completion Form Contractor or Designated Contract Representative shall sign the Unit Completion Form after completion of each Unit or partial Unit being submitted for payment, or at the conclusion of work and completion of the Compliance Inspection for each Unit. The Compliance Forester will make payment recommendations for the invoice and forward the Unit completion form to the Forestry Division Manager for processing. D. Final Payment The Forestry Division Manager shall sign the Contractor's Billing Invoice and Compliance Report form at the conclusion of work on each Unit or group of Units, as determined by thepayment schedule agreed upon during the pre -work conference. Final payment will not be made to the Contractor unless the Compliance Report form is signed by the Contractor or Designated Contract Representative and the Forestry Division Manager, and "final" payment is designated thereon. E. Verification Traverse If a Unit's acreage is disputed, Contractor may request a verification traverse by COB. The request must be in writing and signed by Contractor. COB will base the rate of pay on the acres determined from the verification traverse. If the net acres specified in the Unit Description (Section II -A) are correct within plus or minus five percent (f5go) after the verification traverse, Contractor shall pay for the verification traverse at a rate of tendollars ($10.00) per one hundred (100) feet of traversed boundary. The traverse will be either a field GPS traverse or computer GIS with aerial photography verification. to O N m L 4a O u C O CJ E 2 L m O V I C O a •L u IA d O c g C _O d 4A N t T l NJ V G7 E E 0 u a co co co co 0o m co co co co co co N N N Ln rq N N N N N N N N 00 Q7 C w m A m W m W m W m r1 m H m m W W m W m W m w m w La CL x m x m x m x m x m x m x x m m x m x m x m x m x x W w w w W W w w w w w w .r m m m m m m m m m m 'CO m e c c e e c e c c c c c c c c C p m m m m m m m m m m m m m m C !z VI a N rL V1 n VI e. VI a V1 n n Vi VI n N a V, a N a Vt a V,w aE rE E E E E E E E E E E E E m a�2 a� ad p M M M M M M M M M M M M M a LL LL LL LL LL Lt Li LL LL LL U U d LL. L N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U u u U u U u U u U U U U U' h M N N M t 11 w n QN H N rl M e�'I 0 N A ac N U �"' a 38 RL Y C C m o o a �►�° o w IA d `� ✓' � l7 C7 O O X � � O O O a+ O n n ❑ � T O Z O 0 m m N N > M Mfn N M m � c at 0 0 pp Q' 0 M m$ G Gm1 O M *'1 0 ' ' ' LA N 0 0 Q ry W ry 1-1 0 O 4 rk c I n (n n Q1 N N N ri N M 111 10 f\ Cq G1 0 14 s�-1 sN-1 L5 rn sh y -1 N t T l NJ V G7 Vicinity Map Section H -B: Unit Map City of Bremerton Public Works & Utilities Pre -Commercial_ Thinning_- Contract # _2016 ------- Property Line Forest Road West Belfair Valley Road • Gate ® PCT Unit Railroad 0 1,650 3,300 6,600 9,900 Total Acres = 269.5 13,200 Feet RlgislarcmapprojectslcontractmapsliVicinity Map PCT kd 9-26-16 sc40000 Unit name: Dodge Hill Section II -B: Unit Map City of Bremerton Public Works & Utilities Pre -Commercial Thinning - Contract # 2016 i T24N R1 E Sec29 W. M. �m Property Line Forest Road Gate ® PCT Unit Stream 1 Creek 0 290 580 1,160 1,740 2,320 Feet #1 Unit #:1999-2 Acres 64 Contours=50' Rlgisla rcmapprojectslcontractmapsH 999-2dodgehitI kd 9-2646 sc7000 Unit name: Oxbow & Oxbow Siding Section II -B: Unit Map City of Bremerton Public Works & Utilities Pre -Commercial Thinninq - Contract # 2016 T24N R1 W Sec 36 W. M. ~--- Property Line Forest Road ---- West Belfair Valley Road Gate ® PCT Unit --- Stream 1 Creek t--� Railroad 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 iiiiRTTTTn Feet #2 Unit # 2006-2 Acres 20 #3 Unit# 2003-6.1 Acres 18 Con#ours=50' Rlgislarcmapprojectslcontractmaps120006-20xbowsiding2003-6.1 oxboe kd 9-2646 sc6000 Unit name: Resaw Section Il -B: Unit Map City of Bremerton Public Works & Utilities Pre -Commercial Thinning -Contract # 2016 T24N R1 W Sec 25 W. M. - Property Line Forest Road West Belfair Valley Road Gate ® PCT Unit Stream 1 Creek - Railroad 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet #4 Unit # 1998-1 Acres 29 Contours=50' Rlgislarcmapprojectslcontractmaps/1998-1 resaw kd 9-26-16 sc6000 Unit name: Vessy 4000 Road Section II -B: Unit Map City of Bremerton Public Works & Utilities Pre -Commercial Thinning - Contract # 2016 T24N R1W Sec 25 & 36 W. M. Property Line Forest Road West Belfair Valley Road Gate ® PCT Unit Stream 1 Creek Railroad 0 M NO D r 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet #5 Unit # 200-x.3 Acres 7 Contours=50' Rlgislarcmapprojectslcontractmaps12000-x.3vessy4000road kd 9-26-16 sc6000 Unit name: Hoodoo #1 & #2 Section H -B: Unit Map City of Bremerton Public Works & Utilities Pre -Commercial Thinning - Contract # 2016 , T24N R1W Sec 23 W. M. ,f Property Line Forest Road West Belfair Valley Road Gate ® PCT Unit Stream / Creek Railroad 0 375 750 1,500 2,250 3,000 Feet #6 Unit # 2000-x.3 Acres 16 #7 Unit # 2000-2 Acres 3 Contours=50' R/gislarcmapprojectslcontractmaps/Hoodoo 1 & 2 kd 9-26-16 sc9020 Unit name: Bootstrap #1 & #2: 4200 Rock Pit Section II -B: Unit Map City of Bremerton Public Works & Utilities Pre -Commercial Thinning -Contract # 2016 T24N R1 W Sec 23 & 24 W. M. - Property Line Forest Road - West Belfair Valley Road • Gate ® PCT Unit Stream 1 Creek 1- Railroad 0 335 670 1,340 2,010 2,680 Feet #8 Unit # 1998-2 Acres 37 #9 Unit # 2000-3 Acres 14 #10 Unit# 1998-3 Acres 5 Contours=50' Rlgistarcmapprojectslcontractmaps!bootstrap 1 & 2 Rock pit kd 9-26-16 sc8000 Unit name: 4200 Rd J Gyton 1 & 2 Section 11-B: Unit Map City of Bremerton Public Works & Utilities Pre -Commercial Thinning - Contract # 2016 T24N R1 W Sec 23 W. M. ------ Property Line ====z Forest Road - West Belfair Valley Road Gate ® PCT Unit Stream 1 Creek Railroad 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet #11 Unit # 2001-1.2 Acres 10 #12 Unit # 2000-1.3 Acres 3 Contours=50' Rlgislarcmapprojectslcontractmaps14200 rd J gyton kd 9-26-16 sc6000 Unit name: 7 RR (A -G) Section II -B: Unit Map City of Bremerton Public Works & Utilities Pre -Commercial Thinning -Contract # 2016 , T24N R1W Sec 26,34 & 35 W. M. Property Line Forest Road West Belfair Valley Road Gate ® PCT Unit --- Stream/ Creek Railroad 0 335 670 1,340 2,010 2,680 Feet #13 A --G Acres 43.5 A- 8 acres E= 6 acres B=6 acres F= 3 acres Contours=50' C=1.5 acres G=10 acres D=9 acres Rlgislarcmapprojectslcontractmapsl7 RR kd 9-26-16 sc8000 w. Wd Flo Property Line Forest Road West Belfair Valley Road Gate ® PCT Unit --- Stream/ Creek Railroad 0 335 670 1,340 2,010 2,680 Feet #13 A --G Acres 43.5 A- 8 acres E= 6 acres B=6 acres F= 3 acres Contours=50' C=1.5 acres G=10 acres D=9 acres Rlgislarcmapprojectslcontractmapsl7 RR kd 9-26-16 sc8000 SECTION III -A: BID FORM RECEIVED CONTRACT NUMBER 2016 DEC 0 7 2616 INSTRUCTIONS: Bids should include all costs related to the completion of the Work. A Unit Bid Price and a tWCOD ±MERTON must be entered for all of the Units in the Contract. Each Unit Total is calculated by multiplying the Unit FWAASTEWAIER TREATMENT PLANT Prix (Per Acre) by the Unit Acres. All Unit Totals for the Contract must be summed and catered as the Contract Price. � l In the event of a difference between the sum of all Unit Totals and the Contract Price, the individual Unit Totals shall prevaiL All Bid Forms must be signed in ink If the bid is made by a corporation, it shall be signed by the corporation's authorized designee. Incomplete or unsigned bids may be rejected. At the following rates, the undersigned hereby offers and agrees to furnish materials, equipment, supplies, supervision, and services in compliance with all terms, conditions and specifications of the Invitation to Bid on Contract Number 2016. Unit # Uint Bid Price on map I Unit Acres 1 1fi4 2 20 3 18 4 29 57 616 7 3 S 37 14 10. _ 5 10 12_.__ 3 otalAcres _ idder's !Name and ignature: itle: ampany Contract Price: )TE: Detach and return this Section as per Invitation to Bid. Unit Total SECTION III -B: CONTRACTOR'S DECLARATION OF INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE STATUS INVITATION TO BCD ON CONTRACT NUMBER 2016 (For Bidder Use Only) The undersigned represcn that they operate as an individual, as a partnership, or as a corporation incorporated in the State of rhe undersigned further certifies that they will not be assisted by er individuals in the performance ofthis Contract. For the purpose of Industrial Insurance premiums payable to the Department of Labor and Industries, every individual in a partnership or joint venture must sign this bid sheet. Individuals not signing the bid sheet but assisting with the Contract Wort: will be considered workers for the purpose of Industrial Insurance except atthe express approval ofthe Department of Labor and Industries. Bidder's [ int �1_0 f-_6iv 1 rLi LLC,— Si gnatuiQ LC,,, Signatui ;2K )t t A A e fJ C_J`C ::7�-rr•emL4 3 Title 2L_AD 11eV_ Address 00 R &2 �k %0 7'y City and State r, t %A_1rra 4 ga_ i_0 A _ Business Phone :1 C-0 p Q 4 Home Phone 3 E2 H -SR To whom it may concern: Labor & Industries Account# to 1% 710 q' Q Q_ Washington Business License # —9260-9207 Additions! Signatures t L id The purpose of this form is to inform persons engaged in contracting forest activities of their liabilities under the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW. The law provides benefits for a worker, injured in the course of his employment, or his family or dependents in case of death of the worker Worker is defined in the law as every person engaged in the employment of an employer under Title 51 RCW or every person working under an independent contract. RCW 51.08.160. As one whom contracts to perform forest activities, you may require the assistance of other individuals to complete this Contract. In that case, you are required to establish an industrial insurance account with the Department of Labor and Industries and pay the prescribed premium on behalf of your workers. In the event you obtain the assistance of another person or persons to perform Work in connection with this Contract, regardless of the circumstances, you should contact the Department of Labor and Industries at one of its statewide service locations or its Olympia headquarters. You will then be provided with thenecessary information regarding opening an account, premium rates, and reporting requirements. The law also provides that any agency or firm that lets a contract is liable for payment of industrial insurance premiums should the Contractor fail to do so The agency or firm may also withhold money due the Contractor to insure payment of premium. Consequently, failure to comply with the above requirements could delay payment of retained funds. NOTE: Return one (1) copy of this form with each Bid Form (Section III -A) as per the Invitation to Bid. SECTION III -C: SOLICITATION TO OFFER SOLICITATION TO OFFER (For Bidder Use Only) On condition of a Contract award for the Contract Price, the undersigned hereby offers and agrees to furnish services in compliance with all terms, conditions, and specifications of the Invitation to Bid on Contract Number 2016. Submittal of this offer with authorized signature constitutes complete understanding of all terms and conditions. Further, submittal of this offer constitutes acceptance of and agreement to comply with all terms and conditions of the Contract if awarded, and verifies that all services will be available throughout the period of the Contract. D � � Fo •c• r S� rrlr � L L (Bidder's Name) Q elk 67 � (Address) (City(Stale) (ztp) 11B1 No) (L K 1 iocluslnnl Inswaner Account No) orm Labor Cofitractor License No) (Federal FD No ar So ial*S unty No i By t/y�r7 (Signature) (Date) reign— (Typed or Printed Name) (Title) 3 &o!7 ) b7-3— I LM (Phone No.) s (E -Mail Address) '4`i E® CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE °"'�'�"°°'""'� 12/19/2016 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder In lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER iiCLri Insurance Agency P O Box 2168 Olympia VA 98507-2168 NTA Dawn Bateman PHONE (360) 352-5033 x2 A No : (360) 352-1689 AEDDRL-dawnb@loggers.com IHSU AFFORDING COVERAGE MAIC 8 INSURER AAmeriCan Forest Cas. Co. RRG INSURED DSD Forestry, LLC 1913 Trilium in Centralia WA 98531--3466 1 INSURER 8 - INSURER C: INSURER D: INSURER E INSURER F : COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:2017 REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY LIC1 EFF POLICY EXP LIMITS A R COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMSMADE R� OCCUR R Logger's BFPD R AE=03815-17 1/20/2017 1/20/2028 EACH OCCURRENCE S 1,000,000 I S 100,000 MED EXP(Any onepenes) $ 51000 _ GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER X POLICY7-7 PRO- .m._,J JEC7 i_,, LOC OTHER: PERSONAL& ADV INJURY S 1,000,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE S 2,000,000 PRODUCTS - COMPIOP AGG S 2,000,000 Employee Benefits $ 1,000,000 A AUTOMOBILE LIABtiJTY ANY AUTO AUTOSN� X SCHEDULEDAFC103815-17 PAUTOS NON -OWNED HIRED AUTOS AUTOS 1/20/2017 1/20/2018 E sccNED deM IN LIM S 1,000,000 BODILY INJURY (Per person) S BODILY INJURY (Per accdent) i PROP DAMAGE S UndeMsured moterlat Is 1,000,000 UMBRELLA LIABOCCUR EXCESS LtAB HCLAIMS-MADE EACH OCCURRENCE S AGGREGATE S DEO I I RETENTIONS S A WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LL483UTY YIN ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNERlEXECUTIVE OFFICER(MEMBER EXCLUDED? (Nandelory In NH) gr, deaalbe under DRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below NIA AFC103815-17 Ink stop WP 1/20/2017 1/20/2018 A S ER EL EACH ACCIDENT $ 1 0 00 000 E.L DISEASE - EA EMPLOYE S 1000 000 EL DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT S 11000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS 1 VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarka Schedule, may be atlaohed N more space Is required) Certificate holder is named as Additional Insured with respects to the operations of the named insured. Milenka.Hawki.ns-bate@ci.br City of Bremerton 3027 Olympus Drive Bremerton, TAA 98312 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE VALL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Dawn Bateman/DAWN Co7 zGT:T7b1$1TTiTaT61:111 �TaT:77eT7`iTel;0M. rirI". , ACORD 25 (2014101) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD INS025 smarm DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES Employment Standards Section FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR LICENSE D$D FORESTRY LLC Transport Worker ® Yes ❑ No Address PO BOX 677, CENTRALIA, WA 98531 Date Issued Date Expires Amount of Bond 01/01/2017 12131102017 $5,000.00 UBI Worker's Camp # License # 603 571 813 618,204 110-17 nature of Licensee 700-052-000 F.L.C. LICENSE 8-09 CONTRACT AWARD (For City of Bremerton, Use Only) Contract Number 2016 is hereby awarded to 7 c _[ LL -C, City of Bremerton Public Works & Utilities, Forestry Division By: 16� (Signature)(tial€i Patrick Coxon Forestry Division Manager NOTE: Return one (1) copy of this form with each Bid INFORMATION ONLY ITEM CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL C 1 SUBJECT: Confirmation of 2018 CDBG Study Session Date: May 10, 2017 Funding Priorities Presenter: Sarah Achaoui Phone: 360-473-5375 SUMMARY: On April 12, 2017 the Bremerton City Council set funding priorities for the 2018 Community Development Block Grant Program year. The City Council directed staff to set funding priorities as follows: • Capital Projects in the Target Area • City -Wide Job Training Programs Staff would like to confirm that we accurately captured the direction Council provided at the April 12 Workshop. These priorities will be inserted into the Notice of Funding Availability and 2018 Policy Plan. These documents will be released to the public on May 12, 2016. The Policy Plan will be open for public comment until June 16, 2017. Upon completion of the public comment period Staff will return to Council on June 14, and June 21 to formally adopt the 2018 Policy Plan. HANDOUTS: Capital Project Target Area Map CDBG annual timeline STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation 0 Full Presentation Form Created 5/4/15 W 0 � c a o LO N Q m 4J a w z O h0 S -a m —� M 0 m E o LU W m ti m Q a, as .-1 W �_ d Y O t - v o0 v e m a c O CC O Z7 O — Q O to �� qaa v •moo s i j T Q m 'O O •q a n o s2 V— N uo N L d •I] 0 ON C W N aCi �0 r E O o7 0 E w L LU ar o y `r � r � c a o LO Q m 4J a w z O h0 S -a m —� M co ti m Q a, as .-1 W �_ d Y O t - v o0 ° v01on E O CC O Z7 O — Q G Ti N 61 4- C O ✓I W — G a, C, :r ..� O C L qojLi, L9 O �+ C d 'a - run O EL E v y C O G ti C v. a+ d 'n prlo rV uaj m v y -� T a n o° E -- c aj m y v `w o a ma Q� C6U4-a Un n siuly-o aaa r . a 4 .Ya � `v m ate; ° c a al $G 4tO c a b • O E w= u Qa' E d a N o U -en < V m W y W v a � v m LL C N 0 O N o —a m _ z¢ 0 o w o avi m m a` AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Ordinance No. to amend Chapter 20 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) entitled "Land Use" C2 Study Session Date: May 10, 2017 COUNCIL MEETING Date: May 17, 2017 Department: DCD Presenter: Garrett Jackson Phone: (360) 473-5289 SUMMARY: The action before Council is to conduct a Public Hearing and adopt an Ordinance amending BMC Title 20 as follows: 1. Design Standards. Revise standards for commercial and multifamily structures in select zones that permit those uses. 2. Traditional Front Yard Setback. Clarify that intrusions into the front yard setback are not permitted within five feet of the front property line. 3. Determining Structure Height. Revise the method for measuring structure height to coincide with the method used in the International Building Code. 4. Design Response Conference. Provide an option to waive the Design Response Conference permit from the Downtown Design Review Board process. 5. Open Space Definition. Remove duplicative definition. 6. Recycling Collection Station. Remove from permitted uses in the General Commercial zone. 7. Conditional Nonconforming Uses. Remove from the nonconforming code section. 8. Outdoor Storage. Consolidate several existing code sections regulating outdoor storage. ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinance No. B. Exhibit A — Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions C. Staff Memo and Exhibit B — Planning Commission Minutes (1St Workshop Nov. 15, 2016; 2nd Workshop Jan. 17, 2017; and Hearing on Feb. 21, 2017) FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation 0 Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business 0 Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Title 20 regarding: City design standards, traditional front yard setback, determining structure height, design response conference, open space definition, recycling collection use in the GC zone, conditional nonconforming uses, outdoor storage, and related changes. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Title 20 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Land Use." WHEREAS, through practical use and application of the Zoning Code the need for updates and amendments to the code have been identified; and WHEREAS, the updates and amendments to the Zoning Code include changes to provisions relating to design standards, traditional front yard setback, determining structure height, design response conference, open space definition, recycling collection use in the GC zone, conditional nonconforming uses, outdoor storage, and related changes; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has established a procedure for amending the Zoning Code in Title 20.18.020(d) of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC), which requires amendments to the Zoning Code to be both consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and to be consistent with other applicable rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, these amendments are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, County Wide Planning Policies, The State Growth Management Act, and other applicable regulations and ordinances; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2016, and January 17, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted workshops on the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on January 31, 2017, a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued for the proposed action and no appeals were filed; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2017, the public was notified by a legal advertisement in the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in the public hearing held by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on February 21, 2017, the proposed Zoning Code amendments were circulated to the State Agencies for the requisite review and comment period; and WHEREAS, on February 21, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Zoning Code amendments and formulated a recommendation to forward the amendments for City Council consideration; and WHEREAS, on May 4, 2017, the public was notified by a legal advertisement in the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in the public hearing by the City Council; and Title 20 BMC Updates WHEREAS, on May 17, 2017, the City Council conducted a public hearing and considered all testimony prior to their decision; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The findings and conclusions adopted by the Planning Commission attached hereto as Exhibit A are adopted and incorporated as if set forth herein in full. Chapter 20.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Project Permits" is hereby amended by amending Section 20.02.150 to read as follows: SECTION2. Chapter 20.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Design Review" is hereby amended by amending Section 20.02.150 to read as follows: 20.02.150 DESIGN REVIEW. Buildings that are proposed for construction in areas having adopted design guidelines are subject to review and recommendation by the Design Review Board (Board). For any development activity that requires Board review, the applicant must comply with the provisions of this section before a building permit can be approved, as follows: (a) Public Meetings. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public but are not subject to the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 42.30 RCW. (b) Conceptual Design Conference. Before submitting a building permit application, the applicant shall attend a conceptual design conference with the Board. The conference will be scheduled by the Director to occur within thirty (30) days of written request by the applicant. The purpose of this conference is to provide an opportunity for the applicant to discuss the project concept with the Board in the early stages of the project development and: (1) To review preliminary sketches of the design proposal presented by the applicant; (2) To discuss how the design guidelines pertain to the proposed development; (3) For the Design Review Board to designate which design guidelines apply to the proposed development based primarily on the location and nature of the proposed development; and (4) Other application materials the applicant will need to submit with the design review application. (c) Application. Follow the conceptual design conference, the applicant may then submit a building permit application to the Department. The application shall include all documents and exhibits required for the application, as well as all materials required as a result of the conceptual design conference. (d) Public Notice. On determination of a complete application for a building permit requiring design review, the Director shall schedule a design response conference with the Board to occur within sixty (60) calendar days. The Director shall provide public notice of the design response conference per the requirements of BMC 20.02.100. (e) Design Response Conference. The design response stage allows the Board to review the design plans and provide direction to the applicant on issues to be resolved for final approval. The applicant shall present the proposed project and demonstrate its consistency with 2 Title 20 BMC Updates the design guidelines as discussed in the conceptual design conference to the Board. The Board will consider the information presented and make a formal recommendation to the Director for project approval, approval with conditions, or denial. The Board may continue the conference if necessary to gather additional information necessary for its recommendation. If the conference is continued to a specific date, no further public notice is required; otherwise notice of continuance shall be mailed to all parties participating in the design response conference. The Design Response Conference may be waived provided: (1) The Design Review Board provides a unanimous recommendation of approval and makes findings that the Response Conference is not necessary, (2) The Director finds that more information is not required for the decision after the Design Review Board makes their unanimous recommendation. (f) Approval. Approval of a building permit that is subject to Board review is a Type II Director decision; however, the Board's recommendation shall hold substantial weight. After reviewing the Board recommendation, the Director may grant, deny or conditionally approve an application for the proposed development. Any deviation from the Board's recommendation shall be documented in the Director's findings and conclusions. The decision of the Director may be appealed per the provisions of BMC 20.02.140. SECTION 3. Chapter 20.42 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Definitions" is hereby amended by amending Subsection 20.42.040(g) to read as follows: 20.42.040 Definitions. (g) Definitions "G": "Garage" means an attached or detached enclosed accessory structure intended primarily for the storage of private vehicles such as automobiles, light trucks or recreational vehicles. "Gas station" means a land use involving the retail sale of gasoline or other motor vehicle fuel or oil, including electric vehicle rapid charging stations. Gas stations include self- service and full-service operations. "Grade" means the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk within the area between the building and the property line. When the property line is more than five (5) feet from the building, grade is the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface between the building and a line five (5) feet from the building. For structures built over water, "grade" shall mean the elevation of the ordinary high water mark. For the purposes of signs, "grade" is the level of the ground surface immediately below a sign or proposed sign location, and where slope is involved is the average of the levels at each supporting member of the sign's structure. "Grade plane" and "Grade, average final" means the aver -age of the fiNa' grade that. shall be made by aver -aging the elevations at the center- of all exter-ief: walls of the pr-E)p a horizontal reference plane representing the average of finished ,_ground level adjoining the building at exterior walls. Where the finished ground level slopes away from the exterior walls, the reference plane shall be established by the lowest points within the area between the building and the lot line or, where the lot line is more than 6 feet from the building, between the building and a point 6 feet from the building. "Grade, existing" means the grade or topography existing prior to any excavation, clearing, grading or filling. Title 20 BMC Updates "Gross floor area (g.f.a.)" means the sum of all horizontal areas of floors of a structure when measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls, including glazed or screened porches. "Group residential" means a place of residence for persons with physical, developmental or mental disabilities, homeless or otherwise dependent persons (not including dormitories), typically with shared living quarters without separate kitchen facilities for each room or unit. Group homes are intended to provide residential facilities in a home -like environment. Such homes range from licensed establishments operated with twenty-four (24) hour supervision to nonlicensed facilities offering only shelter. This classification includes group care residence for those whose permanent residence is the group residential facility. It does not include transient lodging. This definition shall not be construed to include crisis care facilities, detoxification centers or housing of sexually violent predators, as defined in RCW 71.09.020(18). Group residential facilities are categorized as follows: (1) Group residential home" means a residential home in which a person or persons provide personal care, special care, room, and board to more than one (1) but not more than six (6) children and/or adults who are not related by blood or marriage to the person or persons providing the services; provided, however, any limitation on the number of residents resulting from this definition shall not be applied if it prohibits the City from making reasonable accommodations to disabled persons in order to afford such persons equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling as required by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(b). (2) Group residential facility - Class I (assisted living)" means a group care residence for seven (7) or more children and/or adults who for various reasons cannot reside in their natural 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. It 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 residency at will. (3) "Group residential facility - Class IP' means a group care residence for juvenile delinquents, persons serving a sentence in lieu of confinement, persons needing correctional or mental rehabilitation, or persons needing rehabilitation and treatment for social and/or family problems, drug or alcohol addiction, or abuse. This definition includes programs providing alternatives to imprisonment; transition back into the community including prerelease, work -release, and probationary programs that are under the supervision of a court, state, or local agency. Teaching of work or social skills may be provided in this class facility but it does not include drug or alcohol detoxification centers. SECTION 4. Chapter 20.42 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Definitions" is hereby amended by amending Subsection 20.42.040(o) to read as follows: (o) Definitions "O": "Office" and "business service, general' means a place of employment providing services other than production, distribution, sale or repair of goods or commodities, excluding personal business services and medical offices. General office and business services include: legal, architectural, engineering, consulting or other professional services, or management, administrative, secretarial, marketing, advertising, or similar services. .19 Title 20 BMC Updates "Off -premises sign" means any sign, including billboard signs, that contains a message or directs attention to a business, profession, product, event, activity, or service that is not related to a use or activity conducted or offered on the premises or at the location where the sign is located, excluding official road direction signs but including the sign faces(s) that contain(s) the message or direction noted above, as well as the pole or other structure upon which the sign face is attached. Off -premises signs include off -premises banners and signs carried by human beings or live animals when carried on the public right-of-way or any off -premises location. > , all of the per -sons residing i the a f "ieh the paA par -king areas, r-e"ir-ed yard areas, !a-nd eeetipied by bttildings or- s4uetur-es, nor- ethe "Open space" means areas retained for use as active or passive recreation areas or for resource protection, including, but not limited to, landscape areas, gardens, walkway courtyards, lawns, or outdoor recreation areas. "Outdoor athletic fields" means outdoor facilities used for sporting activities such as softball, baseball, football, soccer, running track, tennis complex and other nonmotorized sports. Outdoor athletic fields may include bleachers, concession stands, lights, restrooms and other supporting facilities. SECTION 5. Chapter 20.44 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "General Development Standards" is hereby amended by amending Section 20.44.020 to read as follows: 20.44.020 TRADITIONAL FRONT YARD. In residential zones, the Director may grant modifications to the front yard setback provided: (a) Sixty (60) percent or more of the houses or garages/carports within a numbered block on the same side of the street as the subject property are set back less than the required zoning front yard setback; the average setback of the existing nonconforming structures may be used to establish the minimum front yard of all properties fronting on that side of the street; and (b) The minimum front yard setback shall in no case be less than five (5) feet. No portion of the nrimary structure shall enter within five (5) feet of the front nronertv line_ except as provided in BMC 20.44.010(a)(2 SECTION 6. Chapter 20.44 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "General Development Standards" is hereby amended by amending Section 20.44.070 to read as follows: 20.44.070 MEASURING THE HEIGHT OF A STRUCTURE. The height of a building or structure shall be measured as the dist flee f of the aver -age filial gf:ade to the highest Peilit of the as the vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface. Exceptions: penthouse for elevators, firewalls, chimneys, flagpoles, and wireless communications facilities in conformance with 5 Title 20 BMC Updates BMC 20.46.140 may exceed maximum height limits. None of these exceptions to the height regulations shall be used for advertising of any kind. SECTION 7. Chapter 20.46 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Special Development Standards" is hereby amended by deleting Section 20.46.120. SECTION 8. Chapter 20.50 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Landscaping" is hereby amended by amending Section 20.50.050 to read as follows: 20.50.050 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Required landscaping shall be provided in the following manner: (a) General landscaping is intended to provide visual separation between compatible uses and to soften the appearance of parking lots and building facades. All required setback areas, parking lots, and interior landscaping areas shall comply with the following: (1) Street trees are required, one (1) tree for every twenty-five (25) linear feet of street frontage, and shall be spaced a maximum distance of thirty-five (35) feet on center; however, trees may be spaced irregularly in natural groupings rather than uniformly spaced except as noted elsewhere in this chapter; (2) Planting shall include a mix of trees, shrubs, ground covers, turf grasses or combination thereof, non -living materials shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the landscaped area within two (2) years of planting; (3) Each separate landscaped area shall be a minimum of fifty (50) square feet and shall include at least one (1) tree in combination with shrubs, ground cover, or other landscape materials; (4) Bioswales and permeable pedestrian access ways connecting landscaped areas are encouraged and are included in the calculation of required landscaping square footage. Low impact development best management practices performed on site may count towards required landscaping (tree for tree, and square footage for square footage); (5) Interior landscaping shall be dispersed as equally as possible throughout the site particularly in parking areas; (6) Parking lots shall have at least ten (10) square feet of interior landscaping for each parking space. Required peripheral trees and required landscaped setback areas shall not be included in the interior landscaping calculations; (7) For every ten (10) parking stalls one (1) tree shall be installed within a landscaped area; and rol Title 20 BMC Updates (8) Landscaped areas shall consist of no more than fifty (50) percent deciduous species. (b) Visual screening is intended to function as a year-round full visual barrier between incompatible uses. Visual screening is required for all commercial projects adjacent to the low or medium density residential zones. Visual screening is required as follows: (1) Type I. Required along the property line(s) of all nonresidential development proposed on a site that is adjoining the low or medium density residential zones (R- 10 and R -IOM). For purposes of this subsection, nonresidential development is as defined in the International Building Code (which includes three (3) or more dwelling units) and not specifically identified in subsection (b)(2) of this section. A Type I visual screen shall include the following: (i) A landscaped area of at least ten (10) feet wide; (ii) A mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, no more than twenty (20) feet apart on center. Deciduous trees up to twenty-five (25) percent of the tree requirement are encouraged to add seasonal and textural variation; (iii) Shrubs shall be planted between the trees to provide an effective visual barrier. Shrubs may be spaced irregularly in natural groupings rather than uniformly spaced; however, grouped shrubs should be no more than five (5) feet apart from each other; and (iv) A sight -obscuring fence, wall, earthen berm or combination thereof is required adjacent to parking areas to ensure headlights do not project into residential properties. Measures shall be taken to ensure quality in the visual character of the wall or fence on the side facing the residential lot. (2) Type 11. Required for all large retail, motion picture theaters, junk yards, heavy industrial/manufacturing, stadiums, and sports complexes proposed on a site that is adjoining the low or medium density residential zones (R-10 and R -IOM). Type It screening shall be provided along all property lines that adjoin the low or medium density residential zones (R-10 and R -IOM). A Type II visual screen shall include the following: (i) Landscaped area of at least twenty (20) feet in width; (ii) A double row of evergreen trees spaced no more than fifteen (15) feet apart on center (rows shall be offset and spacing triangulated); existing mature healthy trees on site are encouraged to be retained; (iii) Shrubs shall be planted to enhance the visual barrier. Shrubs may be spaced irregularly in natural groupings rather than uniformly spaced; however, grouped shrubs should be no more than five (5) feet apart from each other; and (iv) A sight -obscuring fence, wall, earthen berm or combination thereof is required adjacent to parking areas to ensure headlights do not project into residential properties. Measures shall be taken to ensure quality in the visual character of the wall or fence on the side facing the residential lot. (c) Centers. Intended to soften the streetscape and sidewalk areas in a dense urban environment. Projects within the centers must comply with the provisions set forth in adopted subarea plans, the provisions of this chapter, and the following: (1) Street trees shall be provided within the front yard setback or in the sidewalk along any facade facing a major arterial. Any trees located in the City right-of-way may require additional approval through the Department of Public Works and Utilities. Trees shall be spaced no less than three (3) trees per one hundred (100) linear feet of frontage. Trees placed in the sidewalk should be provided with street grates at the sidewalk level providing a continuous 7 Title 20 BMC Updates walking surface to within six (6) inches of the tree base. Where existing areaways or vaults prevent this form of planting, trees shall be planted in planters equipped with irrigation. All trees shall be of a species which allows pruning of lower branches in a manner necessary to keep the sidewalk clear of obstruction to a height of at least eight (8) feet. Trees shall have a minimum caliper of two and one-half (2-1/2) inches at the time of planting; (2) Surface parking lots, if they abut public sidewalks, shall provide a perimeter landscaping strip containing a combination of trees (with no fewer than three (3) trees per one hundred (100) linear feet of frontage) and shrubs. Masonry walls no lower than fifteen (15) inches nor higher than thirty (30) inches may be substituted for shrubs; and (3) For parking lots containing more than twenty (20) stalls, at least fifteen (15) percent of the interior area shall be planted with trees and shrubs. All trees shall have a minimum caliper of two and one-half (2-1/2) inches at the time of planting. Pedestrian walkways from adjacent sidewalks shall be provided. (d) Vegetation Preservation. The retention of existing and healthy trees and vegetation is important to help promote the utilization of natural systems, reduce the impacts of development on the storm drainage system and provide a better transition between various land uses within the City. The following provisions encourage vegetation preservation as follows: (1) To the greatest extent possible existing healthy significant trees defined below shall be retained on site. Should a proposal include the removal of all or portions of a significant tree(s) a qualified arborculturalist or urban forester shall be retained by the applicant to inventory the tree(s) and make recommendations regarding the protection, retention, preservation or removal of the tree(s). A copy of the report and recommendations shall be submitted to the City as part of the application process. (2) Existing healthy trees and vegetation may substitute for newly required landscaping. Credit shall be granted tree for tree and area for area. In order to promote the retention of existing significant trees during site development, each significant tree within the landscaped area shall count as three (3) newly required trees. (3) Credit may be given by the Director at the time of site plan review for the preservation of significant tree(s) in exchange for the loss of a parking space. (4) Significant trees are defined as follows: (i) Evergreen Trees. Eight (8) inches in diameter or greater, measured four (4) feet above existing grade; and (ii) Deciduous Trees. Twelve (12) inches in diameter or greater, measured four (4) feet above existing grade. (e) Planting Materials. Plants shall be selected based upon site-specific conditions which may affect plant growth such as sun exposure, soil types, shoreline conditions, adjacent site improvements, etc. New plant materials shall consist of drought -resistant species, or other species that are irrigated per the provisions of BMC 20.50.060(b)(4) or located in high moisture content soils. Plant material selection shall be consistent with the list maintained by the American Association of Nurserymen (AAN). Plant materials shall also be coordinated with utility company requirements to avoid conflicts. Unless otherwise specified within this chapter all required landscaping shall at a minimum meet the following size requirements: (f) Plant Type and Size. Plants shall be sized according to the following: (1) Standard deciduous trees: one and one-half (1-1/2) inch to two (2) inch caliper. Title 20 BMC Updates (2) Small ornamental and flowering trees: one and one-half (1-1/2) inch to one and three-fourths (1-3/4) inch caliper. (3) Evergreen trees: five (5) feet to six (6) feet in height. (4) Shrubs: minimum size one (1) gallon container. (5) Ground cover: minimum four (4) inch container. (g) Interruptions. Screening and buffering may be interrupted where necessary for access consistent with the general provisions of this chapter. (h) Safety. All fire hydrants are to be free of fences, hedges, and other landscaping obstacles. Shrubs eighteen (18) inches in height and less must not be placed closer than five (5) feet to a hydrant, and shrubs or trees larger than eighteen (18) inches must not be planted closer than twenty (20) feet to a hydrant. (i) Freestanding Signs. An area around the base of each freestanding sign equal to the sign area must be landscaped to improve the overall appearance of the sign and to reduce the risk of automobiles hitting the sign or supports of the sign. This landscaping must include vegetation and may include other materials and components such as brick or concrete bases, planter boxes, pole covers, or decorative framing. Otttdeef Ster-age. In addition to any other- ster-age yards and garbage (i) Outdoor Storage. Unless provided for otherwise in this Title, outdoor storage in all zones is limited to the minimum number of refuse containers necessary to support approved on site uses. Dumpsters, refuse containers for commercial uses, and outdoor storage shall comply with the following criteria: (1) Be surrounded by a six 6) foot high solid wall or sight -obscuring fence. ence. The wall or fence shall be considered a structure and shall conform to setbacks which may be required for building on street frontage. Outdoor storage of materials shall not exceed six (6) feet in height when visible from a public right-of-way. (2) Outdoor storage and refuse containers requiring screening in the GC, R- 20, NB, and Land Use Centers shall be screened with materials which are architecturally similar to the primary structure. (4)(3) Outdoor storage and refuse containers should not be located between a street and the front of the building, except in industrial zones. (k) Clear -Vision Triangle. A clear -vision area shall be maintained at the intersections of streets, alleys and commercial driveways, or combinations thereof as determined by the City Engineer with the following requirements: (1) A clear -vision area shall contain no plantings, fences, walls, other structures, or visual obstructions within a vertical area extending from three (3) feet to eight (8) feet above the ground, measured from the established centerline of the street, alley or driveway; (2) The foregoing provision shall not apply to: (i) A tree trimmed to the trunk within the three (3) to eight (8) foot clear area; (ii) Other plant species that are so planted and trimmed as to leave a clear and unobstructed cross -view in all seasons; M Title 20 BMC Updates (iii) A supporting member or appurtenance to a permanent building lawfully existing on the site; (3) Where the maximum setback conflicts with the clear -vision triangle, relief from the maximum setback may be granted thorough a Type I Director decision. SECTION 9. Chapter 20.54 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Nonconforming Provisions" is hereby amended by deleting Section 20.54.090. IIIIIIII�r.WIN III YYF&IOVIVINUMA W1 101 Wil liNOrYi[VZi W'I MO -11 SECTION 10. Chapter 20.62 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "General Commercial (GC)" is hereby amended by amending Section 20.62.020 to read as follows: 20.62.020 PERMITTED USES. The following uses are permitted outright: (a) Co -location of wireless communications facilities per BMC 20.46.140; (b) Community facility; (c) Day care; (d) Drinking place; (e) Education and school; (f) Entertainment use; (g) Finance, insurance and real estate; (h) Fully enclosed boat storage; (i) General office and business service; 0) General retail; (k) Hospital; (1) Hotel and lodging place; (m) Medical office and clinic; (n) Museum and gallery; (o) Park, playground, and open space; (p) Personal service; (q) Physical fitness and health club; (r) Public administration use; (S) ReeYll ell 10 Title 20 BMC Updates (st) Residential of all types except group residential facility - Class II; (ta) Restaurant; (uA�) Senior housing complex; (v_ -w) Transportation facility; (w*) Veterinary clinic. SECTION IL Chapter 20.62 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "General Commercial (GC)" is hereby amended by amending Section 20.62.070 to read as follows: 20.62.070 DESIGN STANDARDS. .. 0011 INI � stteh types of sefveaiag like a Type 1 visttal sefvea pttf:sttaat to BN4G in no ease of ., >~ sefi�efeeaiag shall be p ;aa t to BN4G 20.5 !1l Refuse fitai,a,-sef:eeflifig shall be r rad andbe .,f matef a an least as high as the f4tise eeataiaef:, a -ad shall in ne ease be less than six (6) feet higl+,- site and deposited between eelleetiefis. Deposited f4ttse shall not be visible fFefn Ot4side the feftise el The following design standards shall be aplied to all new structures and redeveloped structures. Residential development of three (3) units or fewer are exempt from this section. When development involves the remodel or expansion of existing structures, the Director may modify these requirements to reasonably fit the scope and scale of the remodel or expansion. 11 Title 20 BMC Updates (a) Primary Design Features. The following criteria shall be applied to all primary building facades and facades facing public streets: (1) Top & Base. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct base and top. A "base" can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. (2) Orientation. All properties adjacent to a public right of way shall orient structures toward the primary street. Properties located at intersections should orient their structures toward the intersecting corner. (3) Minimum Transparency. At least 60 (sixty) percent of all facades facing the public sidewalk, or sidewalks providing circulation within a site, measured to eight (8) feet above the sidewalk or surface grade, shall be comprised of transparent windows or doors. (4) Blank Facades. Building facades shall not present a blank facade to view from public rights-of-way, common parking areas, or residential properties. Such facades may be broken by windows, trellises, columns, variations in plane, or other devices that add variation and interest to the facade. (5) Mechanical Equipment Screening. Rooftop and ground -level mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from public streets. Screening materials shall be architecturally similar to the primary structure. (b) Secondary Design Features. Three (3) secondary design features are required from the following list: (1) Multiple Roof Lines. Structures shall have at least three horizontal roof lines, as viewed from the front facade. (2) Modulation. The horizontal plane of a structure shall not extend for more than thirty (30) feet, as measured from any one point of the structure, without a significant architectural variation of at least two (2) feet in depth. (3) Facade Materials. At least three (3) different facade materials shall be incorporated into the exterior appearance of the structure (wood, brick, stucco, tile, shingles, other). (4) Additional Transparency. An additional fifteen (15) percent transparency to what is required per BMC 20.62.070(a)(3). (5) Weather Protection. Recessed or protruding building features, of no less than four (4) feet in depth, which extends along at least fifty (50)percent of the front facade. (6) Main Entry. Pedestrian entrances are preferred from buildings _ facing the street. Entries shall be easily identifiable from the street or sidewalk, this can be accomplished through architectural or ornamental features. (7) Public Amenity. Outdoor eating area, artwork, street furniture, plantings in window boxes, public trash receptacles, or other alternative public amenity approved by the Director. Anyproposedamenity shall be architecturally compatible with the principal structure. Any approved amenity shall be maintained for the life of the project. SECTION 12. Chapter 20.70 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "District Center Core (DCC)" is hereby amended by amending Section 20.70.070 to read as follows: 20.70.070 DESIGN STANDARDS. (a) Bttildiiig Design. 12 Title 20 BMC Updates 13 Title 20 BMC Updates IIM I• ♦ I 13 Title 20 BMC Updates (b) Site Design. In addition to other- standar-ds pr-ovided in this ehapter-, site desigff (, Storage. Oliiarde storage cthe €XccFti6irvr BN4G 20.4�. 129. No garbage enelosttr-e shall be pefmitted between a stfvet and the 46fit Of a The following design standards shall be applied to all new structures and redeveloped structures. Residential development of three (3) units or fewer are exempt from this section. When development involves the remodel or expansion of existing structures, the Director may modify these requirements to reasonably fit the scope and scale of the remodel or expansion. (a) Primary Design Features. The following criteria shall be Mpplied to all primary building facades and facades facing public streets: (1) Top & Base. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct base and top. A "base" can be emphasized by a different masonry_ pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. (2) Orientation. All properties adjacent to a public right of way shall orient structures toward the primary street. Properties located at intersections should orient their structures toward the intersecting corner. (3) Minimum Transparency. At least sixty (60) percent of all facades facing the public sidewalk, or sidewalks providing circulation within a site, measured to eight (8) feet above the sidewalk or surface grade, shall be comprised of transparent windows or doors. (4) Blank Facades. Building facades shall not present a blank facade to view from public rights-of-way, common parking areas, or residential properties. Such facades may be broken by windows, trellises, columns, variations in plane, or other devices that add variation and interest to the facade. (5) Mechanical Equipment Screening. Rooftop and ground-level mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from public streets. Screening materials shall be architecturally similar to the primary structure. (6) Ground-floor. Ground-floor frontage of a structure facing a public right- of-way should consist of at least fifty (50) percent commercial uses intended to be accessed by pedestrian or bicyclist traffic. At a minimum, this area shall be constructed to a commercial standard in order to accommodate future conversion to pedestrian oriented commercial uses, but in the interim may be occupied by any permitted use per BMC 20.70.020. (b) Secondary Design Features. Four (4) secondary design features are required from the following _ list: ist: (1) Multiple Roof Lines. Structures shall have at least three horizontal roof lines, as viewed from the front facade. (2) Modulation. The horizontal plane of a structure shall not extend for more than thirty (30) feet, as measured from any one point of the structure, without a significant architectural variation of at least two (2) feet in depth. (3) Fagade Materials. At least three (3) different fagade materials shall be incorporated into the exterior appearance of the structure (wood, brick, stucco, tile, shingles, other). 14 Title 20 BMC Updates (4) Additional Transparency. An additional fifteen (15) percent transparency to what is required per BMC 20.70.070(a)(3). (5) Weather Protection. Recessed or protruding building features, of no less than four (4) feet in depth, which extends along at least fifty (50) percent of the front facade. (6) Main Entry. Pedestrian entrances are preferred from buildings facing the street. Entries shall be easily identifiable from the street or sidewalk, this can be accomplished through architectural or ornamental features. (7) Public Amenity. Outdoor eating area, artwork, street furniture, Plantings in window boxes, public trash receptacles, or other alternative public amenity approved by the Director. Any proposed amenity shall be architecturally compatible with the principal structure. Any approved amenity shall be maintained for the life of the project. SECTION 13. Chapter 20.79 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Multifamily Residential (R-20)" is hereby amended by adding Section 20.79.070 to read as follows: 20.79.070 DESIGN STANDARDS. The following_design standards shall be applied to all new structures and redeveloped structures. Residential development of three (3) units or fewer are exempt from this section, however, stacked flats are permissible only when meeting the criteria provided in BMC 20.79.070(a) & (b). When development involves the remodel or expansion of existing structures, the Director may modify these requirements to reasonably fit the scope and scale of the remodel or expansion. (a) Primary Design Features. The following criteria shall be applied to all primary building facades and facades facing public streets: (1) Top & Base. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct base and top. A "base" can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top ed _ eg is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. (2) Minimum Transparency. At least forty (40) percent of all facades facing the public sidewalk, or sidewalks providing circulation within a site, measured to eight (8) feet above the sidewalk or surface grade, shall be comprised of transparent windows or doors. (3) Blank Facades. Building facades shall not present a blank facade to view from public rights-of-way or residential properties. Such facades may be broken by windows, trellises, columns, variations in plane, or other devices that add variation and interest to the facade. (4) Mechanical Equipment Screening. Rooftop and ground -level mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from public streets. Screening materials shall be architecturally similar to the primary structure. (b) Secondary Design Features. Three (3) secondary design features are required from the following list: (1) Multiple Roof Lines. Structures shall have at least three horizontal roof lines, as viewed from the front facade. (2) Modulation. The horizontal plane of a structure shall not extend for more than thirty (30) feet, as measured from any one point of the structure, without a significant architectural variation of at least two (2) feet in depth. 15 Title 20 BMC Updates (3) Facade Materials. At least three (3) different facade materials shall be incorporated into the exterior appearance of the structure (wood, brick, stucco, tile, shingles, other). (4) Additional Transparency. An additional fifteen (15) percent transparency to what is required per BMC 20.79.070(a)(2). (5) Weather Protection. Recessed or protruding building features, of no less than four (4) feet in depth, which extends along at least fifty (50) ercent of the front facade. (6) Main Entry. Pedestrian entrances are preferred from buildings _facing the street. Entries shall be easily identifiable from the street or sidewalk, this can be accomplished through architectural or ornamental features. (7) Public Amenity. Outdoor eating area, artwork, street furniture, plantings in window boxes, public trash receptacles, or other alternative public amenity approved by the Director. Anyproposedamenity shall be architecturally compatible with the principal structure. Any approved amenity shall be maintained for the life of the project. SECTION 14. Chapter 20.82 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Neighborhood Business (NB)" is hereby amended by amending Section 20.82.060 to read as follows: 20.82.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Lot development requirements shall be in accordance with the following standards unless allowed for by law otherwise: (a) Maximum front yard setback: ten (10) feet. At least sixty-five (65) percent of a building's front facade must meet the maximum front yard setback. The setback may be increased if the Director finds that such increase is the minimum necessary to facilitate a superior site design. In order to obtain approval for an increased setback, the applicant shall submit a written analysis establishing how the project facilitates superior site design is the minimum necessary, is consistent with specific goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan, and is compliant with all applicable sections of the BMC. The following list identifies examples of circumstances where increased setbacks may be found to be appropriate: (1) When the site includes more than one (1) street frontage; (2) To accommodate existing topography, utilities, or other physical site constraints that make compliance with the setback infeasible; (3) To accommodate phasing of infill development; (4) On sites that are significantly developed with existing legally established nonconforming uses or structures whereby strict code compliance will not facilitate effective circulation; or (5) For projects that in the opinion of the Director provide enhanced public amenities within the setback area which include, but are not limited to, the following: public plazas, increased landscaping, architectural features, improved pedestrian connections; (b) Side yard setback: zero (0) except when adjacent to a residential zone where a ten (10) to twenty (20) foot visual screen is required pursuant to BMC 20.50.050(b); (c) Rear yard setback: zero (0) except when adjacent to a residential zone where a ten (10) to twenty (20) foot visual screen is required pursuant to BMC 20.50.050(b); (d) Maximum building size: nonresidential uses may not exceed a footprint of fifteen thousand (15,000) gross square feet; 16 Title 20 BMC Updates (e) Maximum building coverage: sixty (60) percent base maximum; provided, that through the use of any combination of the following, building coverage may be increased up to eighty-five (85) percent maximum: (1) Projects containing mixed uses: twenty (20) percent bonus; (2) Projects within a two (2) or three (3) story building: ten (10) percent bonus; (3) Projects providing a pedestrian -oriented plaza or area of at least one hundred fifty (150) square feet along a pedestrian walkway at an intersection corner, bus stop or other key pedestrian area approved by the city. Such areas shall contain seating for at least four (4) people, a trash receptacle and three (3) or more of the following: a pedestrian shelter, a drinking fountain, a bike rack, pedestrian -scale lights, pavers on the walkway surfaces, a kiosk, a street vendor station providing food or beverages, trees, a statue or sculpture, or a public restroom. Interior courtyards with these amenities qualify if they would be readily apparent and accessible to pedestrians on adjoining sidewalks: ten (10) percent bonus; (4) Projects providing a through -block corridor that facilitates pedestrian access in a location approved by the city: five (5) percent bonus; (5) Projects providing at least fifty (50) percent of their required parking underground or within the building: twenty (20) percent bonus; (f) Maximum development coverage: maximum coverage by impervious surfaces seventy-five (75) percent; provided, that through the use of any combination of the mechanisms listed in subsections (e)(1) through (5) of this section, up to ninety-five (95) percent maximum development coverage may be allowed; (g) Maximum building height: thirty-five (35) feet; (h) There is no maximum density for residential as a secondary use; (i) Otttdeer- storage of any kitid shall be prohibited, &ieept for- r-efitse and F-eeyelifig eentainer-s,,v�ieh shall meet the standar-ds sot f t4 i (''1,apte,- 20 .46 BMG. SECTION 15. Chapter 20.82 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Neighborhood Business (NB)" is hereby amended by amending Section 20.82.070 to read as follows: 20.82.070 DESIGN STANDARDS. stfuetttfvs „1 (I)_ eifettlatieti wiOiiii a site. Witidews shall allow views itite ititefief bttildiiig spaees. At least seven�y five (75) per-eent of all stteh faeades, fneasttr-ed to ten (10) feet above the sidewalk E)r- OAt least e (1) of the f 11,,w i g amenities shall be aleng any benehes, bike r-aeks and trash r-eeeptaeles; plantings inv�,indew boxes; pttbli6 aft; Of PHNie (33) Btt 1. ing €ntr-a-seeshalzsl be easilyidentifiable ffem the stfeet m enCCTtieLr TtGPCCCl-aTdetailingar-eLH} r, and 17 Title 20 BMC Updates and bttlk of the stfuetttf:e. This ean be aehieved by t4ilizing any eefRbiflation of at least twe (2) of the feII&M.-fit (i) Setbaek of "per tgeers by at least ten (10) feet. Howevec , stteh �i , �c ccrvrr. (iii)wO , ^"eades between eight (8) and zn� n�J �� a�J .' twelve (12) feet abeve the sidew4k— lT° and iatef:est to the faeade, (;) The i ehssio of YV'ay atthe e6fflef:. Stteh eiitf:yways defines the a„tr<, f of the r ,,.lar .,f the i.,,,1difi T b at loam tar (1 0) r „- of at least ter (1 0) feet i height The following design standards shall be aplied to all new structures and redevelop design standards shall be aplied to all new structures and redeveloped structures. Residential development of three (3) units or fewer are exempt from this section. When development involves the remodel or expansion of existing structures, the Director may modify these requirements to reasonably fit the scope and scale of the remodel or expansion. (a) Primary Design Features. The following criteria shall be aplied to all primary building facades and facades facingpublic streets: (1) Top & Base. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct base and top. A "base" can be emphasized by a different masonry_ pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. (2) Orientation. All properties adjacent to a public right of way shall orient structures toward the Drimary street. Properties located at intersections should orient their structures toward the intersecting corner (3) Minimum Transparency. At least fifty (50) percent of all facades facing the public sidewalk, or sidewalks providing circulation within a site, measured to eight (8) feet above the sidewalk or surface grade. shall be comprised of transparent windows or doors. IR Title 20 BMC Updates (4) Blank Facades. Building facades shall not present a blank facade to view from public rights-of-way, common parking areas, or residential properties. Such facades may be broken by windows, trellises, columns, variations in plane, or other devices that add variation and interest to the facade. (5) Mechanical Equipment Screening. Rooftop and ground -level mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from public streets. Screening materials shall be architecturally similar to the primary structure. (b) Secondary Design Features. Three (3) secondary design features are required from the following list: (1) Multiple Roof Lines. Structures shall have at least three horizontal roof lines, as viewed from the front facade. (2) Modulation. The horizontal plane of a structure shall not extend for more than thirty (30) feet, as measured from any one point of the structure, without a significant architectural variation of at least two (2) feet in depth. (3) Facade Materials. At least three (3) different facade materials shall be incorporated into the exterior appearance of the structure (wood, brick, stucco, tile, shin_ gles, other). (4) Additional Transparency. An additional fifteen (15) percent transparency to what is required per BMC 20.82.070(a)(3). (5) Weather Protection. Recessed or protruding building features, of no less than four (4) feet in depth, which extends along at least fifty (50)percent of pedestrian areas. (6) Main Entry. Pedestrian entrances are preferred from buildings _facing the street. Entries shall be easily identifiable from the street or sidewalk, this can be accomplished through architectural or ornamental features. (7) Public Amenity. Outdoor eating area, artwork, street furniture, plantings in window boxes, public trash receptacles, or other alternative public amenity approved by the Director. Anyproposedamenity shall be architecturally compatible with the principal structure. Any approved amenity shall be maintained for the life of the project. SECTION 16. Chapter 20.86 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Freeway Corridor (FC)" is hereby amended by amending Section 20.86.070 to read as follows: 20.86.070 DESIGN STANDARDS. itieltide vistial tfeatmefft at ifftefnvals tiet to &ieeed otie httfldfed (100) feet, fef a width of tiet less flian tvven�y (20) feet. Visttal tr-eatment shall be one or- fner-e of the folio (1) Af+ off -set with a miiiimttm depth of fi-v4 (5) "1', (2) A fee de fnat€r-i-al,t€xtttr-e or- eelee - that is visttally different and r^et (b) !''ttA Gt4s The ,, nber- of ettA et4 site entries fiv,„ p4lie rights oVvayf .,ll into and et4 of +�rte. No ctt ,;•t+�exeeed iviiy eight /c X48) fe� The following_design standards shall be applied to all new structures and redeveloped structures. Residential development of three (3) units or fewer are exempt from this section. 19 Title 20 BMC Updates When development involves the remodel or expansion of existing structures, the Director may modify these requirements to reasonably fit the scope and scale of the remodel or expansion. (a) Primary Design Features. The following criteria shall be applied to all primary building facades and facades facing public streets: (1) Top & Base. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct base and top. A "base" can be emphasized by a different masonry_ pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. (2) Blank Facades. Building facades shall not present a blank facade to view from public rights-of-way. Such facades may be broken by windows, trellises, columns, variations in plane, or other devices that add variation and interest to the facade. (3) Curb Cuts. The number of curb cut site entries from public ri_ is -of -way shall be limited to the minimum number of curb cuts required for safe and efficient vehicle circulation into and out of the site. (b) Secondary Design Features. Two (2) secondary design features are required from the following _ list: ist: (1) Multiple Roof Lines. Structures shall have at least three horizontal roof as viewed from the front facade. 2) Modulation. The horizontal Dlane of the front facade shall not extend for more than one hundred (100) feet, as measured from any one point of the structure, without a significant architectural variation of at least five (5) feet in depth. (3) Fagade Materials. At least three (3) different fagade materials shall be incorporated into the exterior appearance of the structure (wood, brick, stucco, tile, shingles, other). (4) Weather Protection. Recessed or protruding building features, of no less than four 4) feet in depth, which extends along at least fifty (50) percent of the front facade. SECTION 17. Chapter 20.92 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Employment Center (EC)" is hereby amended by amending Section 20.92.070 to read as follows: 20.92.070 DESIGN STANDARDS. 20 Title 20 BMC Updates The following design standards shall be applied to all new structures and redeveloped structures. Residential development of three (3) units or fewer are exempt from this section. When development involves the remodel or expansion of existing structures, the Director may modify these requirements to reasonably fit the scope and scale of the remodel or expansion. (a) Primary Design Features. The following criteria shall be aplied to all primary building facades and facades facing public streets: (1) Top & Base. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct base and top. A "base" can be emphasized by a different masonry_ pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. (2) Orientation. All properties adjacent to a public right of way shall orient structures toward the primary street. Properties located at intersections should orient their structures toward the intersecting corner. (3) Minimum Transparency. At least sixty (60) percent of all facades facing the public sidewalk, or sidewalks providing circulation within a site, measured to eight (8) feet above the sidewalk or surface grade, shall be comprised of transparent windows or doors. (4) Blank Facades. Building facades shall not present a blank facade to view from public rights-of-way, common parking areas, or residential properties. Such facades may be broken by windows, trellises, columns, variations in plane, or other devices that add variation and interest to the facade. (5) Mechanical Equipment Screening. Rooftop and ground -level mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from public streets. Screening materials shall be architecturally similar to the primary structure. (b) Secondary Design Features. Four (4) secondary design features are required from the following list: Multiple Roof Lines. Structures shall have at least three horizontal roof lines, as viewed from the front facade. (2) Modulation. The horizontal plane of a structure shall not extend for more than thirty (30) feet, as measured from any one point of the structure, without a significant architectural variation of at least two (2) feet in depth. (3) Facade Materials. At least three (3) different facade materials shall be incorporated into the exterior appearance of the structure (wood, brick, stucco, tile, shingles, other). (4) Additional Transparency. An additional fifteen (15) percent transparency to what is required per BMC 20.92.070(a)(3). (5) Weather Protection. Recessed or protruding building features, of no less than four (4) feet in depth, which extends along at least fifty (50)percent of the front facade. (6) Main Entry. Pedestrian entrances are preferred from buildings _ facing the street. Entries shall be easily identifiable from the street or sidewalk, this can be accomplished through architectural or ornamental features. (7) Public Amenity. Outdoor eating area, artwork, street furniture, plantings in window boxes, public trash receptacles, or other alternative public amenity approved by the Director. Any -proposed amenity shall be architecturally compatible with the principal structure. Any approved amenity shall be maintained for the life of the project. 21 Title 20 BMC Updates SECTION 18. Chapter 20.98 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Institutional (INST)" is hereby amended by adding Section 20.98.070 to read as follows: 20.98.070 DESIGN STANDARDS. The following design standards shall be Mplied to all new structures and redeveloped structures. Residential development of three (3) units or fewer are exempt from this section. When development involves the remodel or expansion of existing structures, the Director may modify these requirements to reasonably fit the scope and scale of the remodel or expansion. (a) Primary Design Features. The following criteria shall be applied to all primary building facades and facades facing public streets: (1) Top & Base. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct base and top. A "base" can be emphasized by a different masonry_ pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. (2) Orientation. All properties adjacent to a public right of way shall orient structures toward the primary street, or internal campus. Properties located at intersections should orient their structures toward the intersecting corner. (3) Minimum Transparency. At least fifty (50) percent of all facades facing the public sidewalk, or sidewalks providing circulation within a site, measured to eight (8) feet above the sidewalk or surface grade, shall be comprised of transparent windows or doors. Blank Facades. Buildinsi facades shall not present a blank facade to view from public rights-of-way, common parking areas, or residential properties. Such facades may be broken by windows, trellises, columns, variations in plane, or other devices that add variation and interest to the facade. (5) Mechanical Equipment Screening. Rooftop and ground -level mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from public streets. Screening materials shall be architecturally similar to the primary structure. (b) Secondary Design Features. Three (3) secondary design features are required from the following list: (1) Multiple Roof Lines. Structures shall have at least three horizontal roof lines, as viewed from the front facade. (2) Modulation. The horizontal plane of a structure shall not extend for more than thirty (30) feet, as measured from any one point of the structure, without a significant architectural variation of at least two (2) feet in depth. (3) Facade Materials. At least three (3) different facade materials shall be incorporated into the exterior appearance of the structure (wood, brick, stucco, tile, shingles, other). (4) Additional Transparency. An additional fifteen (15) percent transparency to what is required per BMC 20.98.070(a)(3). (5) Weather Protection. Recessed or protruding building features, of no less than four (4) feet in depth, which extends along at least fifty (50)percent of the front facade. (6) Main Entry. Pedestrian entrances are preferred from buildings _facing the street. Entries shall be easily identifiable from the street or sidewalk, this can be accomplished through architectural or ornamental features. (7) Public Amenity. Outdoor eating area, artwork, street furniture, plantings in window boxes, public trash receptacles, or other alternative public amenity approved by the 22 Title 20 BMC Updates Director. Any proposed amenity shall be architecturally compatible with the principal structure. Any pproved amenity shall be maintained for the life of the project. SECTION 19. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 20.L ective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the Approved this day of ATTEST: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk PUBLISHED the day of EFFECTIVE the day of ORDINANCE NO. day of )2017. ERIC YOUNGER, Council President 2017. PATTY LENT, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney 2017. 2017. R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Community Development\BMC Title 20 Land Use UPDATED 5-1-17.docx 23 Title 20 BMC Updates Exhibit A: Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Summary: The proposed amendments to Bremerton Municipal Code include amending Title 20 Land Use Chapter related to design standards for structures, as well as many other minor amendments including: traditional front yard setback, measuring structure height, option to waive Design Response Conference, revising the open space definition, removing recycling collection station from allowed uses in the General Commercial zone, removing conditional nonconforming uses section, and consolidating outdoor storage regulations. 1. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Project Description: The proposed amendment package includes revisions to Title 20 as follows: • Revise language in several sections of Title 20 regarding design standards in order to add clarity, flexibility, and ensure citywide equity of development. • Update the traditional front yard setback criteria to add clarity. • Revise the method of determining a structure's height, in order to streamline regulatory requirements. • Revise the Downtown Subarea design review permitting process to include an option to waive the Design Response Conference, in order to streamline the permitting process. • Revise the definition of open space to add clarity. • Remove recycling collection station from permitted uses in the General Commercial zone, in order to avoid conflict with surrounding uses. • Remove conditional nonconforming uses provision, as it undermines the intent of the Nonconforming Code and individual zoning districts. • Consolidate outdoor storage sections in order to provide clarity. 2. Procedural History: 2.1 Planning Commission Workshops: November 15, 2016 & January 17, 2017 2.2 Notice of Public Hearing: February 11, 2017 2.3 SEPA Threshold Determination DNS: January 31, 2017 2.4 Planning Commission Public Hearing: February 21, 2017 3. Public and Agency Comment: 3.1 November 15th, 2016 Workshop: No comments received 3.2 January 17th, 2017 Workshop: No comments received 3.3 February 21 st, 2017 Hearing: Priscilla Bailey. Concerned design standards would favor specific tastes in design, transparency ratios, and encouraged keeping the code simple. 4. SEPA Determination: A Determination of Non -Significance was issued on January 31, 2017, to date no comments or appeals have been filed. 5. Consistency: Text amendments to Title 20 shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.18.020(d). The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with modifications, an amendment to Title 20 if the criteria outlined below are met. (1) It is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan; Analysis: The proposed amendments continue to uphold the objectives and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and implement the following policies: LU2(D): Provide development incentives and flexibility within regulations to encourage desirable design elements. LU4-HE(A): Ensure development is consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood. ED2(B): Ensure new development promotes street level activation to encourage walkability and social interaction through site and fagade design, including but not limited to the following: • Design standards should be required for new commercial structures, especially in Centers, that ensure buildings and site layouts are designed with a focus on pedestrian scale such as intersection anchoring, strategically locating parking to the rear of structures, recognizable access ways, promotion of weather protection etc. (2) It does not conflict with other City, state and federal codes, regulations and ordinances. Analysis: The proposed amendments do not conflict with any other regulations. II. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings above, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code Title 20 Land Use Chapter, meets the requirements in BMC 20.18.020(d) text amendments, and therefore recommends to the City Council, the adoption of amendments to Title 20. Respectfully submitted by: K DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Garrett Jackson, Planner II Date: May 10, 2017 Subject: Amendments to the Zoning Code related to Design Standards & Other Minor Amendments SUMMARY The Planning Commission has unanimously recommended that the City Council review and approve the proposed Ordinance in order to make the following changes to the Bremerton Municipal Code related to land use issues, as follows: PRIMARY AMENDMENT • Design Standards: the proposed revisions to City design standards would alter existing regulations affecting the exterior appearance of commercial and multifamily structures in select zones that permit those uses. These revisions are intended to provide a standardized format, relax some of the more stringent existing standards, and provide built-in flexibility to developers. MINOR AMENDMENTS • Traditional Front Yard Setback: clarify that intrusions into the front yard setback are not permitted within five feet of the front property line. • Determining Structure Height: alter the existing method of measuring structure height to coincide with the method used in the International Building Code, in order to remove an unnecessary redundancy from the permitting process. • Design Response Conference: provide an option to waive the Design Response Conference permit from the Downtown Design Review Board process, in order to streamline the permitting process. • Open Space Definition: revise to remove duplicative definition and provide clarity. • Recycling Collection Station: remove from the permitted uses in the General Commercial zone, in order to avoid conflict with surrounding uses. • Conditional Nonconforming Uses: remove from the nonconforming code section, as written it undermines the intent of the Nonconforming Code and individual zoning districts. • Outdoor Storage: consolidate several code sections regulating outdoor storage for easier operability of the zoning code. ATTACHMENT • Attachment I — Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for November 15, 1016 workshop, January 17, 2017 workshop, and February 17, 2017 public hearing. RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL: Planning Commission recommends that City Council review the materials provided, conduct a Public Hearing, consider testimony and approve the proposed Ordinance. BACKGROUND: The review of City design standards was prompted by comments received regarding a new warehouse development located in the Employment Center zone. Design standards refer to criteria which guide the aesthetic exterior appearance of commercial and multifamily buildings. Examples of design standards criteria are provided in the adjacent table. Design standards are meant to instill a sense of pride for the community, and give visitors a reason to stop and look around. The provided picture illustrates an example of two accessory storage buildings whose function is likely very similar, however, in exterior appearance they clearly represent opposite ends of the spectrum. In one form or another, all jurisdictions have design standards, whether that is for site orientation, parking, architectural features, etc. Regardless of the manner in which they are executed, required design standards can be a double-edged sword. A community that requires many detailed design standards may drive development to other jurisdictions with lesser regulations, however the projects that were development would likely be of higher quality Transparency (windows) Fagade colors Building entries Rooflines Fagade Materials Massing Weather Protection Fenestration Screening Building Orientation Discourage Blank Facades Required Public Amenities Articulation 1 1 enjoyed by citizenry, and establish a community's sense of place. If a community requires few design standards, its possible more development may occur initially, but the resulting projects may not be of a caliber valued by the community. It is important to point out that the City already has design standard regulations in place, and the proposed zoning code amendments are intended to improve the implementation of those standards for only commercial and multifamily structures. The Comprehensive Plan calls for a balanced approach in requiring design standards. Standards for site orientation and fagade design are meant to foster an environment of walkability and social interaction (ED213); juxtaposed with these requirements is a call for regulatory flexibility (LU2C). Clearly, a balanced must be maintained which ensures a baseline of quality while at the same time not being overtly regulated to the point of stymying innovative design or deterring development. REVIEW EXISTING CODE: 0�" '` A review of existing design standards revealed a few basic themes where the existing code could be improved, namely by relaxing some of the more stringent design requirements, standardizing the format across all zones, and adding flexibility in the application of prescriptive requirements. Relax Standards. Upon comparing design standards for commercial zones against standards for projects in the Downtown Subarea Plan, Staff found that in some cases standards outside Downtown were actually more restrictive. For instance, the highest percentage of required transparency Downtown is 60%, whereas some zones outside the Downtown Subarea Plan require up to 75% transparency. Other instances of more restrictive regulations include increased weather protection, and modulation. Development Downtown is incentivized through the multifamily tax exemption, CDBG funding, and other programs. Requiring increased design standards in areas outside of Downtown may provide a disincentive to developing in those areas. The proposed design standard amendments are fashioned under the assumption that design standards should not be more restrictive than required Downtown. • Standardizing. Staff suggests standardizing each zones design standards section in order to provide a more predictable set of criteria. For instance, in one code section an upper -floor setback of at least ten feet is required (BMC 20.70.070(a)(4)(i)), whereas a separate section requires an upper0floor setback of no more than ten feet (BMC 20.62.070(a)(1)). This is one 0 Page 2 example, which represents a few occurrences within the code, of criteria that would benefit from standardization. Flexibility. At the behest of the Planning Commission, Staff requested feedback from the Downtown Design Review Board (DRB) for any guiding information they thought would be helpful in revising existing regulations. The comments Staff received from both the DRB and Planning Commission emphasized the need for flexibility when applying a prescriptive code. The existing code does not offer flexible alternatives and therefore does not adequately address the likelihood of site specific constraints limiting a projects ability to meet all code provisions. A strictly prescriptive code may also inadvertently stifle innovative design and lead to buildings which lack variability, leading to a monotonous streetscape. Geoff Wendtland, Planner with the City of Seattle and Bremerton Design Review IT Chairman, noted in his comments that approximately 75% of projects in Seattle require some kind of departure from design standards. After a review of City projects Downtown which required DRB approval, 100% of projects required some departure from the code. The goal of design standards should be to increase the aesthetic quality of the community, not to strictly adhere to a set of regulatory criteria for the sake of it. The proposed code provides alternative routes for compliance, while ensuring a baseline of design elements. REVIEW EXISTING DEVELOPMENT: Prior to developing a final draft of design standard requirements, Staff reviewed development proposals from Downtown. As our Downtown area has experienced the most growth in recent years, it acts as a good barometer for the types of design standards the market is currently supporting. This analysis resulted in a proposed code which relaxes some standards, while leaving others open for the developer to provide their creative interpretations. For instance, building modulation is meant to break up an otherwise flat fagade by providing varying recesses and > ii protrusions. In some zones, existing code requires building - modulations of ten feet or more, however, Downtown projects have consistently shown that a building fagade can be broken up with much lesser modulation depths. For this reason, the proposed code leaves some design aspects to the discretion SP r. YGIASS APARTMENTS of the developer. PROPOSED CODE: Based off Staff research, and feedback from the Planning Commission and Design Review Board, the resulting code is separated into two sections: Primary Design Features, and Secondary Design Features. This format is standard across all zones. All primary design features are required, and are intended to provide for the most basic design elements to be incorporated into every new proposed structure, and represent the most straightforward guidance from the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Secondary Design Features are intended to be more flexible for the developer, as not all secondary features are required, permitting the developer to choose which secondary features best suit their project. The number of required secondary design features is dependent on the zone, for instance, the Charleston District Center requires more secondary design features than the Freeway Corridor zone. While the design criteria format has been standardized across all zones, specific requirements are tailored to each zone based on the codified intent of individual zones. Secondary design features are meant to provide the built-in flexibility suggested by the Design Review Board, while remaining prescriptive. While a completely prescriptive code may have its drawbacks, it also provides reliability for developers by 0 Page 3 removing the discretion of a given plans reviewer whose subjective tastes in design should not be a reason to stall a project. The suggested method of prescriptive criteria, teamed with flexibility, provides security for the site specific developer while ensuring quality structures add to the community. A provision has also been included to account for development which involves the remodel or expansion of existing structures. In these cases the Director may modify design requirements to reasonably fit the scope and scale of the remodel or expansion. Flexibility is required in these instances as a number of factors (structural requirements, site orientation, etc.) may limit a proposed redevelopment's ability to completely conform to design standards. PLANNING COMMISSION REVISIONS: A few revisions to the code proposed at the February hearing have been suggested by Planning Commissioners. Those revisions are as follows: • Revise statements of, "Residential development of three (3) units or less are exempt from this section." To, "Residential development of three (3) units or fewer are exempt from this section." • Revise BMC 20.70(a) from, "Residential development of three (3) units or less are exempt from this section. Stacked flats are permissible only when meeting the criteria provided in BMC 20.79.070(a) & (b)." to, "Residential development of three (3) units or less are exempt from this section, however, stacked flats are permissible only when meeting the criteria provided in BMC 20.79.070(a) & (b)." • Revise BMC 20.42 from, "'Grade plane' and `Grade, average final' means a reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the building at exterior walls." To, "'Grade plane' and `Grade, average final' means a horizontal reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the building at exterior walls." MINOR AMENDMENTS: The Comprehensive Plan is the vision which guides community decisions, whereas zoning code regulations are the specific instructions on how to enact that vision. The exact phrasing, punctuation, and format of the code are the nuts and bolts of the document that need to be inspected and recalibrated regularly to ensure City regulations meet the evolving needs of the community. The following revisions are aimed at cleaning up sections of the code in order to provide greater consistency and ease of use for City Staff, as well as developers attempting to navigate City regulations. Staff is proposing that the Council consider the following amendments: Traditional Front Yard Setback. In the R-10 zone, a single family residence must be setback fifteen feet from the property line adjoining the street. In some areas, however, development occurred in the past much closer to the roadway than would be permitted under the existing code. In these instances wh3ere a strict application of the code would result in a structure placement that would be out of sync with neighboring development, the Code provides relief from the required setback by permitting a developer to use the average setback of neighboring properties. In no case is a proposed structure permitted to be closer than five feet of the property line. The intent of the code is to keep any portion of the primary structure outside of that five foot setback; the code will be updated to state this explicitly. Measuring Structure Height and Definition of Average Final Grade. Currently, the Building Code and Zoning Code have different methods for determining the height of a structure, and for determining what the average final grade of a site is. This has been a point of confusion for developers, as they must demonstrate in two separate ways that their project satisfies a single regulation. It is proposed that the zoning code will adopt the definitions used in the Building Code to provide consistency between the two regulatory documents. • Page 4 Design Response Conference. Currently, the code requires two design review meetings for applicable projects within the Downtown Subarea Plan. The initial meeting is referred to as the Conceptual Design Conference, at which the Design Review Board (DRB) provides feedback to the applicant on ways they could improve upon their project's design. A second meeting, the Response Conference, is then required where the applicant demonstrates how they have incorporated DRB comments into their proposal. On occasion projects are presented to the Design Review Board which the Board approves of with no requested revisions to the project, however, even though no changes are requested the applicant is still required to complete the second meeting. This zoning code amendment provides a method for the DRB to recommend project approval without the need for a second meeting. Open Space Definition. There are two definitions of `open space' found in the definitions sections of Title 20 (BMC 20.42). The code will be revised to retain one definition. • Recycling Collection Station. Currently, the General Commercial (GC) zone permits the use of recycling collection stations as an outright permitted use. The use is not compatible with the high intensity commercial and residential uses intended for this zone, and is better suited to reside in one the City's many industrial areas. Conditional Nonconforming Uses. Nonconforming uses are uses that are not permitted in a given zone; a classic example of this is an industrial or commercial use in a residential zone. Nonconforming uses are phased out over time when replaced by uses that are supported by the community. A peculiar code provision exists which permits abandoned nonconforming uses to be resurrected years after their uses has long since terminated. This provision runs counter to the intent of the nonconforming section, supports uses that do not meet the intent of a given zone, promotes conflict, and as such staff is proposing the removal this section. Outdoor Storage. Garbage containers and outdoor storage area currently regulated in several separate sections of the code. To provide clarity, and reduce redundancy. Staff is proposing consolidation. SUMMARY: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20 Land Use Section, meets the requirements in BMC 20.18.020(d) text amendments, and therefore recommends to the City Council, the adoption of amendments to Title 20. • Page 5 Exhibit 8: Planning Commission Minutes: Workshop November 15, 2016 Workshop January 17, 2017 Hearing February 21, 2017 CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING November 15, 2016 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Wofford called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Chair Wofford Commissioner Tift Commissioner Goodnow (arrived at 5:40) Commissioner Jones (arrived at 5:38) Commissioner Nerf Commissioner Strube Commissioners Absent Vice Chair Nethery (excused) Quorum Certified ELECTION OF OFFICERS Staff Present Allison Satter, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Garrett Jackson, Planner II, Department of Community Development COMMISSIONER NERF NOMINATED COMMISSIONER WOFFORD TO SERVE AS CHAIR PERSON FOR 2017. COMMISSIONER TIFT SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THERE WERE NO OTHER NOMINATIONS, AND THE COMMISSIONERS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO SUPPORT COMMISSIONER WOFFORD TO SERVE AS CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION IN 2017. (Note: Commissioners Goodnow and Jones were not yet present to participate in the vote.) CHAIR WOFFORD NOMINATED COMMISSIONER TIFT TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR PERSON FOR 2017. COMMISSIONER NERF SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THERE WERE NO OTHER NOMINATIONS, AND THE COMMISSIONERS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO SUPPORT COMMISSIONER TIFT TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION IN 2017. (Note: Commissioner Goodnow was not yet present to participate in the vote) APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER NERF SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Commissioner Goodnow was not yet present to participate in the vote) APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18, 2016 AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER NERF SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED 4-0-1, WITH COMMISSIONER JONES ABSTAINING. (Note: Commissioner Goodnow was not yet present to participate in the vote.) PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Wofford asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed the public portion of the meeting. Public Workshop: Potential Zonine Code Amendments Mr. Jackson presented the Staff Report for the proposed Zoning Code amendments. He explained that the focus of the workshop is to gauge the Commission's interest in including more requirements for design standards in the code. He cautioned that the discussion would be fairly broad, without getting into specifics about what codes might be implemented. Staff will provide examples of the types of design standards that some jurisdictions regulate and then seek guidance from the Commission regarding possible revisions to the Zoning Code in order to draft amendments for a later public hearing. Mr. Jackson reviewed that the City Council requested the Commission review and provide feedback related to design standards after receiving complaints about a warehouse development (near Harrison Hospital) in the Employment Center (EC) Zone. Concerns were expressed that the building did not offer much to the community by way of architectural detail. The project has not yet been completed, and some landscaping, fencing and street trees should soften its appearance. Mr. Jackson explained that the update process would include an investigation of various standards the City could choose to regulate and a look at what other jurisdictions are doing. At the conclusion of the process, staff will seek direction from the Planning Commission on whether or not to pursue design standard revisions. Mr. Jackson observed that the public typically does not admire boxy -style developments, with no architectural detail or visual interest. While a boxy design can serve a purpose and provide the function of what is needed, there is very little visual interest. The issue becomes a question of form versus function, and at some point, there should be an intersect between the two as to what the City desires for its built environment. He provided examples of two storage buildings, which both perform the same function, but are very different in design (one a box and the other with significant visual interest). He requested feedback on whether the City should require the more detailed design, allow the boxy design, or be somewhere in between. Mr. Jackson advised that in preparation for the workshop, staff reviewed code requirements from the Cities of Bellingham, Edmonds, Olympia, Poulsbo and Silverdale, as well as the Gorst Subarea plan. Both the Gorst Subarea Plan and Silverdale contain less design standards, while the other municipalities have more intense design standards. He noted that a link was provided in the Staff Report to supplemental information about preparing design codes that was prepared by the Baroness Andrews, Minister for Housing and Planning, House of Lords, United Kingdom. While the supplemental information is not jurisdictionally relevant, it provides a general outline for the process of updating design standards. For example, the common design objectives include: Distinctive Places. Something that separates the City from other communities or one zone from another. A 100% design standard requirement may not be appropriate for all zones. For instance, staff is not suggesting that design standards apply to the R-10 zone. Staff is recommending that design standards apply to all multi -family and commercial zones. Continuity and Coordination. Applying easy -to -digest design standards across all multi -family and commercial zones would provide continuity and coordination to developers. Some municipalities have stringent design standards, but these stringent design standards can eliminate a developer's ability to be creative. Public Realm Quality. The public realm includes building facades that are seen from the street. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 2016 — Page 2 of 6 Creative Interpretation. Design standards are not meant to dictate a standard building design. The intent is to set some base requirements and then allow developers to be creative. Sustainable Design. Some jurisdictions have incorporated sustainable design into their design standards. This can be done via earth -friendly measures such as the types of materials required, Low -Impact Development (LID) requirements, etc. This goes beyond the exterior appearance of a building, and staff is not proposing sustainable design elements beyond what the code already requires. Mr. Jackson shared broad examples of what some jurisdictions choose to regulate: • Color. It is not uncommon for a jurisdiction to regulate color, but the requirement tends to be very subjective and difficult to define. Staff is not recommending that Bremerton regulate color. • Top and Bottom. Some jurisdictions require that buildings have a very clear first and second story. The ground floor is generally for commercial uses and the above floors have a less centralized use. The intent is that the building should present more visual interest. If the Commission is interested in this type of standard, it would be easy to define and implement. • Modulation. Modulation requirements deal with how a building pops out and in, and the types of recesses there might be. The intent is to add visual interest and move away from boxy designs. • Roof Pitch. This type of designs standard would address roof pitch and/or the number of roof lines. The intent is to provide more visual interest. • Materials. Some jurisdictions regulate the types of and how many different materials must be used on a building. Using a variety of materials adds visual interest to a building. A materials standard would also be a way to address durability issues. • Entries. Design standards for entries could include weather protection, increased transparency, recessed entries, public seating, and/or landscaping planters. These standards are intended to emphasize the entrance of a building. • Ground Floor Transparency. The City currently regulates transparency (windows) in many of its commercial and multi -family zones. Transparency provides a way for pedestrians to interact with what is going on inside the building, and for those on the inside to see out onto the street. It is a way to activate the street and increase interest. • Weather Protection. For buildings located along sidewalks, requiring an awning promotes walkability, protects people from the elements and adds visual interest. • Massing. Staff is not recommending that the City regulate massing via design standards. Massing deals with the general shape of a building, and massing regulations can be subjective, making them hard to regulate and define. • Fenestration. A number of jurisdictions regulate fenestrations, which is the openings of a building (doors and windows). It can be as specific as identifying how many panes a window must have and what the doors must look like. • Articulation. This has to do with how the joints of a building are accomplished and whether the horizontal articulation provides enough visual interest. This would be a fairly subjective criterion. • Screening Utility Equipment. HVAC units or other equipment on the building must be screened so it is not visible from the street. Mr. Jackson provided examples of projects that have been approved by other jurisdictions and pointed out how various design standards were applied. He noted that there are clear similarities in the projects that get approved in jurisdictions that have design standards. Mr. Jackson said that if the City decides to review and update its design standards, there should be core principles: Establish the core design objectives to underpin the design code's content. That means that the code needs to reflect the zone that it is in. For instance, the Freeway Corridor Zone is about attracting big -box stores and larger scale retail. The City would not necessarily want a Costco to look like a smaller neighborhood business that is developed in Manette. It would not be appropriate for 80% of a large retail building to be windows. The goal is to look at the intent of each zone and tailor design standards for each one. Decide which elements of the code will be mandatory or discretionary. If the Commission recommends the City pursue design standards, a goal for staff is to have built-in flexibility. Rather than mandating all of the requirements, Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 2016 — Page 3 of 6 applicants would be allowed to choose from a list of requirements. The intent is to encourage developers to incorporate visual interest into their building design. Mr. Jackson advised that the zones being considered for design standards include the District Center Core (DCC), Employment Center (EC), Institutional (INST), General Commercial (CG), Multifamily Residential (MR), Neighborhood Business (NB) and Freeway Corridor (FC). The intensity of the design standards could be different for each zone. He reminded the Commission that design standards are intended to deter developers from building boxy buildings. In addition to amendments related to design standards, Mr. Jackson said staff will propose a few housekeeping amendments: Traditional Front Yard Setback. The front yard setback requirement in the R-10 Zone is 15 feet. Because a fair amount of development in the City occurred prior to the code, many existing structures do not meet the 15 -foot setback requirement. The current front yard setback provision allows a setback to be established based on the average setback of neighboring properties. The intent is to allow development to fit more fluidly into the community. The absolute minimum front yard setback is 5 feet, but staff has had some spirited conversations with property owners about what is allowed within the 5 -foot -setback. Staff has maintained that the code intent is that nothing is allowed in this setback, and the proposed amendment would clarify this intent. Measuring Structure Height and Grade Plane. There are currently discrepancies between the Building and Zoning Codes for height measurement. The discrepancies have been a source of frustration for developers, and there has been significant confusion. The Zoning Code will be amended to reflect how the Building Code measures structure height and grade plane. Commissioner Nerf said he is in favor of learning more about options for incorporating more design standards into the City's Zoning Code. He felt the economic development of Bremerton would go much quicker if the City could attract people who already have money or who earn money outside of Kitsap County so there is a net flow of dollars into the county. If the City is not attractive, it is not likely these people will choose to come to Bremerton. However, he cautioned that the design standards should not be so specific and stringent that developers are pushed away. Chair Wofford invited members of the audience to comment on the proposed Zoning Code Amendments. Jeff Coughlin, Bremerton, asked if the City intends to apply design standards to residential zones. Mr. Jackson answered that, as currently being discussed, the design standards would only apply to residential zones that permit multifamily residential development. There were no other public comments. Commissioner Tift said it appears from the Staff Report that Bremerton already has two design standards (massing and screening for mechanical equipment). Mr. Jackson said the City does have requirements for massing and for screening mechanical equipment in some instances. However, the massing requirements are more about modulation and breaking up solid fagade faces in some zones. The potential problem is that the design standards are not uniform and they do not apply to all commercial and multifamily residential zones. For example, the warehouse building in the EC Zone did not require any modulation or massing standard, but massing and modulation standards would have been required if the building were located in the DCC zone. Currently, most of the design efforts are focused on the centers, and some multifamily and commercial zones do not have design standards. Commissioner Tift commented that THE KITSAP SUN recently published a list of the projects that are underway. In his opinion, developers have done a good job of building attractive and modern facilities without any help from design standards. He expressed his belief that less is better. No one wants to move into an ugly building; they want to be in the latest and greatest. The more flexibility provided to the developer the better. However, he felt there should be a standard for weather protection. Commissioner Nerf asked if the buildings listed in the newspaper article were subject to design standards. Mr. Jackson answered that all development in the downtown is subject to Design Review Board approval, and fairly stringent design standards are applied. Ms. Satter added that staff is not proposing to open up the Design Review Board for all zones in the Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 2016 — Page 4 of 6 City since it requires more time and additional fees. The current threshold for Design Review Board review is above four units and/or 5,000 square feet of commercial space. Also, the Design Review Board approval adds about two months to the process. Requiring design review for all zones in the City would be cumbersome and onerous to potential developers. Commissioner Tift asked what standards the Design Review Board uses to review applications. Mr. Jackson said there are distinct design standards in place for each of the downtown zones. For example, weather protection is required in the Downtown Core (DC) and Downtown Waterfront (DW) Zones because a higher level of pedestrians is anticipated. Other zones in the downtown are not required to have weather protection. Also, a greater percentage of ground floor transparency is required in the more commercial areas of downtown so that pedestrians can interact with the commercial spaces on the ground floor. The design standards are zone specific. The Design Review Board reviews applications for compliance with the design standards in the Downtown Subarea Plan and can approve departures. Ms. Satter added that allowing departures makes the code more flexible. Ms. Satter explained that the R-20 Zone was recently created as per the Comprehensive Plan Update. These properties allow multifamily development and we may want to implement some design standards. Another option would be to focus the design standards only in commercial zones. The design standards for multifamily zones could be as minimal as requiring weather protection and some modulation. The design standards for commercial zones could be more specific to include such things as transparency (windows), weather protection, modulation, rooflines, etc. Commissioner Nerf asked staff's opinion on where the Commission's effort should be focused in regard to design standards. Ms. Satter advised that staff will prepare suggestions to present to the Commission in January. The intent of this workshop discussion was to present the design standard concept for the Commission to consider as they observe current development in Bremerton and elsewhere. It would be helpful for them to provide feedback to staff as they prepare proposed amendments for future consideration in January. Chair Wofford commented that the more detailed the standards, the more costly and time consuming the review process will be. While they want to discourage boxy designs, they do not need an elaborate set of design standards. He encouraged Commissioners to provide feedback to staff as they prepare a proposal for the Commission's consideration in January. Ms. Satter advised that the Commission would continue its discussion at the January meeting, and a public hearing will likely follow in February. She specifically asked them to provide feedback about whether or not they are interested in looking at additional design standards, or if they believe that minimal is better. Commissioner Goodnow asked if the Design Review Board has any thoughts one way or the other. Ms. Satter agreed to reach out to the Design Review Board for feedback to the Commission. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Wofford reminded the Commissioners that the December Meeting was cancelled, and the Commissioners will meet for a social gathering on December 20th at 5:30 p.m. Chair Wofford thanked staff for their good work throughout the year. They make it easy for the Commission to do its job. Director Report Ms. Satter announced that this is Commissioner Nethery's last meeting, as he will no longer be on the Commission after 2016. He has been a commendable member of the Commission, and Commissioners can wish him goodwill at the social gathering. Ms. Satter thanked the Commissioners for their hard work. She particularly commended them for passing forward the Comprehensive Plan on time. They also addressed the Supreme Court Free Speech Decision, and a number of cities have contacted staff to learn more about the process. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 2016 — Page 5 of 6 Old Business There was no old business. New Business: Discussion of Potential Bylaw Changes Ms. Satter asked if Commissioners are interested in making any changes to the Commission Bylaws, which were adopted in 2014. Any changes can be brought forward for approval in January. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:21 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ';��c�v Rick'rifVVice air Planning Commissi Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 2016, _ - Page 6 of 6 CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING January 17, 2017 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Tift called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Vice Chair Tift Commissioner Conley Commissioner Nerf Commissioner Strube Commissioners Absent Chair Wofford (excused) Commissioner Goodnow (excused) Commissioner Jones (excused) Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff Present Allison Satter, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Garrett Jackson, Planner II, Department of Community Development COMMISSIONER STRUBE MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER NERF SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER STRUBE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2016 AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER NERF SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH COMMISSIONER CONLEY ABSTAINING. At the request of Vice Chair Tift, Commissioner Conley shared background information about himself. He said he looks forward to working with the Commission. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Vice Chair Tift asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed the public portion of the meeting. Public Workshop: Potential Zoning Code Amendments — Updating Design Standards Mr. Jackson explained that design standards deal specifically with the appearance of structures. There are separate development standards that deal with lot coverage, landscaping, etc. The purpose of the workshop is to review the previous workshop discussion, incorporate Design Review Board (DRB) feedback, evaluate the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) standards, review the design code template, and solicit direction from the Planning Commission. Mr. Jackson reviewed that, as a result of a recent warehouse development that occurred in the Employment Center (EC) zone, the City Council directed the staff and Commission to review the design standards. Basically, the City Council was interested in mandating more design criteria to ensure a higher quality of development in Bremerton. He shared examples of two storage buildings, which serve the same function, but illustrate how design can be used to improve a building's aesthetic appearance. Mr. Jackson explained that, as part of the process, staff reviewed design requirements from other jurisdictions, including Bellingham, Edmonds, Gorst Subarea, Olympia, Poulsbo and Silverdale. They also reviewed projects that have gone through their design review processes. Aspects of design that are regulated by other jurisdictions include modulation, fenestration, transparency, materials, rooflines, articulation, color, massing, entries, etc. Mr. Jackson advised that, currently, staff is proposing that the design standards be applicable to commercial and multi- family projects of four units or more in the following zones: District Center Core (DCC), Employment Center (EC), Institutional (1NST), General Commercial (GC), Multifamily Residential (R-20), Neighborhood Business (NB) and Freeway Corridor (FC) Mr. Jackson further reviewed that, at their last meeting, the Commission instructed staff to develop possible code updates for design standards and to seek input from the Design Review Board (DRB) for their expertise in the field. The DRB provided the following feedback: • Developers should consider local context and history when proposing a building design. The 606 Building was pointed to as a good example of this concept. The building windows are modeled after the paned windows found on the adjacent shipyard building. The DRB appreciates that buildings are more likely to fit in with surroundings when design aspects from existing buildings are incorporated into the design of a new building. Mr. Jackson noted that this mandate may not be appropriate for every zone in the City. In some zones, the City may not want new development to be modeled after existing development. The concept would be more applicable for traditional districts such as the Downtown and Charleston Districts. • A structure's front fagade should face the primary street that the lot is located on. The DRB referred to the Marvin Williams Recreation Center to illustrate the concept. Although the center is a beautiful building in the downtown, its orientation is a little odd. The front fagade of the building faces the back of an existing building instead of the primary street. While the developer had personal reasons for orienting the building towards 7'h Street, and the plan is to eventually demolish the front building, the DRB did not agree with the building's orientation. It was pointed out that orienting a building towards the street activates the street and invites people into the building. It also encourages walkability and should be an important planning goal. • Flexibility should be built into the code so that staff can make "common sense" departures from the prescriptive code in order to ensure good design. Cities often legislate themselves into a box by having standards that are too specific. The DRB is suggesting that the standards identify a minimum quality, but then allow flexibility for innovation and for people to create their own interesting buildings. The DRB Chair commented that 75% of projects in Seattle required a departure from their design standards, and 100% of the projects in Seattle's downtown required a departure. This means they cannot meet the required design standards, and some flexibility is needed. The City must consider whether the goal is to be restrictive and have every building look the same, or if it is to ensure a quality that everyone can appreciate while allowing developers to have some say in what their building looks like. Mr. Jackson advised that, upon review of the existing design standards, staff concluded that: • The Institutional (INST) Zone, which is primarily Olympic College and its surrounding properties, does not have any design standards. This could create undesirable design outcomes as there are no current design standards for Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2017 — Page 2 of 6 properties not owned by Olympic College. Multi -family projects are allowed in that zone, and they don't want to bring down the overall architectural quality of the area. The Multifamily Residential (R-20) zone does not have any design standards, either. This is a new zone since the Comprehensive Plan was updated in June, and staff believes it could benefit from design standards so that future growth fits with the community. Regulations outside of downtown are more stringent than they are in the downtown. A table provided in the Staff Report lists criteria that are common in the downtown and/or other zones. The table notes whether or not specific zones have criteria; and if so, what the criteria is. For example, the highest percentage of required transparency downtown is 60%, whereas some zones outside of the Downtown Subarea Plan require up to 75% transparency. He explained that downtown development is already incentivized through multifamily tax exemptions and other programs. Requiring more design criteria in zones that do not have these other incentives may provide a disincentive to development. To make development more likely outside of downtown, staff recommends that any design standards should be fashioned under the assumption that they should not be more restrictive than required in the downtown. Building orientation was not considered. Many of the existing buildings are set back very far from the street. When passing by in a car, there is no interconnection between the street and the building. This type of orientation does not encourage walkability. Where commercial development is close to the street, people can walk in from the street, and ample parking can be provided, as well. Orienting buildings towards the street recognizes the interplay between the building, those inside the building, and those on the street. It is a way to encourage people outside to come in rather than being divorced by large areas of parking. The design standards need more flexibility. It is not staff's intent to make every building look the same, and the design standards are not intended to serve as a historic preservation project. The goal is to ensure quality, while allowing for innovation. Chair Wofford provided pictures to staff of very urban and innovative buildings, and he voiced concern that the design standards might not allow for these creative designs. It is not staff s intent to negate innovation, and the goal, in fact, is to encourage it. The intent is to avoid boxy development that brings down the character of the community. Commissioner Nerf submitted a number pictures of existing developments in Bremerton and pinpointed reasons why he liked or disliked the building designs. He briefly reviewed these examples with the Commission. The design standards need to be standardized. The intent is to standardize the requirements to provide more reliability and simplify them to make them easier for developers to understand, and for staff to apply. Mr. Jackson reviewed the design code template, noting that the introductory paragraph states that the design code is for projects of four units or more or commercial buildings. Anything below that would be exempt. For redevelopment, the Director would have some leeway to adjust the standards. He explained that the design code template is broken into two sections: primary design features and secondary design features. Primary design would be required of all structures, and secondary design features would be discretionary. Developers would be allowed to choose from the seven sets of criteria things that they want to incorporate into their building. It is difficult to write a prescriptive code that also has flexibility, and the secondary design features offer a way to incorporate flexibility into the prescriptive code. Mr. Jackson noted that some areas in the design code template were left blank, recognizing that the template would be applied to different zones throughout the City. While a transparency requirement of 60% may be appropriate for the DCC zone where a lot of mixed-use growth is expected, it may not be appropriate in the FC zone where big box type stores and car dealerships are planned. The template is an attempt to recognize the differences in zones and that a fmite set of criteria should not be applied the same in all zones. He reviewed the proposed primary and secondary design features as follows: Primary Design Features Top and Base. Buildings shall convey a visually -distinct base and top. A "base" can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. This is a common design standard to avoid boxy design. Building Orientation. All properties adjacent to a public right-of-way shall orient structures toward the primary street. Properties located at intersections should orient their structures towards the intersecting corner. ,.. F 4,�" ' ,'F, r a- y 1i �..: .. �' " �. .N NET Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2017 — Page 3 of 6 • Minimum Transparency. A certain percent of all facades facing the public sidewalk, or sidewalks providing circulation within a site, measured to eight (8) feet above the sidewalk or surface grade, shall have a certain percentage made up of transparent windows or doors. • Blank Facades. Building facades shall not present a blank fagade to view from public rights-of-way, common parking areas, or residential properties. Such facades may be broken by windows, trellises, columns, variations in plane, or other devices that add variation and interest to the fagade. When facing a common area, it is important to consider what the public will see. Blank facades completely lack interest and should be discouraged. • Mechanical Equipment Screening. Rooftop and ground-level mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from public streets. Screening materials shall be architecturally similar to the primary structure. The mechanical equipment on all of the modem buildings that have been constructed in the downtown have been screened. This is a baseline aesthetic requirement. • Requirement Unique to Zone. Some design elements will need to be dealt with on a zone-by-zone basis. This can include such things as outdoor storage for car dealerships. Some uses are not allowed in some zones and would, therefore, need to be regulated uniquely. Secondary Design Features: • Multiple Roof Lines. Structures shall have at least three horizontal roof lines, as viewed from the front fagade. As discussed at the last meeting, singular roof lines lack visual interest. However, the feature was included as a secondary design feature to recognize that it is possible to design an interesting building without multiple roof lines. • Modulation. The horizontal or vertical plane of a structure shall not extend for more than a certain distance, as measured from any one point of the structure, without a significant architectural variation of at least a certain feet in depth. The intent is to discourage solid facades with single planes. • Fagade Materials. At least three (3) different fagade materials shall be incorporated into the exterior appearance of the structure (wood, brick, stucco, tile, shingles, other). Simply using lap siding on a four-story building results in a very plain fagade. Incorporating other materials raises visual interest. • Additional Transparency. An additional fifteen (15) percent transparency to what is required per BMC 20.902 1 0(a)(2). The City encourages developers to provide more glass on the fagade of a building. • Weather Protection. Recessed or protruding buildings features, of no less than four (4) feet in depth, which extends along a certain percentage of pedestrian areas. This feature could actually become a primary requirement for certain zones where walkability is encouraged. • Main Entry. Pedestrian entrances are preferred from buildings facing the street. Entries shall be easily identifiable from the street or sidewalk. This can be accomplished through architectural or ornamental features. Without this design standard, some buildings will not have a more pronounced entryway. • Public Amenity. Outdoor eating area, artwork street furniture, plantings in window boxes, public trash receptacles, or another alternative public amenity approved by the Director. Commissioner Nerf said his understanding of the transparency features is that windows must be provided, but nothing would prevent a property owner from putting up a curtain to prevent people outside from seeing in. Mr. Jackson concurred. He commented that interior uses may have different needs. For example, some buildings are occupied with office uses on the ground floor, and their blinds remain shut. While it should remain a personal choice for the occupants, buildings should be designed to accommodate the needs of not just the current occupants, but also future occupants. Per the DRB's request, Mr. Jackson provided a number of pictures of existing or planned developments in the downtown that have gone through the design process and met the City's criteria. He pointed out the desirable features of each of the developments and explained how the designs are consistent with the proposed standards. Mr. Jackson concluded his presentation by reviewing the next steps in the process. He advised that staff plans to conduct an analysis of the buildings in the downtown, where code departures are allowed. The intent is to create a base market analysis of what design features the market will support. Staff will also work to tailor the template to every zone. The findings from the staff s work will be presented to the Commission at a future meeting. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2017 — Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Strube observed that there are already some fairly strict design standards in some zones. He asked if the warehouse development that instigated the proposed amendments was consistent with the design standards in place for the zone. Mr. Jackson said it met the design standards in place for the zone. However, it is important to note that the zone was established for Harrison Hospital, and the design standards were likely more relaxed, hoping that the hospital would not be relocated. Vice Chair Tift referred to a building on 7's Street that is consistent with how buildings were constructed in the early 1940s and 1950s. They were originally storefronts, and families lived on the top. There is a similar building at the corner of Park Avenue and 46 Street. The new Chung's Express also has residences on top of the commercial space. While he loves the modulation in the buildings that have been constructed recently, they are all very similar in design (multi -story buildings with modulation on the front facade). This is a common design approach for development now because it maximizes the footprint of the building while still giving it some design and character. He said he supports the proposed amendments, recognizing that design preferences will change over time. He encouraged staff to proceed with the amendments, being careful to differentiate between design and structure. Design is artistic and much more open to opinion, and it is important to give the Director latitude to approve unique design. Public Workshov: Potential Zoning Code Amendments — Minor Maintenance to Title 20, Land Use Section As discussed at the last meeting, Mr. Jackson advised that staff maintains a working list of revisions aimed at cleaning up sections of the code in order to provide greater consistency and ease of use. Staff is proposing that the Commission consider the following amendments: • Traditional Front Yard Setback. In the R-10 zone, a single-family residence must be setback 15 feet from the property line adjoining the street. However, in some areas, development occurred in the past much closer to the roadway than would be permitted under the existing code. In these instances, the code provides relief from the required setback by permitting a developer to use the average setback of neighboring properties. However, in no case is a proposed structure permitted to be closer than 5 feet of the property line. The proposed amendment is intended to clarify that no portion of the primary structure can be located inside of the 5 -foot setback. • Measuring Structure Height and the Definition of Average Final Grade. Currently, the Building Code and Zoning Code have different methods for measuring the height of a structure and determining what the average final grade of a site is. This has been a point of confusion for developers because they have been required to demonstrate in two separate ways that their project satisfies a single regulation. The proposed amendment would change the Zoning Code provision to match the Building Code provision. • Recycling Collection Station. Currently, the General Commercial (GC) zone allows recycling collection stations as an outright permitted use. Staff does not believe the use is compatible with the high-intensity commercial and residential uses intended for the zone. Staff is recommended that the use is better suited for one of the City's many industrial areas, and that is the intent of the proposed amendment. • Conditional Nonconforming Uses. There are existing uses in Bremerton that are no longer allowed in the Zoning Code. These nonconforming uses are allowed to continue in perpetuity as long as they are not discontinued (abandoned for a year or more). The intent is that nonconforming uses would be phased out over time when replaced by uses that are supported by the community. However, the current code includes a provision that permits abandoned nonconforming uses to be resurrected after their use has long since terminated. The provision runs counter to the intent of the nonconforming section, supports uses that do not meet the intent of a given zone and promotes conflict. Staff is recommending that this provision be removed from the section. • Design Response Conference. The DRB is specifically concerned with downtown development. Currently, the code requires two design review meetings for applicable projects within the Downtown Subarea Plan. The first meeting is referred to as the Conceptual Design Conference, at which the DRB provides feedback to the applicant on what to improve upon the project's design. A second meeting (Response Conference) is then required where the applicant demonstrates how they have incorporated the DRB's comments into their proposal. In some situations, the DRB has approved projects with no requested revisions, but applicants are still required to complete the second meeting. The proposed amendment would provide a method for the DRB to recommend project approval without the need for a second meeting. Outdoor Storage. Garbage containers and outdoor storage are currently regulated in several separate sections of the code, and the proposed amendment would consolidate the provision to provide clarity and reduce redundancy. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2017 — Page 5 of 6 Commissioner Conley asked staff to elaborate on the need for allowing a traditional front yard setback. Mr. Jackson responded that the minimum setback in the R-10 zone is 15 feet, measured from the property line to the exterior face of a structure. In the case of a garage, the minimum setback is 20 feet. There is also a provision that allows the setback to be reduced to be more consistent with the setback of adjacent properties. In these situations, the existing front yard setbacks of properties along the block are averaged, and the property owner would be allowed to reduce the front yard setback up to the average. On the other hand, any structure within 5 feet of the right-of-way can be troublesome. Beyond fire regulations, there are also instances of driveways not being long enough for a car because the structure was placed closer to the road. Permitting a structure to be placed within 5 feet of the property line has also been troublesome because the current code does not specifically state that a property owner cannot take advantage of other exemptions. For example, eves can extend 2 feet into the setback, and decks can extend 6 feet into the setback. These allowances are not intended to enter into the 5 feet of front yard setback area, and the proposed amendment would make this clear. Ms. Satter pointed out that the front yard setback provision was written to specifically apply to Shore Drive. The properties were developed when there was no developed road in front. The road was expanded and improved in the 1950's. At that time, it was determined that a minimum front yard setback requirement was necessary. As currently written, a property must meet three provisions, one being that the setback should not be less than 5 feet. However, people have tried to double -dip the provision, and clarification is needed. Chair Report Vice Chair Tift welcomed Commissioner Conley to the Commission. Director Report Ms. Satter reported that the Department of Community Development has hired a new Senior Planner. His name is Ryan Crater, and current planning, in particular the shoreline and environmental components, will be his main focus. Old Business There was no old business. New Business There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:26 p.m. Respe ivly Submitted by: ,ruidrea L S cer, A Wofford, G Executive cre -lapping Co on Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2017 Page 6 of 6 CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING February 21, 2017 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Wofford called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Chair Wofford Vice Chair Tift Commissioner Conley Commissioner Goodnow Commissioner Nerf Commissioner Strube (arrived at 5:38 p.m.) Commissioners Absent Commissioner Jones (excused) Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff Present Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Garrett Jackson, Planner II, Department of Community Development VICE CHAIR TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER GOODNOW SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2017, AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER GOODNOW SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Commissioner Strube was not yet present to participate in the vote) PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Wofford asked if there were any comments from citizens. There was no one present in the audience, and Chair Wofford closed the public portion of the meeting. Public Hearing: Amendments to Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20 (Zoning„Cod e) Mr. Jackson advised that the public hearing is about potential zoning code amendments, mainly design criteria updates and other minor amendments as discussed previously. The goals of the hearing are to review the first two workshops, the downtown developments as samples of development desired by the commission, and the proposed code amendments zone - by -zone. The outcome will be a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council regarding the proposed amendments. Mr. Jackson reviewed that the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review and consider potential amendments to the City's design standards after residents indicated distaste for a warehouse that was developed in the Hemlock area near Harrison Hospital. The general goal of the amendments is to have structures that look less like boxes and provide more visual interest. He provided examples of two storage structures, both of which provide the same function. He noted that one is dramatically more interesting and attractive than the other, box -type structure. Mr. Jackson advised that, when preparing the draft amendments, staff reviewed design standards from Bellingham, Edmonds, Olympia, Poulsbo, Silverdale, and the Gorst Subarea Plan. Staff also reviewed various developments that have been proposed in these jurisdictions. As presented at the I` workshop, staff found that the following types of criteria are regularly applied to design: fenestration, transparency, materials, rooflines, color, massing, entries, modulation, articulation, etc. He advised that the proposed amendments would apply to the following zones: District Center Core (DCC), Employment Center (EC), Institutional (1), General Commercial (GC), Multifamily Residential (R-20), Neighborhood Business (NB), and Freeway Corridor (FC). He emphasized that the updates would only apply to residential development of four or more units and commercial structures. Mr. Jackson reviewed that staff was directed by the Planning Commission to consult with the Design Review Board (DRB), which offered the following advice: • Consider local context and history in the design of structures. An example would be the 606 Building, which incorporates the window fenestration from the adjoining shipyard. • The front fagade should face the primary street. There was a lot of concern about the Marvin Williams Center not being oriented towards the street, and it was the DRB's strong opinion that front facades should face the primary street. ■ Flexibility should be built into the code so that staff can make "common sense” decisions about departures from the prescriptive code in order to ensure good design. DRB Member, Geoff Wentlandt, a Planner for the City of Seattle, commented that 75% of the projects in Seattle require code departures in order to get built, and since the creation of the DRB 100% of the projects in downtown Bremerton required code departures in their review process. • Show examples from downtown. Mr. Jackson provided a table that was presented at the 2nd workshop, which compares the downtown zones with the zoning districts outside of downtown. From these comparisons, staff learned that: • The standards for zones outside of the downtown need to be more flexible to provide more of an incentive for development. The design standards for structures located outside the Downtown Subarea Plan are currently more stringent than they are downtown. • Building orientation should be considered. The intent of the individual zones is that the environment should be pedestrian friendly, which means that the buildings should be closer to the roadway. • When reviewing zones outside of the downtown, more flexibility is needed. Often, there is no discretion allowed and the strictly articulated rules have to be met. This does not necessarily work for individual sites or projects. • The design standards need to be standardized. Currently, each zone has different design criteria. An attempt was made to standardize the code to provide continuity between the commercial zones. Mr. Jackson reviewed that, at the 2nd workshop, the Planning Commission emphasized the need to ensure that the draft amendments do not prohibit innovative design. The City should not attempt to create a cookie -cutter design by mandating Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2017 — Page 2 of 7 what it thinks an attractive building should look like. The Commission also recommended that the code should provide direction to future developers to ensure reliable results. At the 2°a workshop, staff presented a template for what the design standards for each of the zones should look like, noting that only the highlighted areas should be what changes from zone -to - zone. As discussed at the last meeting, Mr. Jackson advised that staff maintains a working list of revisions aimed at cleaning up sections of the code in order to provide greater consistency and ease of use. Staff is proposing that the Commission also consider the following amendments not related to design review: Traditional Front Yard Setback. In the R-10 zone, a single-family residence must be setback 15 feet from the property line adjoining the street. However, in some areas, development occurred in the past much closer to the roadway than would be permitted under the existing code. In these instances, the existing code provides relief from the required setback by permitting a developer to use the average setback of neighboring properties. However, staff believes the code intent is that in no case a proposed structure should be permitted to be closer than 5 feet of the property line. The proposed amendment is intended to clarify that no portion of the primary structure can be located inside of the 5 -foot setback. Measuring Structure Height and the Definition of Average Final Grade. Currently, the Building Code and Zoning Code have different methods for measuring the height of a structure and determining what the average final grade of a site is. This has been a point of confusion for developers because they have been required to demonstrate in two separate ways that their project satisfies a single regulation. The proposed amendment would change the Zoning Code provision to match the Building Code provision. Recycling Collection Station. Currently, the General Commercial (GC) zone allows recycling collection stations as an outright permitted use. Staff does not believe the use is compatible with the commercial and residential uses intended for the zone. Staff is recommending that the use is better suited for one of the City's many industrial areas, and that is the intent of the proposed amendment. Conditional Nonconforming Uses. There are existing uses in Bremerton that are no longer allowed in the Zoning Code. These nonconforming uses are allowed to continue in perpetuity as long as they are not discontinued (abandoned for a year or more). The intent is that nonconforming uses would be phased out over time and replaced by uses that are supported by the community. However, the current code includes a provision that permits abandoned nonconforming uses to be resurrected after their use has long since terminated. The provision runs counter to the intent of the nonconforming section, and the city's Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that this provision be removed from the section. Design Response Conference. The DRB is specifically assigned to review downtown development. Currently, the code requires two design review meetings for applicable projects within the Downtown Subarea Plan. The initial meeting is referred to as the Conceptual Design Conference, at which the DRB provides feedback to the applicant about how to improve upon the project's design. A second meeting (Response Conference) is then required where the applicant demonstrates how they have incorporated the DRB's comments into their proposal. In some situations, the DRB would like to approve projects with no requested revisions, but applicants are still required to complete the second meeting. The proposed amendment would provide a method for the DRB to waive the Response conference and recommend project approval after the Conceptual Design Conference. Outdoor Storage. Garbage containers and outdoor storage are currently regulated in several separate sections of the code, and the proposed amendment would consolidate the provision into one section of the Landscape Code to provide clarity and reduce redundancy. Mr. Jackson noted that one public comment was received from Priscilla Bailey, who was concerned that the design standards will promote a specific style preference. She was also concerned that the requirement for 70% transparency would increase energy bills significantly. She suggested that the code be kept simple. To address the concerns, Mr. Jackson emphasized that it is not the City's intent to create very specific design requirements that result in cookie -cutter development. The proposed amendments are not intended to legislate what a building should look like. Instead, the intent is to get developers to consider design elements when proposing a plan. Regarding the transparency requirement, it is likely that Ms. Bailey was looking at the old code, where 75% transparency was required in commercial zones outside of downtown. As proposed, the requirement would be lowered to be consistent with the 60% cap required in the downtown commercial areas. He discussed the concern relative to increased energy bills with the City's Building Official and learned that, regardless of the window -to -wall ratio of a building, any new development must meet an energy envelope standard. The type of window Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2017 — Page 3 of 7 rating must be insulated to the same degree as the insulation inside of a wall. Regarding her suggestion to keep the code simple, Mr. Jackson said he reviewed a couple of jurisdictions that had not only lengthy criteria, but handbooks to help applicants through the process of code interpretation. The intent was to provide consistency, but also keep the standards simple and not overly cumbersome. Mr. Jackson advised that, at the end of the 2nd workshop, the Commission directed staff to review the downtown outcomes in order to see what types of development are justified outside of downtown, tailor the general template to individual zones, and pass the findings to the Commission. When reviewing the downtown outcomes, Mr. Jackson said staff found that a lot of the criteria is fairly open-ended. For instance, a secondary design standard requires that the main entryway be pronounced through architectural features or ornamentation. However, it does not specifically prescribe what that means, so developers can decide how the main entryway will be articulated. Developers are encouraged to think about the design criteria and then identify how their design meets the standards. Mr. Jackson advised that staff focused on two criteria found in the Downtown Subarea Plan: Transparency. Currently, developers are meeting the transparency requirements for new structures. Applying the transparency requirements to new development has not been a problem. However, older structures can have a hard time meeting the transparency requirement because of the structural problems that might result. It is common for existing structures to seek departure from this requirement. As proposed, new structures would be required to meet the transparency standards, but there would be built-in flexibility that allows the Director to modify the requirements for redevelopment of existing structures. The Marvin Williams Center is an exception to the rule, but it had more to do with the way the building was oriented and less to do with the transparency of the building. Had the building been oriented so the windows and front entrance were on the front property line, it would have met the transparency requirement. Modulation. The City's current modulation requirements vary greatly by zone. He referred to the 606 Building and Spyglass Developments, which provide effective modulation with smaller amounts of depth. In some cases, the depth is just under two feet. He also referred to the new building at the comer of ls` and Pacific, which has no modulation, yet it is an attractive structure. Based on these findings, staff is recommending a standard depth of 2 feet for building modulation, with intervals at every 30 feet. This would be a secondary design feature rather than a required primary design feature. That means it would be one of the secondary design features a developer could choose to satisfy the code. Mr. Jackson advised that some of the secondary design features were modified as follows: Modulation — The horizontal plane of a structure shall not extend for more than thirty (30) feet, as measured from any one point of the structure, without a significant architectural variation of at least two (2) feet in depth. Weather Protection. Recessed or protruding building features of no less than four (4) feet in depth, which extends along at least fifty (50) percent of the front fagade. Next, Mr. Jackson briefly reviewed the proposed code amendments as they were applied to each of the zones. General Commercial (GC) (BMC 20.62.010) — The intent of the GC District is to create a pedestrian -friendly environment, which means that buildings should be closer to the front property line and sidewalks so people can interact with the street and the building. It also means there will be increased transparency standards so that people walking on the sidewalk can look inside and interact with what is happening inside the building. As proposed, the minimum transparency requirement would be 60% of all facades facing the public sidewalk, and three secondary design features would be required from the list of seven options. District Center Core (DCC) (BMC 20.70.010) — The intent of the DCC is for mixed-use development that supports the surrounding neighborhoods in a pedestrian -friendly environment. Therefore, the design requirements are unique to the pedestrian -friendly criteria. The transparency standard would be 60%, and four secondary design features would be required. In addition, a primary design features was added .that requires that 50% of the ground floor facing a public right-of-way be dedicated to commercial uses. However, if the market will not support commercial uses at this time, there is flexibility that the space allows ground -floor residential uses as long as the space is built to a commercial standard that is later able to convert to a commercial use. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2017 — Page 4 of 7 • Multifamily Residential (R-20) (BMC 20.79.010) — This new R-20 zone is intended to be a high -standard of development. Because the zone is purely residential, buildings would not be required to orient towards to the street front. The transparency requirement would be 40%, which is consistent with the R-20 zone in the downtown. Three secondary design features would be required. • Neighborhood Business (NB) (BMC 20.82.010) — The intent of the NB zone is to provide for small-scale business districts that reflect the scale and character of surrounding neighborhoods. The zone also is intended to provide for mixed-use opportunities. The transparency requirement would be 50%, and three secondary design features would be required. • Freeway Corridor (FC) (BMC 20.86.010) — The intent of the FC zone is to identify areas for commercial activities that will typically be region -serving in nature and scale. The development in this zone is typically of a much larger scale. As proposed, there would be no transparency requirement, and buildings would not be required to orient towards the street. In addition, there would be no requirements for mechanical equipment screening or public amenities. Only two secondary design features would be required from a choice of four. • Employment Center (EC) (BMC 20.92.010) — The intent of this zone is to offer a well-planned and designed environment where a potentially large employee population is offered the option to live near places of employment. The transparency requirement would be 60%, and four secondary design criteria would be required. • Institutional Zone (1) (BMC 20.98.010) — The intent of this zone is to provide for continued operation and facilitate managed growth of Olympic College. Instead of orienting the buildings towards the street, the proposed amendment would provide an added option of orienting the buildings towards an internal campus. The transparency requirement would be 50%, and three secondary design features would be required. Mr. Jackson asked that the Commission conduct an open record hearing, consider testimony, and then recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council. Commissioner Nerf clarified that developments of three or fewer units would be exempt from the design standards, but the standards would apply to stacked units. He suggested the language in BMC 20.79.070 should be changed to read, "Residential development of three units or fewers are exempt from this section. However, stacked flats are permissible only when criteria are met. " He felt this would help clarify the intent. Mr. Jackson agreed that is the intent of the proposed amendment. Commissioner Nerf also suggested that the reference to "BMC 20.79.070(a) & (b)" should be changed to "this section's (a) and (b)." Commissioner Nerf referred to the definition for "Grade, Average Final" in BMC 20.42 and suggested it be amended to clarify that the reference plane would be the horizontal plane. This change would make it clear that height is to be measured from the "horizontal plane." Mr. Jackson advised that the definition was lifted from the Building Code, as suggested by the Building Official. It has been reviewed for consistency with how the building code presents measuring final grade, but he agreed to take another look at the language to make sure the intent is clear. Chair Wofford opened the public hearing. There was no one in the audience to participate in the hearing, and the hearing was subsequently closed. Vice Chair Tift pointed out that the language relative to "outdoor storage" focuses predominantly on refuse containers, which implies that pods would be prohibited unless they are fenced. Mr. Jackson explained that if outdoor storage is not listed as an outright permitted or conditional use in the zone, it would be prohibited. The City's definition for "outdoor storage" includes cargo -type containers. Refuse containers and dumpsters are traditionally the types of outdoor storage that are permitted in the zones listed, and the language simply reiterates that they must be screened and are not allowed unless specifically authorized by the zone. There are instances where staff has worked with property owners during construction and moving in, but pure outdoor storage is relegated to the industrial zones unless otherwise noted in the zone. For example, mini storage is permitted in the DCC zone as an accessory use. Vice Chair Tift clarified that the proposed amendments to the design standards would not impact single-family residential neighborhoods, and Mr. Jackson concurred. Storage buildings are allowed in the residential zones as accessory structures. Dumpsters are allowed for multifamily residential development in the R-10 zones. However, as written, dumpsters must be screened in the commercial zones. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2017 — Page 5 of 7 Vice Chair Tift asked if the high school is located in the Institutional Zone. Mr. Jackson answered that it is located in the R-10 zone. He explained that the geography around Olympic College is identified as an Institutional Zone. Commissioner Conley referred to BMC 20.44.020 and asked what zones the provision would apply to. Mr. Jackson said this minimum setback provision would traditionally apply to the R-10 zone. However, staff would consider its applicability to other zones, such as the R-20 zone. Director Spencer explained that the provision is intended to apply to the City's oldest neighborhoods (primarily the R-10 zones) where homes were constructed before the roadways were built, and the homes are very close to the rights-of-way. Commissioner Conley said he does not see setback restrictions as being worthwhile if the intent is to promote walkability for Bremerton as a whole. Setbacks are useful for keeping home development and structures having a front yard appearance. He asked the Commissioners to share their thoughts on setbacks. Director Spencer reminded the Commissioners that the amendments advertised for the public hearing did not address setbacks, except for the housekeeping amendment that is intended to clarify the code as it applies to a limited number of properties in the City. Setbacks were addressed as part of the major updates of the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code in 2016. The proposed amendment is more about fairness within any one neighborhood than about walkability. Chair Wofford suggested that Commissioner Conley meet with staff to discuss the pros and cons of setbacks, particularly as they apply to walkability. Chair Wofford asked if the front setback applies to overhanging eves or just the walls of a structure. Mr. Jackson said the setback requirement applies to any portion of a primary structure. However, there are some minor exceptions for such things as driveways, stairs, etc. COMMISSIONER STRUBE MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) AS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT I, BASED UPON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT H. VICE CHAIR TIFT SECONDED THE MOTION. Director Spencer summarized that, before the proposed amendments are presented to the City Council for consideration, staff will add clarity to the language in BMC 20.79.070 (Multifamily Residential) relative to the number of units, stacked flats, and references within the section. Staff will also review the definition for "Grade, Average Final" in BMC 20.42 to make sure the grade plane is defined clearly. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Wofford did not have any items to report. Director Report Director Spencer proposed that the Commission's March meeting be cancelled, as there are no agenda items ready for discussion. The Commissioners agreed that their next regular meeting would be April 18s`. As directed by the City Council, Director Spencer advised that staff is currently working to make progress with annexations. They will be taking information tools to the public soon to help communicate the benefits and costs of annexation. They are also working with a team to build a web tool to help figure out what property owners' specific costs would be. This is an innovative tool that has never been used to this degree in Washington State before. Director Spencer advised that the window for Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications is currently open until April 3`d. Staff will prepare the docket following the deadline. Staff is also busy with permit activity, and there have been some staffing changes, as well. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2017 — Page 6 of 7 Old Business There was no old business. New Business Commissioner Nerf referred to a short story about "tiny housing," and said he would appreciate hearing staff's take on the concept at some point. Director Spencer explained that the City allows accessory units on all residential properties in the City, which means a tiny house could be constructed on any residential lot, as long as the parking standards can be met. The City is currently in the process of amending the Building Code standards to eliminate potential impediments. The bigger issue would come if a developer submitted an application to construct a large number of "tiny houses" together. Most of the inquiries have been for projects in the backyards of single-family lots. Commissioner Goodnow asked if a cluster of "tiny houses" would be treated similar to a mobile home park. Director Spencer said it would be considered a "residential cluster development," which would be modeled similar to a subdivision. She noted that each proposal is different. Rather than providing a handout that applies to all situations, it is easier for staff to talk through the various proposals with the applicants. She does not view the units as something the City wants to discourage. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ;060�1 Ric lliice C V Planning Commissi Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2017 -- Page 7 of 7 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Ordinance No. to approve Annexation of property near Corbet Drive in the West Bremerton Urban Growth Area C3 Study Session Date: May 10, 2017 COUNCIL MEETING Date: Mav 17. 2017 Department: Presenter: Phone: DCD Allison Satter (360) 473-5845 SUMMARY: A property owner within the West Bremerton Urban Growth Area ("UGA") has requested that the City Council consider annexing their property to the City of Bremerton. In addition to the initial petitioner, much of this area contains properties that have signed outside utility agreements which consent to annexation. After careful deliberation and consideration of the financial impacts, the Council passed Resolution No. 3287 on March 15, 2017, to accept the initial annexation proposals for 40 parcels or 24.5 acres near the area of Corbet Drive. By accepting the "10% Petition" the Council allowed the annexation to proceed to the second phase of the petition annexation process, gathering of signatures for the "60% Petition." Following the public hearing the City Council will determine if it will pass the proposed ordinance and approve the Corbet Drive annexation. In addition to accepting the annexation, the ordinance also establishes an effective date for the annexation following the Boundary Review Board process and establishes the annexed territory's City Council District. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Ordinance No. with Exhibit 1: Legal Description of the property; Exhibit 2: Map of the proposed territory; and Exhibit 3: Map of City's Land Use and Zoning Designations 2) Resolution No. 3287 accepting the 10% Petition 3) Fiscal Analysis of the Corbet Drive Annexation FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Fiscal impacts as documented in the Corbet Drive Annexation Report and Cost/Benefit Analysis (Attachment C). STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation ❑x Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑x Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. annexing the property within the West Bremerton Urban Growth Area near Corbet Drive into the City of Bremerton. COUNCIL ACTION Form Updated 01/07/15 ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, approving the annexation of certain contiguous lands comprising approximately 24.5 acres in the West Bremerton Urban Growth Area ("UGA") known as the Corbet Drive annexation; requiring the assumption of all of the City's existing indebtedness by the area to be annexed; establishing an effective date of the annexation; and designating a City Council District for the annexed area. WHEREAS, on March 15, 2017, the City Council of the City of Bremerton ("City Council") passed Resolution 3287 stating its Intent to Annex the proposed territory; and WHEREAS, a valid and sufficient 60% Petition for Annexation of Territory was filed on behalf of the initial petitioner, signed petitioners of this area, and the outside utility agreements granting consent to annexation; and WHEREAS, all statutory annexation proceedings for annexation by the 60% petition method were executed as documented in Resolution 3287 and incorporated by reference, including public hearings and notices; and WHEREAS, the proposed area for annexation is legally described as Exhibit 1 and having the boundaries as indicated in the map attached in Exhibit 2; and WHEREAS, the proposed area for annexation is located within the City's West Bremerton Urban Growth Area ("UGA"); and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 5299 passed on May 18, 2016, adopted the City's Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") and established pre -annexation land use designations. The pre - designations are contained within the Land Use Element of this Plan in a table known as the "Equivalence Table," which established the City's equivalences for the Kitsap County Land Use designations; and WHEREAS, based on the Equivalence Table, the City established the Plan for the proposed annexation area as is Medium Density Residential ("MDR") and Low Density Residential ("LDR") as depicted in Exhibit 3; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.13.125 residents and property owners in the area proposed for annexation have been afforded an opportunity to be heard during a public hearing on May 17, 2017, at the regular City Council meeting, and all statutory notice requirements for said hearing including publish in a newspaper of local circulation have been provided; and Corbet Drive Annexation WHEREAS, on April 20, 2017, the City of Bremerton filed a copy of the 60% annexation petition with the Kitsap County Assessor's Office requesting sufficiency review and on April 27, 2017, the City received a Certificate of Sufficiency affirming consent of properties totaling more than 60% of assessed property valuation; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton will file a Notice of Intent to Annex with the Kitsap County Boundary Review Board (`Boundary Review Board"), and the annexation may not be effective before the Boundary Review Board statutory review period has expired; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has prepared an analysis of the costs and benefits and the anticipated fiscal impacts to the City of annexing this territory; and WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to annex territories that contribute to the overall economic and social health and wellbeing of the City and lead to an orderly and logical pattern of development; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to approve the proposed annexation as presented, and require the assumption of all or any portion of City indebtedness by the area to be annexed; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals Incorporated. The findings and recitals set forth above are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Property to be Annexed. There shall be annexed to the City of Bremerton, Washington, certain property situated in Kitsap County, Washington, commonly known as the "Corbet Drive" area, which is legally described in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and which is located and having the boundaries as indicated in the map set forth in Exhibit 2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. Assumption ofExisting Indebtedness. In accordance with the Petition for Annexation as authorized in RCW 35.13.130, the property hereby annexed shall assume and be subject to its proportionate share of the City's existing indebtedness and shall be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis that other property within the City of Bremerton is assessed and taxed to pay for any outstanding general indebtedness of the City, if that indebtedness has been approved by the voters, contracted for, or incurred prior to, or existing at the effective date of this annexation. SECTION 4. Land Use Des l nation. As authorized in RCW 35.13.130, the Annexation area shall be subject to the pre -assigned land use designation identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as land use designation of Low Density Residential ("LDR") and Zoning of Residential Low Density ("R-10") and Medium Density Residential ("MDR") and Zoning of 2 Corbet Drive Annexation SECTION 5. Medium Density Residential ("R -IOM") and the Zoning map is hereby amended accordingly as depicted in Exhibit 3. SECTION 6. Effective Date ofAnnexation/Boundary Review Board. This annexation will become effective August 1, 2017, or if Boundary Review Board jurisdiction is invoked, on the first day of the full month immediately following the expiration of the Boundary Review Board's review, whichever is later, and on that date, the annexation area shall become a part of the City of Bremerton subject to all the laws and ordinances of the City except as otherwise provided by law, unless the proposed annexation is modified or rejected by the Boundary Review Board,. If the proposed annexation is modified by the Boundary Review Board, City Council may take appropriate action to incorporate the modification(s) and complete the annexation. If the proposed annexation is rejected by the Boundary Review Board, the proposed annexation shall not take effect. SECTION 7. Population Determination. Pursuant to RCW 35.13.260, within 30 days for the effective date of this annexation as provided by law, the City of Bremerton Department of Community Development ("DCD") shall, under the direction of the Mayor of the City of Bremerton, determine the resident population of the annexed territory, which population determination shall consist of an actual enumeration of the population that shall be made in accordance with he practices and policies and subject to approval of the State of Washington's Office of Financial Management and which population shall be determined as of the effective date of this annexation as specified in this ordinance. DCD shall prepare a certificate signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk in such form and containing such information as shall be prescribed by the State Office of Financial Management, and the City Clerk shall thereafter submit that certificate in triplicate to the Office of Financial Management together with the population determination of the annexed territory. SECTION 8. Filing of Ordinance. Upon passage of this ordinance, the City Clerk of the City of Bremerton, pursuant to RCW 35.13.150, shall send to the Office of the Clerk of the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners a certified copy of this ordinance. SECTION 9. City Council District Assignment. Upon the effective date of annexation, the property annexed by this ordinance shall be assigned to Bremerton City Council District 6. SECTION 10. Severability. If anyone or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION IL Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. Corbet Drive Annexation PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this day of )2017. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney ERIC YOUNGER, Council President ATTEST: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Community Development\Annexation Corbet Drive.doc 4 Corbet Drive Annexation Exhibit l: Legal Description Proposed Corbet Annexation into the City of Bremerton The following described areas situate within the Plat of Phinney Bay Water Front Tracts as recorded in Volume 4 of Plats, Page 17 situate within Section 10, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., Kitsap County, Washington: The south 30 feet; And the north 260 feet of the south 290 feet of Corbet Drive (platted Phinney Avenue); And the south 260 feet of Tract 10; And the south 260 feet of the east 66 feet of Tract 11; And the south 80 feet of Tract 11 lying west of the east 66 feet thereof, And the south 165 feet the west half of Tract 12; And the south 165 feet of Tract 13; And the south 165 feet of the east 32 feet of Tract 14; And the following described areas situate within the Section 15, Township 24 North, Range East, W.M., Kitsap County, Washington: The North half of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter; And the South half of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter lying east of the west 30 feet thereof, And the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter; And the East 350 feet of the North half of the North half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter; And the South half of the North half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter lying east of the west 1 acre thereof, And the East half of the North half of the North half of the South half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter; And the East 158 feet of the South half of the North half of the South half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter; And the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter; And the North 30 feet of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter. EXCEPT those portions within the city limits of Bremerton, per City of Bremerton Ordinance Numbers 2298 and 3455. Exhibit 2 City of Bremerton LL Area Proposed for Annexation: 60% Petition May 2017 1 2 3 40 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ed f9r 18 20 21 22 10 2 26 3 29 25 27 2 30 31 32 33 34 37 38 Legend CProposed Territory for Annexation Outside Utility Agreement (OUA) Initial Petitioner City Limits Urban Growth Area (UGA) HA Exhibit 3 City of Bremerton Area Proposed for Annexation Pre -Land Use Designation Map LK4 40 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 12 13 1i 17 19 15 16 1 s 1 22 24 rn os d for A nLwx tion 29 25 27 28 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 N i Legend ' Low Density Residential (LDR) Medium Density Residential (MDR) Proposed Territory for Annexation City Limits Urban Growth Area (U GA) Attachment B RESOLUTION NO.. 3287 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, accepting the proposal for annexation, affirming the adoption of pre -land use designation of this annexation area and requiring the assumption of all of the City's existing indebtedness by the area to be annexed and authorizing the circulation of a petition for annexation,. WHEREAS, on January 23, 2017, the City received a Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation. Proceedings from owner of property at 1539 Corbet Drive as depicted in Exhibit 1; and WHEREAS, the City has Outside Utility Agreements for properties located in close proximity to 1539 Corbet Drive, as listed in Exhibit 2, which grants consent to annexation; and WHEREAS, the proposed area for annexation is identified on the map in Exhibit 3, and further described in Exhibit 4; and WHEREAS, the parties initiating the proposed annexation including Outside Utility Agreements for properties ("Initiating Parties") are owners of not less than ten percent (10%) in value of the property, according to the assessed valuation for which annexation is petitioned; and WHEREAS, the proposed area for annexation is located within the an Urban Grown Area ("UGA"); and WHEREAS, the City Council must meet with the Initiating Parties no later than 60 days after filing the request for annexation to consider the petition and decide whether it will 1) accept, reject, or geographically modify the proposed annexation; 2) require the simultaneous adoption of the comprehensive plan for the area proposed to be annexed; and 3) require the assumption of all or any portion of City indebtedness by the area to be annexed; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 5299 passed on May 18, 2016, adopted the City's Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") and established pre -annexation land use designations. The pre - designations are contained within the Land Use Element of this Plan in a table known as the "Equivalence Table," which established the City's equivalences for the Kitsap County Land Use designations; and WHEREAS, based on the Equivalence Table, the City established the Plan for the proposed annexation area as is Medium Density Residential ("MDR") and Low Density Residential ("LDR"); and Annexation — Corbet Drive Attachment B WHEREAS, City Council has set March 15, 2017, as the date that it will meet with the Initiating Parties to consider the petition; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to accept the proposed annexation as presented, require the simultaneous adoption of the Plan for the area proposed to be annexed, and require the assumption of all or any portion of City indebtedness by the area to be annexed; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1, The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated by reference as set forth herein in full. SECTION Z The Petition for Annexation of Territory to the City of Bremerton attached hereto as Exhibit 1, the List of Outside Utility Agreement properties included as Petitioners attached hereto as Exhibit 2, and the descriptions of the annexation area provided in Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 are hereby accepted as presented without any geographic modification to the area proposed to be annexed. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby affirms the adoption of pre -land use designation for this annexation area that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan established as Medium Density Residential ("MDR") and Low Density Residential ("LDR") designations as shown in Exhibit 5. SECTION4. The City Council shall require the assumption of all existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. SECTION S. To proceed with the proposed annexation, the Initiating Parties shall be required to submit the appropriate petition to the City Council for consideration and further action all deemed appropriate pursuant to RCW 35.13.130. SECTION 6. Severuhiliy. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 7. ffective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] Annexation — Corbet Drive day of Attachment B �{k PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this t' .— "MA , 2017. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Iloilo ROGER A. LUBOV I C ERIC YOUNGER, Co . it Vresident ATTEST: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk R:1LegallLcgal\Rcso[utions\Community MvelopmentlAnnexation Corbet Dr. - 0101.1 Tdoc Annexation — Corbet Drive INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO CITY OF BREMERTON January 24th, 2017 City Council City of Bremerton RECEIVED 345 6t' St. Suite 600 Bremerton, WA 98337 JAN $ �"� Re: Corbet Parcel Annexation CITY CLERK Dear City Councilmembers, We the undersigned, who are the owners of not less than 10% of the value of property, accoa:dndmg to the assessed valuation records for general taxation purposes of the Assessor of Kitsap County, of the following described real property situated in Kitsap County, Washington, respectfully file this Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings ("Notice") requesting that said real property be annexed to the City of Bremerton, Washington and we respectfully state as follows: 1. The area proposed to be annexed to the City is more particularly described as per the legal description attached hereto as EXHIBIT A and made part of this Notice. 2. A plat map outlining the boundaries of the real property described is attached hereto as EXHIBIT B and is made a part of this Notice. 3. The said area adjoins the existing boundaries of the City of Bremerton and is in Kitsap County, and is within City of Bremerton's Urban Growth Area. 4. The undersigned Petitioners respectfully request that the City Council of the City of Bremerton entertain this Notice and fix a date for a meeting with the initiating parties within 60 days of the filing of this Notice as per RCW 35.15.1.25. The undersigned Petitioners respectfully request that the City Council determine at said meeting whether it will accept, reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation; whether it will require the simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive pian; and whether it will require the assumption of all or any portion of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed. Joseph L. Keller. Tax Parcel No. 152401-1-205-2001 Joseph L. Keller EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF TERRITORY PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF BREMERTON 15241 E THE EAST 350 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 77:i- 3,195 3 196 3.135 3-194 3-1�17 L -T-1 1.202 1 20 Cos. 2 2 AtEA(Mih 6 Sol Attachment B ui W Lu J o ¢¢¢ 0 a � U R rx Ln w ¢ w z Z `z W Ln C3 z u1 Ln Ln O O y Z Z Z t U LU w e[ U Z 06 Li Ln w w w J LL ui; Q LL LA C. W W W CC W w U Ix �• Y 3S r>- r w J ani m 06 CC r6 Z O < awC cccCL Q U Cr Z Cr J 7 Z z Z Z Q 06 CL LLJ Lu ac Lu w U Ln o LL' W cn Le oc U w w ¢ Z Z z= z LL❑ ra z W ca q w +--' LL LL LL U ¢ CC CC wLLJ¢ Z W O H W W ¢ 6¢ Cr 2 f J C CL' OC d' to _ `1 a_ to J � Z Z W � S � J ❑ (DOM < �iuuuCL U Ln N1 Ln LL?: Vn V'1 Z U CC Z Ln LL w x CL' a- 2 i v ❑ ❑ (U W 6i fU Q 7 3 7 ( j U 7 7 j > 7 Ci' 7 Ll y w — w — ni k7 Cu Cu air Cu a,n to w t.n +-� li v� in a 07 w LA CC �--I �-ti m W ❑ L L o 0 Q rn Cn C C o p o o o 'o 3 r-- O n r -I U U U rr-IM M U Cy U U U U ri U .'q U Q ren M ri m W r-Im n n m x x x r• o a KT W N n r-1 0 Ln Q Q Mm � �r � d' m -4r-Io r -I -4 a a m M rn ri rN r• r• r r. r- r• r- r•0 o n o Ln O z .z' r -I ,-I _ W J J J z Z z LU LL( LLI F- Ln tn Ln W ¢ 0 0 Ln d w d' Q Oj w w yy w Z -j -i J Z Z rr © 0 Z Cr w w Z v¢i L¢is m Q w� w� Z Q W CO m m w z O❑ ❑ w LU w w w r 0 0 M CC 2i 2 m Z 7 E z z z - Z W z z o Y Y Y m w 0 6.6 2i [�I�] M Lw w w rl O uZ.1 tY. G. GZ. .6 - 26 e6 � � Z w Z LJ L1 elf 'rI Z 4J.. LL LL Q� Z Z Z LLI `��'p °�° �W w Lmu vW1 ❑ v U �- 0 O O w >- 0 Vl U U U C1: D Q J CC LL' ¢ J¢ 0 U� U F- i in Ln Ln a J z m m, t7 ¢ m U z W L LI o cc Ln 00 r• Ln W ami a Ln Ln O O �0J` rry W� M M 0 r"N ry ry C+4i n1[ 00 0o L0D 0� Q 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q 0 0 Q 0Q a ON C7 N 0 L m m m M M 0 ri M M Ln ri r-. -4 C4" r1 ri ra -qt ri �t �. 0 rA N ri Q r 4 .•i m o 0 o M m m N N 1-1 r-1 ri r^4 (N r, r. r- c0 r� m .-i ri m r• r, r, U? 10 r� r, O r, N '0 0 0 0 r-1 0 0 0 r-1 r -I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r -I 0 C7 7 4 4,r Q <0 N N Ln Ln o Ln LA Ln o m v o ri o Zr, 01 0) M N 01 C) 01 01 Cri N 0) 0'S 01 oU M N N 00 N 01 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL J O ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Q �i Lp N ry Oft Q Er w r-1 0 Ln r, un m r-1 w w V Ln 0 v W CO3 C07 O O oQ 0 0 o© v 0-1 T 0 0 a 0 W9 0 9 9 9 9 9 C. N N o 0 o rN o o + Q o ry �L j ri C] C7 0 ri ri ri W C7 t31 rV rn r l rn m M rn r ri r � .-i ri ri r -i QQQ oG CFY CO Q Q Q rn v o o v .-+ o _ 0 v v o 0 o Cr 14 eW M 0 0 0 ri 0 0 Q Q o N En d o o d o 0 0 ri ,w -"4 ©® a ri 6 6 9 6 o .°i CD Vi Q 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 0 0 0 0 F -Z v 0 0 o v v o ��� v v o� o a ca 9o W Lo LD LD w Gl- r: r- 'tr 'L'f 'Tr r, rte+ r- %r n n ry C!1 01 d' ` eQ 00 00 L70 ed e0 ry N rN CO t0 ed rN W , eq Ln V1 ry � n n rZ n I. r, ry r• Ln Ln Lr7 n n f'- Ln n rF• n n n Ln r'V 0 a m m m m m m m .-+ rd .-+ m m rn r14m rn m rr1 m .w LL a m �- N rn Ln Qr 0 r -I LD 00 o r -I m CY Lr1 r. Co M 0 Ln 01 T L CL r -I r -I r -I r -I rW N N N hJ N' rV rV m m m 7C D:E x W J !!� OM {0i0 MI -3 City of Bremerton Area Proposed for `u Annexation 10% Petition Mare 2017 37 38 Legend Proposed Territory for Annexation Outside Utility Agreement (OUA) Initial Petitioner ® City Limits Urban Growth Area (UGA) Attachment B Exhibit 4 Parcel Detail Proposed for Annexation to the City of Bremerton Parcel 1 3786-000-010-0705 —1919 Corbet Dr NW THE NORTH 60 FEET OF THE SOUTH 260 FEET OF TRACT 10, AND THE NORTH 60 FEET OF THE SOUTH 260 FEET OF THE EAST 66 FEET OF TRACT 11, PHINNEY BAY WATER FRONT TRACTS, LYING SOUTH OF BOND PROJECT N0, 13, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 4 OF PLATS, PAGE 17, IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel 2 3786-000-011-0100 - No Site Address BLK 000 LOT 11 D-017 E 66FT OF S 260FT EX S 80FT & EX N 60FT OF S 140FT & EX N 60FT Parcel 3 3786-000-010-0101- No Site Address BLK 000 LOT 10 D-01 '3' N 60FT OF S 200 FT Parcel 4 3786-000-010-0606 —1911 Corbet Dr NW BLK-000 LOT -10 D-06 1 N 60FT OF S 140FT BLK 000 LOT 11 N 60FT OF S 140FT OF E 66FT Parcel 5 3786-000-010-0002 —1903 Corbet Dr NW THE SOUTH 80 FEET OF LOTS 10 AND 11, PHINNEY BAY WATER FRONT TRACTS, LYING SOUTH OF BEND PROJECT NO. 13, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 4 OF PLATS, PAGE 17, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel 6 1.52401-1-213-2001— No Site Address LOT C, SHORT PLAT NO. 7224 RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NOS. 200307110206/0207, IN VOLUME 17 OF SHORT PLATS, PAGE 199. BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH EASEMENTS AS DEPICTED ON THE SHORT PLAT. Parcel 7 152401-1-212-2002 —1759 Corbet Dr NW LOT B, SHORT PLAT NO. 7224 RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NOS, 200307110206/0207, IN VOLUME 17 OF SHORT PLATS, PAGE 199, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH EASEMENTS AS DEPICTED ON THE SHORT PLAT. Panel 8 152.401-1-211-2003 —1763 Corbet Dr NW LOT A, SHORT PLAT NO. 72244 RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NOS. 200307110206/0207, IN VOLUME 17 OF SHORT PLATS, PAGE 199, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH EASEMENTS AS DEPICTED ON THE SHORT PLAT. Attachment B Exhibit Parcel 9 3787-000-001-0002 --1756 Carbet Dr NW THE WEST 175 FEET OF TRACT 1, PHINNEY 2 1/2 ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 1, IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD PURPOSES. Parcel 10 3787-000-041-0309 — 321319'h St. THAT PORTION OF TRACT 1, PHINNEY'S 2 1/2 ACRE TRACT, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 1, IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 175 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 1; THENCE EAST 60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 166.45 FEET; THENCE WEST 60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 166.45 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT NORTH 30 FEET FOR ROAD; SITUATE IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel 11 3787-040-001-0200 -- 3203191" St. THAT PORTION OF TRACT 1, PHINNEY 2 1/2 ACRE TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 1, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 235 EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 1, BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING EAST 87 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 166.45 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE WEST 87 FEET; THENCE NORTH TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE NORTH 30 FEET DEEDED TO KITSAP COUNTY, IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel 12 3787-000-001-0408 — 3193 NW 191' St. LOT A, SHORT PLAT NO. 5761, AS RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NOS. 9111010087/0088; BEING THE WEST 92.00 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF TRACT 1, PHINNEY 2 1/2 ACRE TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5, OF PLATS, ON PAGE 1, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY; DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 322.00 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 1; THENCE EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 1; THENCE SOUTH, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 1, TO A POINT WHICH IS SOUTH OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE NORTH 30.00 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD. SITUATE IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel 13 3787-000-001-0507 — 3183191h St. LOT B SHORT PLAT 5761 AS RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9111010087; BEING THE EAST 92.00 FEET OF THE WEST 184.00 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF TRACT 1, PHINNEY 2 1/2 ACRE TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5, OF PLATS, ON PAGE 1, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY; DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 332.00 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 1; THENCE EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 1; THENCE SOUTH, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 1, TO A POINT WHICH IS SOUTH OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE NORTH 30.00 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD. SITUATE IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Attachment B Iii "1 fi 07 uj. Parcel 14 3787-000-001-0606 — 3173 1911 St. LOT C SHORT PLAT 5761 AS RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 911101.0087; BEING THAT PORTION OF TRACT 1, PHINNEY 2 112 ACRE TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5, OF PLATS, ON PAGE 1, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY; DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 322.00 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 1; THENCE EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 1; THENCE SOUTH, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 1, TO A POINT WHICH IS SOUTH OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE WEST 184.00 FEET AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 30.00 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD. SITUATE IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel 15 152401-1-191-2007 No Site Address TH PTN NW114 NE114 DESC FOR TAX PURP ONLY AS FOLS, BAAP BEARING SO -16'52W 232.46FT FR N1/4 COR OF SEC 15 TH SO*16' 52W 100.45FT TH S89*50'59E 339.97FTTH NLY 166.45FTTH N89*50'46W [c3e �; >ii:� it �i 31«rI i IrI; i1;! 1 {il►.�#TiT;�i�T ii�I 3i�:CiT,' Parcel 16 152401-1-186-2004 —1737 Corbet Dr NW THE EAST 122.90 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT BEARING SOUTH 0*16'52" WEST 166.46 FEET FROM THE NORTH ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 15; THENCE SOUTH 0*16'52" WEST 166.45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89*50'59" EAST 339.975 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY 166.45 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 39*50'46" EAST FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89* 50'46" WEST 339.975 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; TOGETHER WITH EASEMENTS OF RECORD. Parcel 17 152401-1-187-2.003 —1747 Corbet Or NW' THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., I KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 0*16'52 WEST 166.46 FEET AND SOUTH 89*50'46 EAST 679.97 FEET FROM QUARTER SECTION CORNER BETWEEN SECTIONS 10 AND 15; THENCE NORTH 89*50'46 WEST 340 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0*16'52 WEST 60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89*50'46 EAST TO CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 60 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT EASTERLY 200 FEET THEREOF. TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES OVER AND ACROSS THE NORTH 15 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING TRACT: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE CENTERLINE OF CORSET DRIVE WHICH BEARS SOUTH 0* 16'52 WEST 166.46 FEET AND SOUTH 89*50'46 EAST 679.97 FEET FROM QUARTER SECTION CORNER BETWEEN SECTIONS 10 AND 15; THENCE ALONG CENTERLINE OF SAID CORBET DRIVE, SOUTH 60 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89*50'46 WEST 340 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0*16'52 WEST 106.45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89*50'46' EAST 340 FEET TO CENTERLINE OF CORSET DRIVE; THENCE NORTH LONG SAID CENTERLINE OF CORBET DRIVE 106.45 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT CORBET DRIVE ON THE EAST SIDE THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THE WEST 130 FEET THEREOF. SUBJECT TO: RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS CONTAINED IN DEED RECORDED MARCH 26, 1956, UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 63066. Attachment B Exhibit 4 Parcel 18 152401-1-190-2008 —1741 Carbet Dr NW THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE WESTERLY 140 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT: BEGINNING AT THE CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 0*16'52" WEST 166.46 FEET AND SOUTH 89*50'46" EAST 679.97 FEET FROM QUARTER SECTION CORNER BETWEEN SECTIONS 10 AND 15; THENCE ALONG CENTERLINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD SOUTH 60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89*50'46" WEST 340 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0*16'52" WEST 106.45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89*50'46" EAST 340 FEET TO CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD 105.45 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO AND TOGETHER WITH EASEMENTS OF RECORD. Parcel 19 152401-1-188-2002 —1745 Carbet Dr NW PT OF NW1/4 NEI/4 GAAP ON CEN LN OF CO RD WH BEARS 5 0* 16'52" W 166.46FT & S 89*50'46" E 679.97FT W FROM THE 1/4 SEC COR BET SEC 10 & 15 TH N 89*50'46" W 20OFT TH S 0*16'52" W 60FT TH S 89*50'46 E 20OFT TO CEN LN OF CO RD TH NLY ALG SD CEN LN 60FT TO PDB EX THEREFROM CO RD ALG E LN TF Parcel 20 152401-1-189-2001-1743 Carbet Dr NW PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD WHICH BEARS SO* 16'S2 W 166.46 FEET AND S89* 50'46 E 679.97 FEET, MORE OR LESS, FROM QUARTER CORNER BETWEEN SECTIONS 10 AND 15, SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD SOUTH60 FEET TO TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N89*50'46 W 340 FEET; THENCE SO* 16'52 W 106.45 FEET; THENCE S89*50'46 E 340 FEET TO CENTERLINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTER LINE, 106.45 FEET TO TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT WEST 140 FEET AND EXCEPT PORTION FOR ROAD ON EAST SIDE. SITUATE IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel 21 3787-000-002-0100 - 1736 Carbet Dr NW (LOT A SHORT PLAT NO 6066 RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR FILE NO 9207290235, VOLUME 8, PAGE 109) BEING A PORTION OF TRACT 2, PHINNEY 2 1/2 ACRE TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 1, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE WEST 10 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO KITSAP COUNTY BY DEED BEARING AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 948367; SITUATE IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel 22 3787-000-002-02.09 — Na Site Address LOT B SHORT PLAT NO. 6066 RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9207290235; BEING A PORTION OF TRACT 2, PHINNEY 2-1/2 ACRE TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 1, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE WEST 10 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO KITSAP COUNTY BY DEED BEARING AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 948367. PARCEL II: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, AND UTILITIES OVER A PORTION OF THE NORTH 40 FEET OF LOT D OF SHORT PLAT NO. 6066 RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9207290235. SITUATE IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Attachment B MOTUA Parcel 23 3787-400-003-0505 —1748 Corbet Lir NW RESULTANT PARCEL B OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 3070943, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT C SHORT PLAT NO 6066 RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR FILE NO 9207290235, VOLUME 8, PACE 109, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; »ALSO THE EAST 200.00 FEET OF THE WEST 350.00 FEET OF LOT 3, PHINNEY 2-1/2 ACRE TRACTS, AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 1, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel 24 3787-000-002-0407 —1752 Corbet Dr NW (LOT D SHORT PLAT NO 6066 RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR FILE NO 9207290235, VOLUME 8, PAGE 109) BEING A PORTION OF TRACT 2, PHINNEY 2 1/2 ACRE TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 1, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE WEST 10 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO KITSAP COUNTY BY DEED BEARING AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 948367; SITUATE IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel 25 152401-1-193-2005 — No Site Address THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W. M.; EXCEPT THE WEST 5 FEET TO KITSAP COUNTY; EXCEPT THE WEST HALF AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 900 PAGE 227 OF DEEDS. Parcel 26 3787-000-003-0208 —1722 Corbet Dr NW THE WEST 150 FEET OF LOT 3, PHI NNEY 2-1/2 ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 1, IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 65 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THE WEST 10 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO KITSAP COUNTY FOR CORBET DRIVE BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 18, 1969, UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 949109, Parcel 27 3787-000-003-0109 —1710 Cornet Dr NW A PORITON OF LOT 3, PHINNEY 2 1/2 ACRE TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 1, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF CORSET DRIVE, 65 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY 150 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 65 FEET TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF LOT 3; THENCE WEST 150 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel 28 3787-000-003-0901-- No Site Address RESULTANT PARCEL A OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 200805060002, AND AS CORRECTED BY AFFIDAVIT OF MINOR CORRECTION RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NOS. 200805090057 AND 200806020156, AND AS DEPICTED ON SURVEY RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 200806020157, IN VOLUME 70 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 212, BEING A RE- RECORDING OF AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 200805060001, IN VOLUME 70 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 183, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; LOT 10, C. JACK JONES ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS, PAGE 50, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF RESULTANT PARCEL A OF THE BOUNDARY LINE Attachment B Exhibit 4 ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 3070943, LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10, C. JACK JONES ADDITION; THENCE NORTH 24*17'25" WEST 184.99 FEET, AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER KITSAP COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 200805060001, TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 3, PHINNEY 2 1/2 ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 1 AND THE TERMINATION OF THIS LINE; SITUATE IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; SUBJECT TO A 25 FOOT WIDE ACCESS AND UTILITIES EASEMENT OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS THE EAST 25 FEET OF SAID LOT 10, C. JACK JONES ADDITION, THE WEST LINE OF SAID 25 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT SHALL BE LENGTHENED ACCORDINGLY TO INTERSECT THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF RESULTANT PARCEL B OF THIS BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT. Parcel 29 3787-000-003-1008 — 301417"' St. RESULTANT PARCEL 1 OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 200903300137, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: RESULTANT PARCEL B OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 200805060002, AND AS CORRECTED BY AFFIDAVIT OF MINOR CORRECTION RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NOS. 200805090057 AND 200806020156, AND AS DEPICTED ON SURVEY RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 200806020157, IN VOLUME 70 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 212, BEING A RE-RECORDING OF AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 200805060001, IN VOLUME 70 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 183, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SITUATE IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 1.5, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TOGETHER WITH THE NORTH 32 FEET OF LOT 11, C. JACK JONES ADDITION, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS, PAGE 50, IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel 30 3759-000-001-OG06 —1706 Corbet Dr NW LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, C. JACK JONES ADDITION, AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS, PAGE 50, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel 31 3759-000-004-0003 — 320817`h St. LOT 4 AND THE WEST 25 FEET OF LOT 5, C. JACK JONES ADDITION, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS, PAGE 50, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY; SITUATE IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel 32 3759-000-005-0002 — No Site Address LOT 6 AND THE EAST ONE-HALF OF LOT 5 OF C. JACK JONES ADDITON, RECORDED IN VOLUME 6, PAGE 50 OF PLATS, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel 33 3759-000-007-0000 — 303017" St. BLK-000 LOT -007 D-00 ALL OF LOT 7 & W 25FT OF LOT 8 Parcel 34 3759-000-008-0009 — 302017'x' St. Attachment B Exhibit THE EAST 25 FEET OF LOT 8 AND ALL OF LOT 9, C. JACK JONES ADDITION, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS, PAGE 50, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY; SITUATE IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel 35 3759-000-011-0004 — 3012 1711 St. RESULTANT PARCEL 2 OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 200903300137, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 11, C. JACK JONES ADDITION, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS, PAGE 50, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE NORTH 32 FEET THEREOF. Parcel 36 152401-1-205-2001-1539 Corbet Dr NW THE EAST 350 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel 37 152401-1-195-2003 —1525 Corbet Dr NW S1/2 N1/2 SW 1/4 NWl/4 NE1/4 EXC W 1 AC Parcel 38 152401-1-200-2006 —1523 Corbet Dr NW N1/2 N1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 NW1/4 NF1/4 EX RD EX W1/2 Parcel 39 152401-1-201-2005 —1517 Corbet Dr NW RESULTANT PARCEL C OF BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 201512110075, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EAST 158.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M.; EXCEPT CORSET DRIVE. Parcel 40 152401-1-201-2005 — No site address THE SOUTH 165 FEET OF TRACTS 12 AND 13 AND THE EAST 32.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 165 FEET OF TRACT 14 PHI NNEY BAY WATERFRONT TRACTS, AS PER PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 4 OF PLATS ON PAGE 17, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF IN THE EAST ONE- HALF 0F TRACT 12, SITUATE IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. City of Bremerton - Area Proposed for Annexation Pre -Land Use Designation Map 15 V423i 1 40 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 19 16 24 At 1 1 22 o _r usedr_ _ fo A nOx tion 29 20 27 28 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 Legend Law Density Residential (LDR) Medium Density Residential (MDR) Proposed Territory for Annexation City Limits Urban Growth Area (LEGA) 0 City Council Packet: Attachment C Fiscal Analysis has been updated since the March 2017 to include the efforts by City Council's Resolution. City of Bremerton Allison Satter, Senior Planner 3456 Ih Street Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 (360) 473-5845 All ison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa. us Table of Contents Project Overview ..................................................... Potential Annexation Aerial ..................................... StudyArea............................................................... Growth Planning Status ............................................ Report Structure....................................................... General Annexation Discussion: ............................... Rocky Point Urban Growth Area .............................. Annexation Method — Petition Method ................... Request for Annexation & Outside Utility Agreements ......................... Fiscal Impacts — City Perspective .............................. Cost and Benefits — Rocky Point Resident Perspective ................ Community Character of the Proposed Annexation LandUse................................................................... Housing and Population ........................................... Assessed Valuation ................................................... Public / Open Space ................................................. Schools..................................................................... Infrastructure Overview ........................................... PotableWater.......................................................... Sanitary Sewer.......................................................... Stormwater Infrastructure ........................................ Streets and Transportation ....................................... Attachment A: Staff Proposed Study Area ............... Attachment B: Growth Assumptions ....................... Attachment C: Fiscal Impacts of West Bremerton & Gorst UGA Annexation. Attachment D: Rocky Point Public Handout ............. Attachment E: Water & Sewer Map ......................... City Council Packet: Attachment C Corbet Drive Annexation Fiscal Analysis 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 7 .. 8 .. 9 .. 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 14 15 16 April 11, 2017 City Council Packet: Attachment C Corbet Drive Annexation Fiscal Analysis Project Overview This report was prepared for City Council Review in advance of the March 15, 2017 City Council meeting with annexation petitioners. The City has been asked to consider annexing a portion of the Rocky Point Urban Growth Area (UGA). This process began on January 23, 2017 when the City Clerk received a Petition to Annex from a single property owner pursuant to RCW 35.13.125 (see image below for the Petitioner's Parcel). This property proposed for annexation is adjacent to the City of Bremerton current limits. In addition to the single property owner petition, over recent years the City has extended utility services to nearby parcels and in trade for this, they signed "Outside Utility Agreements" (OUAs). This means that in exchange for extending a public utility to a person's property (eg. water or sewer service) an agreement was signed stating that the owner of the property would not oppose a future annexation. The Corbet Annexation has been configured by Staff as shown on the following page based on the petitioner request and the City's OUAs. April 11, 2017 City Council Packet: Attachment C City of Bremerton Area Proposed for Annexation 1 2 3 40 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ed f9r 18 20 21 22 1110 23 26 29 25 27 2 30 31 32 33 34 37 38 Legend CProposed Territory for Annexation Outside Utility Agreement (OUA) Initial Petitioner City Limits Urban Growth Area (UGA) City Council Packet: Attachment C Corbet Drive Annexation Fiscal Analysis Study Area The map on the previous page identifies the subject area that the City is considering for annexation. The general boundaries of the study area are adjacent to Corbet Drive near 151H 17th and 191h Streets and this area is adjacent to current city limits. As an overview, this area is a relatively developed neighborhood of single family homes. There are some larger lots within the area that are undeveloped or have a single family home on a large lot that may choose to subdivide their property in the future. Growth Planning Status This Corbet Annexation is entirely within the City of Bremerton associated Rocky Point UGA and is contiguous to the City. This UGA it may be annexed at any time by Bremerton without challenge or dispute from other jurisdictions. The City's 2016 Comprehensive Plan anticipated annexing this area during the 20 -year time horizon of the Plan. Report Structure The purpose of this report is to summarize the following: • Area proposed for annexation (Attachment A) • Growth assumptions (Attachment B) • Fiscal impacts of annexation (Attachment C) • Share public information relevant to Rocky Point (Attachment D) • Vicinity of City infrastructure (Attachment E) Attachment A: A map of potential annexation. Attachment B: As the City annexes territory, the City must consider both the existing population and the buildout potential. This attachment contains the figures for a 'baseline' year of 2017, and a'buildout' year of 2037. The data in this section are used for assessed value and future population growth. Attachment C: Fiscal Impacts of West Bremerton UGA and Gorst UGA Annexation. This attachment addresses the fiscal impacts of all West Bremerton UGAs: Navy Yard City, West Hills, Gorst and Rocky Point. City Council should consider the impacts to annexations comprehensively and in totality. This attachment provides the insight for City Council to determine the short and long-term impacts of annexing all the West Bremerton UGAs. The reader should understand that the proposed Corbet Annexation is only a small portion of this much more comprehensive look at annexation. Attachment D: "Rocky Point, What If We Became Part of Bremerton" (also referred to as the Rocky Point Handout). This document contains public information regarding annexation benefits and impacts to a property owner. Attachment E: Vicinity Map of the sewer and water mains to assist the reader understanding where the capital infrastructure is located. April 11, 2017 City Council Packet: Attachment C Corbet Drive Annexation Fiscal Analysis General Annexation Discussion: Rocky Point Urban Growth Area An important consideration is how the Corbet Annexation relates to the remaining portion of the Rocky Point Urban Growth Area. As of this time, the City is promoting annexations but is not the initiating party for annexation. The City is seeking interested owners within UGAs to request annexation. In Spring 2017, Staff will be proceeding with educational outreach processes to each UGA to assist the public with any annexation questions and gauge public interest in annexations. The Corbet proposal is to annex a small portion of the Rocky Point UGA; the remaining peninsula of UGA is not be proposed for annexation at this time. Please also note that Kitsap County is not supportive of annexations that create or further enhance more 'island' or 'peninsula' and would like to see Bremerton annex the Rocky Point UGA as it is surrounded by City of Bremerton limits. The proposed annexation of a portion of the Rocky Point UGA does not further create more 'islands' or 'peninsulas' and actually reduces the existing 'peninsula' UGA size, thus reducing the impact to Kitsap County. Annexation Method — Petition Method There are nine methods of annexation pursuant to state law, and the Corbet Annexation utilizes the "petition method." The petition method of annexation is accomplished with two steps: • Step 1— "10% Petition" (or initiating petition) • Step 2 — "60% Petition" (finalizing petition) The percentages refer to the law's requirement that the signatures on the petitions must represent the requisite percentage of either assessed value or acreage of land. One of the primary purposes of the two step process is first for the City Council to meet with the initiating petitioners and determine if the City will accept, reject, or modify the proposed annexation. Once the City Council sets the geographical boundaries for the annexations signatures are gathered for the finalizing petition (60%). The first step is the only time that the City Council may make modifications to the area that is proposed for annexation. The City must ensure that annexations have logical boundaries. The Corbet Annexation is at step 1 of the petition process, and the City Council will be meeting with petitioners on March 15, 2017. Following this meeting, the Council will decide to accept, reject, or modify the annexation. City staff has done some preliminary work for City Council's consideration to establish a logical boundary for this proposed annexation; this will be a modification from the original annexation petition that was received. The boundaries that City staff have proposed for the Corbet Annexation are described in more detail in the next section. April 11, 2017 City Council Packet: Attachment C Corbet Drive Annexation Fiscal Analysis Request for Annexation & Outside Utility Agreements The City received a petition to annex on January 23, 2017. Upon receipt of that request to annex, Staff reviewed City records to find OUAs in close proximity to the property requesting annexation. Staff strategically utilized a portion of the existing OUAs to enlarge the annexation geography to the greatest extent feasible while designing a logical City limit boundary. OUA documents previously executed between the City and property owners state that in exchange for the extension of a public utility to a property (eg. water or sewer service) the owner of that property agrees to support a future annexation. The OUA is a legal document that runs with the land, and is on file with the City of Bremerton and the Kitsap County recording office. Bremerton's OUAs include a limited power of attorney clause. Previous legal precedent confirms that OUAs may be substituted as a signature on annexation petitions by the owner of the property, even if the current owner is different than those who signed the agreement. Staff believes that the proposed annexation geography makes the most effective use of concentrations of OUAs. April 11, 2017 City Council Packet: Attachment C Corbet Drive Annexation Fiscal Analysis Fiscal Impacts — City Perspective The City Council desires to move forward with annexation for all the UGAs. Before undertaking any annexation, the City must consider the 20 -year vision of annexation, including fiscal impacts. The City of Bremerton has developed a Fiscal Impacts of West Bremerton UGA and Gorst UGA Annexation' which can be seen in Attachment C. The current petition for annexation is to bring only a small portion of the West Bremerton UGAs into the City's jurisdiction. The total acreage of the West Bremerton UGA is 1,530 AC. The Corbet Annexation, as configured by Staff, is 24.5 AC (1.5% of the West Bremerton UGAs). The table below is an excerpt from Attachment C (page 11). This has been provided for the reader to see the total West Bremerton UGA's fiscal impacts for 2017, 2020, and 2032. Estimated Long Term Net Fiscal Impact of Annexation This report has assumed that 1.5% of the total impacts identified in the table above can be attributed to the Corbet Annexation. Here are the calculations to show the proportionate share of the total West Bremerton UGA cost/benefits: Net Resources ($2,895) 11 $8,040 1 $3,840 1 As the Fiscal Impacts of West Bremerton UGA and Gorst UGA Annexation was completed in 2015, the data used for this report was the 2014 and 2015 budget and documents. However, after reviewing the 2016 and 2017 budgets, Staff has determined that there were no considerable structural changes between these budgets. For this reason, the City would not expect significant differences in planning -level results of the study and is comfortable with continuing to use this data as a basis for this analysis. City financial Staff confirmed the reasonableness of this assumption. April 11, 2017 2017 2020 2032 Core Expenditures 2,408,000 3,179,000 6,080,000 Core Revenues 2,215,000 3,715,000 6,336,000 FTEs from Annexation 13.5 15.0 18.9 Net Resources (000"s) 193,000 536,000 256,000 -8% 17% 4% Qefidt Sur lus as %of Expenditures This report has assumed that 1.5% of the total impacts identified in the table above can be attributed to the Corbet Annexation. Here are the calculations to show the proportionate share of the total West Bremerton UGA cost/benefits: Net Resources ($2,895) 11 $8,040 1 $3,840 1 As the Fiscal Impacts of West Bremerton UGA and Gorst UGA Annexation was completed in 2015, the data used for this report was the 2014 and 2015 budget and documents. However, after reviewing the 2016 and 2017 budgets, Staff has determined that there were no considerable structural changes between these budgets. For this reason, the City would not expect significant differences in planning -level results of the study and is comfortable with continuing to use this data as a basis for this analysis. City financial Staff confirmed the reasonableness of this assumption. April 11, 2017 City Council Packet: Attachment C Corbet Drive Annexation Fiscal Analysis Cost and Benefits — Rocky Point Resident Perspective An informational handout has been created to help the residents identify the impacts of annexations. This handout was developed utilizing information from the Fiscal Impacts of West Bremerton UGA and Gorst UGA Annexation. This handout has been included as Attachment D. Attachment D is based on three categories of cost that a property owner may be impacted by. Those include the following: (1) Property taxes; (2) Utility Services cost, fees and taxes; and (3) Transportation Benefit District (car tabs). Property Taxes: Property Tax rates between the City and County area is less than 3% difference. Part of property taxes include any capital bonds or levies. In 2015, the City of Bremerton voters passed the Fire capital bond by 71.1%. This bond will generate $4.5M for fire engines, a ladder truck, two ambulances and other vehicle and firefighting equipment. It also will remodel two fire stations to outfit them with fire sprinklers and create specialized facilities for both men and women. Property taxes increase by 22 cents per thousand dollars of assessed property values. Upon annexation the recommendation is for the capital bonds to be extended the annexed territory. Utility Service Cost: Most residents already using City water and sewer utilities will cease to pay out -of -city surcharges, so they will see some savings. Other differences include: the City shows storm water utility charges as a separate line item on the utility bill whereas the County includes it in taxes; and the City requires garbage collection service while the County does not. Transportation Benefit District: Transportation Benefit District (TBD) is used to improve and repair existing streets. The fee enacted by the TBD is commonly referred to as "Car Tab Fees." Kitsap County does not have a TBD, and the City does. The handout has assumed each household has two cars, thus an additional fee of $40 per year if annexed. Summary of Cost: Attachment D shows that an average assessed property value of $240,000 could expect to pay an additional cost of $143 a year, or less than $12 a month. April 11, 2017 City Council Packet: Attachment C Corbet Drive Annexation Fiscal Analysis Community Character of the Proposed Annexation The following documents the overall character and existing conditions in the proposed area. The area is approximately 23.6 acres and is predominantly developed with single family homes. An important part of the annexation process is to establish an adopted City Comprehensive Plan land use for the territory that will be annexed. The following describes what the City has done to prepare that land use designation. As illustrated in the map below, Kitsap County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning has designated the area with two land uses: • Urban Medium and High Density Residential (UMHDR) with Urban Medium Density Residential Zoning; and • Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR) with LDR zoning. During the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update (2016 Plan) the City anticipated that our UGA's would annex during the 20 -year plan horizon, and in this adopted plan the City predesignated all land uses within our UGAs. The City believed that by pre -designating the land use with the "Equivalence Table" it would facilitate the smooth transition of jurisdiction from Kitsap County to the City and individuals would be fully informed about what land use designation they would receive after annexation. Pursuant to the City's adopted 2016 Plan, after annexation the future land use designations will be as follows: • Kitsap County UMHDR will become City of Bremerton equivalent "Medium Density Residential" (MDR) • Kitsap County ULDR will become City of Bremerton equivalent "Low Density Residential" (LDR) April 11, 2017 City Council Packet: Attachment C Corbet Drive Annexation Fiscal Analysis Housing and Population The City and County Department of Community Development have witnessed increased development pressure within the region. As for this area, most of the undeveloped area (approximately 7 acres) may contain some wetland features and moderate geological hazardous area (slopes) that make development more challenging, but the strength of the housing market is making these areas viable for development. In total, the estimated existing population of the study area is 69 people and at full buildout, the City could expect 156 people. Assessed Valuation The total assessed valuation of land and structures in the area in 2017 is $6.3M. As shown in Attachment B, the total assessed value of existing buildings is $4.8M, and the total assessed value of the land is $1.5M. Public / Open Space Within a short distance from the potential annexation area, there is an existing City Neighborhood Park: Haddon Park (picture to the right). This park was established in 1987 and is about 3.09 acres. This park includes a play area, perimeter pathway, restrooms and open lawn. It is well -used and provides passive and active recreation opportunities. Schools School district boundaries are typically a major concern for residents. Municipal annexations do not modify school district boundaries. April 11, 2017 City Council Packet: Attachment C Corbet Drive Annexation Fiscal Analysis Infrastructure Overview Attachment E is a map that shows the City of Bremerton installed infrastructure, including water and sewer mains. The following is information regarding the potential annexation and its infrastructure. Potable Water The potential annexation area is serviced by City of Bremerton water infrastructure. A water main runs through the potential annexation area. Little or no additional public investment would be required to service this area with water. As development occurs within this area with subdivisions, private developers will be responsible for extending the water system for their projects. Sanitary Sewer Sanitary Sewer service is available for the potential annexation area. As development occurs within this area with subdivisions, private developers will be responsible for extending the collection system for their projects. Stormwater Infrastructure Most streets in the vicinity have not been developed with integrated curb and gutter systems. Future public investment would be required to bring the Stormwater system up to the City of Bremerton standards in future years. Streets and Transportation The existing network of streets in the study area is operating well within City of Bremerton service capacity levels. Corbet Drive is the key arterial street running through the study area and this road has further capacity for services. As development occurs within this area with subdivisions or multifamily housing, private developers will be responsible for contributing to any necessary transportation improvements April 11, 2017 City Council Packet- Attachment C Attachment A City of Bremerton Area Proposed for Annexation 10% Petition March 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 10 15 16 18 20 21 22 sed for ion 26 23 . ----- 29 20 27 28 30 31 32 33 34 37 38 39 Legend Proposed Territory for Annexation Initial Petitioner Outside Utility Agreement (OUA) City Limits Urban Growth Area (UGA) City Council Packet- Attachment C Corbet Drive Annexation Fiscal Analysis Attachment 6: Growth Assumptions Corbet Annexation April 2017 Existina & Proiected Buildout Data April 11, 2017 Existing Conditions (2017) Projected Buildout (2037) Units Single Family 30 60 Units Multi Family 0 8 Commercial GSF 0 0 Number Operating 0 0 Businesses Estimated Total 69 156 Population 39 64 Total Parcels (Lots) ---------------- Lots Sewered 13 51 Lots City Water 18 64 Total Acres (Taxable 22 22 Property) Total 7 3 Undeveloped/Open Acreage Total Assessed $4,822,860 $13,866,860 Value Buildings Total Assessed $1,498,340 $1,498,340 Value Land Total Assessed $6,321,200 $15,365,200 _Value Assumptions / Sources _ 1. Kitsap County Assessor Records checked against aerial photo for unit counts. 2. 2.3 persons/household assumed. Figure suggested for use by OFM for Kitsap. 3. Gross Density of 6 DU /Acre assumed for remainder infill development lots. 4. All future buildout lots assumed to have water and sewer. 5. Average 2016 assessed value of single family home is applied to all units at buildout. 6. All dollar figures in 2017 dollars. ------- -- --- — April 11, 2017 City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C CITY OF BREMERTON FISCAL IMPACTS OF WEST BREMERTON UGA AND GORST UGA ANNEXATION FINAL: AUGUST 5, 2015 City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................1 1.1 Study Purpose.......................................................................................................1 1.2 Study Area Description.........................................................................................1 1.3 Document Organization........................................................................................ 2 1.4 Approach and Methodology.................................................................................. 3 1.5 Data Sources.......................................................................................................... 4 2.0 ASSUMPTIONS................................................................................................6 2.1 General Assumptions............................................................................................ 6 2.2 Development Assumptions................................................................................... 6 3.0 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS.......................................................................8 3.1 Baseline Budget Assumptions (No Annexation) ................................................. 8 3.2 Annexation is Estimated to Provide a Net Fiscal Benefit to the City ................. 9 4.0 SHORT-TERM ANNEXATION IMPACTS.......................................................10 4.1 Short-term Operating Revenue Impacts............................................................10 4.2 Short -Term Operating Cost Impacts..................................................................14 4.3 Short -Term Capital Impacts................................................................................17 5.0 LONG-TERM ANNEXATION IMPACTS.........................................................21 5.1 Long -Term Operating Impacts............................................................................ 21 5.2 Long -Term Capital Impacts................................................................................. 21 APPENDIX A: GORST PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE LAND USE MAP .................27 061 City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C 1.1 STUDY PURPOSE The City of Bremerton is considering annexation of the Navy Yard City, Rocky Point, West Hills, and Gorst Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), and this analysis was conducted to assist the City in assessing the fiscal implications of such an annexation. In 2014 a separate analysis was completed evaluating potential annexation of the Gorst UGA; this assessment differs from the 2014 analysis in that it combines the impact of annexing all four areas at the same time. The purpose of the analysis is to give the City an understanding of specific incremental fiscal impacts — costs and revenues — of such an annexation during the first five years after annexation. In addition, the City is interested in potential long-term fiscal impacts of annexation. This analysis assesses high-level potential impacts over the next 20 years to identify long-term risks, opportunities, and uncertainties the City of Bremerton should consider. 1.2 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION In 2014, the Navy Yard City, Rocky Point, West Hills, and Gorst UGAs had a population of approximately 4,900 residents and an estimated 630 jobs. The four Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) are shown in Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1: Potential Annexation Areas Map Urban Growth Areas for Analysis ■ August 2014 Rocky J, i. Point i 6 I� West 1 HIills L . �Navy - - � I ._ Yard City I I Gorst L - I' Cih� of &remehar 0 025 C 5 1 M I s i UO On Growth An I ' J - I I Source: Kitsap County, 2014; BERK, 2015. 3 City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C Navy Yard City UGA. The Navy Yard City is the largest of the four areas in terms of population and employment, with approximately 2,600 residents and an estimated 370 jobs in 2014. Rocky Point UGA. Rocky Point UGA is primarily residential, with a population of approximately 1,560 residents. West Hills UGA. In 2014, West Hills UGA had a population of approximately 480 residents and an estimated 15 jobs. Gorst UGA. In 2010, the Gorst UGA had a population of 222 residents and an estimated 237 jobs. Under the Preferred Alternative from the Gorst Subarea Plan developed in 2013, the UGA is planned to evolve into a complete community with places to live, play, shop, and work in a waterfront setting. Mixed uses would be allowed through much of the UGA. The waterfront area would allow lower intensity commercial uses with smaller impervious footprints interspersed by trails, parks, and reclaimed shoreline habitat. Under this alternative the UGA is assumed to add 1,060 people and 298 additional jobs by 2035. For a map that shows the future zoning of Gorst under the Preferred Alternative, please refer to Appendix A. r.j DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This document includes the following sections: • Assumptions • Short -Term Impacts • Long -Term Impacts 2.0 Study Approach. This section introduces the approach and methodology of this study, and provides some additional background information in the purpose of the analysis. 3.0 Summary of Key Findings. This section presents the high-level findings around net fiscal impact of the annexation. 4.0 Short -Term Annexation Impact. This section presents the detailed findings for operating costs and revenues and capital costs and revenues for the first five years after annexation. 5.0 Long -Term Annexation Impacts. This section presents a high-level consideration of how the annexation may impact the City over the next 20 years. Appendix A. Gorst UGA Preferred Alternative Future Land Use Map. City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C 1.4 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY This report presents planning -level operating cost and revenue estimates of annexing the Navy Yard City, Rocky Point, West Hills, and Gorst UGAs into the City of Bremerton over the next five and twenty years. The report also addresses capital impacts of annexation including capital facility needs and capital revenue estimates. High -Level Planning Document It is important to note that this is a financial planning study and not a budget development exercise. The analysis is intended to provide a reasonable estimate of potential costs and revenues associated with annexation and to allow for the development and evaluation of alternative scenarios to test the implications of development assumptions, policy choices, and alternative service delivery options, to help the City determine how to proceed with the potential annexation of these areas. If the City proceeds with annexation, this analysis provides a basis from which the City can begin the process of planning for the higher service demands of a slightly larger city. However, the actual implementation will be accomplished through the regular budget process wherein City management will revisit the balance of costs and revenues in light of updated information and the overall needs of the City at that time. In addition, staffing projections used in this analysis are the best estimates given current information. The City will need to determine exact staffing levels for each department if annexation becomes a reality. There will likely be a transition phase as new staff are hired and trained, which can include substantial lead time. The number of personnel needed and the timing of hiring by position will have to be planned to a greater level of detail than was necessary for this planning -level analysis. While this analysis provides a comprehensive look at the potential incremental impacts on the City's financial picture, it does not provide a full accounting of the City's projected sources and uses of funds. 2014 Base Year Budget BERK started this study in mid -2014, and due to timing, used the 2014 City of Bremerton budget as a basis for building the baseline fiscal model. The preliminary draft results were submitted to City staff in late 2014. The City has since finalized the 2015 budget; however, after reviewing both 2014 and 2015 budgets, BERK determined that there were no considerable structural changes between these budgets. For this reason, BERK would not expect significant differences in planning -level results of the study and is comfortable with continuing to use 2014 as a basis for the analysis. BERK also consulted with the City's finance staff, who confirmed the reasonableness of this assumption. Analysis Considers City With and Without Annexation To be an effective decision support tool, the analysis cannot consider fiscal impacts by looking just at the annexation areas alone, but instead must consider the potential impacts of annexation by comparing the fiscal outlook for the City of Bremerton under two alternative futures: (1) the future of the current City with boundaries unchanged and (2) the future of a larger version of the City that includes annexation of the Navy Yard City, Rocky Point, West Hills, and Gorst UGAs. Analysis of these two alternative futures provides a truly comprehensive look at the potential implications of annexation on long-term fiscal sustainability. Land -Based Fiscal Mod BERK developed an annexation fiscal model to estimate revenues and expenses for both the existing City and a post -annexation City. Taking the analysis into the future shows how the fiscal balance in the City City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C might change over time and how annexation might affect the long-term fiscal outlook for the new, larger City. Onaoina Costs and Revenues The fiscal model estimates changes in the cost of services based on relationships between direct services, such as maintenance workers or planners, and underlying demographic and community changes, such as increases in population, housing units, commercial activity, and land area. Costs are separately estimated for labor and non -labor categories: • Labor costs are based on current salaries and benefits and an assumed annual escalation rate. • Non -labor costs in each department are driven by the current relationships between the number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) in that department and the magnitude of non -labor costs in that department. • Non -labor costs that are unrelated to the positions in a department (such as facilities maintenance, which is related to the size of a building, or street lighting costs, which are related to lane miles) are separated from the department costs and estimated based on relevant cost drivers. • The analysis of operating impacts focuses solely on the general and street funds, as these are the primary operating funds for the City. Enterprise funds, whose operations are generally self-supporting through user fees, are not addressed as part of the operating impact analysis. Capital Cost ana Kevenue The capital impact analysis includes capital costs from all City departments, including the enterprise funds, to capture all capital needs in the potential annexation areas. The capital revenue analysis focuses on general capital revenues, primarily the Real Estate Excise Tax. DATA SOURCES Data used in this report came from the following sources: • City of Bremerton o City of Bremerton Budget, 2014 o Staffing detail, including position titles, FTEs, salary and benefit costs, 2014 o Bremerton Annexation of Gorst UGA Memo, 2014 o Gorst Creek Watershed Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan, 2013 o Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement, 2013 o White Paper: Rocky Point Assumption Issues, 2014 o Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities, Capital Improvement Program Overview, 2014 o Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities, Water System Plan Update, 2012 o Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update, 2014 o Bremerton Parks Department, Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan, 2014 • Kitsap County o Kitsap County Assessor, Parcel data, 2014 o Kitsap County, Buildable lands data, 2014 City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C o Kitsap County Assessor, Personal property tax revenue, 2012 o Kitsap County GIS, Parcel and street layer, 2014 o Kitsap County, UGA Sizing & Composition Remand Final Capital Facilities Plan Update, 2012 o Kitsap County Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan, 2012 o Kitsap County Public Works, Navy Yard City Sewer CFP 2015-2020, 2014 o Kitsap County Public Works, Sewer Utility Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan 2014-2019 o Kitsap County Public Works, Solid Waste Division Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan 2014-2019 o Kitsap County Public Works, Surface and Stormwater Plan Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan 2014- 2019 o Kitsap County Public Works, Transportation Six -Year Improvement Program 2015-2020 • Puget Sound Regional Council o 2014 employment • Washington State Department of Revenue o 2013 taxable retail sales • Washington State Office of Financial Management 0 2014 population 0 2014 housing units 7 City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C 2.1 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS General Assumptions The analysis assumes that the City of Bremerton annexes the Navy Yard City, Rocky Point, West Hills, and Gorst UGAs into the City in 2016. The analysis assumes annexation related costs and revenues accrue on an annual basis beginning in 2016. All analysis presented in this document is based on annual estimates. Actual impacts from annexation in any specific year will depend on the effective date of the annexation. Impacts in this document should be considered planning -level estimates for the City to understand the direction and magnitude of likely impacts. Escalation Assumptions. The analysis assumes a general inflation rate of 3.0% annually. Staff salaries are escalated at 2.0% annually. Benefits are assumed to grow at 6.5% per year in most years, with the following exception: benefits are assumed to jump by 15% in 2018 due to Affordable Care Act implementation rules regarding health plans. DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS The analysis is built on the premise that key factors in the land base (such as population, employment, and commercial activity) drive both demand for services and changes in the City's tax base. Demand for services drives costs in the model, and depends on a jurisdiction's scope of services and choices regarding level of service. The tax base drives revenues and will vary based on a jurisdiction's choices regarding fiscal and taxing policy (limited by tax laws). The BERK fiscal analysis framework is flexible and allows for varying assumptions about anticipated development in the City and annexation areas over time, and how these changes affect the underlying local tax base. In particular, the following elements are explicitly specified: (1) development assumptions including type, scale, and timing of new development; (2) type and mix of tenants, associated employment, and business income levels; (3) housing mix (single-family and multi -family) and density; and (4) productivity of new retail activity. Development assumptions within the City of Bremerton's current boundaries assume a level of development activity similar to that seen historically. Development assumptions for the potential annexation areas are described below. Exhibit 2 summarizes the population and employment projections that underlie the cost and revenue estimates in this study. The first column shows the current estimated housing units, population, and employment within the Navy Yard City, Rocky Point, West Hills, and Gorst UGAs. The subsequent columns show the estimated housing units, population, and employment in the UGA boundaries over time. City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C Exhibit 2. Development Metrics for Potential Annexation Areas (2014-2031) 2014 2016 2021 2026 2031 AAGR 2014-2031 Navy Yard City Housing Units 1,332 1,365 1,447 1,529 1,611 1% Population 2,613 2,727 2,916 3,105 3,294 1% Est. Employment 374 435 597 776 974 6% Rocky Point o000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000O\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Hous ingUnits 734 764 839 915 990 2% Population 1,557 1,664 1,843 2,022 2,201 2% Est. Employment 2 2 2 2 2 West Hills Island Housing Units 209 230 282 334 387 4% Population 480 554 679 803 927 4% Est. Employment 15 15 15 15 15 Gorst�� Housing Units 106 107 141 268 520 10% Population 222 234 311 573 1,040 10% Est. Employment 237 237 275 342 428 4% Total All Potential Annexation Areas Housing Units 2,381 2,466 2,710 3,046 3,508 2% Population 4,872 5,179 5,748 6,503 7,462 3% Est. Employment 628 689 889 1,135 1,419 5% Source: Kitsap County, 2014; BERK, 2015. Gorst. These development assumptions are based on the adopted Preferred Alternative in the 2013 Gorst Subarea Plan, which designated long-term growth targets for 2035. Interim years are interpolated based on conversations with planners and City staff, and give a conceptual representation of the pace at which the UGA may develop to reach its long-term targets. • Immediately upon annexation in 2016, the City of Bremerton will add to its boundaries the 107 housing units, 234 residents, and approximately 237 jobs in the Gorst UGA. • By 2021, it's estimated that the Gorst area will have grown to include approximately 141 housing units, 311 residents, and approximately 275 jobs. All of this activity would be located within the new boundaries of the City of Bremerton. • Based on the Gorst Subarea Plan, this fiscal analysis assumes that Gorst will grow to approximately 520 housing units, 1,040 residents, and approximately 428 jobs by 2031. Navy Yard City, Rocky Point, and West Hills. Since a detailed subarea plan has not been developed for these subareas, development assumptions for this model were based on assuming similar build -out rates for these PAAs as for the Gorst subarea. Therefore, of the available capacity in each subarea, the same percentage of available residential and commercial capacity was assumed to be built out by 2035 in all four subareas. The driving assumption was the implicit build -out percentage from the Gorst Subarea Plan Preferred Alternative. City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C This section provides a brief overview of the key findings of how annexation of the Navy Yard City, Rocky Point, West Hills, and Gorst UGAs will impact the City of Bremerton, based on the conceptual development assumptions identified above. This section quantifies the impacts for both operating costs and revenues as the City transitions through the annexation. • Short-term impacts, defined as 2016-2020, are explained in more detail in Section 4.0. • Longer-term impacts of annexation (after 2020) are described in Section 5.0. 3.1 BASELINE 3UDGET ASSUMPTIONS (NO ANNEXATION) While all cities across the state are different in terms of tax bases, mixes of commercial and residential land uses, and fiscal policies, almost all cities face structural challenges in local government funding that have led to the cost of municipal services growing at faster rates than tax and fee revenues. This creates an ongoing budget challenge for cities to maintain adequate levels of service without changing tax and fee policies. The most significant contributors to this underlying structural challenge have been the result of two voter approved initiatives: 1. Initiative 695, which was passed by voters in 1999, reduced Motor Vehicle Excise Tax rates to a flat $30 fee. A portion of these revenues were used to support sales tax equalization payments that were a significant funding source for many cities with lower than average sales tax collections. 2. Initiative 747 (and subsequent legislative action to restore the provisions of the Initiative after it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in November 2007) limits growth in property taxes to 1% per year, without voter approval. The effect of this change was to reduce the rate of growth in property tax revenues, which is one of the three most important sources of local government funding, to a rate that, in most cases, is lower than general inflation. The 1% limit does not apply to the value of new construction. As a result, a projection of revenues and costs that assumes no change in current policies (tax or level - of -service) suggests the City of Bremerton can expect to face budget deficits in the coming years. This finding is consistent with the common fiscal challenge in most other cities in Washington State and is principally related to the impact of rising costs of doing business and additional staffing related to in -city growth needed to maintain existing levels of service. Since a city cannot operate with a budget deficit, the Bremerton City Council will make choices each budget cycle to bring cost and revenue growth into alignment and maintain a balanced budget every year. When analyzing annexation, it is important to consider that the way in which the City chooses to address any baseline operating deficits may change the potential impacts of annexation. For example, if the City were to consider raising business or residential taxes to close the gap, the different tax rates would change revenues expected from the annexation areas based on the individual land base in those areas. If the approach were to reduce costs by modifying levels of service, then these revised levels of service would reduce costs associated with annexation in different proportions, again based on the land base and the corresponding demand for services. It is not possible to know what the City of Bremerton's future Councils may choose to do to balance future budgets, and the City does not need to make those decisions at this time. Since the goal of this annexation study is to evaluate the incremental fiscal impacts of a potential annexation, it analyzes a itt City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C scenario which assumes continuing current policies. This results in a long-term outlook that shows increasing budget deficits. These long-term deficits represent the structural imbalance between municipal cost and revenue growth rates. In reality, the City will balance its budget in any given year. ANNEXATION IS ESTIMATED TO PROVIDE A NET FISCAL BENEFIT TO THE CITY The key finding of this analysis is that the annexation of the Navy Yard City, Rocky Point, West Hills, and Gorst UGAs will have a slight negative impact in the short-term to the City of Bremerton, and a moderate annual benefit in the medium- to long-term. A high-level picture of this finding is shown in Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 Estimated Long Term Net Fiscal Impact of Annexation Source: BERK, 2015. Note: This Exhibit shows the City's future fiscal outlook if no changes were made to policies that impact costs and revenues. In reality, the City Council will balance its budget each year. This table represents the impact that the Navy Yard City, Rocky Point, West Hills, and Gorst UGAs would have under the City's current cost and revenue structures. The Exhibit shows that in the near term there may be a slight negative impact, as the City may need to hire some staff before the full revenue impacts of the UGA are realized. In addition, the near term figures include impact of potential property tax and sales tax revenue sharing with Kitsap County (approximately $785,000 in 2017; see Section 4.1 for more information). The short-term and long-term impacts on revenues and costs are described in more detail in the following sections. Specific decisions around long-term service decisions for police and fire services may change the long-term impact. i`l 2017 2020 2032 Core Expenditures Core Revenues FTEs from Annexation Net Resources (000's) Deficit/Surplus as %of Expenditures 2,408,000 2,215,000 13.5 3,179,000 3,715,000 15.0 6,080,000 6,336,000 18.9 (193,000)1 536,000 256,000 -8% 17% 4% Source: BERK, 2015. Note: This Exhibit shows the City's future fiscal outlook if no changes were made to policies that impact costs and revenues. In reality, the City Council will balance its budget each year. This table represents the impact that the Navy Yard City, Rocky Point, West Hills, and Gorst UGAs would have under the City's current cost and revenue structures. The Exhibit shows that in the near term there may be a slight negative impact, as the City may need to hire some staff before the full revenue impacts of the UGA are realized. In addition, the near term figures include impact of potential property tax and sales tax revenue sharing with Kitsap County (approximately $785,000 in 2017; see Section 4.1 for more information). The short-term and long-term impacts on revenues and costs are described in more detail in the following sections. Specific decisions around long-term service decisions for police and fire services may change the long-term impact. i`l City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C 4.1 SHORT-TERM OPERATING REVENUE IMPACTS Exhibit 4 shows short-term estimated revenues that would accrue to the City of Bremerton from annexation of the Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs), assuming annexation in 2016. All analysis presented in this document is based on annual estimates. Actual impacts from annexation in any specific year will depend on the effective date of the annexation. This analysis of operating impacts only includes revenues for the General Fund and Street Fund. Exhibit 4 Annual Annexation Revenue Impacts, 2016-2020 (Assuming 2016 Annexation Year) Revenues not assuming any revenue sharing Sales Tax 629,000 665,000 698,000 735,000 777,000 Criminal Justice Tax 60,000 63,000 66,000 68,000 72,000 Property Tax/Road Levy 0 1,088,000 1,128,000 1,168,000 1,209,000 Leasehold Excise Tax 0 0 0 0 0 UtiIityTaxes 296,000 312,000 330,000 347,000 368,000 Commercial Parking Tax 0 0 0 0 0 Gambling Tax 0 0 0 0 0 Solid Waste Franchise Fee 19,000 20,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 Building Permits and Fees 57,000 59,000 61,000 63,000 65,000 Business Licenses and Permits 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 EMS Levy 0 191,000 192,000 192,000 193,000 Liquor Board Profits and Excise Tax 52,000 54,000 56,000 59,000 61,000 Gas Tax 104,000 106,000 108,000 110,000 113,000 Planning and Plan Check Fees 23,000 24,000 24,000 25,000 26,000 Municipal Court Costs 61,000 63,000 65,000 67,000 69,000 Fines and Forfeits 134,000 140,000 147,000 153,000 161,000 Recreation Charges (13,000) (13,000) (11,000) (10,000) (9,000) Grants and Other Intergovernmental 108,000 113,000 119,000 124,000 129,000 Other Charges 29,000 31,000 32,000 33,000 35,000 B&O Tax 0 0 0 329,000 329,000 Police Services and Ambulance Transport Fees 68,000 71,000 74,000 76,000 79,000 Internal Charges for Service 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1,638,000 2,999,000 3,123,000 3,575,000 3,715,000 Potential Impacts of Revenue Sharing Loss in Sales Tax Revenue (472,000) (333,000) (174,000) 0 0 Loss in Property Tax Revenue 0 (451,000) (312,000) (161,000) 0 Total After Revenue Sharing 1,166,000 2,215,000 2,637,000 3,414,000 3,715,000 Source: City of Bremerton, 2014; and BERK, 2015. Exhibit 4 provides two different pictures of the level of revenue the City may receive from annexation. The top portion of the table shows the full level of revenue that would be generated by the PAAs. The bottom portion of the table provides a picture of how revenues may accrue to the City if the City were to sign a revenue sharing agreement with Kitsap County to mitigate the impacts of annexation on the County's finances. Such an agreement would only be put in place if the interlocal method of annexation were used. iVA City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C Currently, the City is not subject to a revenue sharing agreement with Kitsap County. However, for the purpose of providing a conservative fiscal analysis, the revenue estimates assume that the City may choose to participate in revenue sharing. The 2020 revenue impacts shown in Exhibit 4 reflect a stable picture of the PAAs going forward, given the assumption that any potential revenue sharing agreements with Kitsap County would be completed by 2020. In 2020, it's estimated that the City would receive approximately $3.7 million in revenue from the annexation of these areas. This amount would grow going forward based on inflation as well as increased development in the UGA as services are built out. Operating Revenue Detail This section describes the methodology used to estimate the primary revenue items described above. Primary Rcvent- _Snrrrrcc As with many cities in Washington State, the three largest revenue sources for the City of Bremerton are Sales Tax, Property Tax, and Utility Taxes (including Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT)), which make up approximately 60% of the City's 2014 general and street fund operating revenues. Additionally, the City levies a Business & Occupation (B&O) tax that is a significant revenue contributor, although the City is working to reduce this source of revenue over time. Sales Tax. Taxable retail sales are assumed to increase by 0.5% per year more than the general inflation rate of 3.0% used in this analysis. If the City entered a revenue sharing agreement with Kitsap County to offset the impact to the County of losing the UGA, this analysis assumes the City would receive 25% of sales tax revenues generated in the UGA in 2016, 50% in 2017, 75% in 2018, and 100% of revenues thereafter. Any actual revenue sharing agreement would be negotiated with the County and may vary from these assumptions. Property Tax. The property tax revenue (the amount that the City can collect) is limited to 1% or IPD (Implicit Price Deflator), whichever is lower, above the previous year collections plus a levy on the value of new construction. In future years, the base assessed value in the City and annexation areas is expected to increase at a rate of 2% (0.5% below inflation). Additional assessed value will be added to the area through residential and commercial development. If the City entered a revenue sharing agreement with Kitsap County to mitigate the impacts of annexation on the County's budget, this analysis assumes that property tax revenues would be shared with the County using the same ratios as described above for sales tax. The timing of annexation will impact when the City begins to collect the property tax levy from the PAAs. Collections would only begin in 2017 if the City annexes the UGA early in 2016. Utility Tax and PILOT. Utility taxes for telephone, gas, cable, electricity, and garbage are assumed to grow based on the combination of population and employment in the PAAs. Current rates of these utility revenues relative to population and employment in the City of Bremerton were applied to assumed population and employment totals in the UGA to estimate utility revenues generated within the UGA. The City utility systems transfer Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) to the General Fund. PILOT payments include water, wastewater, and stormwater systems and are charged to the utility as a percentage of the total revenue from all customers. These revenues are similar to utility taxes and are projected in a similar fashion. The City already provides water service within Gorst, Navy Yard City, and West Hills, and charges a 50% surcharge for these customers since they are outside city limits. Rocky Point currently has its own water district, although the water is purchased from the City of Bremerton; this study assumes that the Rocky 13 City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C Point Water District would be absorbed into the City upon annexation. Therefore, annexation of these UGAs would result in a decrease in revenues from these customers to the utilities. This will subsequently result in a decrease in PILOT revenues to general and street funds (approximately $95,000 in 2016). Business & Occupation Tax. City of Bremerton is slowly reducing its dependency on B&O taxes as a major revenue source by increasing the total Gross Business Income (GBI) exemption by $20,000 per year until the tax is no longer collected (Bremerton Municipal Code 3.48.050(2)(b)). In 2015, this exemption is at $120,000. Due to this provision, B&O tax receipts have generally stayed flat over the last several years. To account for this going forward, B&O revenues for both the City and the annexation areas are projected to stay at current levels throughout the timeframe of this analysis, effectively reducing the real value over time. In addition, business in the PAAs would be exempt from the City's B&O tax for the first three years after annexation. Therefore, B&O tax revenues are assumed to begin accruing to the City in 2019. For existing Gross Business Income (GBI) in the Gorst UGA, the model assumes that the City's retail tax rate will apply, since the majority of business activity in Gorst comes from the retail sector. This tax rate is 0.125%. For the increase in GBI from development within the UGA, this analysis uses an effective tax rate of 0.1625% to account for exemptions and varying rates based on types of businesses. This effective rate reflects the City's current ratio of B&O tax revenues compared to total Gross Business Income (GBI) in the City. Other Revenue Sources The City receives revenue from many other sources, as described below. Criminal Justice Tax. Kitsap County levies a dedicated sales tax to support criminal justice expenditures. This 0.1% sales tax is collected by the state Department of Revenue, and is distributed to counties and cities on a per capita basis. In 2014, Bremerton estimates per capita criminal justice sales tax revenue at approximately $11.04 per capita. Future revenues are calculated on a per capita basis, with the annual per capita revenue assumed to increase at the rate of inflation. Solid Waste Franchise Fee. The Solid Waste provider in the City pays a franchise fee for providing this service within the City limits. These revenues are projected on a per capita basis and are estimated to be $3.51 per resident in 2014. These fees are assumed to extend into the PAAs upon annexation. Building Permits and Fees, and Planning and Plan Check Fees. These fees help cover the cost of staff that review building plans and permit applications for residents. Since the City does not set its fees on a strict cost recovery basis, these revenues are estimated on a per capita and per job basis, and are assumed to increase both with inflation as well as with increases in population and employment. Business Licenses and Permits. The City of Bremerton charges a fee to obtain a business license within the city limits. These revenues are projected based on the ratio of total employment in the City and the annexation areas. Annual employment estimates are generated from land use and development assumptions within the model. EMS Levy. The City of Bremerton is currently authorized by voters to levy an Emergency Medical Services tax. The maximum allowable levy is $0.50. In 2014, the levy rate was $0.50, since it was renewed at the maximum rate in August 2014. Because the EMS Levy is a form of property tax, is it subject to the same 1.0% annual increase plus new construction in years without voter -approved increases. It is therefore assumed that the levy revenue 14 City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C will begin to stabilize going forward as assessed values begin to grow at a pace more in line with historical growth as the region recovers from the recession. The timing of annexation will impact when the City begins to collect the EMS levy from the PAAs. Collections would only begin in 2017 if the City annexes the UGA early in 2016. Liquor Board Profits and Excise Tax. According to Washington State law, a share of the state profits from liquor sales and state collected excise tax on liquor is distributed directly to cities on a per capita basis. Currently, the City's budget estimates the per capita distribution for liquor profits and excise taxes to be $9.89 in 2014. This per capita estimate is assumed to increase with inflation. Gas Tax. A portion of the state -collected gas tax is shared directly with municipalities, which bear a substantial portion of the overall costs of road maintenance and construction. The gasoline and diesel tax is a flat amount levied per gallon (rather than a percentage of the price at the pump). Cities are allowed to use this funding for maintenance or capital, and Bremerton uses the full funding amount for street maintenance. The gas tax revenue estimates from the City's budget project a per capita gas tax allocation of $20.03 in 2014. Since the tax is a per -gallon tax and not impacted by changes in prices, this per capita number is assumed to remain constant into the future. Municipal Court Revenues. These revenues are collected through fees that help cover the cost of Municipal Court services. These revenues are estimated to grow with increases in population and employment going forward, with the per capita and per employment amount growing with inflation into the future. Fines and Forfeits. The City's budget currently projects the per capita revenues for fines and forfeits to be approximately $24.53 in 2014. This per capita estimate is assumed to increase with inflation going forward. Recreation Charges. This analysis assumes that current UGA residents are already using the City's parks and recreation services, and therefore new revenue will only come from population growth from development within the UGA. Users who live in the PAAs and currently pay for parks and recreation services are charged a 25% surcharge for being non-residents. Therefore, there would be some loss in revenue from these uses being transitioned into the City at first. Over time, the revenue from new users will offset revenue loss from the 25% non-resident surcharge. Grants and Other Intergovernmental Revenue. The grants and transfers from other government agencies considered in this analysis are for operational expenditures only, not for capital projects. Future revenues from these sources are estimated on a per capita basis and applied to the annexation area population. The current per capita revenues, according to the City's 2014 budget, are $20.08 and are assumed to increase at the rate of inflation. It is important to note that it is difficult to estimate this source of revenue, as grants tend to fluctuate widely from year to year, and that very little additional revenue will likely be seen from annexation. Police Services and Ambulance Transport Fees. The City estimates it will receive approximately $323,100 in 2014 from law enforcement services, such as fees for police service, fingerprint fees, and police records searches. Currently, the City's budget projects the per capita revenues for police services to be approximately $20.57 in 2014. This per capita estimate is assumed to increase with inflation going forward. This analysis assumes that the City would take over provision of fire and EMS services for Rocky Point, West Hills, and Navy Yard City. Bremerton Fire Department estimates approximately five ambulance transports per month from Navy Yard City, resulting in approximately $21,000 in additional revenue per year. ik City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C Other Charges. This analysis models approximately $250,000 in other miscellaneous revenues. These charges include revenue streams such as investment interest, donations, miscellaneous permits and fees not related to buildings or businesses, and other minor charges for City services. Currently the revenue estimated in the City's budget projects the per capita revenues for these miscellaneous charges to be approximately $6.79 in 2014. This per capita estimate is assumed to increase with inflation going forward. Car Tab Fees. These fees currently accrue to the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) and are used to improve and repair existing streets. Tab fees are approved for a six year period and there is no existing City policy on allocating these revenues between capital and operating projects. In addition, any TBD revenues dedicated to operations in the Street fund are typically offset by expenditures to carry out the work plan, resulting in a net fiscal impact of zero. For these reasons, car tab fee revenue estimates are not included in this study. Leasehold Excise Tax, Commercial Parking Tax, Gambling Tax, and Internal Charges for Service. These revenues are not expected to be impacted by the annexation of these PAAs, as the taxes are structured in such a way that they will not see an increase from adding the UGA to the City's boundaries. SHORT -PERM OPERATING COST IMPACTS Exhibit 5 summarizes the estimated cost impacts of a 2016 annexation in 2020—five years later. The chart shows 2020 because it presents a snapshot of the short-term impact of annexation once development in the PAAs has begun and the departments have hired up to their full short-term need. Years 2016-2019 are not shown in the table because the exact impact in any one year will depend on how the City chooses to ramp up its hiring. The City will need to weigh the impacts on the ground as well as the actual revenue increases from the PAAs to determine when hiring decisions need to be made. The methodology behind these hiring numbers is described after the chart. Exhibit 5 Snapshot of Annexation Staffing and Cost Impacts, 2020 Estimated Staff and Cost 2020 Impacts by Department FTEs _ , , •. City Counci I Mayor/Auditor Finance/Human Resources 1.50 191,000 Engineering - - Law Enforcement 6.50 1,055,000 Fi re 3.00 970,000 Municipal Court - 37,000 Community Development 1.50 207,000 Parks 0.50 84,000 Streets/Public Works 2.00 518,000 Legal - - Non -departmental - 117,000 TOTAL 15.00 3,179,000 * The annual cost includes staffing costs as well as non -labor costs such as contracts and equipment. Source: BERK, 2015. iIF: City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C The annual costs listed next to the FTE amounts reflect the total annual cost increase in each of these departments due to annexation. In some cases, these increases include equipment, supplies, utility costs, and contract charges. Operating Cost Detail Operating cost and staffing impacts were estimated based on our land base fiscal model and refined after conversations with City staff. The following departments are estimated to receive cost impacts from the annexation: • Finance. The finance department will likely need to add one additional Accounting Assistant II beginning in 2017 to handle the increase in licensing activity, and about 0.5 FTE additional payroll specialists to handle increased staffing levels in other departments. • Police. The Police Department currently serves the City in five patrol areas with a total of 71 FTEs including commissioned and non-commissioned staff. According to the Bremerton Police Department, annexing all four PAAs at the same time would trigger the need for a new patrol area to serve the residents and businesses in these areas with the same response times that other City residents receive. While Rocky Point, West Hills, and Gorst do not currently generate a large call volume, Navy Yard City is known for a high volume of service calls related to felony crimes. If a new patrol area were added, it would require 6.0 FTEs to provide full-day patrol service. There would also be a need for 0.5 FTE Community Resource Specialists. There is a timing gap of approximately one year that exists for Police Officers between testing, academy, training, and readiness for patrol activities. To bridge this gap and also to phase-in the annexation impact in the short-term, the Police Department could add two FTEs to the graveyard shift (8pm until 6:40am) to cover the time with the highest number of calls. Another option is adding two FTEs to the graveyard shift and two FTEs to the day shift (6:20am until 5pm) to have better service coverage. However, both of these scenarios would still likely result in slower response times to the PAAs and possibly the City until the new patrol area is added. These additional staff members will necessitate a one-time capital investment for new vehicles (3 patrol cars at $42,000 each, using ratio of two officers per car) and equipment ($5,000 per officer, $30,000 total). • Fire. The four PAAs differ in their estimated impacts to fire services: o Gorst. Given the geographic constraints of the UGA, the City plans to contract with South Kitsap Fire and Rescue (SKFR) to continue providing service to Gorst. The City would pay for this service based on SKFR's current levy rate of $2.00 per $1,000 AV. This equates to approximately $100,000 annually beginning in 2014, and would increase over time with development in Gorst. o Rocky Point. Similar to Gorst, this area is currently served by SKFR. The City already responds to calls in this area based on mutual aid agreements, and the Fire Department estimates that they can provide service to this area with no additional staffing. o West Hills. This area is currently served by Central Kitsap Fire and Rescue (CKFR). Considering the small geography and low call volume, the Fire Department estimates that they can provide service to this area with no additional staffing. o Navy Yard City. This area is also currently served by SKFR; unlike other PAAs, it generates high volumes of calls for service. The Fire Department estimates that annexing this area will necessitate changes to the current response zones including the need for two additional firefighters. 17 City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C In addition, the City would likely need to add one FTE for additional fire inspection services. This position would work with the fire marshal's office to conduct inspections of existing developments within the annexation areas to ensure they are compliant with the City's fire code as they come into the City's jurisdiction. This staff person would also support the need for additional inspections as development ramps up in Gorst. • Municipal Court. The City currently contracts for public defender services, budgeted at $285,000 per year in the City's 2014 budget. Since the increase in demand for these services is driven by caseload, this analysis assumes that this contract will increase proportionally with population growth over time. To estimate the impacts of annexation, the current per capita cost of this contract within the City was applied to the increase in population from annexation. This approach results in an estimated cost of approximately $17,000 in 2014, growing with both inflation and population going forward. This contract cost also grows over time due to population increase within the current city boundaries. Considering caseload increases in the current city and annexation areas, the total contract is projected to increase to approximately $380,000 in 2020. In addition, the Citywill likely need to increasethe Municipal Court's capacityto hear a higher number of cases. This can be accomplished by increasing the contracted number of hours with the Court Commissioner, estimated to cost approximately $15,000 per year. This cost will continue to increase with inflation annually until 2021 when an additional part-time judge (or bigger contract for the Commissioner) is estimated to be needed. The total cost impact of annexation is estimated at $37,000 in 2020. Community Development. The community development department will likely need to add 1.5 FTE additional Building Development Specialist II (building inspector and plan reviewer) to handle the increase in permit activity citywide. These additional staff members will necessitate a one-time capital investment for a vehicle when they are hired. The analysis assumes a one-time cost of $36,000 for vehicle and other equipment. • Parks Maintenance and Recreation. The City's parks Level of Service (LOS) requires a neighborhood park to be within % mile pedestrian distance of all residences. Based on the land area included in the PAAs and the locations of existing neighborhood and community parks, the model estimates there would need to be seven new neighborhood parks to meet LOS requirements for the newly annexed areas. Using a minimum of 1.5 acres per new neighborhood park, this translates into a minimum of 10.5 acres of new park area in the annexed areas. Assuming a maintenance cost to the City of approximately $4,000 per developed acre, this would generate about $42,000 in costs per year once the parks are developed (reflected in the model as 0.25 FTE laborer, with associated non -labor costs). While the exact development timeline of these parks is unknown, this analysis assumes maintenance beginning in 2019 to provide the City with a conservative estimate of cost impacts. Additionally, based on population growth, the City may need to hire approximately 0.25 FTEs in recreation program staff to support additional recreational users once residential development in the UGA comes online. • Street Maintenance. The new lane miles that will be added to the City through annexation, from both the existing roads in the PAAs as well as new roads that will be built as the UGA develops, will drive the need for additional maintenance staff. Based on the constraints of hiring for partial positions, the City would have to add a full 2.0 FTE based on the additional demand. 18 City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C Additionally, there will be marginal costs related to the additional lane mileage beyond staff time, including supplies, materials, and utility costs to support the maintenance work. This results in annual costs of significantly more than just salaries and benefits for the 2.0 FTE. These additional non -labor costs are based on the average non -labor costs per FTE that the City currently budgets in the Street Fund. • Non -Departmental Impacts. In addition to department -specific impacts, the growth in population and development will result in marginal cost increases to election services, population -based contracts with other jurisdictions, and programs like animal control. These costs are based on the share of population between the baseline City and the City after annexation. This analysis of non -departmental impacts includes the following major costs: o Election services o Care and custody of prisoners o Animal Control o Kitsap County emergency management contract o Public health district contract and alcoholism programs Additionally, the City may incur additional costs from assuming responsibility for the proportionate share of South Kitsap Fire and Rescue's (SKFR) debt service that is paid by residents of the PAAs. In total, non -departmental impacts are estimated at about $100,000 per year immediately after annexation, and the majority of these costs will grow with inflation and population over time. The analysis assumes that the other departments not mentioned explicitly above — such as City Council, Legal, the Mayor's and Auditor's Offices, and Engineering — will not be impacted. The following provides an overview of short-term capital facility projects between 2015 and 2020 with an assumption of annexation in 2016. Overall, there are nine separate short-term capital facility projects identified, totaling approximately $18.6 million. Responsibility for these projects is divided between the City of Bremerton, Kitsap County, public grants, and local utility LIDS. Exhibit 6 provides a list of the individual projects by capital facility type, PAA, and funding source. Exhibit 6 Planned Short-term Sewer Capital Projects Capital ' UGA Projects Costs Year Funding Source Facility Type Sewer Navy Yard City Navy Yard City I & I Collection System Improvements (#4107001) $2,650,000 2015-2016 Kitsap County Sewer Rocky Point Phinney Bay Extension (Sub Basin RP -3) (#NS -2A) $1,960,000 2016-2017 UFA/G Sewer Navy Yard City, Rocky Point, West Hills, et al East & West Brem UGA Sewerage - ULID Development (#NS -1 -NS -8) $4,050,000 2016-2018 UFA/G Sewer Rocky Point Jackson to Corbet Drive (Sub Basin RP -3) (#NS -2F) $830,000 2017-2018 UFA/G Sewer West Hills Ostrich Bay Extension (#NS -4A) $3,720,000 2018-2020 UFA/G Sewer Rocky Point Sewer Collection - Sub Basin RP -5 (#NS -2H) $1,910,000 2018-2020 UFA/G Sewer Navy Yard City Westside WWTP Outfall (#C-11) $2,650,000 2019-2020 UFA Sewer Navy Yard City, Gorst Grout Annular Space of SW Bremerton Force Main (#C-18) $200,000 2020 UFA Stormwater Gorst Gorst Creek Watershed Flood Cause Study $600,000 < 2020 UFA/G Total $18,570,000 ' UFA = User Fee Assessment: G =Grants & LID SOURCE: City of Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update, 2014; Gorst Creek Watershed Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan, 2013. iK City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C City of Bremerton Responsibilit' For purposes of this analysis, capital facility projects financed by user fee assessments (UFA) were classified as City of Bremerton projects. A conservative approach was taken whereby projects that either have full or partial City funding ownership including UFAs were categorized as City funded projects. As a result, it is estimated that approximately $15.9 million in short-term capital facility projects would be funded by the City. The following provides a brief overview of short-term capital facility projects by capital type for those projects identified as having City -based funding sources. Fire. (Cost: None). There were no short-term capital impacts related to Fire services for annexation. Police. (Cost: None).There were no short-term capital impacts related to Police services for annexation. Parks. (Cost: None). There were no short-term capital impacts related to Parks services for annexation. Sewer. One to seven projects (Cost: up to $15.3 million). A total of seven short-term sewer capital facility projects have been identified that are located across the four annexation areas. The four PAAs differ in their respective estimated impact to short-term sewer capital facilities as listed below. Note: Some projects overlap or cross annexation geographies and may be listed more than once. • Gorst. (Cost: Up to $200,000). One short-term sewer -related capital improvement project was identified for Gorst, the Grout Annular Space of SW Bremerton Force Main. This project is funded by the City via user assessment fees. • Navy Yard City. (Cost: Up to $6.9 million). Three short-term sewer capital facility projects have been identified for Navy Yard City including: o Westside WWTP Outfall o East and West Bremerton UGA Sewerage — ULID Development o Grout Annular Space of SW Bremerton Force Main All of these projects would be financed by a combination of user fess assessments, grants, and/or utility LIDS. Navy Yard City—Additional Context: Prior to the current annexation study, the County expressed interest in the City taking ownership of the Navy Yard City sewer infrastructure. However, as the infrastructure for this area dates to WWII there are significant related operating, maintenance, and capital facility costs. Approximately five years ago the County offered the City $1,000,000 in capital funding to support transition to City ownership. At the time, it was decided that City ownership did not make sense from a financial perspective and transition of ownership to the City did not take place. Currently, there is one short-term sewer capital facility project listed within the Kitsap County Public Works Sewer Utility Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan — the Navy Yard City I & I Collection System Improvements project, with an estimated cost of $2.7 million. Based upon conversations with the City, this project would need to be completed by the County as a prerequisite for annexation. Rocky Point. (Cost: up to $8.8 million). A total of four short-term capital improvement projects have been identified including: o Jackson to Corbet Drive Sub Basin RP -3 o Phinney Bay Extension Sub Basin RP -3 P City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C o Sewer Collection Sub Basin RP -5 o East and West Bremerton UGA Sewerage — ULID Development All of these projects would be financed by a combination of user fess assessments, grants, and/or utility LIDS. • West Hills. (Cost: up to $1.5 million). Two short-term capital facility projects have been identified including: o Ostrich Bay Extension o East and West Bremerton UGA Sewerage — ULID Development All of these projects would be financed by a combination of user fess assessments, grants, and/or utility LIDS. Stormwater. One project (Cost: up to $600,000). The Gorst Creek Watershed Capital Improvement Plan lists the need for a Flood Cause Study to evaluate flooding within the UGA. The plan estimated the cost of the study at $600,000 and designated the City of Bremerton as responsible for funding. Listed revenue sources for this Flood Cause Study include the stormwater fund and grants. There were no other short-term stormwater capital facility projects identified in the remaining PAAs. Transportation: (Cost: TBD). There were no short-term capital impacts related to transportation for annexation. Water. (Cost: None). There were no short-term capital impacts related to water capital facilities for annexation. Short-term Capital Revenues The City of Bremerton's capital projects are primarily funded by the Capital Improvement Funds, except for capital projects undertaken by the City's enterprise funds. Those capital projects are generally funded by the enterprise funds themselves. The City manages four capital improvement funds — general capital improvements, park facilities construction, Washington Avenue connector, and Lower Wheaton Way. The largest funding sources for Washington Avenue connector and Lower Wheaton Way are grants, which are not expected to be impacted by annexation. The remaining capital funds are primarily supported by the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). This section describes how the annexation would generate additional REET revenues. Real Estate Excise Tax. The REET is levied on all sales of real estate, both commercial and residential, that occur within City boundaries. The City collects REET at a 0.5% tax rate based on the transaction price of the sale. To estimate REET revenues, this analysis makes assumptions about the turnover rate of properties within the PAAs. The current rate of real estate sales is still slightly lower than historical averages due to the recovery from the recession. To be conservative, this analysis assumes a turnover rate of 4.0% for residential properties and 2.5% for commercial properties through 2015, and then a return to a more typical rate of 5.0% for residential properties and 3.5% for commercial properties for 2016 and beyond. 0% City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C These assumptions result in the following REET revenue impacts from the PAAs: in the near term, 2016- 2020, the City is estimated to receive a total of approximately $675,000 in REET revenues from the PAAs, or an average of about $135,000 per year. This is based on turnover of existing property as well as sales of new development. This compares to approximately $400,000 in the City's REET revenue per year, which is expected to increase as the economy recovers and development returns to a more typical pace. The City has additional revenue sources, besides REET, that can be used for capital funding. These include the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax and the Commercial Parking Tax. However, given current pressures on operations through the general and street funds, it may be difficult for the City to reallocate significant portions of these funds to capital expenditures in the short-term. KI City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C 5.1 LONG-TERM OPERATING IMPACTS Over the long run, it is estimated that revenues generated by activity in the PAAs will be higher than costs and staffing needs generated by the areas. These general long-term fiscal impacts of annexation mirror the short-term findings, as shown in Exhibit 3, and will result in a positive annual impact to the City of Bremerton's operations budget. However, as with any long-term financial analysis, there are risks inherent in some of the revenue and cost analysis that could arise. A few issues that could substantially change the long-term outlook include: Development Assumptions. The development assumptions included in the model drive nearly all of the cost and revenue findings presented above. Very few impacts are generated simply by the geography of the annexation, rather they are generated by the people and businesses that choose to live and operate there. Therefore, there would be risk if the PAAs did not develop as quickly as planned. The risk is primarily that the PAAs would not have as large of a fiscal benefit to the City. Given the moderate current population and the low level of service need, a lower development rate would result in both lower costs and revenues, resulting in a minor and possible negligible fiscal benefit if development did not occur. Fire Service Needs. The short term impacts of annexing Gorst UGA are to be addressed through a contract with South Kitsap Fire & Rescue. However in the long term, the City would need to look at providing these services directly. In that case, the City would need a fire station (of which there is one currently in Gorst), an engine/paramedic unit, and 6-12 FTE's to provide fire service. 5.2 LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPACT Over the remainder of the study period, there are additional capital facility needs, particularly for parks, sewer, stormwater, and transportation facilities. Responsibility for these projects is divided between the City of Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and private property owners via local utility LIDS. All Capital Facility Needs The scope of this analysis does not include a new examination of all PAAs' capital facility needs. Instead this section focuses on compiling and describing the capital needs identified in recent capital facility needs analyses including: • City of Bremerton, Bremerton Annexation of Gorst UGA Memo, 2014 • City of Bremerton, Gorst Creek Watershed Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan, 2013 • City of Bremerton, Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement, 2013 • City of Bremerton, White Paper: Rock Point Assumption Issues, 2014 • Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities, Capital Improvement Program Overview, 2014 • Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities, Water System Plan Update, 2012 23 City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C • Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update, 2014 • Bremerton Parks Department, Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan, 2014 • Kitsap County, UGA Sizing & Composition Remand Final Capital Facilities Plan Update, 2012 • Kitsap County Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan, 2012 • Kitsap County Public Works, Navy Yard City Sewer CFP 2015-2020 • Kitsap County Public Works, Sewer Utility Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan 2014-2019 • Kitsap County Public Works, Solid Waste Division Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan 2014-2019 • Kitsap County Public Works, Surface and Stormwater Plan Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan 2014-2019 • Kitsap County Public Works, Transportation Six -Year Improvement Program 2015-2020 City of Bremerton Responsibilit Funding sources for the identified long-term capital facility projects vary by project type and include the City of Bremerton, Kitsap County, WSDOT, grants, and local utility LIDS. For purposes of this analysis, capital facility projects financed by user fee assessments (UFA) were classified as City of Bremerton projects. Overall, after the year 2020 there are 32 projected capital facility projects located across the PAAs, totaling $51.3 million. Exhibit 7 provides a high level summary of long-term capital facility costs by jurisdictional funding source with an estimated $33.8 million worth of capital facility projects to be funded by the City of Bremerton. As shown in detail in Exhibit 8, there are multiple long-term capital facility projects whose funding sources are either undetermined or potentially shared. As a result, a conservative approach was taken whereby projects that either have full, potential, or undetermined City funding ownership were listed as City of Bremerton projects. A brief discussion of long-term capital facility projects by facility type is provided below. Exhibit 7 Long-term Capital Facility Projects by Jurisdiction City County County/State State Total Fire TBD - - - $ - Parks TBD - - - $ - Police - - - - $ - Sewer $ 31,890,000 - - - $ 31,890,000 Stormwater $ 1,858,000 - $ 456,000 $ 3,224,000 $ 5,538,000 Transportation TBD $ 12,804,000 - - $ 12,804,000 Water - - $ 1,100,000 - $ 1,100,000 Total $ 33,748,000 $ 12,804,000 $ 1,556,000 $ 3,224,000 $ 51,332,000 Source: Kitsap County/City of Bremerton Gorst Creek Watershed Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan, 2013; City of Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update, 2014; City of Bremerton Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan, 2014; Kitsap County Public Works Transportation Six -Year Improvement Program 2015-2020; City of Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update, 2014. 24 City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C Fire. New fire station and equipment (Cost: TBD). Upon annexation, the South Kitsap Fire & Rescue district would provide support services including equipment to the Gorst UGA. Over the long-term the City would assume fire service to this area requiring a fire station and the purchase of related equipment (e.g. fire engine, paramedic unit). The estimate for these costs are undetermined but would be needed as part of long-term capital facilities planning for the City. Police. (Cost: None). There were no long-term capital impacts related to Police services for annexation identified. Parks. Seven additional neighborhood parks totaling 10.5 acres in size (Cost: TBD). To meet Level of Service (LOS) standards established by the City, a neighborhood class level park is required to be within mile pedestrian distance of all residences. Based on the land area included in the PAAs and the locations of existing neighborhood and community parks, the analysis estimates there would need to be seven new neighborhood parks to meet established LOS requirements within the newly annexed areas. The LOS park analysis excludes both Pendergast Park Regional Park in Navy Yard City and Harborside Fountain Park in Bremerton. Using a minimum of 1.5 acres per new neighborhood park, an additional seven new parks would translate into a minimum of 10.5 acres of new park lands that would need to be purchased in the annexed areas. The estimated cost of purchasing new park lands depends on a variety of factors such as location, site topography, potential remediation needs, and other factors. Estimating this cost is outside the scope of this analysis; this cost remains undetermined. Q City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C Exhibit 8. Long-term Capital Facility Projects by Capital Facility Type Capital Facility Funding UGA Projects Costs Year 3 Type Source Fire All Fire station; engine/paramedic unit TBD > 2020 TBD Parks' All 7 Additional neighborhood parks (10.5 acres) TBD > 2020 TBD Police All None $0 > 2020 Sewer Navy Yard City Replace Crosstown Pipeline (#C-3) $8,600,000 > 2020 UFA Sewer Navy Yard City SR 304 Sewer Collection (#NS -3) $4,280,000 > 2020 UFA/G Sewer Rocky Point Pump Station MD -2 (#NS -2B) $4,730,000 > 2020 UFA/G Sewer Rocky Point Pump Station MD -3 (#NS -2C) $2,830,000 > 2020 UFA/G Sewer Rocky Point Sewer Collection -Sub Basin MD -1 (#NS -1A) $2,550,000 > 2020 UFA/G Sewer Rocky Point Sewer Collection -Sub Basin MD -2 (#NS -1B) $1,320,000 > 2020 UFA/G Sewer Rocky Point Sewer Collection -Sub Basin RP -1 (#NS -2D) $1,220,000 > 2020 UFA/G Sewer Rocky Point Sewer Collection -Sub Basin RP -2 (#NS -2E) $2,180,000 > 2020 UFA/G Sewer Rocky Point Sewer Collection -Sub Basin RP -4 (#NS -2G) $820,000 > 2020 UFA/G Sewer Rocky Point Sewer Collection -Sub Basin RP -5 (#NS -2H) $1,910,000 > 2020 UFA/G Sewer West Hills North Extension (#NS -4B) $1,450,000 > 2020 UFA/G Stormwater All NPDES Upgrades TBD > 2020 TBD Stormwater Gorst Gorst Creek floodplain flooding $15,000 > 2020 TBD Stormwater Gorst Highway flooding from two creeks $3,224,000 > 2020 WSDOT Stormwater Gorst Hillside seepage & stream overbank flooding $99,000 > 2020 TBD Stormwater Gorst Private storm sewer piping creating sink hole & fish $456,000 > 2020 County/State passage barrier Stormwater Gorst Roadway undermining and culvert clogging $13,000 > 2020 UFA/G Stormwater Gorst Storm drain piping & sink hole $216,000 > 2020 TBD Stormwater Gorst Stream overtopping $1,049,000 > 2020 TBD Stormwater Gorst Upstream Culvert 12 inlet flooding and fish $292,000 > 2020 TBD passage, Map ID #111010 Stormwater Gorst Water quality concerns with yard flooding $0 > 2020 Stormwater Gorst Water quality with private pond $0 > 2020 Stormwater Gorst WSDOT Hwy 3 flooding $174,000 > 2020 TBD Transportation All Possible bike improvements TBD > 2020 TBD Transportation All Possible pedestrian Improvements TBD > 2020 TBD Transportation Gorst Belfair Widening to 4 lanes - Bremerton City Limits $2,822,000 > 2020 County to Sam Christopherson Ave. Transportation Gorst Belfair Widening to 4 lanes - Mason County Line to $9,982,000 > 2020 County Bremerton City Limits Transportation Gorst Possible Intersection improvements -Sherman TBD > 2020 TBD Heights Road Water All None $1,100,000 > 2020 County/State Total $51,332,000 1This table does not include costs of upgrading the UGAs' current transportation infrastructure to an urban standard. 2These parks were identified as part of the long-term annexation analysis, and are not identified in any existing City or County capital documents. 3 UFA = User Fee Assessment; G =Grants & LID Source: Kitsap County/City of Bremerton Gorst Creek Watershed Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan, 2013; City of Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update, 2014; City of Bremerton Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan, 2014; Kitsap County Public Works Transportation Six -Year Improvement Program 2015-2020; City of Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update, 2014. Q, City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C Sewer. One to eleven projects (Cost: up to $31.9 million). A total of 11 long-term sewer capital facility projects have been identified that would be fully or partially located within the PAAs. All of the 11 long- term sewer projects identified are listed in the 2014 City of Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update. The four PAAs differ in their estimated impacts to sewer capital facilities: • Gorst. (Cost: None). No long-term sewer capital improvements have been identified. • Navy Yard City. (Cost: Up to $12.9 million). Two long-term sewer capital improvement projects have been identified. The first is the Replace Crosstown Pipeline project to be financed by user fee assessments. The second is the SR 304 Sewer Collection project and it would be financed by a combination of user fess assessments, grants, and/or utility LIDS. • Rocky Point. (Cost: up to $17.6 million). A total of eight long-term capital improvement projects have been identified. These include two pump station projects (Pump Station MD -2 and MD -3) and six sub -basin sewer collection projects (Sub Basin MD -1, MD -2, RP -1, RP -2, RP -4, and RP -5). All projects would be financed by combination of user fess assessments, grants, and/or utility LIDS. • West Hills. (Cost: up to $1.5 million). One project has been identified — the North Extension project. This project would be financed by combination of user fess assessments, grants, and/or utility LIDS. Stormwater. (Cost: up to $1.86 million). The majority of long-term stormwater projects identified are within the Gorst annexation area. Additional NPDES-related stormwater projects are anticipated across all PAAs (see Exhibit 9). • All PAAs. It is anticipated that the NPDES regulatory framework adopted by the City of Bremerton would facilitate the planning and building of new stormwater structures within any one or all of the PAAs. To date, no NPDES related capital improvement projects have been identified nor funding sources identified. However, upon annexation, NPDES related projects may add costs and/or impacts to stormwater capital facility planning over the long-term. • Gorst. Between one to seven projects (Cost: up to $1.86 million). The Gorst Creek Watershed Plan identifies 35 sites within the watershed that need stormwater improvements. Of these projects, 11 are within the Gorst UGA. These projects are shown in Exhibit 9 below. Exhibit 9 Long-term Stormwater Capital Facility Needs for the Gorst UGA (2018 - 2035) Projects Costs Designated Responsibility WSDOT Hwy 3 flooding $174,000 City Hillside seepage & stream overbank flooding $99,000 City Storm drain piping & sink hole $216,000 City Highway flooding from two creeks $3,224,000 WSDOT Stream overtopping $1,049,000 City Gorst Creek floodplain flooding $15,000 City Roadway undermining and culvert clogging $13,000 City Private storm sewer piping creating sink hole & fish passage barrier $456,000 Non -city, County, State Upstream Culvert 12 inlet flooding and fish passage, Map ID #111010 $292,000 City Water quality concerns with yard flooding $0 Water quality with private pond $0 Total $5,538,000 Source: Kitsap County/City of Bremerton Gorst Creek Watershed Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan, 2013. 27 City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment C The plan provides initial cost estimates for these projects and lists the entity responsible for each project. Of the 11 projects in the Gorst UGA, seven are designated the responsibility of the City of Bremerton. These seven projects total $1.86 million. Responsibility for stormwater projects is based on the Gorst Creek Watershed Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan Technical Memorandum completed in September, 2013. Discussions with the City of Bremerton Public Works Department indicate that they believe the City is only responsible for projects in the public right-of-way, which is just one project totaling $13,000. There are also three sites where the responsibility is uncertain. These uncertain projects' costs total $771,000. As a result, potential long-term stormwater capital costs vary widely based on how responsibility is ultimately assigned. To be conservative, the City may want to assume the maximum of $1.86 million when considering the full impacts of annexation. Once Gorst residents begin paying into the City's stormwater fund, the City may be expected to partner on drainage issues on both public and private party. Transportation. (Cost: TBD). Future transportation infrastructure capital investments will be necessary to achieve a modern urban standard. The City should consider long-term planning around upgrading the UGAs' current transportation infrastructure to an urban standard which may include adding sidewalks, curbs, gutters, bike paths, and storm drain systems. These improvements could be phased overtime as the City identifies specific needs and revenue sources. Water. (Cost: Up to $1.1 million). Currently, the City's Water Utility provides drinking water to the Gorst, Navy Yard City, and West Hills annexation areas as part of the Bremerton Service Area. The City also ultimately supplies drinking water to the Rocky Point annexation area but its relationship to Rocky Point remains unique. In particular, although Rocky Point conveyed its water system infrastructure to the City in 1952, the area has maintained its own special purpose water district with an elected three-person board of commissioners with responsibilities for administration, planning, and capital improvements. This structure currently results in redundant costs for Rocky Point residents. Upon annexation the City would likely enter into negotiations with the Rocky Point Water District for potential inclusion within the City of Bremerton water utility. Prior to assumption by the City, should that occur, improvements may need to be completed within the Rocky Point Water District, financed by non -City funding sources. These improvements have an estimated cost of approximately $1.1 million. 28 City Council Packet- Attachment C Attachment C Exhibit A- 1 shows the future land use map for the Gorst UGA under the Preferred Alternative. Exhibit A-1 Gorst UGA Preferred Alternative Future Land Use Map PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: FUTURE LAND USE MAP West Bremerton UGA. City of Bremerton Neighborhood Mixed Use" Gorst UGA Low Intensely Gorst Creek Mixed Use" Residenh al UGA Boundary .......... ❑Cc.L t Preferred Alternative Land Use opo Space! ? Commiercial Low Intensity Recreation- �netcial %Orrldor Corridor Waterfront �..-.....•-•---•---, i Industrial i Gorst Mixed Use L6� Neighbnrhond Mixed Use ;,.••,.....-- • ••'• -•• Gorst Mixed Use • Low Intensity Mixed Use ,.... t •- .......... _ ........... Lnw Intensity Waterfront City of Bremerton Gorst Creek Residential Open Space/Recreation �Nnte 7h7s ztrne is similar to Low Intensely Waterfront except that residential dove lopw ent is allowed. Lam '—ty, BERK Source: City of Bremerton, 2014. P City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment D WHAT IF WE BECAME PART OF BREMERTON... Rocky W..r Rocky Point is one of several unincorporated urban growth areas (UGAs) in Kitsap County, and is primarily residential, with a population of 1,560 in 2014. Annexation to the City of Bremerton would improve residents' representation and level of service for public safety, parks and recreation, and utility services. Annexation would also increase a typical family of three's total overall annual taxes, utility service costs, and fees by $143 annually. LEVEL OF SERVICE Annexation by the City of Bremerton would greatly enhance Rocky Point residents' level of service for city services and over time bring urban amenities like sidewalks, neighborhood parks, and beautification programs to the Rocky Point area. Some examples of anticipated increases in level of service for Rocky Point residents include: Representation. Rocky Point residents would have more representation in their municipal government. Rather than being represented by three County Commissioners serving 250,000 people, residents would be served by one Mayor and seven City Council Members serving about 40,000 people. Police Services Rocky Point residents would be served by the Bremerton Police Department instead of the Kitsap County Sheriff. Bremerton Police Department's response times are at least five minutes faster for the three highest priority call types. Fire and EMS Services, Rocky Point residents are currently served by � _� the Bremerton Fire Department (through an agreement with South Kitsap Fire and Rescue) while paying taxes to support South Kitsap Fire and Rescue. If annexed, Rocky Point residents would pay and be For More Information, Please Contact: Allison Satter, City of Bremerton allison.salter@ci.bremerton.wa.us 360.473.5845 www.BremertonWA.gov/annexation 0 WSHINGTO" CO FEBRUARY 2017 served directly by Bremerton Fire Department. Parks and Recreation. Rocky Point residents would be served by the City of Bremerton instead of Kitsap County. The City of Bremerton provides 331 acres of parks property, as well as a 180 -acre golf course, with geographic service standards (1/2 mile distance for neighborhood parks and 2-5 mile distance for community parks). The City operates Haddon Park in close proximity to Rocky Point. The City also provides recreation programming at reduced rates for City residents. Utilities. Rocky Point Water District would likely be assumed by the City of Bremerton water utility, and residents served by it would continue to receive water service, now from the City of Bremerton, without interruption. Currently, residents of Rocky Point do not have sewer services. Residents may be transitioned to sewer at some point in the future, regardless of whether they are annexed. Residents should not expect to receive sewer services as part of annexation. City Council Packet: Attachment C "I NICIPAL TAXFq A ri FFF If Rocky Point was annexed to the City of Bremerton, the typical single family household with three people and two cars would see an increase of approximately $143 in overall annual taxes, utility service costs, and fees. The table below provides this point -in -time (based on 2016 levy rates, services costs, and fees) estimate by individual cost. While residents would pay a bit more, they would also benefit from increased representation and level of service for public safety, parks and recreation, and utility services. Transportation Benefit District Total Costs for a Typical Single Family Household $0 $40 $0 $40 Total Cost Difference of Incorporation 540 FEBRUARY 2017 Attachment D Assumptions: The costs to the left represent a point -in -time snapshot of the average annual cost differences if annexation were to happen today for an average family of three that owns their own home and has two vehicles. The assumptions used to approximate this include: Assessed Value $240,000 ........................................................ Number of Vehicles 2 ........................................................ Monthly Water Usage 7.0 HCF ........................................................ Monthly Wastewater 6.5 HCF Monthly Electricity Bill $50 ........................................................ Monthly Natural Gas Bill $25 Monthly Telephone Bill $25 ........... ........................................... Monthly Cable Bill $75 ................................. Monthly Garbage Level 135 -gallon of Service can weekly ........................................................ * The City is authorized to levy property taxes on annexed properties to support existing capital bonds. Whether or not to levy this tax on annexed property is a decision that will be made at the date of annexation. For the purposes of this analysis, we have included them (based on a decreased levy rate estimated using the increased assessed value from annexation) as a potential cost to urban growth area residents if they were to be annexed. ** Currently, residents of Rocky Point do not have sewer services. These residents may be transitioned to sewer at some point in the future, regardless of whether they are annexed. This analysis presents a snapshot of costs if annexation were to happen under current conditions (based on 2016 levy rates, services costs, and fees). As such, sewer capital costs and service fees were not included as a cost to annexed residents. :111 BERK County Bremerton PropertyAnnual by Typical Single HouseholdFamily State General Property Tax $565 $565 Regional Library Property Tax $92 $92 Local School Property Tax $1,336 $1,336 County General Property Tax $280 $280 Port Property Tax $92 $92 PUD Property Tax $19 $19 Noxious Weed Property Tax $2 $2 City of Bremerton Property Tax $0 $679 Fire Capital Bonds $38 $130* Fire Levy $294 $0 EMS Levy $120 $117 County Roads Levy $385 $0 Total Cost for a Typical Single Family Household $3,223 $3,312 Total Cost Difference of Incorporation $89 Utilities Service Costs, Fees, and Taxes .. Householda Typical Single Family Cable TV Franchise Fees $48 $63 Water $488 $325 Stormwater $87 $138 Garbage $168 $210 Streetlighting $3 $0 Telephone Tax $0 $18 Natural Gas Tax $0 $18 Electricity Tax $0 $36 Total Cost for a Typical Single Family Household $794 $808 1 Total Cost Difference of Incorporation $14 Annual Fees d by Typical Single Family Household Transportation Benefit District Total Costs for a Typical Single Family Household $0 $40 $0 $40 Total Cost Difference of Incorporation 540 FEBRUARY 2017 Attachment D Assumptions: The costs to the left represent a point -in -time snapshot of the average annual cost differences if annexation were to happen today for an average family of three that owns their own home and has two vehicles. The assumptions used to approximate this include: Assessed Value $240,000 ........................................................ Number of Vehicles 2 ........................................................ Monthly Water Usage 7.0 HCF ........................................................ Monthly Wastewater 6.5 HCF Monthly Electricity Bill $50 ........................................................ Monthly Natural Gas Bill $25 Monthly Telephone Bill $25 ........... ........................................... Monthly Cable Bill $75 ................................. Monthly Garbage Level 135 -gallon of Service can weekly ........................................................ * The City is authorized to levy property taxes on annexed properties to support existing capital bonds. Whether or not to levy this tax on annexed property is a decision that will be made at the date of annexation. For the purposes of this analysis, we have included them (based on a decreased levy rate estimated using the increased assessed value from annexation) as a potential cost to urban growth area residents if they were to be annexed. ** Currently, residents of Rocky Point do not have sewer services. These residents may be transitioned to sewer at some point in the future, regardless of whether they are annexed. This analysis presents a snapshot of costs if annexation were to happen under current conditions (based on 2016 levy rates, services costs, and fees). As such, sewer capital costs and service fees were not included as a cost to annexed residents. :111 BERK City Council Packet: Attachment C Attachment E Existing City of Bremerton mQ N Water Sewer Infrastructure z�v z Qs 0 LL 19TH 18TH 17TH Ui ca LU sr W ti Legend Water Main Sewer Mains Study Area 0 QCity Limits 0 0.12 Mile AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Ordinance No. to amend Chapter 15 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Municipal Utilities" Study Session Date: COUNCIL MEETING Date: Department: Presenter: Phone: C4 May 10, 2017 May 17, 2017 PWU W.Hamilton/P.Coxon (360) 473-5758 SUMMARY: The Department of Public Works and Utilities has reviewed, revised and made the following amendments to the existing Title 15 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC): o Section 15.01.020 corrected definitions to the sewer strength o Section 15.02.130 updated cross connection control and inspection o Section 15.03.100 made revisions to wastewater which adds the yearly waste strength review o Section 15.06.015 revised assessments, rates, fees and charges which details the requirements for GFC deferrals o Section 15.07.020 allow for a credit to be given when it benefits the utility ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A STUDY SESSION AGENDA STUDY SESSION ACTION RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No entitled "Municipal Utilities". COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve Form Updated 01/07/15 ❑ No Presentation ❑x Full Presentation ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing to amend Chapter 15 of the Bremerton Municipal Code ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Title 15 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Municipal Utilities" by amending sections of Chapter 15.01 entitled General Provisions," Chapter 15.02 entitled "Water," Chapter 15.03 entitled "Wastewater," Chapter 15.06 entitled "Assessments, Rates, Fees and Charges," and Chapter 15.07 entitled "Utility Billing." WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update sections of Chapter 15.01, Chapter 15.02, Chapter 15.03, Chapter 15.06, and Chapter 15.07 relating to definitions and to make related changes; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 15.01.020 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Definitions" is hereby amended to read as follows: 15.01.020 DEFINITIONS. The terms used in this title shall mean the following, except where the context otherwise requires: (a) Definitions "A": "Active account" shall mean an account that has current usage, billing and payment activity. "Active water service" shall mean that the water meter for the service location has registered consumption. "AKART" shall mean all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment. See also the State Water Pollution Control Act, RCW 90.48.010 and 90.48.520. "As -graded" shall mean the extent of surface conditions on completion of grading. "Average daily" shall mean the total quantity divided by the number of days of waste or stormwater discharge or water use by the typical user in a user class. (b) Definitions "B": "Backflow" shall mean the flow of water or other liquids, mixtures or substances into the distribution system of the public water supply from any source or sources other than the intended source. "Backflow prevention device" shall mean a device to counteract back pressure and prevent back siphonage or backflow. "Best management practices (BMPs)" means the schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and structural and/or managerial practices, that when used 1 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 singly or in combination, prevent or reduce the release of pollutants and other adverse impacts to waters of Washington State. "BOD (biochemical oxygen demand)" means an indirect measure of the concentration of biologically degradable materials present in organic wastes. The amount of free oxygen utilized by aerobic organisms when allowed to attack the organic material in an aerobically maintained environment at a specified temperature (20°C) for a specific time period (5 days), and thus stated as BODS. It is expressed in milligrams of oxygen utilized per liter of liquid waste volume (mg/1) or in milligrams of oxygen per kilogram of waste solution (mg/kg = ppm = parts per million parts). Also called biological oxygen demand. "Bulkhead" shall mean a seawall or rock embankment constructed along the waterfront to protect the land behind it from erosion by waves and tidal action of the sea. (c) Definitions "C": "Capital costs" shall mean the total costs of physical system improvements (exclusive of repair and replacement costs covered under operation and maintenance costs), including, but not limited to, the costs of direct construction, engineering, financing, legal fees, real estate, right-of- way, debt service, and other costs associated with such improvements. "City" means City of Bremerton. "Clearing" shall mean the destruction and removal of vegetation by manual, mechanical, or chemical methods. This definition shall include grubbing vegetation. "Clearing and grading permit" shall mean the written approval of the City of Bremerton building inspector to proceed with the act of clearing property within the City limits of Bremerton. The clearing and grading permit includes the associated approved plans and any conditions of approval as well as the permit form itself. "Combined sewer" shall mean a sewer intended to convey sanitary sewage, industrial wastes, and storm and surface water in a single system. disehafges "ese total stispetided solids and bieehemieal &iygeii demand is less Oian twe rata,. -ed e (gni) ,ng4 "Gommefeial " disehaf:ges "ese total sttspended solids and bieehefnieal oxygen demand r-anges ffem feer- " P disehafges whose total 8ttspetided solids and bieehemieal &Eygeii demand fanges 4em twe sized, pr-eper-ly installed, r-egttlaf4y maintained and sttffieiently deettmented type of tr-eatment "Commercial P' shall mean any user whose business or nonresidential wastewater discharges whose total suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand is less than two hundred one (201) m _ L. "Commercial II" shall mean any user whose business or nonresidential wastewater discharges whose total suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand ranges from two hundred one (201) to four hundred 400) m _ L. 2 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 "Commercial III" shall mean any user whose business or nonresidential wastewater discharges whose total suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand ranges from four hundred one (401) to six hundred (600) mg/L. "Commercial IV" shall mean any user whose business or nonresidential wastewater discharge whose total suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand ranges from six hundred one (601) to eight hundred (800) mg/L. "Commercial V" shall mean any user whose business or nonresidential wastewater discharge whose total suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand ranges from eight hundred one (801) to one thousand (1000) mg/L. "Commercial VF' shall mean any user whose business or nonresidential wastewater discharge whose total suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand ranges from one thousand one (1001) to one thousand two hundred (1200) mg/L. "Commercial Vll" shall mean any user whose business or nonresidential wastewater discharge whose total suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand ranges from one thousand two hundred and one (120 1) to one thousand eight hundred (1800) mg/L. "Commercial account with high conductivity" shall mean an account that discharges conductivity greater than (>) 6.0 mS/cm for any interval equal to or exceeding five (5) minutes three (3) times during any thirty (30) day period. The account will be billed the Commercial Special rate as published in the City of Bremerton utility rates and fee schedule. "Commercial agriculture" shall mean those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.020(2), and activities involved in the production of crops or livestock for wholesale trade. An activity ceases to be considered commercial agriculture when the area on which it is conducted is proposed for conversion to a nonagricultural use or has laid idle for more than five (5) years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soil conservation program, or unless the activity is maintenance or irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, or drainage ditches related to an existing and ongoing agricultural activity. "Commercial business with living units" shall mean a business with residential living units attached; the utility rates will be based on the business type and the number of residential units. "Commercial property" shall mean a parcel of property which is developed for nonresidential purposes. "Commercial special" shall mean any user whose business or nonresidential wastewater discharge whose total suspended solids (TSS) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) exceeds one thousand eight hundred (1800 mg/L and /or has a conductivity discharge greater than (>) 6.0 mS/cm.. These users will be charged for wastewater services on the basis of their specific discharge, which provides equitable recovery of the City's cost of conveying, owning, operating, and maintaining the wastewater treatment system, rather than average class strength. "Condominium (condo)" shall mean an apartment that is individually owned but the land is jointly owned by all homeowners. "Conductivity" shall mean the measurement of electrical conductivity as an indicator of water quality. Conductivity data can determine concentration of solutions, detect contaminants and determine the purity of water. A conductivity sensor measures conductivity by AC voltage applied to nickel electrodes. These electrodes are placed in a water sample (or other liquid), where the current flows through the electrodes and the sample. Current level has a direct relationship with the conductivity of the solution. The basic unit of conductivity is the Siemens Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 (S), sometimes referred to as mho. Since cell geometry affects conductivity values, standardized measurements are expressed in specific conductive . units (S/cm) to compensate for variations in electrode dimensions. Conductivity measurements, along with temperature, also allow for Salinity values to be calculated through algorithms. "Connection fee" shall mean charges made for connection to the utility system. The connection fees will include the costs of tapping the water main, sewer main or storm main, installing the service and meter, restoring the surface, and all other costs associated with the physical connection of the customer system to the City utility system. "Construction charge and special fees" shall mean those charges made by the City to cover its unreimbursed construction costs for installing special facilities not covered by connection fees and general facility fees. "Contract user" shall mean any user who, by virtue of the amount, strength, or location of its discharge or the conditions of service, requires a contractual basis for service to be equitably served. "Creek" shall mean those areas where surface waters flow sufficiently to produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is indicated by hydraulically sorted sediments or the removal of vegetative litter or loosely rooted vegetation by the action of moving water. The channel or bed need not contain water year around. This definition is not meant to include stormwater runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used to store and/or convey pass-through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction. "Critical area" shall mean any area designated as a critical area pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 and Chapter 20.14 BMC. "Cross connection" shall mean any physical arrangement whereby the City water system is connected, directly or indirectly, with any other water supply system, sewer, drain, conduit, pool, storage reservoir, plumbing fixture, or other device which contains or may contain contaminated water, sewage, or other waste or liquids of unknown or unsafe quality that may be capable of imparting contamination to the City water system as a result of backflow. Bypass arrangements, jumper connections, removal sections, swivel or changeover devices, and other temporary or permanent devices through which or because of which backflow could occur are considered to be cross connections. "Cubic feet (CF)" shall mean cubic feet of measure. (d) Definitions "D": "Deactivated meters" shall mean utility accounts where the customer requests the water meter to be shut off and locked, and the water/wastewater services and associated billings be temporarily suspended. The account will continue to be billed for stormwater until the meter is reactivated. "Degradation" shall mean deterioration of an area including, but is not limited to, impacts such as sedimentation, erosion, and loss of shading, light, and noise. "Department" shall mean the Department of Public Works and Utilities. "Developed lot" shall mean a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, which cannot be more intensively developed pursuant to the Bremerton zoning code, and which cannot be further subdivided pursuant to City subdivision regulations. "Development" shall mean any new development and/or redevelopment activity that requires federal, state, or local approval for the use or modification of land or its resources. These activities include, but are not limited to, subdivision and short subdivisions; binding site 4 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 plans; planned unit developments; variances; shoreline substantial development; clearing activity; excavation; embankment; fill and grade work; converting fallow land or undeveloped land to agricultural purposes; activity conditionally allowed; building or construction; revocable encroachment permits; and septic approval. "Development area" shall mean an area where the movement of earth or a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and nonvegetative) and/or the existing soil topography occurs as a result of an applicant's development plans. "Director" shall mean the Director of Public Works and Utilities or any other duly authorized representative designated by the Director as the person responsible for technical direction of this code. "Driveway drain" shall mean a drain typically located below street grade at the bottom of a sloped driveway. "Duplex" shall mean a residential unit containing two (2) separate dwelling units with any configuration or two (2) dwelling units located on one parcel. (e) Definitions "E": "Earth" shall mean the natural mineral and organic material forming the soil and its underlying substance. For the purposes of this chapter, earth shall include sand, gravel, and ledge rock. "Ecology" shall mean the Washington State Department of Ecology. "Emergency" shall mean a situation demanding immediate action with threat to life, property or environment. "Engineered fill" shall mean soil fill, which is wetted or dried to near its optimum moisture content, placed in lifts of twelve (12) inches or less and each lift compacted to a minimum percent compaction as specified by a geotechnical engineer. "Engineering Design and Construction Standards" shall mean the City of Bremerton's Standards for Work in Rights -of -Way. "Equivalent residential unit (ERU)" shall mean a unit of measurement equivalent to an average single-family residence. This measurement shall be used to determine sewer general facility charges. ERUs cannot be transferred from one property or account to another property or account. "Excavate" shall mean the mechanical removal of earth material, including soil, sand, gravel, rock, concrete or asphalt. "Existing service" shall mean a functioning water service line or sewer lateral that is physically located at the parcel. "Existing site conditions" shall mean: For developed sites with stormwater facilities that have been constructed to meet the standards in the minimum requirements of the ordinance codified in this title, "existing site conditions" shall mean the existing conditions on the site; For developed sites that do not have stormwater facilities that meet the minimum requirements, "existing site conditions" shall mean the conditions that existed prior to local government adoption of the ordinance codified in this section. If in question, the existing site conditions shall be documented by aerial photograph records, or other appropriate means; For all sites in water quality sensitive areas, "existing site conditions" shall mean undisturbed forest for the purpose of calculating runoff characteristics; and/or 5 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 For all undeveloped sites outside of water quality sensitive areas, "existing site conditions" shall mean the existing conditions on the site. "Expanded service" shall mean the increase in water service based on the addition or increase in size in water meter(s) serving the customer, the increase in wastewater service based on equivalent residential units or the increase in stormwater service based on impervious surface units. "Extended line" shall mean a privately financed water, wastewater or stormwater main constructed with the written approval of the Director or their designee. (f) Definitions "F": "Facility" means any food processing establishment, food sales establishment, or food service establishment. "Fats, oils and greases" means organic compounds derived from animal and/or plant sources that contain multiple carbon triglyceride molecules. These substances are detectable and measurable using analytical procedures established in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 136 (40 CFR 136). Commonly referred to as "polar." "Fill" means a deposit of earth material placed by artificial means to increase the ground surface elevation or to replace excavated material. "Food" means any raw, cooked, or processed edible substance, ice, or ingredient used or intended for use or sale in whole or in part for consumption. "Food processing establishment (FPE)" means a commercial establishment in which food is manufactured or packaged for consumption. "Food sales establishment (FSE)" means retail and wholesale grocery stores, retail seafood stores, food processing plants, bakeries, confectioneries, fruit, nuts and vegetable stores and places of business and similar establishments, mobile or permanent, engaged in the sale of food primarily for consumption off premises. "Food service establishments (FSE)" means any establishment for the preparation and serving of meals, lunches, short orders, sandwiches, frozen desserts, or other edible products and/or are required to have a food business permit issued by Kitsap County Department of Health. The term includes: restaurants, coffee shops, cafeterias, short order cafes, luncheonettes, taverns, lunchrooms, places which manufacture retail sandwiches, soda fountains, institutional cafeterias, catering establishments, food vending vehicles, and operations connected therewith; and similar facilities by whatever name called. "Force main" shall mean a sanitary sewer pressurized pipe system used to transfer wastewater from a sewer lift station to the wastewater treatment facility. "Fourplex" shall mean a residential unit containing four (4) separate dwelling units with any configuration or four (4) dwelling units located on one (1) parcel. (g) Definitions "G": "General facilities charges (GFC)" shall mean the charge established to reflect the proportionate cost share for existing source, treatment, distribution, transmission, collection, interception, and storage facilities that will be paid on all new and/or expanded utility connections to the City utility. "Geologically hazardous areas" shall mean areas as defined in the City's critical areas ordinance and includes areas that because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquake or 6 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 other geological events are not suited to the siting of commercial, residential or industrial development consistent with public health or safety concerns. "Geotechnical engineer" shall mean a professional engineer currently registered in the State of Washington, qualified by reason of experience and education in the practice of geotechnical engineering, and designated by the owner as the geotechnical engineer of record for the project. "Grading" shall mean the movement of earth material through mechanical or other means to create the finished surface and contour of a project site. "Grease" means rendered animal fat, vegetable shortening, and other such oily matter used for the purposes of and resulting from preparing and/or cooking food. "Grease interceptor" means an interceptor of at least seven hundred fifty (750) gallon capacity whose rated flow exceeds fifty (50) gallons per minute (gpm) to serve one (1) or more fixtures and which is remotely located underground and outside of a food service facility. It is designed to collect, contain or remove food wastes and grease from the waste stream while allowing the balance of the liquid waste ("gray water") to discharge to the wastewater collection system by gravity. "Grease removal unit" means a device designed to separate fats, oils, and grease from liquid waste prior to the wastewater entering the wastewater system. "Grease trap" means a device located inside a food service facility designed to retain grease from one (1) to a maximum of four (4) fixtures whose rated flow is fifty (50) gallons per minute (gpm) or less. It is designed to collect, contain or remove food wastes and grease from the waste stream while allowing the balance of the liquid waste to discharge to the wastewater collection system by gravity or mechanical means. "Grinder pump" shall mean a system that takes liquid wastes from a home/business and pumps the waste to the City's sewage conveyance system, located in the public right-of-way. The grinder pump system includes a pump, pump basin, piping, and electrical controls. "Ground cover" shall mean a dense covering of small plants and grasses with a trunk or stem size less than four (4) inches in diameter and which normally cover the ground. "Ground water" shall mean water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the surface of land or a surface water body. "Grubbing" shall mean the act of removing vegetation by the roots. (h) Definitions "H": "Hard surface" means an impervious surface, a permeable pavement, or a vegetated roof. "Hazardous materials" means any material, including any substance, waste, or combination thereof, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may cause, or significantly contribute to, a substantial present or potential hazard to human health, safety, property or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. "Health Officer" shall mean the Kitsap Health District Health Officer or designee. "Hundred cubic feet (HCF)" shall mean hundred cubic feet of measure. "Hyperchlorinated" means water that contains more than ten (10) mg/L chlorine. (i) Definitions "I": "Illicit connection" means any manmade conveyance that is connected to the stormwater system without a permit, excluding roof drains and other similar type connections. Examples 7 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 include sanitary sewer connections, floor drains, channels, pipelines, conduits, inlets, or outlets that are connected directly to the municipal separate storm sewer system. "Illicit discharge" means any direct or indirect nonstormwater discharge to the City's storm drain system, except as expressly exempted by this chapter. "Impervious/hard surface unit (IHSU) (ISU)" shall mean a configuration or conglomeration of impervious surface. One (1) impervious surface unit (IHSU) is equivalent to two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of impervious surface area. "Improper stormwater inflow" or "improper connection" shall mean any kind of stormwater connection or inflow to the wastewater system prohibited by this chapter including, but not limited to: roof drains, parking lot drains, curtain drains, driveway drains and sump pumps. "Improved premises" shall mean any area which has been altered such that the runoff from the site is greater than runoff prior to development. "Inactive account" shall mean an account that has no current usage, billing or payment activity. "Inactive water service" shall mean that the water meter for the service location has not registered any noticeable consumption. Some of the reasons for inactivity would be by a customer's request, shut off for nonpayment, requested deactivation or the water meter has been removed for non -usage. "Industrial User"- (See "Commercial special-") "Infiltration" shall mean ground water entering the wastewater or stormwater system through open pipe joints, cracks in manhole walls, and cracked pipe. "Infiltration (Stormwater)" shall mean the downward movement of water from the surface to the subsoil. "Inflow" shall mean rainwater or other clean water that enters the wastewater system through roof leader connections, catch basins, yard and foundation drains, perforated manhole covers, and other openings to the wastewater system. 0) Reserved. (k) Reserved. (1) Definitions "L": "Lakes" shall mean natural or artificial bodies of water of two (2) or more acres and/or where the deepest part of the basin at low water exceeds two (2) meters (6.6 feet). Artificial bodies of water with a recirculation system approved by the Public Works Department are not included in this definition. "Land development permit" shall mean a preliminary or final plat for a single-family residential development; a building permit; site plan; preliminary or final planned unit development plan. "Lateral sewer" shall mean a sanitary sewer constructed within a public right-of-way between the standard gravity sanitary sewer and the right-of-way line in accordance with current Engineering Design and Construction Standards. "Low impact development (LID)" shall mean stormwater and land use management strategy that strives to mimic pre -disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration by emphasizing conservation, use of on-site natural 8 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 features, site planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a project design. (m) Definitions "M": "Mechanical equipment" shall mean all motorized equipment used for earth moving, trenching, excavation, gardening, landscaping, and general property maintenance exceeding twelve (12) horsepower in size. "Minimum design capability" means the design features of a grease interceptor and its ability to or the volume required to effectively intercept and retain greases from grease -laden wastewaters discharged to wastewater system. "Multifamily units" shall mean a parcel of property which has been legally developed with more than two (2) residential living units. "Municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)" means a conveyance or system of conveyances, including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains, which are: (1) Owned or operated by the City of Bremerton; (2) Designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater; and (3) Not part of a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) and not a combined sewer. (n) Definitions "N": "Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE)" shall mean an easement granted for the protection of native vegetation within a sensitive area or its associated buffer. The NGPE shall be recorded on the appropriate documents of title and filed with the Kitsap County Assessors Office. "Natural location" shall mean the location of those channels, swales, and other nonmanmade conveyance systems as defined by the first documented topographic contours existing for the subject property, either from maps or photographs, or such other means as appropriate. In the case of outwash soils with relatively flat terrain, no natural location of surface discharge may exist. "New development" shall mean land disturbing activities, including Class IV -general forest practices that are conversions from timber land to other uses; structural development, including construction or installation of a building or other structure; creation of hard surfaces; and subdivision, short subdivision and binding site plans, as defined and applied in Chapter 58.17 RCW. Projects meeting the definition of redevelopment shall not be considered new development. "Nonpolar (mineral origin)" means any water or waste which contains more than one hundred (100) parts per million (1,000,000) by weight of fat, oil or grease as measured using analytical procedures established in 40 CFR Part 136. "Nonstormwater discharge" shall mean any discharge to the storm drain system that is not composed entirely of stormwater. "Notice of intent for construction activity" means the application form for coverage under the construction stormwater general permit. (o) Definitions "O": "Occupied property" shall mean real property on which a structure exists that is being served and being billed by an existing or temporary utility facility. 9 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 "Open space" shall mean land set aside for public or private use within a development that is not built upon. "Operation and maintenance costs (O&M costs)" shall mean the total cost of operating and maintaining the utility system, including, but not necessarily limited to, costs for labor, supplies and materials, utility services, vendor services, equipment usage, testing, taxes and assessments. "Outfall" shall mean point source as defined by 40 CFR 122.2 at the point where a discharge leaves the Permitee's MS4 and enters a surface receiving water body or surface receiving waters. Outfall does not include pipes, tunnels, or other conveyances which connect segments of the same stream or other surface waters and are used to convey primarily surface waters (i.e., culverts). (p) Definitions "P": "Parcel" shall mean a distinct tract, section, or plot of a piece of land, usually a division of a larger area. "Parking lot drain" shall mean any drain or catch basin that collects stormwater runoff located within the confines of a parking lot such as those in pay parking lots, apartment complexes, shopping centers, etc. "Partially developed lot" shall mean a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure is located and which is of sufficient area so as to be capable of accommodating additional development pursuant to the Bremerton zoning code; or which may be subdivided in accordance with the City of Bremerton subdivision chapter. "Permeable" shall mean soil or other material that allows the infiltration or passage of water or other liquids. "Permeable pavement" shall mean pervious concrete, porous asphalt, permeable pavers, gravel pave, or other forms of structural pervious or porous paving material intended to allow passage of water through the pavement section. It often includes an aggregate base that provides structural support and acts as a stormwater reservoir. "Permit" shall mean a written legal authorization to conduct an action. "Person" shall mean any individual, association, organization, partnership, firm, corporation or other entity recognized by law and acting as either the owner of a premises or as the owner's agent. "Pervious surface" shall mean any surface material that allows stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. Examples include lawn, landscape, pasture, native vegetation areas, and permeable pavements. "Polar (animal and vegetable origin)" means any water or waste which has visible fats, oils or grease floating on the surface or adhering to the sides of the sample containers. "Pollution" shall mean contamination or other alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological properties of waters of the state, including change in temperature, taste, color, turbidity, or odor of the waters, or such discharge of any liquid, gaseous, solid, radioactive or other substance into any waters of the state as will or is likely to create a nuisance or render such waters harmful, detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety or welfare, or to alter the ecosystem so as to endanger domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate beneficial uses, or to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish or other aquatic life. Further defined in the Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC), Ground Water Quality Standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC), Sediment Management Standards 10 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 (Chapter 173-204 WAC), or human health -based criteria in the national Toxics Rule (Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 246, Dec. 22, 1992, pages 60848-60923). "Pre -Treatment" shall mean any physical, chemical or bio -logical process to remove, neutralize or modify one or more constituents of a waste stream prior to discharge into the public sewers. Pre-treatment may be required to prevent deposition or adherence of substance within the public sewers, to eliminate hazardous exposures of maintenance crews or the public to toxic, noxious or flammable substances, to prevent cumulative or shook loadings that might interfere with the normal performance of treatment processes, to remove substances that are present in sufficient concentration to interfere with the advantageous use of treated sewage sludge as an agricultural fertilizer or soil amendment. "Premises" shall mean a single tract of land, building, or portion of a building under a single control and ownership. "Pressure line" shall mean a sanitary sewer through which wastewater must be forced by pumping or gravity pressure to a point of collection. "Public utilities construction agreement (PLICA)" shall mean an agreement between the City, the developer, and the developer's contractor to construct utility improvements to serve a proposed development. "Publicly owned treatment works (POTW)" shall mean any device or system used in treatment of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature which is publicly owned. (q) Reserved. (r) Definitions "R": "Redevelopment" means conversion of an existing development to another land use, or addition of a material improvement to an existing development. "Reimbursement agreement" shall mean an agreement entered into between the installer of a utility facility and the Department for the purpose of reimbursing the installer for all or part of the costs for installation or extension of the utility system by subsequent development for the facility defined in the agreement. "Removal" shall mean the actual destruction or causing the effective destruction through damaging, poisoning or other direct or indirect actions resulting in the death of a tree or ground cover. "Roof drains" shall mean any downspout, scupper or device that collects and conveys stormwater runoff from a roof surface. "Routine landscape maintenance" shall mean pruning, weeding, planting annuals, mowing turf lands and ground cover management which is undertaken by a person in connection with the normal maintenance and repair of property. This definition does not include falling or topping of trees or removal of invasive plants resulting from lack of regular maintenance. (s) Definitions "S": "Sanitary sewage" shall mean the liquid wastes and all constituents therein that are related to the use of such sanitation facilities, toilets, bathtubs, showers, sinks, dishwashers, washing machines, garbage grinders, and other devices. However, any other water that enters sanitary or combined sewers before or after discharge by a user shall thereafter also be called 11 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 sewage. "Sewage" is essentially synonymous with the term "wastewater," except that wastewater may also contain liquid wastes discharged from industrial operations or processes. "Sanitary sewer" shall mean only those portions of the wastewater system which are designated to carry, transport, or dispose of wastewater. "Sedimentation" shall mean the process of gravity -induced settling, sinking and deposition of fragmented rock, soil, or organic particles displaced, transported, and deposited by erosive water-based processes. "Septage waste" shall mean waste material pumped from an on-site wastewater disposal system such as a septic tank or cesspool or holding tank. "Siltation" shall mean deposition of soil, sand, and gravel on the surface or in stormwater conveyance systems as a result of erosion in tributary areas and transport by runoff water. "Single-family parcel or unit" shall mean a parcel which has been developed with a single-family living unit. "Site" shall mean the portion of a piece of property which is directly subject to development. "Slope" shall mean the inclination of a surface expressed in a ratio of horizontal run to vertical rise measured as a numerical ratio, percent, or in degrees. Expressed as a ratio, the first number is the horizontal distance (run) and the second is the vertical distance (rise), as 2:1. A 2:1 slope is a fifty (50) percent slope. Expressed in degrees, the slope is the angle from the horizontal plane, with a ninety (90) degree slope being vertical (maximum) and forty-five (45) degrees being a 1:1 or one hundred (100) percent slope. "Standard construction costs" shall mean the total cost of installation of a utility piping system, including the cost of all manholes, distribution system, or incidental work necessary to place the utility system in service, meeting the minimum size and installation requirements of the utility for the intended service. "Standard gravity sanitary sewer" shall mean a sanitary trunk sewer conveying flow to a point of collection without pumping and constructed in accordance with current Engineering Design and Construction Standards. "Standard gravity sewer connection" shall mean a connection made to a gravity trunk or lateral sanitary sewer of the City, except those City sewer lines located on the waterfront or pressure sewer line. "Standard stormwater sewer" shall mean a stormwater line not less than twelve (12) inches in diameter and constructed in accordance with current Engineering Design and Construction Standards. "Standard water main" shall mean a water distribution line constructed in accordance with current Engineering Design and Construction Standards. "Standards" shall mean the current Engineering Design and Construction Standards for the City of Bremerton. "Stormwater Manual" shall mean the manuals adopted in Chapter 15.04.020 BMC. "Stormwater system" shall mean all facilities for collecting, transporting, pumping, treating and discharging stormwater. "Sump pump" shall mean a pump that conveys ground water or stormwater runoff away from a sensitive area of a property to prevent flooding or property damage. A sump pump that discharges into a sanitary sewer or wastewater system is an improper connection. "SWMMWW" shall mean the current version of the Washington State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. 12 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 (t) Definitions "T": "Total suspended solids (TSS)" shall mean materials that either float on the surface of, or are in suspension in, water, sewage, or other liquids, and which are removable by laboratory filtering using the current accepted Standard Analytical Laboratory Methods Manual. "Townhouse" shall mean a row of homes that share common walls but ownership includes the land to each individual owner. "Triplex" shall mean a multifamily residential unit containing three (3) separate dwelling units with any configuration or three (3) dwelling units located on one (1) parcel. (u) Definitions "U": "Undeveloped parcel" shall mean any parcel of real property that has no structure or improvement requiring utility service or has not been altered by grading or filling of the ground surface, or by construction of any improvement or other impervious surface area that affects the hydraulic properties of the parcel. "Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)" shall mean the latest version of the Uniform Plumbing Code that has been accepted by the City of Bremerton. "User" shall mean any person, business, or institution owning or controlling property for which utility service is provided and who is responsible for an account. "User parcel" shall mean any parcel of land within the utility service area to which water, wastewater, or stormwater service is currently provided or to which a charge is imposed therefor, or any other land with any significant manmade impervious surface. "Utility" shall mean the water, wastewater, and stormwater utility systems of the City. "Utility service agreement (USA)" shall mean an agreement that the person requesting utility service signs, which constitutes a contract with the utility. "Utility service rates" shall mean the rates charged for services. These will include the zero usage fixed fees which are for the maintenance and repair of the utility infrastructure and commodity charge for usage. Based on service location, other associated rates, fees and charges may be applied to the customer's account. (v) .Definitions "V": "Verified Strength" shall mean any wastewater discharge that exceeds the strength limits of the Commercial I through VII class as defined in Section 15.01.020 above, or who desires to be charsied for wastewater service on the basis of its specific discharsze rather than average class strength. (w) Definitions "W": "Wastewater" shall mean liquid wastes, and all constituents dissolved or suspended therein, discharged by residential, commercial, or industrial users of the wastewater facilities system. "Wastewater" is essentially synonymous with the term "sewage." "Wastewater system" shall mean all facilities for collecting, transporting, pumping, treating, and disposing of sewage, including biosolid utilization. "Water meter" shall mean a device used to measure and record the amount of water flowing through a pipe. 13 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 "Water system" shall mean all facilities for treatment, storage, pumping, transmission and distribution of water. "Watershed" shall mean a geographic region within which water drains into a particular river, stream, or body of water as identified and numbered by the State of Washington Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) as defined in Chapter 173-500 WAC. "Wetlands" shall mean those areas as defined in the City's critical areas ordinance and include areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. SECTION2. Section 15.02.130 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Backflow/Cross-Connection Control And Inspection" is hereby amended to read as follows: 15.02.130 BACKFLOW/CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL AND INSPECTION. deviees,v�,ithin its system to pr -event eentafnination of the City water- system. The Depat4fnent shall anfitially fietify all pfepefty ev�qiefs of thiq t. it shall be the fespelisibility of the property ev�,ner- to pr-evide for- testing and inspeetion by a Washington State eer-tified baekflew satisfaeter-y eempletion of the testing and inspeetienv�,ithin thir-�y (30) days of being fletified. hi the evetit the Depaftmeiit does tiet feeeive a satisfaetefy test fepef4 wit -hili thi4y (30) days, the Depar-tfnentv�411 eentaet a eer-tified testef: to test the assembly, and the eest of the test be assessed additional ehar-ges to their- bill to eever- eests for- tifne, expenses and othet: t:elated- WAG 246 290 490. Wate. se. .16- shall be diseentintied to any pf:emises for- failtir-e to eemply Service from the water system may be contingent upon the installation of an approved backflow prevention assembly for the protection of the water system from actual or potential cross connections. The Department shall require annual testing and inspection of all backflow assemblies within its system to ensure proper function of assemblies and the level of protection is commensurate with the degree of actual or potential hazard to the water system. The Department shall notifypropertyowners in writing 30 days prior to the due date of their annual test/inspection. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to provide the Department a satisfactory test/inspection report completed by a Washington State certified backflow assembly tester within 30 days of written notification. In the event the Department does not receive a satisfactory test report within 30 days of written notification, the Department will contact a certified tester to test the assembly, and the 14 Title 15 BMC Updates - 2017 cost of the test, any necessary repairs, and an administration fee will be added to the customer's next utility bill. The customer may be assessed additional charges to their bill to cover costs for time, expenses, and other related costs incurred by the Department if reasonable access is not granted to the tester to test the assembly. The Department shall inspect backflow assemblies for proper installation and protection commensurate with the degree of hazard, subject to a service fee. Any actual or potential cross connection, without the appropriate backflow protection, now in existence or hereafter discovered or created, shall be declared a prohibited act and shall be enforced accordingly. The elimination or protection from an actual or potential cross connection shall be in accordance with WAC 246-290-490. Water service shall be discontinued to any property for failure to comply with the provisions of this portion of the code. SECTION 3. Section 15.03.100 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Wastewater Sampling Stations" is hereby amended to read as follows: 15.03.100 WASTEWATER SAMPLING STATIONS. When required by the Department, the property owner shall install and maintain at their expense a manhole in the side sewer to facilitate observation, sampling, and measurement of the wastewater strength and flow. The manhole shall be located as approved by the Department and constructed in accordance with the Engineering Design and Construction Standards. Once eachyear, the Wastewater Manager shall assign a "typical" waste strength to each Commercial I through VII class as defined in Section 15.01.020 above, except for a "Verified Strength", for purposes of determining user charges. Users in the Verified Strength class will have their strength determined by direct periodic composite sampling and analysis. Composite samples shall be collected and analyzed at the owner's expense. To be eligible to be charged as a Verified Strength user, the owner must have the discharge(s) to the wastewater system structured in such a way that sampling of the discharge(s) can be reasonably achieved without contamination or dilution by other discharges. If special provisions are required to achieve discharge _ sampling, such provisions shall be made at the owner's expense. SECTION 4. Section 15.03.110 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Preliminary Treatment Facilities" is hereby amended to read as follows: 15.03.110 PRELIMINARY TREATMENT FACILITIES. Preliminary treatment may be required by the City if the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) or total suspended solids (TSS) of the sewage, industrial waste, or wastewater exceeds two hundred (200) parts per million (1,000,000) by weight, exceeds local limits, or contains prohibited discharges as defined herein, or exceeds other applicable standards or regulations. High conductivity discharges will be carefully evaluated for discharge into the City's sewer system. Saltwater discharges can cause corrosion, exacerbate odor problems in the treatment plant, interfere with analysis of samples, and could affect the City's ability to reclaim the wastewater for other uses. Such preliminary treatment facilities shall be approved by the Department and constructed, operated, and maintained by the owner at the owner's expense. 15 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 The daily maximum pollutants allowed into the wastewater system from any service shall not exceed the following limits: Arsenic 0.10 mg/L Cadmium 0.10 mg/L Chromium (total) 1.0 mg/L Chromium (hexavalent) 0.25 mg/L Conductivity 6.00 mS/cm Copper (total) 0.75 mg/L Lead 0.25 mg/L Mercury (total) 0.010 mg/L Molybdenum 1.0 mg/L Nickel 0.60 mg/L Selenium 0.10 mg/L Silver (total) 0.20 mg/L Zinc 2.0 mg/L Cyanide (total) 0.64 mg/L Cyanide (free) 0.20 mg/L Ammonia 50.0 mg/L Benzene 0.07 mg/L Ethyl benzene 1.70 mg/L Toluene 1.40 mg/L TPH-G 1.00 mg/L TPH-D 1.00 mg/L pH 6.0-10.0 Any commercial user that exceeds any of the above limits shall have an appropriately sized, properly installed, regularly maintained and sufficiently documented type of treatment device in place to help reduce the strength of their sewer discharge. For the purpose of conductivity, exceeding the limit of 6.0 mS/cm shall mean, continuous average_equal to or exceeds 6.O mS/cm for any thirty (30) day pequal to or exceeds 6.0 mS/cm for any thirty (30) day period. Failure to comely with the installation of the reauired treatment device within ninety (90 days of notification shall be cause of the discontinuance of the water service to the premise. SECTION 5. Section 15.063.015 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Assessments, Rates, Fees And Charges — Established" is hereby amended to read as follows: 15.06.015 ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES AND CHARGES - ESTABLISHED. (a) Assessments, rates, fees, and charges for services relating to the Department for water, wastewater, stormwater utilities, and other related services are on file with the City Clerk and posted on the City of Bremerton's website. See Chapter 3.01 BMC for the link to the City of Bremerton's website for rates and fees. (b) Commencing on January 1, 2018, and on January 1st of each successive ye thereafter, the established utility rates, fees and charges identified in Chapter 3.01 of the 16 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 Bremerton Municipal Code, not otherwise adjusted by the City Council during the previous six (6) month period, shall automatically be adjusted as follows: (1) The utility GFCs shall be adjusted upward to the nearest dollar based upon the most current Seattle Construction Index (SCI), and (2) All other utility rates, fees and charges shall be adjusted upward to the nearest dollar based on the most current Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers, Seattle. SECTION 6. Section 15.06.020 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Preliminary Treatment Facilities" is hereby amended to read as follows: 15.06.020 SERVICE CONNECTION AND EXPANSION FEES AND CHARGES. (a) General Facility Charge. (1) A general facility charge (GFC) shall be charged on all new or expanded service connections to the utility system (water, wastewater, and stormwater). Existing connections (including surface area impact for stormwater) within the system as of the effective date of this Code shall be considered to have paid their proportionate share of the GFC for existing use. (2) Commeneing on r.,,,,,.,..., l 2019, and o r.,,,,,.,..., l st of eaeh stteeessive yeaf thefeaf4ef, the fates, fees and ehafges established iii Ghat4ef 3.01 of the Bfemefteff • i. The „4;4., !''FGs shall be .,a;,,ste based "on the fnest ettffent Seattle ii. All et-hef tttility fates, fees and ehaf:ges shall be adjttsted based on the fnest ettffeiit Geiisttmef Pfiee liid&E f r all Urban Gens„ ri,�Seattle.The utility GFCs shall be adjusted annually as set forth in Subsection 15.06.015 above in addition to any other adjustments that may be made by the City Council. (3) Parcels and/or facilities which have had utility services but have been inactive can request to have the inactive account reactivated. When the account is restored and/or expanded, the GFCs shall only be charged for the additional demand placed on the water, wastewater, or stormwater facilities. All appropriate GFCs (water/wastewater/stormwater) will need to be paid to reactivate the services. (4) Parcels and/or facilities in which no utility services are present shall be defined as new undeveloped parcels and shall receive no credits and shall pay all applicable assessments, rates, fees, and charges. (5) Parcels that have had their facilities removed and new facilities constructed will not have to pay additional GFCs, unless the meter size is increased. (6) Change of meter size for the parcel and/or facility which is a reduction in GFCs will not be refunded or credited. (7) Change of meter size for the parcel and/or facility which is an increase of GFCs will require the customer to pay for the additional GFCs before work is performed. (8) The calculation of the GFC for stormwater shall be based on the total number of IHSUs added to the parcels. (9) The calculation of the GFC for water shall be based on the meter size to be installed for a new or expanded water service. 17 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 (10) The calculation of the GFC for wastewater shall be based on the meter size to be installed for the new or expanded water service. (11) Additional loading or change of use is defined as an increased demand for wastewater treatment from an existing building or structure. The additional loading may be the result of replacement or addition to an existing structure or facility, a change in use, or a fifteen (15) percent or greater increase above the permitted volume or character of the wastewater constituents being discharged. (12) The calculation of GFCs for stormwater shall be based on the number of impervious hard surface units (IHSUs) as defined in BMC 15.01.020. However, all single-family residential parcels as defined in BMC 15.01.020 shall be one (1) IHSU. (13) All GFCs shall be assessed and paid at the time of execution of the utility service agreement and prior to occupancy of the new or expanded parcel and/or facilities and shall be in addition to rates and other fees, assessments, and charges established for utility service. A deferral of GFC fees for new building construction only may be approved by the Director at his or her discretion through a written agreement with the customer. For those properties located outside of the City's corporate boundaries, such written agreement shall be recorded on the property. The agreement shall require that all deferred GFCs and related fees and costs shall be paid prior to final inspection approval of the permit. In consideration for the deferral, the customer shall pay the current GFC in effect at the time of payment, as set forth in Subsection 15.06.015 above, as well as any outstanding recording fees and other fees and costs related to the deferral agreement. whieh inelttdes any intefest en the eu4s*.,,,ding f (b) Administrative Rate Adjustment. The Director is hereby authorized to make adjustments to the GFCs provided in this chapter and set forth in Chapter 3.01 BMC by increasing or decreasing the amount up to fifty percent (50%) above or below the set charges in accordance with the following provisions: (1) Review. Upon written application to the Director, an applicant may request review of an assessed GFC as applied to the specific developed property for which the charge has been calculated. If the applicant disagrees with the Director's determination, the applicant may request an additional review by submitting additional information along with a two hundred dollar ($200.00) review processing fee. The additional information shall include an analysis from a qualified engineer that is stamped and signed, specifying the reasons why the development should qualify for a lower GFC. The engineer's analysis should include information demonstrating: i. That the impact of the proposed growth -related system costs of the development to the City's utilities is less than the growth -related system costs of other similar developments; and ii. Why a reduced GFC for the development is equitable in the specific circumstance of the development. (2) Final Determination. The Director may uphold the earlier determination, revise the Director's earlier determination based on the new information or accept an alternate calculation proposed by the applicant. (3) Appeal. The applicant may appeal the Director's final determination to the Administrative Hearing Examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC. The appellant may pay the GFC under protest during the appeal process. Appeals shall be filed within thirty (30) days following the date of issuance of the Director's final determination. If an appeal is not timely filed, the Director's determination shall become final. The appellant shall have the burden of 18 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 proving that the Director's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The Administrative Hearing Examiner shall review and base his/her decision on the criteria established in subsection (b)(1) of this section as well as other related information. The decision of the Administrative Hearing Examiner shall be final. (c) Connection/Inspection Fee. A connection/inspection fee shall be charged for all service connections to the utility system. Additional fees may be charged if a reinspection is required as a result of the property owner/developer's failure to comply with the correction notice from a prior inspection, inaccessibility of facilities for scheduled inspections, or an unsafe site. The connection/inspection fee shall be paid at the time of execution of the utility service agreement, or before building permit issuance, whichever occurs sooner. (d) Capital Reserves. The general facility funds collected under this chapter shall be deposited in the Utilities Capital Reserve Fund and used only for utility system capital improvements. SECTION 7. Section 15.07.020 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Utility Service Accounts" is hereby amended to read as follows: 15.07.020 UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS. The Department shall create a utility service account upon receipt of an executed utility service agreement or an executed owner/tenant form as applicable. The account shall be in the name of the owner and may be activated or terminated only upon written notice by the owner and payment for services provided. Billing for utility services shall commence for each service at the date of connection of each service to the property or the date of the closing of sale for a property. Billing for mandated wastewater service, as directed by the Health Officer or the Director regardless of connection, shall commence sixty (60) days following written notice by the Health Officer or the date of connection, whichever shall occur first. All utility billing forms will be available on the City of Bremerton website. Electronic signatures will be accepted for all utility billing online application submittals. When it benefits the Utility to do so and at the discretion of the Public Works and Utilities Director, a credit may be authorized for a Utility customer not to exceed fifty dollars ($50)year per account. A credit in excess of this amount requires City Council approval by motion or resolution. SECTION 8. The provisions set forth in Sections 1 through 7 of this ordinance as amended herein shall become effective July 1, 2017. SECTION 9. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 19 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017 SECTION 10. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the day of 2017. ERIC YOUNGER, Council President Approved this day of , 2017 PATTY LENT, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk PUBLISHED the day of EFFECTIVE the day of ORDINANCE NO. ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney 2017. 2017. R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Public Works & Utilities\BMC Title 15 - Update 2017 - 4-24-17 Final.docx 20 Title 15 BMC Updates — 2017