Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12/16/2020 AGENDA PACKET
______________________________________________________________ CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 100, Bremerton, WA 98337 - Phone (360) 473-5280 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2020 CITY COUNCIL Virtual/Live Stream MEETING AGENDA To help reduce the spread of COVID-19, the City Council is conducting a virtual meeting. The Chambers will be closed, and all Council Members and staff will be participating in the meeting remotely. The public is invited to view and/or participate in the Council Meeting through one of the following options: To stream online only (via BKAT Feed, with no interaction possible: https://bremerton.vod.castus.tv/vod/?live=ch1&nav=live To Join the Zoom Meeting, members of the public are invited to click the link below: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85761518240?pwd=RVhjWVdJeC9BaXRSUWpablJ3Z3doUT09 Or iPhone one-tap: US: +12532158782,,85761518240#,,,,,,0#,,209823# or +13462487799,,85761518240#,,,,,,0#,,209823# Or Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 312 626 6799 Webinar ID: 857 6151 8240 Passcode: 209823 Public questions or comments may be submitted ahead of time to City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us 1.CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. 2.CONSENT AGENDA A.Claims & Check Register B.Minutes of Meeting – December 2, 2020 C.Minutes of Study Session – December 9, 2020 D.Confirm Reappointment of Jeffery Flood to the Bremerton Housing Authority Board of Commissioners E.Confirm Reappointment of Kirsten Dahlquist to the Design Review Board F.Confirm Reappointment of Dean Kelly to the Design Review Board G.Confirm Appointment of George Tomisser to the Design Review Board H.Telecommunications License Agreement with Kitsap County Amateur Radio Club for Equipment on Cheryl Street Tower I.Ordinance No. 5409 amending Ordinance No. 5387 establishing the City of Bremerton’s FY- 2020 Budget as amended by Ordinance No. 5397 Continued on next page… J. Interdepartmental Agreement between Parks & Recreation and Public Works & Utilities Departments for the Lease of Gold Mountain Golf Complex and Irrigation Water Supply K. Contract Modification Agreement No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with Robinson Noble, Inc, for Hydrogeological Services L. Sole Source Purchase of Equipment from Whitney Equipment Co. for OB-1 Pump Station M. Resolution No. 3335 to establish January 20, 2021 as the Public Hearing date to vacate a portion of alley east of Pitt Ave and south of East 11th Street N. Contract Modification Agreement No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with Parametrix, Inc. for the Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades Project O. Purchase of 2021 Vehicles and Equipment 3. GENERAL BUSINESS A. Professional Services Agreement with Mingay Golf Course Design Ltd. for Master Plan Architectural and Design Services for the Gold Mountain Cascade Course B. Contract Modification No. 2 to Professional Services Agreement with the Johnston Group 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 5410 to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.46.010 of the Zoning Code regarding Accessory Dwelling Units 5. MAYOR'S REPORT 6. PUBLIC RECOGNITION 7. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 8. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: N/A Claims & Check Register COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: Legal Services Presenter: Angela Hoover Phone: (360) 473-5323 SUMMARY: Approval of the following checks and electronic fund transfers: 1. Check Numbers 391831 through 392058 and Electronic Fund Transfers V31987 through V32078 in the grand total amount of $7,070,128.91 2. Regular Payroll for pay period ending November 30, 2020 in the amount of $925,068.42 ATTACHMENTS: FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the consent agenda as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 2A AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting – December 2, 2020 Study Session Date: N/A COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: The Minutes of Meeting held on December 2, 2020 are attached. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ N/A STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the December 2, 2020 Meeting Minutes as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 11/3/17 2B 2 CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, December 2, 2020 A virtual meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order Wednesday, December 2, 2020, at 5:30 PM with Council President Eric Younger presiding. Council Members present were Mike Simpson, Michael Goodnow, Lori Wheat, Kevin Gorman, Leslie Daugs, and Pat Sullivan. Also present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich; City Clerk Angela Hoover; Legislative Office Manager Lori Smith; and Information Technology Manager Dave Sorensen. President Younger read a statement that per an amending proclamation issued by Governor Inslee extending the “Stay Home – Stay Healthy” order, the Council Meetings are allowed to be conducted virtually through 11:59 PM on December 7, 2020... CONSENT AGENDA 2A – Claims & Check Register: Check Numbers 391700 through 391830 and EFT-V31949 through EFT-V331986 in the amount of $1,502,767.10; Regular Payroll for pay period ending November 15, 2020 in the amount of $886,884.42; Regular Payroll Payout for pay period ending November 15, 2020 in the amount of $11,273.21; and Retiree Payroll for pay period ending November 30, 2020 in the amount of $51,853.18 2B – Minutes of Meeting – November 18, 2020 2C – Confirm Appointment of Randy Sweeten, CPA to the Audit Committee Randy Sweeten expressed his appreciation for being selected, and looked forward to serving on the Audit Committee. President Younger thanked Mr. Sweeten for his commitment. 5:36 PM M/S/C/U (Gorman/Daugs) Move to approve the CONSENT AGENDA as presented. GENERAL BUSINESS – There were no General Business items… MAYOR’S REPORT – Mayor Wheeler… Addressed the real concern that the local hospital could possibly surpass available bed capacity for COVID patients, therefore urged the community to remain diligent; Provided an update on the City Budget, including an End of Year, and was especially pleased that sales tax receipts came in strong in August and September, even exceeding budgeted amounts; and Provided positive data on total Permits Approved to-date, noting the City is close to breaking numbers from 2019 – which was a record year! PUBLIC RECOGNITION – There were no questions or comments from the public tonight… COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Pat Sullivan hoped everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving, looks forward to the upcoming holiday; welcomed Randy Sweeten; and thanked Dennis Treger for his years of service on the Audit Committee. She thanked Mayor Wheeler for his report, but expressed her concern that Bremerton elected officials should reach out to Governor Inslee who in turn could reach out to the Federal Government to assist in better preparing local governments and cities for the potential increase in COVID patients. Mayor Wheeler responded that her point was well taken. Leslie Daugs summarized highlights of recent Audit and Race Equity Advisory Committee meetings; thanked Dennis Treger for his years of service on the Audit Committee; congratulated newly appointee Randy Sweeten; and pleaded with the community to continue to “mask up”. City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, December 2, 2020 Page 2 of 2 Kevin Gorman welcomed Randy Sweeten; and encouraged the community to please email any suggestions they might have for the Council to consider for including on next year’s list of City Council Goals & Priorities. Lori Wheat provided a briefing on the subjects discussed at the last Public Works Committee meeting; thanked Dennis Treger for his dedication in serving all those years on the Audit Committee; and welcomed new member Randy Sweeten. She also thanked everyone who has made the tough choices to protect themselves and others from COVID-19. Michael Goodnow also hoped everyone had a good holiday and also appreciates everyone who took extra health and safety precautions. He reminded the community to please shop local and suggested several ideas on how to support small businesses. Lastly, he announced that volunteers with non-profit organizations supporting tourism are welcome to apply for the open position on the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, with applications available on the City’s website until Friday, December 17. Mike Simpson thanked the Mayor for the encouraging data he provided, but wondered how much better the economy would be if there was an end to the lock down, which he did not believe was necessary to begin with, while also encouraging individuals to continue to take the necessary precautions to remain healthy and safe. Eric Younger reminded the public that they should always follow CDC guidelines related to COVID; and turn to the Kitsap Public Health Department for advice. He suggested that any Council Member interested in running for Council President next year to use the opportunity at the next Study Session to make their intention known; while also announcing there were only two meetings remaining in 2020 on December 9 and December 16, and both are likely to be held remotely. With no further business, President Younger adjourned the Council Meeting at 6:08 PM. Prepared and Submitted by: ______________________________ LORI SMITH Legislative Office Manager APPROVED by the City Council on the 6th day of January, 2021. ________________________________________ ERIC YOUNGER, City Council President Attest: ________________________________________ ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk EY:AH:ls:cg AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Minutes of Study Session – December 9, 2020 Study Session Date: N/A COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: The Minutes of Study Session held on December 9, 2020 are attached. ATTACHMENTS: Study Session Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ N/A STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the December 9, 2020 Study Session Minutes as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 11/3/17 2C 22C CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES Wednesday, December 9, 2020 A virtual Study Session of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order on Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 5:00 PM, with Council President Eric Younger presiding. Council Members present were Mike Simpson, Michael Goodnow, Lori Wheat, Kevin Gorman, Leslie Daugs, and Pat Sullivan. Lori Smith, Legislative Office Manager, was present to provide staff support. President Younger established that to help reduce the spread of COVID-19, the City Council is conducting the Study Session via a Zoom webinar with Council Members and staff participating remotely. He further established that the Study Session was open for the public to listen in, but there would be no opportunities for input; no action is anticipated; and the content of these items is subject to change. If approved by the Council, items will be placed on the December 16, 2020 City Council Meeting Agenda… A. BRIEFINGS ON AGENDA ITEMS 1. Confirm Reappointment of Jeffery Flood to the Bremerton Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Consent Agenda 2. Confirm Reappointment of Kirsten Dahlquist to the Design Review Board Consent Agenda 3. Confirm Reappointment of Dean Kelly to the Design Review Board Consent Agenda 4. Confirm Appointment of George Tossimer to the Design Review Board Consent Agenda 5. Update on the City of Bremerton’s Workforce Diversity and Inclusion Policy Implementation Plan Information only 6. Telecommunications License Agreement with Kitsap County Amateur Radio Club for Equipment on Cheryl Street Tower Consent Agenda 7. Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 5387 establishing City of Bremerton FY-2020 Budget as amended by Ordinance No. 5397 Consent Agenda 8. Professional Services Agreement with Mingay Golf Course Design Ltd. for Master Plan Architectural and Design Services for the Gold Mountain Cascade Course General Business 9. Interdepartmental Agreement between Parks & Recreation and Public Works & Utilities Departments for the Lease of Gold Mountain Golf Complex and Irrigation Water Supply Consent Agenda 10. Contract Modification Agreement No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with Robinson Noble, Inc. for Hydrogeological Services Consent Agenda 11. Sole Source Purchase of Equipment from Whitney Equipment Co. for OB-1 Pump Station Consent Agenda 12. Resolution to establish January 20, 2021 as the Public Hearing date to vacate a portion of alley east of Pitt Ave and south of East 11th Street Consent Agenda 13. Contract Modification Agreement No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with Parametrix Inc. for the Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades Project Consent Agenda City Council Study Session Minutes Wednesday, December 9, 2020 Page 2 of 2 14. Contract Modification No. 2 to Professional Services Agreement with the Johnston Group General Business 15. Purchase of 2021 Vehicles and Equipment Consent Agenda President Younger called a break from 7:23 to 7:30 PM… 16. Proposed Public Hearing on Ordinance to amend Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Section 20.46.010 of the Zoning Code regarding Accessory Dwelling Units Public Hearing President Younger called a break from 9:34 to 9:44 PM… B. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS o Finance & Parking Committee Briefing (12/08/20 Special Meeting) – Chair Michael Goodnow o Other General Council Business was discussed; including comments by potential candidates, as well as the modified process for the 2021 Council Chair Virtual Election to be held at the first meeting on January 6, 2021. President Younger announced that per the latest extension of the Governor’s Emergency Proclamation related to the Open Public Meetings Act, Council Meetings will continue to be held remotely by Zoom through January 19, 2021, including the next Council Meeting on Wednesday, December 16. And due to the week of Christmas followed by a week with a 5th Wednesday, this would be the last meeting of the year. Lastly President Younger wished an early Happy Birthday to Council Member Mike Simpson who has a birthday coming up this Friday on December 11. With no further business, the Study Session was adjourned at 10:05 PM. Prepared and Submitted by: ______________________________ LORI SMITH Legislative Office Manager APPROVED by the City Council on the 16th day of December, 2020. ______________________________ ERIC YOUNGER, Council President ATTEST: ______________________________ ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk EY:AH:ls:cg AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Confirm Reappointment of Jeffery Flood to the Bremerton Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Study Session Date: December 9, 2020 COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: Executive Presenter: Mayor Wheeler Phone: (360) 473-5266 SUMMARY: The Mayor is seeking confirmation for the re-appointment of Jeffery Flood to the Bremerton Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. Mr. Flood has served on the Board since filling a vacancy in 2018. The new term begins January 1, 2021 and expires December 31, 2026. ATTACHMENTS: Application available in the Mayor’s office. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to confirm the reappointment of Jeffery Flood on the Bremerton Housing Authority Board of Commissioners with a term expiring on December 31, 2026. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 2D AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Confirm Reappointment of Kirsten Dahlquist to the Design Review Board Study Session Date: December 9, 2020 COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: Executive Presenter: Mayor Wheeler Phone: (360) 473-5266 SUMMARY: The Mayor is seeking confirmation for the reappointment of Kirsten Dahlquist, a local architect, to the Design Review Board, Position 4. Ms. Dahlquist has served on the Board since May 2019. The new term begins January 1, 2021 and expires December 31, 2024. ATTACHMENTS: None. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Briefing/Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to confirm the reappointment of Kirsten Dahlquist to the Design Review Board for the term expiring December 31, 2024. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 2E AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Confirm Reappointment of Dean Kelly to the Design Review Board Study Session Date: December 9, 2020 COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: Executive Presenter: Mayor Wheeler Phone: (360) 473-5266 SUMMARY: The Mayor is seeking confirmation for the reappointment of Dean Kelly, a local project designer with the Rice Fergus Miller architecture firm, to the Design Review Board Position 5. Mr. Kelly has served on the Board since July 2016. The new 4-year term begins January 1, 2021 and expires December 31, 2024. ATTACHMENTS: None. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Briefing/Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to confirm the reappointment of Dean Kelly to Design Review Board, Position 5 for the term expiring December 31, 2024. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 2F AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Confirm Appointment of George Tomisser to the Design Review Board Study Session Date: December 9, 2020 COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: Executive Presenter: Mayor Wheeler Phone: (360) 473-5266 SUMMARY: The Mayor is seeking confirmation for the appointment of George Tomisser, a local architect and manufacturer’s representative, to the Design Review Board Position 1, to replace Dan Nelson who resigned. Mr. Tomisser is a City of Bremerton resident since 2016. His term begins expires December 31, 2023. ATTACHMENTS: Application is available in the Mayor’s Office. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒Limited Presentation ☐Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐General Business ☐Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to confirm the appointment of George Tomisser to Design Review Board, Position 1 for the term expiring December 31, 2023. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 2G AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Telecommunications License Agreement with Kitsap County Amateur Radio Club for Equipment on the Cheryl Street Tower Study Session Date: December 9, 2020 COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: Public Works Presenter: Melinda Monroe Phone: (360) 473-5306 SUMMARY: The City of Bremerton and Kitsap County Amateur Radio Club (KCARC) wish to enter into a License Agreement allowing the KCARC to place equipment at their expense on the Cheryl Street Tower and use space within the associated facilities building. The Tower is part of the public works water utility portfolio and previously housed Day Wireless via a no cost lease. Day-wireless removed their equipment in February 2019. KCARC provides emergency back-up support to Kitsap County Department of Emergency Management and provides a mentorship program at Bremerton High School. As the placement of KCARC equipment does not prevent the City from housing other telecommunications providers at this location and as there is no cost associated, the City approved their request and application for placement on the Tower. ATTACHMENTS: 1) License Agreement between the City of Bremerton and KCARC FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount: No change to budget STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Telecommunications License Agreement between the City of Bremerton and Kitsap County Amateur Radio Club, and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 2H KCARC Cheryl Street Agreement License Agreement 1 LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND KITSAP COUNTY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB This AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the _____ day of __________, , by and between the CITY OF BREMERTON, a Washington municipal corporation ("City"), and Kitsap County Amateur Radio Club, a Washington Non-profit Corporation ("Licensee"). WHEREAS, the Kitsap County Amateur Radio Club is a 501(c)(3) charitable corporation that maintains and operates amateur radio repeater systems in Kitsap County, Washington, and actively supports emergency and public service communications; and WHEREAS, City is the owner of certain real property in the City of Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington, commonly known as 1925 Cheryl Street , and legally described as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter "City Property"); and WHEREAS, Licensee desires to utilize the above-referenced portion of city property for purposes of providing backup emergency operations support to the Kitsap County Department of Emergency Management via installation and operation of communications equipment to support Kitsap County's emergency communications mission; and WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement agree that these equipment installations and ongoing maintenance are in the best interests of the community, which includes but is not limited to the residents of the City of Bremerton; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived, it is agreed: 1. License and Conditions. City agrees to provide Licensee this non-exclusive license to utilize said portion of city property upon the following conditions: A. Use: This license is granted to Licensee for use of a portion of City Property, approximately feet long by feet wide, described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof (“License Property”) for the purpose of:transmission and reception of telecommunication and signals using real property and facilities approved in Exhibit A and with the site configuration as outlined in Exhibit B. B. Term: The term of this license shall be continuing, with annual intent to renew submitted by the licensee at least 30 days in advance of the agreement anniversary or until terminated as provided in Section 4 below. Agreement anniversary shall be the last date signed by both parties. C. Payment: In consideration for the granting of this license, Licensee shall pay the City a total of $0_per month. KCARC Cheryl Street Agreement License Agreement 2 D. Purpose and Site Access. This license is given only for the above stated purpose. Any extension or modification of the scope of use shall only be in writing. Licensee shall be responsible for adherence to all federal, state and local regulations pertaining to the operation of a communications facility. 1. Licensee shall provide the City with a list of all authorized individuals who will have access to the premises. City shall provide Licensee with access to the premise at all times on a twenty-four hour per day, seven day per week basis, adequate to service the premise and telecommunications equipment. Employees visiting the premises shall be clearly identifiable as employees of the Licensee either by uniform badge or marked vehicle. E. Licensee responsibilities. Licensee shall reasonably carry out the uses allowed within the License Property so as not to interfere with the City’s use and operation of the License Property. 1. Access. Owner shall permit and manage access to the premises and will provide the necessary keys and or codes for Licensee. 2. Planning and Management. Licensee shall be responsible for all systems installations, upgrades and ongoing site management. Designated representatives from KCARC will plan and coordinate all system installations and subsequent upgrades. All approved work will be managed as discrete projects using an agreed-upon project management methodology. 3. Installation and site compliance. KCARC will provide, install, operate and maintain all related equipment, cables, antennas, power supplies and batteries in a manner consistent with industry best practices and in accordance with all applicable laws including Fire control standards NFPA 76, and 2001. KCARC will be responsible for all procurement of services and supplies necessary for said installation. KCARC will be responsible for compliance with all federal, state and local laws during and after site installation. All responsibility of compliance with federal state and local law and indemnification in Section 2 of this agreement, shall also apply respectively to all service contractors in agreement with KCARC. Changes to site plan and or footprint of site design require notification to the City of Bremerton and prior authorization. a. KCARC also agrees to remove existing equipment from the tower at no charge to the City. 4. Equipment Ownership. All equipment purchased by KCARC or by donation will be owned by the KCARC organization and will be tagged and tracked accordingly. A full equipment list will be incorporated into Exhibit B of this Agreement. Equipment disposal will be the sole responsibility of KCARC. Equipment left on site after the expiration or termination of this agreement will become the property of the City of Bremerton. 5. Utilities. All required utilities will be the responsibility of the licensee to setup, maintain, and install. F. Property Condition. Licensee shall maintain the License Property in good condition, shall clean any debris and litter, and shall be responsible for any property damage resulting from its use of the License Property. Licensee shall be KCARC Cheryl Street Agreement License Agreement 3 responsible for its own property located, maintained or stored on the License Property. G. This license is non-assignable and non-exclusive. This license agreement does not preclude the City from granting a similar agreement, right, lease, franchise etc. to other carriers, providers or other persons for telecommunications or other purpose. H. Permitting. All required permitting is the sole responsibility of Licensee I. Site Configuration. Final site configuration and drawings will be provided and included into this license as Exhibit B. J. City confirms that the property and site are in compliance with all federal, state and local law as of the execution of this Agreement. K. Removal of Improvement. All changes to site configuration including all improvements attached to real property including landscaping, except telecommunications equipment owned by KCARC will become the property of the City upon expiration or termination of the agreement. 2. Indemnification. Licensee, agents of Licensee, and contractors of Licensee shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the Licensee's use of the License Property pursuant to this Agreement, except for that portion of the injuries and damages caused by the City's sole negligence. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Licensee and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Licensee's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Licensee's negligence. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE LICENSEE'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 3. Insurance. Licensee shall procure and maintain for the duration of this license, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property that may arise from or in KCARC Cheryl Street Agreement License Agreement 4 connection with the operation of this license by Licensee, its agents, representatives, employees, contractors or subcontractors. By the effective date of this License Agreement, Licensee shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $1,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property damage; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU) if applicable; and employer’s liability. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and Any payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of Licensee. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the insurance policy, with respect to the operation of this license by or on behalf of Licensee, and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. Licensee’s 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. 4. Termination. City may terminate this license at its sole discretion with 60 days prior written notice, for convenience or otherwise and for no consideration or damages. 5. Modification. This license may not be modified, altered, or amended unless first approved in writing by the City. Licensee shall not allow the mounting, installation, wiring or relocation of any equipment not belonging to the City on the premises without written permission of the City. 6. Breach. In the event of any alleged breach or threatened breach of this License Agreement by either party, and if City and Licensee are unable to cure the breach or otherwise resolve their dispute, then final resolution of the dispute or claim shall occur solely under the jurisdiction and venue of the Kitsap County Superior Court, and each party shall be responsible for its own legal costs and attorney fees incurred in defending or bringing that claim or lawsuit. 7. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors. KCARC Cheryl Street Agreement License Agreement 5 8. Entire Agreement. This License Agreement document contains the entire agreement between the parties and, in executing it, City and Licensee do not rely upon any statement, promise, or representation, whether oral or written, not expressed herein. 9. Non-Waiver. Waiver of a breach of any provision hereof shall not be deemed to be a waiver of a breach of any other provision or a subsequent breach of the same provision. 10. Notices. Any notice desired or required to be given hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be deemed received three days after deposit with the U.S. Postal Service, postage fully prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party to which it is intended at its last known address, or to such other person or address as either party shall designate to the other from time to time in writing forwarded in like manner: City of Bremerton Kitsap County Amateur Radio Club Finance Department _______________________ 345 6th St. STE 100 _______________________ Bremerton, WA 98337 _______________________ 11. Severability. In the event that one or more provisions of this Agreement shall be determined to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction or agency having jurisdiction thereof, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and the invalid provisions shall be deemed deleted. 12. Counterparts. This license may be executed in two or more counterparts, any of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this License Agreement is executed and shall become effective as of the last date signed below. CITY OF BREMERTON Kitsap County Amateur Radio Club By: By: Print Name: Print Name: Steve Burton, President Its: Its: SNB Date: Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 Approved as to form: ______________________________ City Attorney Attested: _______________________________ Angela Hoover, City Clerk KCARC Cheryl Street Agreement License Agreement 6 EXHIBIT A: Site Description Parcel #: 012401-1-067-2004 1925 Cheryl Street NE, Bremerton, WA 98310 NW1/4 SW1/4 NE1/4 ADDN'L BLDG VALUE CARRIED UNDER 012401-1-118-2003 9.22 (approx. 401,623 sq. ft.) Latitude, Longitude 47.60197462, -122.61718177 KCARC Cheryl Street Agreement License Agreement 7 EXHIBIT B: license property configuration drawing and equipment list Configuration includes the small room of the equipment building. KCARC Cheryl Street Agreement License Agreement 8 Final configuration will be added after installation: KCARC Cheryl Street Agreement License Agreement 9 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 5409 amending Ordinance No. 5387 establishing the City of Bremerton’s FY- 2020 Budget as amended by Ordinance No. 5397 Study Session Date: December 9, 2020 COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: Finance Presenter: Jamie Ginter Phone: (360) 473-5296 SUMMARY: This is a year-end housekeeping action. The Bremerton City Council adopted the 2020 Annual City Budget by Ordinance 5387 on November 20, 2019 and later amended the budget by Ordinance 5397 on June 3, 2020. In preparation for wrapping up 2020, it is necessary to do a final amendment to the budget to incorporate Council actions and other unforeseen items that have arisen subsequent to the last amendment. This amendment is necessary to provide adequate expenditure authority for various City funds and departments. ATTACHMENTS: • Ordinance No. 5409 amending the 2020 Fiscal Year Budget • Exhibit A – 2020 All Funds Revenue & Expenditures • Exhibit B – 2020 COVID CARES Summary • Detailed supporting schedules by fund FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Overall 2020 budget will be $194,517,328 (inclusive of fund balances). STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 5409 of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Ordinance No. 5387 establishing the City of Bremerton’s Fiscal Year 2020 Budget as amended by Ordinance No. 5397. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 2I 1 2020 Final Budget Amendment ORDINANCE NO. 5409 ____ AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Ordinance No. 5387 establishing the City of Bremerton’s Fiscal Year 2020 budget as amended by Ordinance No. 5397. WHEREAS, the City Council passed the Fiscal Year 2020 City Budget Ordinance No. 5387 on November 20, 2019; and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently amended the Fiscal Year 2020 City Budget by Ordinance No. 5397 on June 3, 2020 to provide for certain programs and actions taken up to that point requiring amendment to the 2020 budget; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously amended the budget by various motions and resolutions subsequent to June 3, 2020 which require a formal amendment by ordinance; and WHEREAS, several City Departments and Funds are experiencing or anticipate additional expenses due to factors such as costs related to provision of contracted services, changed allocations of staff time; and WHEREAS, several City Departments and Funds require adjustment to revenues to reflect activity in 2020 or timing changes from that which was anticipated in the 2020 budget; and WHEREAS, certain reclassifications of revenues and expenditures are required to properly reflect budget categories in a manner consistent with actuals in accordance with BMC 3.0.010; and WHEREAS, each of these actions has an impact on the City of Bremerton’s FY 2020 Annual Budget resulting in the need to amend this Budget document; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 5387 establishing the City of Bremerton’s 2020 Budget as amended by Ordinance No. 5397 is hereby amended as follows: 1) regular revenues and unencumbered fund balances of $194,517,328, the total for each fund as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and 2) in accordance with BMC 3.02.010, expenditures and ending fund balances of $194,517,328 as set forth in Exhibit A SECTION 2. The totals for the funds noted in Exhibit A are hereby appropriated for the fiscal year 2020. 2 2020 Final Budget Amendment SECTION 3. 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 4. 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 ____________________, 2020 _________________________________ ERIC YOUNGER, Council President Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2020 ________________________________ GREG WHEELER, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ ________________________________ ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the________ day of ______________________, 2020 EFFECTIVE the_________day of ______________________, 2020 ORDINANCE NO. ______ BEG LIC. INTER- CHARGES FINES 2020 FUND AND GOV'T FOR AND OTHER TOTAL FUND BAL. TAXES PERMITS REVENUE SERVICEFORFEITS REVENUE BUDGET General Fund General Government: City Council 00 0147,236 00147,236 Executive 00 0122,486 00122,486 Financial Services 00 0779,532 00779,532 Legal 00 0593,120 00593,120 Human Resources 00 0264,854 00264,854 Community Development 3,072,250 1,350,650 302,650 510,500 50,000 0 5,286,050 Municipal Court 0021,358 206,850 237,900 30,400 496,508 City Auditor 00 040,940 0040,940 Law Enforcement 0 6,000 947,695 144,100 2,000 82,742 1,182,537 Fire/Emergency Medical 1,982,500 1,300 939,134 680,200 6,500 5,010 3,614,644 Police & Fire Pension 0063,870 00 063,870 General Facilities 0030,800 171,524 0 353,200 555,524 Parks 00 0136,250 0 74,000 210,250 Engineering 0 64,000 0 2,095,173 0 225,000 2,384,173 Non-Departmental 27,366,307 27,000 1,703,501 93,542 750,000 170,000 30,110,350 Beginning Fund Balance 14,264,043 0 0 0 14,264,043 Total General Fund 14,264,043 32,421,057 1,448,950 4,009,008 5,986,307 1,046,400 940,352 60,116,117 Special Revenue Funds: Street 895,120 800,000 0 761,690 208,000 0 1,064,000 3,728,810 Contingency Reserve 1,360,441 00000153,700 1,514,141 Lodging Tax 366,147 750,000 00006,000 1,122,147 Parking System 1,130,831 0000425,500 1,598,600 3,154,931 Comm. Dev. Block Grant 39,837 001,309,204 45,900 0 87,000 1,481,941 Abatement Revolving Fund 334,049 000025,000 500 359,549 Police Special Projects 425,325 000015,000 3,500 443,825 Public Access Television 679,996 0 276,000 0 125,765 0 43,200 1,124,961 Gift & Donations Fund 89,479 000006,100 95,579 Trial Improvement 87,206 0021,000 00500 108,706 One Percent for Arts 18,022 0000011,242 29,264 Conference Center Oper 319,758 00 01,638,541 0 604,000 2,562,299 Total Spec. Rev. Funds 5,746,210 1,550,000 276,000 2,091,894 2,018,206 465,500 3,578,342 15,726,152 Debt Service Fund: 2010 UTGO 28,612 900,000 00001,000 929,612 Government Center LTGO 84,757 00000332,100 416,857 2015 Public Safety Bond 39,681 550,000 00001,000 590,681 2019 Refunding LTGO 170,410 330,000 0 3,000 00148,000 651,410 Total Debt Service Fund 323,460 1,780,000 0 3,000 0 0 482,100 2,588,560 Capital Improvement Funds: General Govt Capital Improv. 2,976,330 1,700,000 000040,000 4,716,330 Park Facilities Construction 252,978 001,071,880 00323,192 1,648,050 Residential Street & Sidewalk Fund 1,778,288 1,022,129 125,000 000148,400 3,073,817 Transportation Projects Fund 1,012,912 422,129 0 6,268,524 001,433,497 9,137,062 Fire Public Safety Capital 985,309 000000985,309 Affordable Housing Capital Fund 1,843 00000100,000 101,843 Total Capital Improv. Funds 7,007,660 3,144,258 125,000 7,340,404 0 0 2,045,089 19,662,411 Total General Gov't Funds 27,341,372 38,895,315 1,849,950 13,444,306 8,004,513 1,511,900 7,045,883 98,093,239 2020 REVENUE - ALL FUNDS Amended by Ordinance No. ____ Exibit A BEG LIC. INTER- CHARGES FINES 2020 FUND AND GOV'T FOR AND OTHER TOTAL FUND BAL. TAXES PERMITS REVENUE SERVICEFORFEITS REVENUE BUDGET 2020 REVENUE - ALL FUNDS Amended by Ordinance No. ____ Exibit A Enterprise Funds: Water Utility 4,007,677 009,700 14,885,857 20,000 545,000 19,468,234 Water Capital 9,330,059 000003,310,600 12,640,659 Wastewater Utility 3,504,738 102,000 0 4,700 16,432,038 0 3,000 20,046,476 Wastewater Capital 3,097,243 000003,040,600 6,137,843 Stormwater Utility 947,446 0070,000 4,490,512 7,000 107,000 5,621,958 Stormwater Capital 4,987,820 00101,000 003,798,500 8,887,320 Utility Debt Reserve 1,693,936 0000022,000 1,715,936 Gold Mountain Golf Complex 445,416 00 04,760,031 0 16,950 5,222,397 Total Enterprise Funds 28,014,333 102,000 0 185,400 40,568,438 27,000 10,843,650 79,740,821 Internal Service Funds: Risk Management 2,572,551 0085,500 001,844,362 4,502,413 Employment Security 228,977 000004,000 232,977 Accumulated Leave Liability 174,439 00000582,500 756,939 ER&R Operations & Maint. 5,883 00 01,800,119 0 2,800 1,808,802 ER&R Equipment Reserve 4,092,271 000002,297,679 6,389,950 Information Services 836,731 00194,030 1,756,426 0 205,000 2,992,187 Total Internal Service Funds 7,910,852 0 0 279,530 3,556,545 0 4,936,341 16,683,268 Total Business Type Funds 35,925,185 102,000 0 464,930 44,124,983 27,000 15,779,991 96,424,089 Total All Funds 63,266,557 38,997,315 1,849,950 13,909,236 52,129,496 1,538,900 22,825,874 194,517,328 1/0/1900 2020 SUPPLIES & DEBT CAPITAL ENDING TOTAL FUND PERSONNEL SERVICES SERVICE OUTLAY TRANSFERS FUND BAL. BUDGET General Fund General Government: City Council 340,800 60,116 000 400,916 Executive 268,500 74,022 000 342,522 Financial Services 1,251,300 337,465 000 1,588,765 Legal Department 1,380,900 236,984 000 1,617,884 Human Resources 503,300 235,983 000 739,283 Community Development 1,864,900 1,054,189 0082,500 3,001,589 Municipal Court 971,500 527,308 000 1,498,808 City Auditor 85,100 8,078 000 93,178 Law Enforcement 10,726,142 1,746,989 000 12,473,131 Fire/Emergency Medical 10,494,023 2,325,546 0 65,000 0 12,884,569 Police & Fire Pension 1,420,300 342,000 000 1,762,300 General Facilities 499,200 960,058 0 260,000 0 1,719,258 General Parks 2,274,700 772,040 0 29,624 34,500 3,110,864 Engineering 2,555,000 395,995 000 2,950,995 Non-Departmental 0 4,405,430 001,892,100 6,297,530 Ending Fund Balance 9,634,525 9,634,525 Total General Fund 34,635,665 13,482,203 0 354,624 2,009,100 9,634,525 60,116,117 Special Revenue Funds: Street 1,262,060 1,932,682 0 11,314 0 522,754 3,728,810 Contingency Reserve 000001,514,141 1,514,141 Lodging Tax 0 370,000 00250,000 502,147 1,122,147 Parking System 0 1,379,407 533,208 110,000 70,000 1,062,316 3,154,931 Comm. Dev. Block Grant 149,800 910,277 00330,531 91,333 1,481,941 Abatement Revolving Fund 150 258,500 000100,899 359,549 Police Special Projects 0 199,282 000244,543 443,825 Public Access Television 398,200 60,709 0 30,000 0 636,052 1,124,961 Gift & Donations Fund 0 15,000 00080,579 95,579 Trial Improvement 0 25,000 00083,706 108,706 One Percent for Arts 0 9,000 00020,264 29,264 Conference Center Oper 0 1,938,045 32,168 75,000 0 517,086 2,562,299 Total Spec. Rev. Funds 1,810,210 7,097,902 565,376 226,314 650,531 5,375,819 15,726,152 Debt Service Fund: 2010 UTGO 00853,438 0076,174 929,612 Government Center LTGO 00330,838 0086,019 416,857 2015 Public Safety Bond 00502,700 0087,981 590,681 2019 Refunding LTGO 00425,344 00226,066 651,410 Total Debt Service Fund 0 0 2,112,320 0 0 476,240 2,588,560 Capital Improvement Funds: General Govt Capital Improv.00002,406,189 2,310,141 4,716,330 Park Facilities Construction 0001,638,889 0 9,161 1,648,050 Residential Street & Sidewalk Fund 290,483 905,853 0 446,285 0 1,431,196 3,073,817 Transportation Projects Fund 40,132 1,005,636 0 7,003,608 0 1,087,686 9,137,062 Fire Public Safety Capital 0 50,000 0 924,767 10,542 0 985,309 Affordable Housing Capital Fund 0 100,000 0001,843 101,843 Total Capital Improv. Funds 330,615 2,061,489 0 10,013,549 2,416,731 4,840,027 19,662,411 Total General Gov't Funds 36,776,490 22,641,594 2,677,696 10,594,487 5,076,362 20,326,610 98,093,239 2020 EXPENDITURES - ALL FUNDS Amended by Ordinance No. ____ Exhibit A 1/0/1900 2020 SUPPLIES & DEBT CAPITAL ENDING TOTAL FUND PERSONNEL SERVICES SERVICE OUTLAY TRANSFERS FUND BAL. BUDGET 2020 EXPENDITURES - ALL FUNDS Amended by Ordinance No. ____ Exhibit A Enterprise Funds: Water Utility 4,857,877 7,951,504 912,479 0 2,250,000 3,496,374 19,468,234 Water Capital 2,000 280,000 0 6,533,666 0 5,824,993 12,640,659 Wastewater Utility 3,621,605 8,665,009 2,501,210 0 2,115,000 3,143,652 20,046,476 Wastewater Capital 0 555,000 0 4,408,200 0 1,174,643 6,137,843 Stormwater Utility 1,676,518 2,770,552 153,005 0 180,000 841,883 5,621,958 Stormwater Capital 0 440,000 0 5,345,148 0 3,102,172 8,887,320 Utility Debt Reserve 000001,715,936 1,715,936 Gold Mountain Golf Complex 0 4,213,079 434,670 47,000 0 527,648 5,222,397 Total Enterprise Funds 10,158,000 24,875,144 4,001,364 16,334,014 4,545,000 19,827,299 79,740,821 Internal Service Funds: Risk Management 390,000 1,558,120 0071,742 2,482,551 4,502,413 Employment Security 75,000 0000157,977 232,977 Accumulated Leave Liability 450,000 0000306,939 756,939 ER&R Operations & Maint 567,100 1,230,820 0 15,000 0 (4,118) 1,808,802 ER&R Equipment Reserves 0 7,000 0 2,061,734 0 4,321,216 6,389,950 Information Services 946,700 1,056,185 000989,302 2,992,187 Total Internal Service Funds 2,428,800 3,852,125 0 2,076,734 71,742 8,253,867 16,683,268 Total Business Type Funds 12,586,800 28,727,269 4,001,364 18,410,748 4,616,742 28,081,166 96,424,089 Total All Funds 49,363,290 51,368,863 6,679,060 29,005,235 9,693,104 48,407,776 194,517,328 Summary of COVID CARES Award For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Public Health Expenses Amount PPE; Cleaning Supplies; Sneeze Guards; Temperature Scanners 137,969.87 Payroll for Emergency Services 704,382.71 842,352.58$ Expenses to Facilitate Compliance w/ Covid 19 Distance Learning Assistance to Bremerton School District 252,949.78 Teleworking Infrastructure and Software 202,469.60 455,419.38$ Economic Supports Small Business Grants for Business Interruptions Bremerton CARES 580,576.76 Business Support for Outdoor Venues 15,251.28 595,828.04$ 1,893,600.00$ CITY OF BREMERTON 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2020 2020 2020 REVENUES Taxes Property $ 9,621,900 $ 9,621,900 $- Retail Sales 8,615,000 8,615,000 - Other 14,184,157 14,184,157 - Licenses and Permits 1,448,950 1,448,950 - Intergovernmental 2,356,858 4,009,008 1,652,150 Charges for Services 5,986,307 5,986,307 - Fines and Forfeitures 1,046,400 1,046,400 - Miscellaneous 343,610 568,610 225,000 Transfers In & Other Financing 371,742 371,742 - Total Revenues 43,974,924 45,852,074 1,877,150 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 34,617,665 34,635,665 18,000 Supplies, Services, and Taxes 12,011,377 13,482,203 1,470,826 Capital Expenditures 260,000 354,624 94,624 Debt Service --- Transfers Out 2,009,100 2,009,100 - Total Expenditures 48,898,142 50,481,592 1,583,450 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (4,923,218) (4,629,518) 293,700 Fund Balances-beginning 14,264,043 14,264,043 - Fund Balances-ending $ 9,340,825 $ 9,634,525 $ 293,700 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT City Council $ 400,916 400,916 $- Executive 342,522 342,522 - Financial Services 1,575,765 1,588,765 13,000 Legal Department 1,617,884 1,617,884 - Human Resources 722,683 739,283 16,600 Community Development 3,001,039 3,001,589 550 Municipal Court 1,498,808 1,498,808 - City Auditor 93,178 93,178 - Police Department 12,471,431 12,473,131 1,700 Fire Department 12,355,769 12,884,569 528,800 Police & Fire Pension 1,744,300 1,762,300 18,000 General Facilities 1,688,458 1,719,258 30,800 Parks & Recreation 3,110,864 3,110,864 - Engineering 2,905,995 2,950,995 45,000 Non-Departmental 5,368,530 6,297,530 929,000 Total Expenditures $ 48,898,142 $ 50,481,592 $ 1,583,450 Per the City's Financial Goals and Policies, the target ending fund balance is 8.5% of annual expenditures excluding capital. The target fund balance for the 2020 budget, as amended, is $4,260,792. The actual ending fund balance after the proposed amendments is $9,634,525, which is higher than the target amount by $5,373,733. The 2020 budget as proposed, includes an ending fund balance which exceeds the target, and is decreased from the previously amended budget by $293,700. The financial planning goal is to maintain an ending fund balance recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of 16.67%, or $8,356,166. The proposed budget with amendments, exceeds this recommendation by $1,278,359. FUND 001 CITY OF BREMERTON 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Fire for purchase of fire engine (carry over) (180,000) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Fire for purchase of ambulance. (carry over) (275,000) Expenditure - Increase capital in Parks for the purchase of two mowers (29,624) Expenditure - Decrease supplies & services in Parks and reallocate to capital for unanticipated capital expenditures 29,624 Revenue - Increase miscellaneous revenue in Engineering to account for insurance recovery 225,000 Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Engineering to account for insurance recovery fee (45,000) Expenditure - Increase capital in Fire for purchase of portable venitlators (65,000) Revenue - Increase intergovernmental in Fire for purchase of portable ventilators 65,000 Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Police to account for cares funding (1,700) Revenue - Increase intergovernmental in Police to account for cares funding 712,000 Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Human Resources to account for cares funding (16,200) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Human Resources to account for cares funding (400) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Miscellaneous Non-Departmental to account for cares funding (844,000) Revenue - Increase intergovernmental in Non-Departmental to account for cares funding 835,000 Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Fire to account for cares funding (8,800) Revenue - Increase intergovernmental in Fire to account for cares funding 8,800 Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Facilities to account for cares funding (6,000) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Facilities to account for cares funding (23,000) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Facilities to account for cares funding (500) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Facilities to account for cares funding (1,300) Revenue - Increase intergovernmental in Facilities to account for cares funding 30,800 Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Community Development to account for cares funding (550) Revenue - Increase intergovernmental in Community Development to account for cares funding 550 Expenditure - Increase personnel in Police & Fire Pension for unanticipated pension costs (18,000) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Finance to account for increase in State Audit Fees (13,000) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Non Departmental to account for increase in online merchant fees (85,000) Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ 293,700 Items Previously Approved by Council or Finance Committee New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 001 CITY OF BREMERTON 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE STREET FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2020 2020 2020 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other 800,000 800,000 - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental (fuel tax) 744,200 761,690 17,490 Charges for Services 208,000 208,000 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous - - - Transfers in & Other Revenue 1,064,000 1,064,000 - Total Revenues 2,816,200 2,833,690 17,490 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 1,262,060 1,262,060 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 1,915,192 1,932,682 17,490 Capital Expenditures 11,300 11,314 14 Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 3,188,552 3,206,056 17,504 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (372,352) (372,366) (14) Fund Balances-beginning 895,120 895,120 - Fund Balances-ending $ 522,768 $ 522,754 $ (14) Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase capital outlay to account for price difference (14) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Streets to account for cares funding (4,490) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Streets to account for cares funding (13,000) Revenue - Increase intergovernmental in Streets to account for cares funding 17,490 Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ (14) New Items Not Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 102 CITY OF BREMERTON 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2020 2020 2020 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental 668,383 1,309,204 640,821 Charges for Services 45,900 45,900 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 4,500 4,500 - Transfers in 82,500 82,500 - Total Revenues 801,283 1,442,104 640,821 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 149,800 149,800 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 599,987 910,277 310,290 Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out 330,531 330,531 Total Expenditures 749,787 1,390,608 640,821 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances 51,496 51,496 - Fund Balances-beginning 39,837 39,837 - Fund Balances-ending $ 91,333 $ 91,333 $ - Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase transfers out to Parks Capital Improvement for costs associated with Evergreen Park Proj (18,755) Expenditure - Increase transfers out to Residential Streets for costs associated with Park Ave Ramps (56,000) Expenditure - Increase transfers out to Residential Streets for costs associated with sidewalk & curb ramps (25,776) Expenditure - Increase transfers out to Trans Capital Project for costs associated with sidewalk curb ramps (230,000) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services for carry over of outside agency contracts (310,290) Revenue - Increase intergovernental from prior year awards 640,821 Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - Items Previously Approved by Council Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 106 CITY OF BREMERTON 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ABATEMENT REVOLVING FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2020 2020 2020 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures 25,000 25,000 - Miscellaneous 500 500 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 25,500 25,500 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - 150 150 Supplies, Services, and Taxes 258,500 258,500 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 258,500 258,650 150 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (233,000) (233,150) (150) Fund Balances-beginning 334,049 334,049 - Fund Balances-ending $ 101,049 $ 100,899 $ (150) Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase personnel for safety boots charged to benefits (150) Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ (150) Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 108 CITY OF BREMERTON 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2020 2020 2020 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other (Real Estate Excise Taxes)1,700,000 1,700,000 - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 40,000 40,000 - Transfers in & Other Revenue - - - Total Revenues 1,740,000 1,740,000 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out 2,292,300 2,406,189 113,889 Total Expenditures 2,292,300 2,406,189 113,889 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (552,300) (666,189) (113,889) Fund Balances-beginning 2,976,330 2,976,330 - Fund Balances-ending $ 2,424,030 $ 2,310,141 $ (113,889) Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase transfer-out to Parks Capital for Kitsap Lake Boat Launch Projec (113,889) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ (113,889) Items Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 308 CITY OF BREMERTON 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE PARK FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2020 2020 2020 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental 1,051,880 1,071,880 20,000 Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 29,000 29,000 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 180,303 294,192 113,889 Total Revenues 1,261,183 1,395,072 133,889 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures 1,505,000 1,638,889 133,889 Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 1,505,000 1,638,889 133,889 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (243,817) (243,817) - Fund Balances-beginning 252,978 252,978 - Fund Balances-ending $ 9,161 $ 9,161 $ - Budget Adjustments: Revenue - Increase transfer-in from REET for Kitsap Lake Boat Launch Project 113,889 Expenditure - Increase capital for Kitsap Lake Boat Launch Project (113,889) Revenue - Increase intergovernmental revenue for Ivy Green Cemetary Grant 20,000 Expenditure - Increase capital for Ivy Green Cemetary Project (20,000) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - Items Previously Approved by Council Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 310 CITY OF BREMERTON 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2020 2020 2020 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other 422,129 422,129 - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental 6,268,524 6,268,524 - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 167,000 167,000 - Transfers in 1,266,497 1,266,497 - Total Revenues 8,124,150 8,124,150 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 10,132 40,132 30,000 Supplies, Services, and Taxes 1,035,636 1,005,636 (30,000) Capital Expenditures 7,003,608 7,003,608 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 8,049,376 8,049,376 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances 74,774 74,774 - Fund Balances-beginning 1,012,912 1,012,912 - Fund Balances-ending $ 1,087,686 $ 1,087,686 $ - Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Decrease supplies & services and reallocate to personnel 30,000 Expenditure - Increase personnel for unanticipated labor costs (30,000) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - Items Previously Approved by Council Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 315 CITY OF BREMERTON 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FIRE PUBLIC SAFETY CAPITAL For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2020 2020 2020 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous - - - Transfers in & Other Revenue - - - Total Revenues - - - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - 50,000 50,000 Capital Expenditures 974,767 924,767 (50,000) Debt Service - - - Transfers Out 10,542 10,542 - Total Expenditures 985,309 985,309 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (985,309) (985,309) - Fund Balances-beginning 985,309 985,309 - Fund Balances-ending $ - $ - $ - Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Decrease capital expenditures and reaollocate to supplies and services for purchases 50,000 Expenditure - Increase supplies & services from capital to cover miscellaneous costs (50,000) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $- Items Not Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 316 City of Bremerton 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE WATER UTILITY For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2020 2020 2020 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - 9,700 9,700 Charges for Services 14,885,857 14,885,857 - Fines and Forfeitures 20,000 20,000 - Miscellaneous 545,000 545,000 - Transfers in & Other Revenue - - - Total Revenues 15,450,857 15,460,557 9,700 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 4,857,877 4,857,877 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 7,941,804 7,951,504 9,700 Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 912,479 912,479 - Transfers Out 2,250,000 2,250,000 - Total Expenditures 15,962,160 15,971,860 9,700 CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL BALANCE Net change in working capital (511,303) (511,303) - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 4,007,677 4,007,677 - Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 3,496,374 $ 3,496,374 $ - Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Water Utility to account for cares funding (4,200) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Water Utility to account for cares funding (5,500) Revenue - Increase intergovernmental in Water Utility to account for cares funding 9,700 Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 401 CITY OF BREMERTON 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE WATER CAPITAL For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2020 2020 2020 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 1,060,600 1,060,600 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 2,250,000 2,250,000 - Total Revenues 3,310,600 3,310,600 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - 2,000 2,000 Supplies, Services, and Taxes 240,000 280,000 40,000 Capital Expenditures 6,535,666 6,533,666 (2,000) Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 6,775,666 6,815,666 40,000 CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL BALANCE Net change in working capital (3,465,066) (3,505,066) (40,000) Fund Balances-beginning working capital 9,330,059 9,330,059 - Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 5,864,993 $ 5,824,993 $ (40,000) Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase supplies & services for unanticipated professional services (40,000) Expenditure - Increase personnel for unanticipated costs (2,000) Expenditure - Decrease capital and reallocate to personnel for unanticipated personnel costs 2,000 Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ (40,000) Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 404 CITY OF BREMERTON 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COMPLEX For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2020 2020 2020 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services 4,760,031 4,760,031 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 16,950 16,950 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 4,776,981 4,776,981 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 4,210,079 4,213,079 3,000 Capital Expenditures - 47,000 47,000 Debt Service 434,670 434,670 - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 4,644,749 4,694,749 50,000 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital 132,232 82,232 (50,000) Fund Balances-beginning working capital 445,416 445,416 - Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 577,648 $ 527,648 $ (50,000) Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Decrease supplies & Services and reallocate to capital for purchase of two pieces of equipment 47,000 Expenditure - Increase capital in Parks for purchase of two pieces of equipment (47,000) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services for Cascade Master Plan Development (50,000) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ (50,000) Items Previously Approved by Council Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 407 CITY OF BREMERTON 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE WASTEWATER UTILITY For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2020 2020 2020 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales 90,000 90,000 - Other 12,000 12,000 - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - 4,700 4,700 Charges for Services 16,432,038 16,432,038 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 3,000 3,000 - Transfers in & Other Revenue - - - Total Revenues 16,537,038 16,541,738 4,700 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 3,621,605 3,621,605 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 8,660,309 8,665,009 4,700 Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 2,501,210 2,501,210 - Transfers Out 2,115,000 2,115,000 - Total Expenditures 16,898,124 16,902,824 4,700 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (361,086) (361,086) - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 3,504,738 3,504,738 - Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 3,143,652 $ 3,143,652 $ - Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Wastewater Utility to account for cares funding (3,400) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Wastewater Utility to account for cares funding (1,300) Revenue - Increase intergovernmental in Wastewater Utility to account for cares funding 4,700 Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 451 CITY OF BREMERTON 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE WASTEWATER CAPITAL For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2020 2020 2020 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 625,600 625,600 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 2,415,000 2,415,000 - Total Revenues 3,040,600 3,040,600 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 525,000 555,000 30,000 Capital Expenditures 4,408,200 4,408,200 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 4,933,200 4,963,200 30,000 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (1,892,600) (1,922,600) (30,000) Fund Balances-beginning working capital 3,097,243 3,097,243 - Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 1,204,643 $ 1,174,643 $ (30,000) Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase supplies & services for unanticipated intergovernmental charges (30,000) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ (30,000) Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 454 CITY OF BREMERTON 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE STORMWATER CAPITAL For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2020 2020 2020 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - 101,000 101,000 Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 1,418,500 1,418,500 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 2,380,000 2,380,000 - Total Revenues 3,798,500 3,899,500 101,000 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 94,000 440,000 346,000 Capital Expenditures 5,345,148 5,345,148 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 5,439,148 5,785,148 346,000 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (1,640,648) (1,885,648) (245,000) Fund Balances-beginning working capital 4,987,820 4,987,820 - Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 3,347,172 $ 3,102,172 $ (245,000) Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase supplies & services for Northlake Way Preliminary Design (154,000) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services for Kitsap Lake Management Plan (6,000) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services for Kitsap Lake Alge Control (156,000) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services for KC ILA rain gardens (30,000) Revenue - Increase recreation and conservation office revenue due to receipt of state grant. 101,000 Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ (245,000) Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 484 CITY OF BREMERTON 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE RISK MANAGEMENT INTERNAL SERVICE FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2020 2020 2020 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - 85,500 85,500 Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 1,844,362 1,844,362 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 1,844,362 1,929,862 85,500 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 390,000 390,000 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 1,472,620 1,558,120 85,500 Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out 71,742 71,742 - Total Expenditures 1,934,362 2,019,862 85,500 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (90,000) (90,000) - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 2,572,551 2,572,551 - Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 2,482,551 $ 2,482,551 $ - Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Risk Management to account for cares funding (85,500) Revenue - Increase intergovernmental in Risk Management to account for cares funding 85,500 Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 503 CITY OF BREMERTON 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE EQUIPMENT RENTAL RESERVE - RESERVES For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2020 2020 2020 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 50,000 50,000 - Transfers in & Other 2,247,679 2,247,679 - Total Revenues 2,297,679 2,297,679 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - 7,000 7,000 Capital Expenditures 2,061,734 2,061,734 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out & Other - - - Total Expenditures 2,061,734 2,068,734 7,000 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital 235,945 228,945 (7,000) Fund Balances-beginning working capital 4,092,271 4,092,271 - Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 4,328,216 $ 4,321,216 (7,000) Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase supplies & services for equipment interfund associated with final disposal of surplus vehicl (2,000) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services for miscellaneous fees associated with auctioned vehicles (5,000) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ (7,000) Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 510 CITY OF BREMERTON 2020 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE INFORMATION SERVICES For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2020 2020 2020 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - 194,030 194,030 Charges for Services 1,756,426 1,756,426 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 5,000 5,000 - Transfers in 200,000 200,000 - Total Revenues 1,961,426 2,155,456 194,030 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 946,700 946,700 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 862,155 1,056,185 194,030 Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 1,808,855 2,002,885 194,030 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital 152,571 152,571 - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 836,731 836,731 - Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 989,302 $ 989,302 $ - Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Information Services to account for cares funding (130) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Information Services to account for cares funding (183,000) Expenditure - Increase supplies & services in Information Services to account for cares funding (10,900) Revenue - Increase intergovernmental in Information Services to account for cares funding 194,030 Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - Items Not Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 511 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Interdepartmental Agreement between Parks & Recreation and Public Works & Utilities Departments for the Lease of Gold Mountain Golf Complex and Irrigation Water Supply Study Session Date: December 9, 2020 COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: PW&U/Parks Presenter: C. Apfelbeck/J.Elevado Phone: (360) 473-2315/5428 SUMMARY: The current Lease and Irrigation Water Supply Agreement executed by the parties on August 18, 2010 will expire on December 31, 2020, and the parties desire to enter into a new Lease and Irrigation Water Supply Agreement. ATTACHMENTS: Interdepartmental Agreement that sets terms and conditions. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Land Lease and Irrigation Water fees are accounted for in the approved 2021 Golf Expenditure Budget. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Interdepartmental Agreement between the City of Bremerton Water Utility and City of Bremerton Parks Department, and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 2J Gold Mountain Golf Complex Lease and Irrigation Water Agreement Page 1 of 8 INTERDEPARTMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COMPLEX LEASE AND IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY I. LEASE WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton Department of Public Works & Utilities, through its Water Utility division, (hereinafter known as “Utility”), owns a parcel of land located south of the West Belfair Valley Road, Kitsap County, Washington legally described in Section 1 below; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton Department of Parks and Recreation, (hereinafter known as “Parks”), operates and maintains a golf complex facility upon said property known as the Gold Mountain Golf Complex, and WHEREAS, the land Lease and Irrigation Water Supply Agreement for said property executed by the parties on August 18, 2010 has expired and the parties desire to enter into a new Lease and Irrigation Water Supply Agreement, NOW THEREFORE, both parties agree as follows: 1. Premises. Utility is the owner of approximately 320 acres of land legally described as follows: Part W1/2 NE1/4, part NW1/4 SE1/4, part N1/2 SW1/4, part NW1/4, Section 1; part E1/2 NE1/4 Section 2; all in Township 23 North, Range 1 West, W.M. Part SE1/4 SE1/4 Section 35; part SW1/4 SE1/4, part SW1/4 Section 36; all in Township 24 North, Range 1 West, W.M. which is delineated on the map in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part of this agreement by this reference. The Utility hereby leases to Parks, and Parks hereby leases from the Utility, the above- described real property, together with all the rights, privileges, and easements thereon (hereby referred to as the “Premises”), for the uses and purposes described below. The leased Premises herein do not include the Gold Mountain Clubhouse and related golf facilities and improvements which are improvements owned by Parks. 2. Uses and Purposes. Parks shall have the use and occupancy of said Premises for the purpose of operating and maintaining a golf complex. 3. Term. The term of this lease shall begin January 1, 2021 and terminate December 31, 2030 subject to the terms and conditions contained herein. Gold Mountain Golf Complex Lease and Irrigation Water Agreement Page 2 of 8 4. Modification. An annual review by the Utility, Parks and its Contractors shall occur no later than forty-five (45) days prior to the anniversary date of this agreement to discuss issues and propose any revisions or adjustments in the agreement. This agreement may only be modified by written instrument signed by both Parties. 5. Rent. Parks covenants to pay to the Utility as rental for the Premises, the sum of $5395.00 per month. Commencing January 1, 2021, and on January 1st of each successive year thereafter, rent shall automatically be increased based upon the most current Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban consumers, Seattle. A negative CPI will result in no change to the rent. 6. Responsibilities. The Utility agrees to provide said premises as is. Parks agrees to fully maintain and operate the Premises only as a golf complex and further agrees to provide all repairs and maintenance to the Premises. Parks also agrees to provide, or shall otherwise pay for when due, all costs for providing utilities and other services upon the Premises. Any environmental damage or costs attributable to the operation or development of the golf course complex facility shall be the sole responsibility of Parks and\or its Contractors. Other specific responsibilities and conditions are described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part of this agreement by this reference. 7. Easements. The Utility retains utility and access easements over the leased Premises as currently developed. Parks may relocate theses easements, after consultation with the Utility, at Parks’ expense. New utility and access easements shall be developed after consultation between the parties. 8. Timber. The Utility shall retain ownership of all timber on and adjacent to the Premises and shall have the right to manage such timber as long as it does not unduly interfere with the operation and maintenance of the golf course and club house facilities. Parks shall consult with the Utility prior to falling or removing any timber in conjunction with golf course operations or maintenance. The Utility shall receive the net value of any harvested timber. 9. Biosolids. The Utility shall retain the right to apply biosolids pursuant to the General Biosolid Permit with the Department of Ecology, but agrees to use all reasonable application and storage techniques to minimize odor incursion. The locations of the biosolids storage facilities are shown on Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part of this agreement by this reference. II. IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY SECTION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS for the sale of water by the Utility for the irrigation of the Bremerton Gold Mountain Golf Course Complex (hereinafter known as the “Golf Course”) through Parks is subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. The Utility agrees to sell and deliver to Parks and Parks agrees to purchase and receive water to be used for irrigation of the Golf Complex. 1. Term. The term of this section for irrigation water supply shall be the same and run Gold Mountain Golf Complex Lease and Irrigation Water Agreement Page 3 of 8 concurrently with the lease section of this agreement. 2. Interruptible Service. Due to water storage facilities operated by the Golf Course; and due to the need of the Utility to meet peaking demands on its water system, it is agreed to be in the best interest of both parties that the provision of irrigation water pursuant to this agreement be on an interruptible basis. Upon notification by the Utility to Parks, delivery of irrigation water pursuant to this agreement may be immediately suspended entirely for a period not to exceed fourteen (14) consecutive days. Further, provision of irrigation water may be restricted to some lesser degree for longer periods of time. Such interruptions shall not be of excessive time or duration as to exceed the capacity of the Golf Course to meet its irrigation needs from a combination of current irrigation water deliveries by the Utility and a draw-down of Golf Course storage facilities. 3. Rates. The Utility agrees to charge Parks and Parks agrees to pay the Utility for all irrigation water delivered pursuant to this agreement at the rate of $1.56 per hundred cubic feet (HCF). This rate has been computed based upon considerations set forth in Section 2 above detailing the Interruptible Service provided to the Golf Course. Rates shall be adjusted each calendar year by the same percentage change as that made to the water rates for commercial customers over the preceding year. 4. Payment. Payment for irrigation water supplied pursuant to this agreement shall be consistent with the same terms and conditions as applied to the Utility’s retail customers. 5. Facilities. The Utility agrees to furnish, install and maintain all facilities necessary to provide service at the currently established points of irrigation water delivery. Title to all such facilities shall remain with the Utility. 6. Measurement. Irrigation water provided pursuant to this agreement shall be metered where appropriate by suitable metering equipment of standard manufacture. This equipment shall be installed and maintained by the Utility at its expense. In the event of failure of metering equipment, the Utility shall estimate the amount of irrigation water delivered for the period of time during each failure. 7. Reporting Requirement. The Utility shall assume responsibility for preparing, maintaining and filing all reports required as a result of providing irrigation water pursuant to this agreement. Gold Mountain Golf Complex Lease and Irrigation Water Agreement Page 4 of 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed their signatures below. CITY OF BREMERTON BY: GREG WHEELER, Mayor DATE: DEPARTMENTAL APPROVALS: _____________________________________________ THOMAS KNUCKEY, Director of Public Works & Utilities _____________________________________________ JEFF ELEVADO, Director of Parks & Recreation APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________________ ROGER LUBOVICH, City Attorney RECEIVED FOR FILING: _____________________________________________ ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk Gold Mountain Golf Complex Lease and Irrigation Water Agreement Page 5 of 8 EXHIBIT A MAP OF LEASED PREMISES WITH WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS Gold Mountain Golf Complex Lease and Irrigation Water Agreement Page 6 of 8 EXHIBIT B SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES AND CONDITIONS Water Use and Protection Issues The golf course facilities include the 1, 5, and 10-year time-of-travel zones that are within Wellhead Protection Areas for Wells 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20. Wellhead Protection Areas are delineated on Exhibit A. Because of the need to protect and conserve the City’s water resources, the following are to be implemented as part of the management and maintenance of the golf course facilities by Parks and its Contractors: A. Use of Irrigation Well 16 should be maximized as much as possible. B. Irrigation shall be conducted in such a manner to not exceed the evapotranspiration needs of the species of turf being grown. Parks and its Contractors shall develop irrigation practices that conserve water. An on-site weather station shall be maintained to provide evapotranspiration rates used to calculate irrigation rates and times. Soil moisture meters shall be used to guide watering. Annual evapotranspiration data will be reported to the Water Utility Manager no later than February 28th. C. Irrigation system should be monitored for leaks. Repairs should be made as soon as possible to avoid wasting water. D. Parks and its Contractor shall develop and implement practices, such as aerification of short cut turf, to promote healthy turf growth requiring less water. E. Parks and its Contractor shall continue to promote native vegetation areas throughout property to reduce water usage and reduce fertilizer and pesticide application. F. Nitrogen-containing fertilizer is to be used at agronomic rates and applied in such a manner as to preclude nitrate leaching into groundwater. Parks or its Contractor shall provide the Water Utility Manager with a “Fertilizer Application Plan” for approval. An annual report shall be submitted to the Water Utility Manager describing fertilizer applications, amounts, locations and dates. The report shall be submitted no later than February 28th annually. G. No use of any pesticide shall be made on the Premises that has an EPA “groundwater advisory” or is listed as “persistent, bio-accumulative, and toxic”, or is listed on the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Public Works reserves the right to prohibit the use of other pesticides as appropriate and will notify Parks or its Contractors when this action is to be taken. Parks or its Contractor shall provide the Water Utility Manager with a “Pesticide Use Plan” for approval. An annual report shall be submitted to the Water Utility Manager describing pesticide applications, amounts, locations and dates. The report shall be submitted no later than February 28th annually. H. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for fertilizer and pesticide applications shall be developed by Parks and its Contractors and followed by personnel involved in the handling and application of these materials. I. Storage of fuel and chemical shall be as prescribed by appropriate regulations. BMPs shall be developed and followed for storage. As part of Public Works Wellhead Protection Program, regular on-site inspections of fuel and chemical storage shall be conducted by Public Works personnel. Gold Mountain Golf Complex Lease and Irrigation Water Agreement Page 7 of 8 Access Access roads and security gates used for the golf course maintenance facility are also utilized by Public Works personnel for forest management and biosolids program activities. Federal, State and Local regulations require restrictive access to adjacent biosolids application areas. The following will be observed by Parks and its Contractors: J. Gates shall be kept secured at all times (closed during business hours and locked after hours). K. Road maintenance costs shall be cost-shared based on actual usage for the 1.3 miles of main access road (“9000” Road). L. Vehicle speed shall not exceed 15 miles per hour on the 9000 access road. Grounds and Buildings M. Buildings and grounds shall be kept in good repair. N. Garbage and debris shall not be allowed to accumulate on the Premises. O. Vegetation waste shall be disposed, treated or re-used so as not to accumulate on the Premises. Gold Mountain Golf Complex Lease and Irrigation Water Agreement Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT C BIOSOLIDS STORAGE FACILITY LOCATIONS AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Contract Modification Agreement No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with Robinson Noble, Inc. for Hydrogeological Services Study Session Date: December 9, 2020 COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: Public Works & Utilities Presenter: Cami Apfelbeck Phone: (360) 473-2315 SUMMARY: In March 2019 the City executed a Professional Services Agreement with Robinson Noble, Inc. to update the Wellhead Protection Program (Task 1) and to conduct groundwater production impact modeling and mitigation planning as required by Washington State Department of Ecology water right preliminary permits for production wells 9, 21, and 22 (Task 2). The consultant has completed Task 1. This contract modification amends the agreement to allow the completion of groundwater production impact modeling and begin mitigation plan development (Task 2), and provides for on-call hydrogeological services in support of production well operations and maintenance (Task 3). ATTACHMENTS: PSA Contract Modification Agreement No. 1 that details specific amendments to the existing agreement and project summary. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): This modification increases the original not-to- exceed amount of $66,000 by $45,000 for a new not-to-exceed amount of $111,000. This work is planned and funded through the Water Resources Operating Fund (2020 and 2021); no budget additions or changes are required. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Contract Modification Agreement No. 1 between the City of Bremerton and Robinson Noble, Inc., and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 2K Page 1 of 4 Contract Modification Rev. 10/2019 CONTRACT MODIFICATION AGREEMENT NO. 1 BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND ROBINSON NOBLE, INC. PROJECT Hydrogeological Services CONSULTANT Robinson Noble, Inc. DATE November 24, 2020 THIS CONTRACT MODIFICATION AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY AMENDS THE AGREEMENT (the "Contract") entered into between the City of Bremerton and Robinson Noble, Inc. on March 13, 2019. All provisions in the Contract shall remain in full force and effect except as expressly modified by this document. For valuable consideration and by mutual consent of the parties, the modifications to the Contract are as follows: I. Section I. Scope , is modified as follows: See Amended Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A. Section II. Term , is modified as follows: The Consultant shall complete the work described in this Contract Modification Agreement by December 31, 2022. Section III. Compensation , is modified as follows: The original contract amount was $66,000.00. The City shall pay the Consultant for the additional work described above, based on time and materials, an amount not to exceed $45,000.00 for a total amended contract amount of $111,000.00, including this Contract Modification. II. Consultant accepts all requirements of this Contract Modification by endorsing below. Consultant further agrees that this Contract Modification constitutes full and final settlement of all of the Consultant’s claims for contract time and for all costs of any kind, including without limitation, costs of delays related to any work either covered or affected by this Contract Modification, claims related to on-site or home office overhead, or lost profits. This Contract Modification does not limit the City’s right to bring a claim for past performance. The undersigned consultant approves the foregoing Contract Modification as to the changes, if any, in the contract price specified for each item, including any and all supervision costs an d oth e r m iscell an eo u s costs relatin g to th e ch a n ge in w o rk , an d as to the extension of tim e all o w e d , if a n y , fo r co m p letion of th e en tire w ork d u e to said C ontract M odifi cation. T h is d o c u m en t w ill b eco m e a su p p lem en t of th e con tract an d all p rovisions w ill apply hereto. It is understood that this Contract Modification shall be effective when approved by the City of Bremerton. The parties whose names appear below warrant that they are authorized to enter into a contract modification that is binding on the parties of this contract. In addition, Consultant warrants that it has or will inform the surety of this change, and shall take appropriate action to modify any bonds required under the contract to address this change. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Contract Modification on the day and year first written above. Public Works Director approved to process (Initials and Date) CONSULTANT THE CITY OF BREMERTON By:___,,.""----+===~-'=-----'----'-----=::..---- Pri It s: ~===::..=+====='---- By: _ Print N am e: Greg W heeler Its: M ayor D ate: ----------- A PPR O V E D A S T O FO RM : A T TE ST: B y : _ R O G E R A. L U B O V IC H , B rem ert on C ity A ttorn ey NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: By: _ A N G ELA HO O V E R , C ity C lerk NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: Jam es E . H ay R obinson N oble, Inc. 210 5 South C Street Tacom a, W A 98402 (253) 475-7711 C am i Apfe lbeck W ater Utility M anager C ity of B rem erton 100 Oyster Bay Ave N B rem ert on, W A 98312 (360) 473-2315 R:\Legal\Legal\Forms\FORMS ON COBWEB\Contract Modification Rev. 10 2019.docx Page 2 of 4 Contract Modification Rev. 10/2019 Page 3 of 4 Contract Modification Rev. 10/2019 EXHIBIT A AMENDED SCOPE OF WORK Task 1 - Well Head Protection Program Update in support of Bremerton’s Water System Plan Update to include: Review and update susceptibility assessment forms for City Wells 1R, 2R, 3, 6R, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18R, 19, 20, 21, and 22. Update the Kitsap Model steady-state scenario to include all of the City’s current and proposed production wells. Delineate WHPAs (0.5-, 1-, 5-, and 10-yr time-of-travel boundaries and an overall zone of contribution) for sources with existing water rights. For planning purposes, provisional WHPAs will be generated to include water right application quantities for Wells 9, 21, and 22. Provide all WHPA boundaries in GIS-compatible shapefile format. Provide a GIS-compatible database of potential sources of contamination within the 10- year WHPAs (primary and provisional) for a windshield survey to be accomplished by City personnel. Perform a hazard ranking of potential sources of contamination and land-use categories based on zoning. Provide template language for use by the City in notifying all owners and operators of known and potential sources of groundwater contamination within the WHPA boundaries. Provide template language for use by the City in notifying regulatory agencies and local governments of the boundaries of the WHPA(s) and the findings of the WHPA inventory. Review and feedback on the City’s Emergency Response Plan from the current Water System Plan. General assumptions: The City has copies of the current susceptibility forms for most, if not all, of its source wells and will provide them for review. WHPAs will be modeled based on their full (additive and non-additive) water right amounts. o Wells with existing water rights: 1R, 2R, 3, 6R, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18R, 19, 20, 22 o Wells with pending water right applications (for which provisional WHPAs will be developed): 9, 21, and 22 City personnel will accomplish the “windshield survey” of potential sources of contamination identified within the 10-year WHPAs and provide a GIS-compatible summary of their findings. City personnel will accomplish and document all notifications to owners/operators of potential sources of contamination and regulatory agencies. The City will provide an electronic copy of the current 2012 Water System Plan, including the Emergency Response/Contingency Plan, for review. The City’s Emergency Response/Contingency Plan will not need extensive modification. The City will provide a current zoning map. Page 4 of 4 Contract Modification Rev. 10/2019 Task 2 - Preliminary steady-state modeling in support of water rights application preliminary permits for Wells 9, 21, and 22 to include: Discussions with the City regarding return flow datasets. Formatting return flow data and modifying all three model scenarios. Steady-state model runs to determine impacts at full appropriated request. A combined technical memorandum summarizing the modeled impacts of each water right application. A meeting with the City to discuss next steps. A meeting with Department of Ecology, Suquamish Tribe, and City staff to discuss initial model results, modifications to the model, and possible transient-state modeling. A mitigation plan to offset modeled impacts, developed with City staff. Preparation of a final technical report detailing aquifer tests (if any), groundwater modeling, and mitigation plan. Task 3 - General hydrogeological technical assistance as needed. Leavitt Group Northwest PO Box 65770 University Place WA 98464 Cathy Fleck (800)726-8771 (866)728-9168 cathy-fleck@leavitt.com Robinson and Noble, Inc, DBA: Robinson Noble, Inc. 2105 South C St. Tacoma WA 98402 Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Co Ohio Security Insurance Co Ohio Casualty Insurance Co 19/20 Master A X X X X Y EPK-129209 11/30/2019 11/30/2020 2,000,000 100,000 10,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 B X X BKS56823788 11/30/2019 11/30/2020 1,000,000 C X X X ESO56823788 11/30/2019 11/30/2020 Excess Automobile Liability 2,000,000 2,000,000 A EPK-129209 11/30/2019 11/30/2020 X 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 A Professional Liability EPK-129209 11/30/2019 11/30/2020 Each Claim 2,000,000 Aggregate 4,000,000 D E. Olson/CAFLEC The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD CERTIFICATE HOLDER ©1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION.All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2014/01) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CANCELLATION DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE LOCJECTPRO-POLICY GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: OCCURCLAIMS-MADE COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PREMISES (Ea occurrence)$DAMAGE TO RENTED EACH OCCURRENCE $ MED EXP (Any one person)$ PERSONAL &ADV INJURY $ GENERAL AGGREGATE $ PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ $RETENTIONDED CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR $ AGGREGATE $ EACH OCCURRENCE $UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS LIAB DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) INSRLTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF(MM/DD/YYYY)POLICY EXP(MM/DD/YYYY)LIMITS PER STATUTE OTH- ER E.L.EACH ACCIDENT E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ $ $ ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE If yes,describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below (Mandatory in NH) OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / N AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED SCHEDULED HIRED AUTOS NON-OWNED AUTOS AUTOS AUTOS COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT BODILY INJURY (Per person) BODILY INJURY (Per accident) PROPERTY DAMAGE $ $ $ $ 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. INSD ADDL WVD SUBR N / A $ $ (Ea accident) (Per accident) OTHER: 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). COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:REVISION NUMBER: INSURED PHONE(A/C, No, Ext): PRODUCER ADDRESS: E-MAIL FAX (A/C, No): CONTACTNAME: NAIC # INSURER A : INSURER B : INSURER C : INSURER D : INSURER E : INSURER F : INSURER(S)AFFORDING COVERAGE SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. INS025 (201401) 5/28/2020 City of Bremerton Attn: Thomas Knuckey 345 6th St, Ste. 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 City of Bremerton is named as Additional Insured per the terms and conditions of forms EN0319 02/11, EN0118 02/11, EN0301 09/14 attached Robinson Noble, Inc.Doing Business As Additional Named Insureds Other Named Insureds OFAPPINF (02/2007)COPYRIGHT 2007, AMS SERVICES INC EN0319-0211 Page 1 of 1 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS – COMPLETED OPERATIONS This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name Of Additional Insured Person(s) or Organization(s): Where Required By Written Contract SECTION III – WHO IS AN INSURED within the Common Provisions is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) indicated in the Schedule shown above, but only with respect to liability for “bodily injury” or “property damage” caused, in whole or in part, by “your work” at the location designated in the Schedule shown above performed for that additional insured and included in the “products- completed operations hazard”. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE POLICY REMAIN UNCHANGED. EN0118-0211 Page 1 of 1 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. PRIMARY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY ADDITIONAL INSURED WITH WAIVER OF SUBROGATION This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART CONTRACTORS POLLUTION LIABILITY COVERAGE PART ERRORS AND OMISSIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE PART THIRD PARTY POLLUTION LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name of Additional Insured Person(s) or Organization(s) Where Required by Written Contract A. SECTION III – WHO IS AN INSURED within the Common Provisions is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) indicated in the Schedule shown above, but solely with respect to “claims” caused in whole or in part, by “your work” for that person or organization performed by you, or by those acting on your behalf. This insurance shall be primary and non-contributory, but only in the event of a named insured’s sole negligence. B. We waive any right of recovery we may have against the person(s) or organization(s) indicated in the Schedule shown above because of payments we make for “damages” arising out of “your work” performed under a designated project or contract with that person(s) or organization(s). C. This Endorsement does not reinstate or increase the Limits of Insurance applicable to any “claim” to which the coverage afforded by this Endorsement applies. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE POLICY REMAIN UNCHANGED. EN0301-0914 Page 1 of 1 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. AGGREGATE LIMITS OF INSURANCE PER PROJECT This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART Under the Common Provisions, Section IV – LIMITS OF INSURANCE AND DEDUCTIBLE, item 2. is amended by the addition of the following: The General Aggregate Limit applies separately to each of your projects away from premises owned by or rented to you. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE POLICY REMAIN UNCHANGED. Hydrogeological Services Water Rights Preliminary Permit Modeling and Mitigation Planning Cami Apfelbeck, Water Utility Manager December 9, 2020 Basis for project: The City of Bremerton submitted to the Department of Ecology (Ecology) water rights applications for wells 9, 21, and 22 in order to secure capacity to provide for projected future water demand (see Figure 1). Under the authority of Chapter 90.03.290 RCW, Ecology issued Preliminary Permits allowing for the construction and testing of the wells. These permits also require studies, surveys and investigations necessary to assess production impacts to nearby stream flow and develop a mitigation plan to offset those impacts Figure 1 Project Description: This project completes groundwater modeling already in progress to assess the effects of groundwater extraction on stream flows in the anticipated impact areas. More refined modeling may be required based upon review of model results by Ecology, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and impacted tribes. Once final modeling is complete, the consultant will begin development of a mitigation plan to mitigate for determined impacts. Level of effort and funding required for mitigation planning will be defined by final model results. Project location: City of Bremerton production wells 9, 21, and 22 and proximal impact areas. Bid Solicitation: IAW BMC 2.76.060, the City selected Robinson Noble, Inc., based upon recognized experience and knowledge within this specialized area of expertise and upon proven performance providing similar services to the City in the past. Amount: Contract Modification Agreement No. 1 increases the original not-to-exceed amount by $45,000 for an amended not-to-exceed amount of $111,000 for modeling and the initiation of mitigation planning. Additional funding may be needed in 2021 depending upon complexity of model results and required mitigation. Fund: Water Utility Operations Budget (534.5134 54110). Project deadline: Project to be completed by December 31, 2022. AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Sole Source Purchase of Study Session Date: December 9, 2020 Equipment from Whitney Equipment Co. for OB-1 Pump Station COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: PW&U/WWTP Presenter: Eric J. Burris Phone: (360) 473-5448 SUMMARY: Staff has received a proposal from Whitney Equipment Company, Inc. for the purchase of three hard iron impellers and three volutes. The cost for these parts will be $53,323.16 including freight and applicable Washington state sales tax. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Quote #35965R1 from Whitney Equipment Company, Inc.; 2) Sole Source Justification FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Funds are available for the parts through Fund 451. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the purchase agreement with Whitney Equipment Company, Inc. for $53,323.16; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 2L Digitally signed by Eric Burris Date: 2020.11.13 11:42:52 -08'00' Thomas Knuckey Digitally signed by Thomas Knuckey Date: 2020.11.17 12:10:27 -08'00' AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: December 9, 2020 Resolution No. 3335 to establish January 20, 2021 as the Public Hearing date to vacate a portion of alley east of Pitt Ave and south of East 11th Street COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: PW&U Presenter: Shane Weber Phone: (360) 473-2354 SUMMARY: The adjacent property owner has petitioned the City to vacate a portion of the 12’ alley adjacent to the old Manette TV building to provide sufficient setback for building improvements. The proposed vacation area fronts two properties; 2105 E. 11th Street (applicant) and 2109 E. 11th Street. Both property owners have signed the petition to vacate which complies with BMC 11.20.070 which states “if the petition is signed by two-thirds of the property on a front footage basis…the council, shall by resolution, fix a time when the petition will be heard. No city or franchise utilities are in the subject area. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 3335; 2. Engineering Staff Report; 3. Exhibit A - Legal Description; 4. Exhibit B – Vicinity Map; 5. Exhibit C – Survey Map; 6. Exhibit D - Petition for Right of Way Vacation; 7. Street View Picture FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Resolution No. 3335 to establish January 20, 2021 as the Public Hearing date to vacate a portion of alley east of Pitt Ave and south of East 11th Street. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 2M Resolution - Vacation of Portion of Alley east of Pitt Ave and south of East 11th Street RESOLUTION NO. 3335 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, establishing a hearing date for the proposed vacation of a portion of alley east of Pitt Avenue and south of East 11th Street WHEREAS, the adjacent property owner has petitioned the City to vacate a portion of the 12’ alley adjacent to the old Manette TV building to allow for building improvements in accordance with BMC 11.20.070; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to pass a resolution, pursuant to BMC 11.20.100, establishing a hearing date for the proposed vacation; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A public hearing will be held on January 20, 2021, at 5:30 p.m. or later in the City Council Chambers at the Norm Dicks Government Center, First Floor, 345 Sixth Street, Bremerton, Washington, to take public comment or consider written objections to the vacation and dedication. In the event there is a Proclamation by the Governor that prohibits in- person meetings, the public hearing will be held via virtual meeting with a link posted on the City of Bremerton website at: https://www.bremertonwa.gov/691/Council-Meetings. SECTION 2. Severability. 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 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this ________ day of ________________, 2020. ERIC YOUNGER, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk E. 11th St and Pitt Ave Manette TV Page 1 of 3 (Attachment 2) ENGINEERING STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: Study Session 12/09/20, Council 12/16/20 Resolution ****; Public Hearing **** PREPARED BY: JK SUMMARY A. Applicant: TV Manette LLC 2105 E. 11th Street Bremerton, WA 98310 Location: E. 11th Street and Pitt Avenue BACKGROUND The adjacent property owner has petitio ned the City to vacate the North 72 feet of the 12’ alley adjacent to the old Manette TV building for building improvements. Due to building setback requirements from the Right of Way these renovations are currently not feasible. The portion fronts 2 properties; 2105 (applicant) and 2109 E. 11th Street. All property owners have signed the petition to vacate which complies with BMC 1 1.20.070 which states “if the petition is signed by two-thirds of the property on a front footage basis…the council, shall by resolution, fix a time when the petition will be heard. No city or franchise utilities are in the subject area. RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDITIONS EXISTING ROADWAY NEW ROADWAY • Functional Classification Alley N/A • R-O-W Width 12’ N/A • R-O-W Areas N/A N/A • Pavement Width N/A N/A • Surface Type Gravel N/A • Curb and Gutter No N/A • Sidewalks No N/A HEARING CONSIDERATIONS BMC 11.20.120 sets forth issues that the City Council needs to determine at the conclusion of the Vacation Hearing. These issues and the staff position are: E. 11th St and Pitt Ave Manette TV Page 2 of 3 1. Whether the street, alley or portion thereof is no longer required for public use and vacation of the described portion will better serve the public good. Staff Position: The portion of alley being vacated is unused by the City. The alley vacation will better serve the community by allowing the adjacent businesses to renovate their existing structures. 2. Whether the vacation is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. 3. Staff Position: The proposed vacation does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Whether continued use of the proposed vacation as a public way is not of such public benefit as to justify the costs of maintenance. Staff Position: The proposed area is an undeveloped alley being used only by the adjacent businesses 5. Whether substitution of a new and different thoroughfare would be more useful to the public. Staff Position: No other thoroughfare would improve circulation in this area. 6. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater public use or need than presently exists. Staff Position: There is no anticipated future public transportation needs. 7. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property abutting the same. Staff Position: Adjacent property owners to the proposed Vacation have all signed the peti tion to vacate. SHORELINE ACCESS This portion of right-of-way does not provide shoreline access. UTILITIES The City has no utilities in the proposed area to be vacated. Franchised utilities do not have infrastructure in the proposed vacation area. E. 11th St and Pitt Ave Manette TV Page 3 of 3 SUFFICIENCY OF SIGNATURES The petition exceeds the 2/3 front footage requirement. COMPENSATION No compensation owing as this is Class III Right of Way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Approval to vacate the proposed north 72 feet of the 12 foot alley. AREA TO BE VACATED EXHIBIT C Attachment 7 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL Study Session Date: December 9, 2020 SUBJECT: Contract Modification Agreement No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with Parametrix, Inc. for the Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades Project COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: Engineering Presenter: Bill Davis Phone: (360) 473-2312 SUMMARY: Contract Modification Agreement No. 1 amends the Professional Services Agreement with Parametrix, Inc. for engineering services associated with the project Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades. The supplemental scope of work includes electrical support and forcemain design and support as requested by the City. The original contract amount was $437,006. This current contract modification increases the contract amount by $164,490.96 for an amended contract amount of $601,496.96. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Contract Modification Agreement No. 1 with Exhibits A and B FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The work is fully funded in the 2020 Wastewater budget. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒Limited Presentation ☐Full Presentation ☐General Business ☐Public Hearing STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Contract Modification Agreement No. 1 with Parametrix, Inc. for the project Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades in the amount of $164,490.96; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 2.Site Map 2N Page 1 of 2 Contract Modification No. 1 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades CONTRACT MODIFICATION AGREEMENT NO. 1 BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND PARAMETRIX, INC. PROJECT: Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades CONSULTANT: Parametrix, Inc. DATE: November 2, 2020 THIS CONTRACT MODIFICATION AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY AMENDS THE Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades AGREEMENT (the "Contract") entered into between the City of Bremerton and Parametrix, Inc. on August 13, 2019). All provisions in the Contract shall remain in full force and effect except as expressly modified by this document. For valuable consideration and by mutual consent of the parties, the modifications to the Contract are as follows: I. Section I.Scope , is modified as follows: See Amended Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A. Section II. Term , is modified as follows: The term of the contract is not changed. Section III. Compensation , is modified as follows: The original contract amount was $437,006. Per Exhibit B, the City shall pay the Consultant for the additional work described above, based on time and materials, an amount not to exceed $164,490.96 for a total amended contract amount of $601,496.96, including this Contract Modification. II. Consultant accepts all requirements of this Contract Modification by endorsing below. Consultant further agrees that this Contract Modification constitutes full and final settlement of all of the Consultant’s claims for contract time and for all costs of any kind, including without limitation, costs of delays related to any work either covered or affected by this Contract Modification, claims related to on-site or home office overhead, or lost profits. This Contract Modification does not limit the City’s right to bring a claim for past performance. The undersigned consultant approves the foregoing Contract Modification as to the changes, if any, in the contract price specified for each item, including any and all supervision costs and other miscellaneous costs relating to the change in work, and as to the extension of time allowed, if any, for completion of the entire work due to said Contract Modification. Page 2 of 2 Contract Modification No. 1 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades This document will become a supplement of the contract and all provisions will apply hereto. It is understood that this Contract Modification shall be effective when approved by the City of Bremerton. The parties whose names appear below warrant that they are authorized to enter into a contract modification that is binding on the parties of this contract. In addition, Consultant warrants that it has or will inform the surety of this change, and shall take appropriate action to modify any bonds required under the contract to address this change. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Contract Modification on the day and year first written above. City Engineer / Public Works Director approved to process _________________________ (Initials and Date) THE CITY OF BREMERTON B y: Print Name: Its: Date: ATTEST: B y: ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: Attn: Angela Hoover City of Bremerton 345 6th Street, Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337-1891 PARAMETRIX, INC, By: Print Name: Its: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, Bremerton City Attorney NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: Parametrix, Inc Attn: Cedar Simmons 60 Washington Ave, Suite 390 Bremerton, WA 98337 City of Bremerton 233-1896-162 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades 1 November 2020 Amendment 1 SCOPE OF WORK City of Bremerton Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades Amendment 1 – Electrical Support and Forcemain Design and Support PROJECT BACKGROUND This project includes the design and installation of grinder pump stations to approximately 53 properties as well as upland gravity and low-pressure collection system improvements to eliminate sewage backups into Oyster Bay from failed backflow prevention devices and broken laterals. The overall goal of the project is to reduce the fecal coliform bacteria pollution and other pollution associated with sewage in Oyster Bay by moving the wastewater collection system out of marine waters and into an upland system. This project is funded by an SRF loan for $3,800,000 from the Department of Ecology that expires on December 31, 2022. INTRODUCTION TO AMENDMENT 1 This document presents supplements to existing tasks as well as a response to the City’s request for two additional tasks and attached associated budget. The additional tasks are: Task 12: Electrical Support Task 13: Forcemain Design and Support The scope of work (SOW) includes services to be executed during the design, bidding, and construction phases of this project and outlines additional task objectives, activities, assumptions, and exclusions. SUMMARY OF WORK BREAKDOWN The complete project SOW includes the following tasks with additional budget and scope added to Tasks 2, 6,10, 12, and 13 as presented in this Amendment: Task 1: Alternatives Analysis Task 2: Survey Task 3: Preliminary Design Task 4: Detailed Design Task 5: Outreach Task 6: Environmental Analysis and Permitting Task 7: Bidding Assistance Task 8: Services During Construction Task 10: Management Reserve Task 11: Geotechnical Support Task 12: Electrical Support Task 13: Force Main Design and Support EXHIBIT A (16 pages) SCOPE OF WORK (continued) City of Bremerton 233-1896-162 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades 2 November 2020 Amendment 1 AMENDMENT 1 - DETAILED WORK BREAKDOWN Task 2: Survey (Supplement to Existing Task) Objective Provide additional survey services to support further design. Survey services will include rights-of-way (ROW) determination in defined areas along with limited topography survey to supplement aerial data where objects are obscured. Activities • Perform a boundary determination survey for ROWs associated with the following areas: a. The ROW for Shorewood Drive will be defined from the intersection of Shorewood Drive and Kitsap Way, north to the intersection of Shorewood Drive and Brentwood Drive. b. The ROW for Lower Oyster Bay Road from the intersection of Lower Oyster Bay Road and Kitsap Way, north and west to the end of Lower Oyster Bay Road c. The northerly ROW for Kitsap Way from the western line of tax parcel no. 162401-4-052-2008, east to the City-owned sewer pump station called OB-1 d. The OB-1 pump station and sewer easement existing on Kitsap County tax parcel no. 162401-4-052- 2008 (will be defined and added to the existing base map). • Provide topographic survey and surface locates for that portion of land highlighted and shown on exhibit labeled as “OB1 CONNECTION, OYSTER BAY BEACH SEWER UPGRADES”. These areas will also employ a subsurface conductible utility survey. Topographic survey will be merged with the existing base mapping. Assumptions 1. ROW survey will include ROW for roadways described only and will not accurately define adjacent parcel lines. 2. Right of entry for all private property will be acquired prior to commencement of field survey activities. 3. The OB-1 pump station easement documents for tax parcel no. 162401-4-052-2008 will be provided by the City of Bremerton. 4. The setting of any survey monuments at any of the exterior boundary points of the subject properties has not been included in this SOW. Deliverables • Revised electronic base mapping displaying the elements described above SCOPE OF WORK (continued) City of Bremerton 233-1896-162 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades 3 November 2020 Amendment 1 Task 6: Environmental Analysis and Permitting (Supplement to Existing Task) Objective Continue to provide permitting support to comply with the City of Bremerton and other applicable regulatory agencies’ permitting requirements. Activities 1. Conduct a survey of the project area for attached macroalgae, in response to a request from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2. Provide permit coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and WDFW at the direction of the City. Includes responding to one set of formal comments received from each agency. 3. Revise JARPA, in response to comments received from the Corps (if needed). 4. Revise Biological Evaluation (BE), in response to comments received from the Corps, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (if needed). 5. Coordinate with the project engineers regarding environmental requirements and permitting needs. Deliverables 1. Attached macroalgae survey GPS data 2. One (1) comment-response letter (each) for the Corps and WDFW 3. Revised JARPA form and figures (if needed) 4. Revised BE (if needed) Assumptions 1. Up to 8 hours of permit coordination time is included, with an additional 4 hours (each) for responding to Corps and WDFW comments. 2. It is anticipated that 4 hours of effort will be sufficient to revise the JARPA and figures. 3. It is anticipated that 8 hours of effort will be sufficient to revise the BE. 4. Up to 6 hours of coordination with the project engineers is included. Task 10: Management Reserve (Supplement to Existing Task) Management Reserve will consist of a specified amount withheld for management control purposes to address unknown unknowns within the scope of the project. Task 10: Management Reserve will only be used upon written authorization of the City. Task 12: Electrical Support (New Task) SCOPE OF WORK (continued) City of Bremerton 233-1896-162 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades 4 November 2020 Amendment 1 Subtask 12.1: Grinder Pump Station Electrical Support Objective Provide the City with plans and specifications detailing the installation of new electrical services at the following four grinder pump station locations: • Tony’s Pizza One Duplex Pump Station, no generator • Weslon Place, located in the City right of way One Duplex Pump Station, no generator • Oyster Bay Inn One Duplex Pump Station, with ATS and generator • Bayshore West Condos Six Duplex Pump Stations, fed from a common distribution panel, with ATS and generator The electrical services at Tony’s Pizza and Weslon Place will feed duplex pump stations without on-site automatic generator back-up power. These locations will be provided with a metered service disconnect switch and manufacturer’s control panel to operate the pump stations. The electrical services at Oyster Bay Inn and Bayshore West Condos will be provided with on-site automatic diesel generator backup power systems. The grinder pump station control panel(s) at these locations will be fed by a metered service disconnect switch and backed up with a permanent pad-mounted diesel generator with 24-hour integral fuel tank. Power transfer in the event of an electric utility outage will be by a rack mounted automatic transfer switch. Activities Prepared design related to installing power systems at grinder pump stations as described below: 1. Perform load calculations for new electrical services. 2. Size main disconnect, distribution panel (Bayshore West Condos only), conductors, and conduit. 3. Develop CSI specifications for equipment and material procurement and installation. A single set of Specifications will cover the work to be completed at all locations. 4. Tentative supplementary specification list shall be as follows: • 03 15 19 – Anchors, Inserts, and Embedded Products • 03 30 53 – Miscellaneous Cast-in-place Concrete • 13 05 41 – Seismic Restraint Requirements for Non-structural Components • 26 05 11 – General Requirements for Electrical Installation • 26 05 19 – Conductors and Cables • 26 05 26 – Grounding and Bonding • 26 05 33 – Hangers and Supports SCOPE OF WORK (continued) City of Bremerton 233-1896-162 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades 5 November 2020 Amendment 1 • 26 05 33 – Raceways and Boxes • 26 32 13 – Generators • 26 36 00 – Automatic Transfer Switches 5. Develop Site Plans for location of panels and equipment, including support racks and concrete equipment pads. • Site plans will include concrete equipment pad sizing and diagrammatic conduit routing with conductor fills. 6. Develop one-line diagrams depicting utility and emergency power system configuration. • One-line diagram drawing sheet will include Generator and ATS connection diagram, with control wiring schematic, and load calculations as required. 7. Develop a detail sheet that will be a common drawing for all locations. 8. Prepare details which will include concrete equipment pad reinforcement, equipment anchoring, underground conduit installation, and grounding connections. 9. Prepare drawings which will include the tentative drawing list shall as follows: • E1 - General Sheet and Legend • E2 - Tony’s Pizza and Weslon Site Plans • E3 - Tony’s Pizza and Weslon One-Line Diagram • E4 - Oyster Bay Inn Site Plan and One-Line Diagram • E5 - Bayshore West Condos Site Plan • E6 - Bayshore West Condos One-Line Diagram • E7 - Electrical Details – typical housekeeping pad for generators and cabinets, underground conduit installations, and grounding connections. 10. Develop electrical cost items to include in cost estimate. 11. Provide senior-level engineering review of 90% and Bid Set PS&E. 12. Attend design review work sessions with City (virtual). 13. Provide markups (questions and comments) in Bluebeam PDF session. Provide comment log for each comment referencing sheet, comment, priority, responsible party, etc. Assumptions 1. Grinder pump stations with generator receptacle operate a maximum of two 1 hp pumps. 2. This SOW is limited to design related to new electrical systems feeding manufacturer’s pump control panels at the following sites: a. Tony’s Pizza • The grinder pump station will not include an automatic emergency generator back-up power system. The grinder pump station manufacturer’s pump control panel will include a portable SCOPE OF WORK (continued) City of Bremerton 233-1896-162 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades 6 November 2020 Amendment 1 generator connection and the equipment necessary to transfer load over to a portable generator (generator not on site). b. Weslon Place • The grinder pump station will not include an automatic emergency generator back-up power system. The grinder pump station manufacturer’s pump control panel will include a portable generator connection and the equipment necessary to transfer load over to a portable generator (generator to be located in an on-site secured weatherproof enclosure). c. Oyster Bay Inn • The grinder pump station power will be backed-up by an emergency generator system, with automatic power transfer and 24-hours of run time. d. Bayshore West Condos • The grinder pump station power will be backed-up by an emergency generator system, with automatic power transfer and 24-hours of run time. 3. The drawings will be limited to seven additional electrical drawings, as detailed in the activities above. 4. The grinder pump station manufacturer’s control panel will include the “Sentry Advisor” package that the City will use for telemetry communication. The stations will be packaged systems without custom control design and construction. No programming, telemetry, or SCADA support will be provided. 5. The City, with help from the electrical contractor, will use electrical calculations provided in the contract drawings to coordinate with the electrical utility for the new electrical services. 6. Engineering support for coordination with electrical utility is not included in this scope. 7. Electrical specifications will be in CSI format and will be limited to a maximum of 10 specification sections as detailed in the activities above. Deliverables 1. Electrical specifications for 90% PS&E and Bid Set 2. Electrical drawings for 90% PS&E and Bid Set 3. Electrical Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (EOPCC) for 90% PS&E and Bid Set Subtask 12.2: Bidding Assistance Objective • Objective will be the same as established in Task 7: Bidding Assistance and will include elements related to the electrical utility and portable generator connection power support. Activities • Activities will be the same as established in Task 7: Bidding Assistance and will include elements related to the electrical utility and generator connection power support. Assumptions • Assumptions will be the same as established in Task 7: Bidding Assistance. SCOPE OF WORK (continued) City of Bremerton 233-1896-162 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades 7 November 2020 Amendment 1 Deliverables • Deliverables will be the same as established in Task 7: Bidding Assistance. Subtask 12.3: Services During Construction Objective • Objective will be the same as established in Task 8: Services During Construction and will include elements related to the electrical utility and generator connection power support. Activities • Activities will be the same as established in Task 8: Services During Construction and will include elements related to the electrical utility and generator connection power support. Assumptions • Assumptions will be the same as established in Task 8: Services During Construction. Deliverables • Deliverables will be the same as established in Task 8: Services During Construction. SCOPE OF WORK (continued) City of Bremerton 233-1896-162 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades 8 November 2020 Amendment 1 Task 13: Forcemain Design and Support Subtask 13.1: Design and Task Management Objective Provide direction to design team and manage tasks and budget for forcemain design. Activities 1. Participate in status check-ins with design team and review design questions. 2. Communicate with City and Parametrix Project Manager on overall project status and any changes. 3. Schedule design review meetings. 4. Track budget status and adjust workflow as needed. 5. Manage design scope modifications. Assumptions • Task management will average 4 to 6 hours per month. Deliverables 1. Email correspondences as part of project record 2. Budget status as part of project record Subtask 13.2: 30% Design (Scope Complete, Previously Funded Through Management Reserve) Objective Prepare 30% level engineering design documents, provide detailed coordination activities with utility providers throughout the forcemain alignment to eliminate conflicts during construction where possible and avoid construction delays, attend meetings (virtual) with City staff to go over City review comments on the 30% submittal package, and provide senior QA/QC of draft plans, specifications, and estimate (PS&E) submittals prior to submittal to City. Activities 1. Prepare 30% Basis of Design Technical Memorandum; provide summary of design parameters used to develop 30% plans, list of project drivers, decisions and assumptions regarding typical trench section, alignment, utility conflicts, etc. 2. List design assumptions regarding design flow, pipe size, and pipe material. 3. Prepare questions for City. 4. Design horizontal alignment, vet utility conflicts, and adjust horizontal alignment as required. 5. Preliminary profiles may not include pipe but will identify major utility crossings. 6. Develop typical sections. 7. Identify WSDOT specification sections needed for the forcemain project. SCOPE OF WORK (continued) City of Bremerton 233-1896-162 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades 9 November 2020 Amendment 1 8. Identify which sections need to be modified by special provision and outline the needed modifications. 9. Identify pay items to include in cost estimate. 10. Develop preliminary quantity takeoff estimates. 11. Utilize recent bid prices and interview local contractors for current construction pricing. 12. Maintain utility coordination log throughout design duration to document all outreach with franchise utility providers. 13. Perform initial outreach to franchise and City utility providers to orient them to the project area, and discuss project specifics and major utility facilities along route. Provide early conflict review. 14. Continue correspondence by phone, email, and meetings to determine specific conflicts. Obtain as-builts, when available. Determine if routing forcemain(s) around to avoid conflict or if franchise utilities need to be relocated. 15. Determine potholing needs and request utilities provide pothole for their facilities. 16. Draft utility relocation letters for City if franchise utilities need to be relocated. 17. Utility providers include, but are not limited to, Puget Sound Energy, CNGC, Century Link, Kitsap PUD, and Comcast. 18. Attend design review work sessions with City. 19. Complete meeting minutes. 20. Provide senior-level will review of 30% PS&E. 21. Provide markups (questions and comments) in Bluebeam PDF session. Provide comment log for each comment referencing sheet, comment, priority, responsible party, etc. Assumptions 1. Straightforward BOD technical memorandum presentation of the data used to develop the 30% design will be provided No executive summary will be included. 2. Drawings include preliminary cover sheet, general notes, and placeholders for details. Plan and profile sheets for the alignment at a scale of 1”=40’. Horizontal alignment selected. 3. Horizontal alignment is generally fixed after City review and acceptance of 30% plans. 4. There will be limited notes and callouts on 30% plans. 5. No potholing will be done with design; it will be required to be completed by Contractor during construction stage. 6. Design of transportation elements such as ADA ramps, striping, and traffic signals are excluded from design plans for forcemain. 7. WSDOT standard specifications will be used but may be modified by special provision. 8. The 30% PS&E will include the WSDOT specification sections applicable to the forcemain and may include some initial changes needed specific to this project. 9. High contingency (up to 50%) to account for preliminary nature of 30% cost estimate. SCOPE OF WORK (continued) City of Bremerton 233-1896-162 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades 10 November 2020 Amendment 1 10. This task excludes potholing work. It is assumed that utility providers will provide their own potholing. Parametrix can provide survey to facilities when exposed, where possible. Survey scope and budget will be provided under separate cover. 11. The City will provide a comment log. 12. The forcemain Engineer of Record will attend meetings virtually, using Teams, Skype, Zoom, or similar platform which allows video conferencing and screensharing capabilities. 13. Parametrix QA/QC will be completed prior to submitting packages to City. Deliverables 1. Two to three page basis of design memo as part of the 30% design submittal 2. 30% design plans along with the remaining 30% forcemain submittal materials.30% specifications 3. 30% cost estimate 4. Utility coordination log 5. Franchise utility relocation letters 6. Email correspondences as part of project record 7. Meeting minutes to document significant design decisions that come out of meetings 8. Comment logs and markups as part of project record Subtask 13.3: 60% Design Objective Advance engineering design to 60% maturity, provide detailed coordination activities with utility providers throughout the forcemain alignment to eliminate conflicts during construction where possible and avoid construction delays, attend (virtual) meetings with City staff to go over City review comments on the 60% design, and provide senior QA/QC of draft plans. Activities 1. Advance 30% BOD technical memorandum to 60% level. 2. List project drivers, decisions, and assumptions that have developed or changed since the 30% submittal. These may include changes in horizontal or vertical alignment due to more detailed information on utility conflicts, ROW conflicts, and/or air/vacuum valve needs and locations. 3. Provide final confirmation of proposed pipe size and material. 4. Prepared questions for City for 90% plans. 5. Prepare progress cover sheet, general notes, and detail sheets. Continue development of plan and profile sheets for the alignment at a scale of 1”=40’. Complete horizontal alignment based on City acceptance/comments from 30% design review. 6. Continue with utility coordination and design of pipeline. 7. Identify utilities to be relocated (if any). SCOPE OF WORK (continued) City of Bremerton 233-1896-162 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades 11 November 2020 Amendment 1 8. Identify easement needs in the ROW. 9. Complete preliminary design of profile, identifying how to cross existing utilities. 10. Complete detail sheets incorporating applicable standard details and design of project specific details that are needed. 11. Continue with development of callouts and notes on plan and profile sheets. 12. Include the sections needing special provision. 13. Develop special provision language to tailor specifications to this project. 14. Verify all pay items identified in specification. 15. Continue to verify and refine pay items. 16. Refine quantity takeoff based on 60% construction plans. 17. Apply known costs and continue to vet unknown costs. 18. Attend design review work sessions with City. 19. Complete meeting minutes. 20. Senior reviewer will provide review of 30% PS&E. 21. Provide markups (questions and comments) in Bluebeam PDF session. Provide comment log for each comment referencing sheet, comment, priority, responsible party, etc. Assumptions 1. Straightforward presentation of the data used to develop the 60% design will be provided. No executive summary will be included. 2. Horizontal alignment will be fixed prior to 60% submittal and vertical alignment selected. 3. City will complete public outreach and obtain easement(s). 4. City will issue final utility relocation letters (if required). Parametrix will assist with drafting letters. 5. Vertical alignment is generally fixed after City review and acceptance of 60% plans. 6. No potholing will be done with design; it will be required to be completed by Contractor during construction stage or by the City during design. 7. For 60% specification assumptions, see 30% specification assumptions. 8. Lower contingency to 20 to 30% based on developed plans. 9. This subtask excludes potholing work. It is assumed that utility providers will provide their own potholing. Parametrix can provide survey to facilities when exposed where possible. Survey scope and budget will be provided under separate cover. 10. City will provide comment log. 11. The forcemain Engineer of Record will attend meetings virtually, using Teams, Skype, Zoom, or similar platform which allows video conferencing and screensharing capabilities. 12. Parametrix QA/QC will be completed prior to submitting packages to City. SCOPE OF WORK (continued) City of Bremerton 233-1896-162 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades 12 November 2020 Amendment 1 Deliverables No formal 60% design submittal for the forcemain will be provided. One informal over-the-shoulder plan check set will be provided prior to the 90% submittal package. Subtask 13.4: 90% Design Objective Advance engineering design documents to 90% maturity, attend (virtual) meetings with City staff to go over City review comments on the 30% submittal package and 60% over-the-shoulder review, and provide senior QA/QC of draft PS&E submittals prior to submittal to City. Activities 1. Advance 30% BOD technical memorandum to 90% level. 2. List project drivers, decisions, and assumptions that have developed or changed since the 30% submittal. These may include changes in horizontal or vertical alignment due to more detailed information on utility conflicts, ROW conflicts, air/vacuum valve needs and locations. 3. Prepared questions for City for 100% plans. 4. Prepare final modifications to vertical and horizontal design. 5. Develop callouts and notes on plan and profile sheets. 6. Perform steady state and hydraulic transient (water hammer) analysis of 12” force main from pump station OB-2 to an influent manhole adjacent to pump station OB-1. • Perform the steady state analysis and provide proposed pump duty conditions for flows of 1000 gpm, 1200 gpm, and 1400 gpm. Note that these flows are intended to allow the City flexibility for selecting the duty condition of the future pumps at OB-2 when the station is upgraded at a later date. • Identify the number and locations of air release and vacuum relief valves along the length of 12” force main proposed as part of this project. 7. Develop final details. 8. Nearly complete design drawings. 9. Continue to develop project special provisions to WSDOT standard specifications. 10. Incorporate City comments into final document. 11. Update bid quantities and cost estimate based on advanced 90% plans. Assumptions 1. Straightforward presentation of the data used to develop the 90% design will be provided. No executive summary will be included. 2. Final modifications to plans will be made to get to bid-ready 100% plans. 3. For 90% specification assumptions, see 30% specification assumptions. SCOPE OF WORK (continued) City of Bremerton 233-1896-162 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades 13 November 2020 Amendment 1 4. 10-15% contingency based on advanced plans. 5. This subtask excludes potholing work. It is assumed that utility providers will provide their own potholing. Parametrix can provide survey to facilities when exposed where possible. Survey scope and budget will be provided under separate cover. 6. City will provide comment log. 7. The forcemain Engineer of Record will attend meetings virtually, using Teams, Skype, Zoom, or similar platform which allows video conferencing and screensharing capabilities. 8. The steady state and hydraulic transient water hammer analysis will assume: • The 12” force main has a profile of approximately 4 feet below grade from pump station OB-2 to the connection of the proposed force main part of this project in Shorewood Drive. • The hydraulic transient analysis will assume a flow of 1400 gpm for the following scenarios: Power outage shutdown with 2 pumps running. Startup of 2 pumps simultaneously. • The pump station OB-2 upgrade is not included in this project. • If air release or vacuum valves are recommended between pump station OB-2 and the connection of the proposed force main in Shorewood Drive, then the location and type of valve(s) will be noted and recommended but the design and installation will not be included in this project because that section of force main will be designed and installed at a later date. 9. Parametrix QA/QC will be completed prior to submitting packages to City. Deliverables 1. Two to three page design memo as part of the 90% design submittal 2. 90% design plans 3. 90% specifications 4. 90% cost estimate 5. Meeting minutes to document significant design decisions that come out of meetings 6. Comment logs and markups will be available as part of project record Subtask 13.5: 100% Design Objective Advance engineering design documents to 100% maturity for bidding and provide senior QA/QC of draft PS&E submittals prior to submittal to City. Activities 1. Provide an overall summary of the decision points, pipe sizing, and design flows used in developing design. 2. Compile and verify design basis items from 30%, 60%, and 90% technical memoranda. SCOPE OF WORK (continued) City of Bremerton 233-1896-162 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades 14 November 2020 Amendment 1 3. Produce 100% BOD summary Assumptions 1. There will be little, if any, new BOD information after the 90% submittal. 2. For 100% specification assumptions, see 30% specification assumptions. 3. Forcemain Engineer of Record will attend meetings virtually, using Teams, Skype, Zoom, or similar platform which allows video conferencing and screensharing capabilities. 4. Parametrix QA/QC will be completed prior to submitting packages to City. Deliverables 1. Summary of all final assumptions that carry through from 30%, 60%, and 90% BOD memoranda. 2. 100% design plans 3. 100% specifications 4. 100% EOPCC 5. Bid schedule to be used for Contractor bidding Activities 1. Obtain utility provider signatures as required on cover sheet. 2. Complete design drawings. 3. Provide required Washington Professional Engineer stamp and signature. 4. Finalize specifications for project bid. 5. Incorporate City and QA/QC review comments into final documents. 6. Update and verify all quantities and pay items. 7. Verify unit costs. Subtask 13.6: Forcemain Sizing Technical Memorandum Objective Provide the City with a recommendation for the size of the large forcemain that will be extended to pump station OB-2 at a future date. Activities 1. Summarize forcemain sizing and OB-2 wet well data analysis. Provide recommendation of size and type of forcemain. 2. Compile and develop a draft technical memorandum for the City to review. 3. Incorporate City comments into the draft technical memorandum and produce a final technical memorandum. SCOPE OF WORK (continued) City of Bremerton 233-1896-162 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades 15 November 2020 Amendment 1 Assumptions 1. There will be minor review comments on the draft technical memorandum. 2. No specifications or drawings are associated with this subtask. 3. Parametrix QA/QC will be completed prior to submitting the draft and final technical memoranda to City. Deliverables Draft and final technical memoranda. Task 13 Assumptions and Exclusions 1. Scope does not include coordination with any private landowners for easements, nor does it include easement documents, appraisals, etc. 2. Scope does not include any public outreach efforts. 3. This scoping document is for the design of the forcemain and surface restoration. Two ADA ramps are anticipated to be disturbed; however, this scope and corresponding budget does not include any design for ADA ramp replacement, addition or modification, traffic signal rehabilitation, or striping. ADA ramp design is assumed to be per WSDOT standard details. Traffic signal/loop detection is assumed by City and striping rehab will be assumed to be replaced in kind. 4. Force main bidding services and engineering services during construction are not included with this scope and are provided under separate scope and budget. 5. The forcemain designated for the OB-2 pump station will be 12” HDPE SDR 11 IPS (ID = 10.3”), which is based on the OB-2 wet well level data provided by the City. The existing pumps are rated for 800 gpm. This size of forcemain provides the flexibility of increasing the rated capacity of the pumps between 800 to 1400 gpm, while maintaining forcemain velocities between 3.0 to - 5.5 ft/s. 6. Forcemain alignment will be from the intersection of Brentwood Drive and Shorewood Drive, south along Shorewood Drive to Kitsap Way, east along Kitsap Way to the Kitsap Way/Oyster Bay Avenue intersection, and to OB-1 Pump Station. This assumes approximately 3,700 LF of forcemain plan and profile. This also assumes 13 plan and profile sheets at 1"=20' scale, 7 surface restoration sheets at 1”= 40’ scale, and 2 detail sheets. Surface restoration sheets will include point tables providing station/offsets for limits of restoration and may require a scale of 1”=20’ to show required detail which would be provided at no additional fee. 7. This scope excludes geotechnical work outside of reviewing City-provided historical data within the forcemain alignment area of interest. 8. This scope excludes work at pump station facilities, which can be provided under separate scope and budget. 9. This scope excludes structural analysis and/or design work, which can be provided under separate scope and budget. 10. This scope of work excludes temporary traffic control plans and specifications, which are assumed to be a delegated design by the Contractor or others. 11. Specifications will generally use WSDOT as a basis and will be modified with special provisions as needed. SCOPE OF WORK (continued) City of Bremerton 233-1896-162 Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrades 16 November 2020 Amendment 1 12. Work sessions with City are assumed to be virtual meetings or teleconferences up to 2 hours long. Also included in this scope are meeting minutes and list of action/follow up items. 13. Project duration for design will be June 15, 2020 through January 15, 2021. Bremerton/Parametrix Oyster Bay Beach Sewer Upgrade – Amendment 1 November 2020 EXHIBIT B COMPENSATION for OBBSU, AMENDMENT 1 A B C D E F G = B + C + D + E + F H TASK ORIGINAL ESTIMATED COST ESCALATION +/- TO TASK MANAGEMENT RESERVE +/- TO TASK PRIOR AMENDMENTS +/- TO TASK THIS AMENDMENT +/- TO TASK CURRENT ESTIMATED COST (AS OF 10/24/20) CURRENT FEE REMAINING (AS OF 10/24/20 INCL. THIS AMENDMENT) Task 1: Alternatives Analysis $ 21,938.56 $ 0.0 $ 5,200.00 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 27,138.56 $ 212.94 Task 2: Survey (includes subcontractor) $ 29,127.10 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 20,643.55 $ 49,770.65 $ 21,093.90 Task 3: Preliminary Design (30%) $ 76,256.28 $ 3,334.09 $ 10,000.00 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 89,590.37 $ 0.0 Task 4: Detailed Design (60%, 90%, 100%) $ 108,409.74 $ 3,871.49 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 112,281.23 $ 33,031.39 Task 5: Outreach $ 5,668.56 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 5,668.56 $ 3,494.42 Task 6: Environmental Analysis & Permitting $ 34,384.86 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 6,070.54 $ 40,455.40 $ 3,992.71 Task 7: Bidding Assistance $ 5,704.74 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 5,704.74 $ 5,704.74 Task 8: Services During Construction $ 37,768.82 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 37,768.82 $ 37,768.82 Task 9: Project Management $ 39,479.86 $ 1,600.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 43,079.86 $ 7,540.40 Task 10: Management Reserve ** $ 40,000.00 $ 0.0 $ (37,200.00) $ 0.0 $ 10,000.00 $ 12,800.00 $ 12,800.00 Task 11: Geotech Support (includes subconsultant) $ 27,990.90 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 27,990.90 $ 13,832.35 Task 12: Electrical Support $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 25,813.05 $ 25,813.05 $ 25,617.85 Task 13: Forcemain Design and Support $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 20,000.00 $ 0.0 $ 101,963.82 $ 121,963.82 $ 70,241.04 Escalation $ 8,805.58 $ (8,805.58) $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 Expenses $ 1,471.00 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 1,471.00 $ 53.17 TOTAL $ 437,006.00 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 164,490.96 $ 601,496.96 $ 235,383.73 ** Management Reserve to be used only upon written authorization of the Owner. OYSTER BAY BEACH SEWER UPGRADES PROJECT AREA MAP AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Purchase of 2021 Vehicles and Equipment Study Session Date: December 9, 2020 COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: PW&U/ERR Presenter: Tom Knuckey Phone: (360) 473-2376 SUMMARY: The approved 2021 budget includes replacement and purchase of vehicles and equipment as described in the attached summary. These vehicles will be purchased using the Washington State Contract and Source Well Contract (NJPA), the order will be placed after January 1, 2021. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Justification; 2) Equipment Purchase Summary; 3) Quotes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): All of the vehicles identified on the equipment purchase list are budgeted in 2021. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☒ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the 2021 vehicle and equipment purchases as presented in the summary in the amount of $565,832.07, including Washington State Sales Tax. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 2O Working for and with our residents to establish Bremerton as Puget Sound’s most beautiful and livable waterfront city! Public Works and Utilities Department 100 Oyster Bay Ave. N. Bremerton, WA 98312 (360) 473-5315 FAX (360) 473-5360 EQUIPMENT JUSTIFICATION DATE: November 24, 2020 TO: File FROM: Charles Ernst- ESD Supervisor SUBJECT: 2021 Vehicle Replacement Justification This purchase replaces the following vehicles and equipment: Vehicle# Description Purch Date Apx. Mileage Criteria 91559 2009 Dodge Avenger 2009 98648 Criteria met, age, mileage, unreliable, anticipated repair cost, replace with 2021 Ford Police Interceptor Utility Hybrid AWD, additional equipment to be installed in-house total 7000.00 91560 2009 Dodge Avenger 2009 99034 Criteria met, age, mileage, unreliable, anticipated repair cost, Replace with 2021 Ford Police Interceptor Utility Hybrid AWD, additional equipment to be installed in-house total 7000.00 Page 2 November 30, 2020 91561 2009 Dodge Avenger 2009 122493 Criteria met, age, mileage, unreliable, anticipated repair cost, Replace with 2021 Ford Police Interceptor Utility Hybrid AWD, additional equipment to be installed in-house total 7000.00 91562 2009 Dodge Avenger 2009 101358 Criteria met, age, mileage, unreliable, anticipated repair cost, Replace with 2021 Ford Police Interceptor Utility Hybrid AWD, additional equipment to be installed in-house total 7000.00 101557 2010 Ford Crown Victoria 2010 136591 Criteria met, age, mileage, unreliable, anticipated repair cost, Replace with 2021 Ford Police Interceptor Utility Hybrid AWD, additional equipment to be installed in-house totals 11000.00 111529 2011 Ford Crown Victoria 2011 136200 Criteria met, age, mileage, unreliable, anticipated repair cost, Replace with 2021 Ford Police Interceptor Utility Hybrid AWD, additional equipment to be installed in- housetotals 11000.00 0302 2003 Chevrolet 3500 w/Service Body 2003 76536 Criteria met, age, unreliable, anticipated repair cost, Replace with 2021 Ford F350 4X4 with 9ft service body, Department also request a combination Generator/Air compressor be installed, total 23000.00 from PMI Truck Body. 1873 1997 John Deere 310G 1997 5444 Hr. Criteria met, age, unreliable, anticipated repair cost, Replace with John Deere 310SL 4X4 Backhoe, department also request the installation of a rear thumb and front 4 in 1 loader bucket (clam shell bucket) to facilitate brush and other debris removal. These vehicles will go to surplus Department Replacing Vehicle #Description Criteria Met Surplus Purchasing Dealer State Cont # Amount Sales & Excise Tax Subtotal *Equip Streets 302 2003 Chevrolet C3500 X Surplus 2021 Ford F-350 with Liftgate Columbia Ford 05916 67,214.00$ 5,645.98$ 72,859.98$ 22,560.82$ Police 91559 2009 Dodge Avenger X Surplus 2021 Ford Police Interceptor Utility-Hybrid with Safety Equip - DetectiveColumbia Ford 05916 44,717.00$ 3,711.12$ 48,428.12$ 7,000.00$ Police 91560 2008 Dodge Avenger X Surplus 2022 Ford Police Interceptor Utility-Hybrid with Safety Equip - DetectiveColumbia Ford 05916 44,717.00$ 3,711.12$ 48,428.12$ 7,000.00$ Police 91561 2008 Dodge Avenger X Surplus 2023 Ford Police Interceptor Utility-Hybrid with Safety Equip - DetectiveColumbia Ford 05916 44,717.00$ 3,711.12$ 48,428.12$ 7,000.00$ Police 91562 2008 Dodge Avenger X Surplus 2024 Ford Police Interceptor Utility-Hybrid with Safety Equip - DetectiveColumbia Ford 05916 44,717.00$ 3,711.12$ 48,428.12$ 7,000.00$ Police 101557 2010 Ford Crown Victoria X Surplus 2021 Ford Police Interceptor Utility-Hybrid with Safety Equip - PatrolColumbia Ford 05916 47,327.00$ 3,975.47$ 51,302.47$ 15,000.00$ Police 111529 2011 Ford Crown Victoria X Surplus 2021 Ford Police Interceptor Utility-Hybrid with Safety Equip - PatrolColumbia Ford 05916 47,327.00$ 3,975.47$ 51,302.47$ 15,000.00$ Parks 1873 1997 John Deere 310E BH X Surplus 2021 John Deere 310 BH Columbia Ford 05916 106,508.12$ 9,585.73$ 116,093.85$ $0 TOTAL 485,271.25$ 80,560.82$ * Equipment cost is approximate TOTAL 565,832.07$ 2021 Vehicle Purchase Summary - December 2020 Code Description Qty List Price(USD) 0A71T 310SL BACKHOE LOADER 1 $121,345.00 2401 English Decals with English Operator and Safety Manuals 1 No Added Cost 170C JDLink Ultimate 5 Year Subscription 1 No Added Cost 3095 Mechanical Front Wheel Drive (MFWD) with Limited Slip Differential Autoshift Transmission 1 No Added Cost 2035 Cab 1 $13,243.00 9916 Radio, Bosch Premium Package 1 $1,356.00 9919 Sun Visor 1 $95.00 9920 Exterior Rear View Mirrors (2)1 $343.00 9970 Seat, Cloth Air-Suspension - Heated 1 $994.00 4781 Firestone 19.5L - 24 In. 10 PR (R4) Tubeless Rear & 12.5/80 - 18 In. 12 PR Traction Front Sure Grip Lug Tires 1 $621.00 8685 Dual Maintenance Free Batteries With Disconnect and Jump Post 1 $544.00 9116 LED Light Package 1 $1,053.00 9905 Strobe Light with Magnetic Mount 1 $588.00 6020 Extendible Dipperstick 1 $8,365.00 6230 Auxiliary Hydraulic with One & Two Way Flow (Hammer & Thumb/Swinger)1 $4,582.00 5285 Pilot Controls, Two Lever, with Pattern Selection 1 $2,594.00 5421 Multi-Brand Quick Coupler - 37 Inch Thumb Ready 1 $1,637.00 5656 24" (610 mm) Wide, Heavy-Duty, 7.5 Cu. Ft. (0.21 Cu. M.) Capacity Bucket 1 $1,370.00 9230 37 Inch Hydraulic Backhoe Thumb - 4 Tine 1 $5,697.00 9947 Heavy-Duty Stabilizer Pads 1 $462.00 9140 Heavy-Duty Backhoe Bucket Cylinder 1 $273.00 7687 1.32 Cu. Yd. (1.0 Cu. M.), 92 in. (2.34 m) Wide, Multipurpose Bucket with Bolt On Teeth 1 $7,200.00 7080 Three-Function Loader Hydraulics, Single Lever 1 $3,268.00 8475 1000 Lb. (454 kg) Front Counterweight 1 $1,374.00 1065 John Deere PowerTech™ EWL 4.5L (276 Cu. In.) Engine Meets Final Tier 4 and Stage IV Emissions 1 $10,028.00 310SL BACKHOE LOADER 18-Nov-2020 Option Codes 9515 Diagnostic Oil Sampling Ports 1 $207.00 9505 Full MFWD Driveshaft Guard 1 $428.00 AT30507 3 Stabilizer Cylinder Guards (Set of Two)1 $311.00 Total $187,978.0 0 Field Installed Attachments Manufacturer’s Suggested List Price shown. Retail prices may vary by dealer. Unless stated otherwise, taxes, freight, setup, delivery and other dealer specific charges not included in the pricing. Options/items noted with anything other than price will have additional costs. Pricing, availability, and specifications subject to change without notice. Special program pricing may be available on certain models. See dealer for details. Prices shown are in U.S. dollars and valid only in the U.S. 2-1700 E (3/11) SIC Code:Name: Buyer: Address: Address: City, State: City: State: WA Zip: County: County: Ph. No. Fax No.P.O. No. MAKE MODEL EQUIP.# SER.# Description:$187,978.00 -$86,469.88 $3,500.00 $1,500.00 TRADE Sales Tax ( %)$0.00 Lienholder:$106,508.12 Trade-in Allowance: Less (Est.) Payoff:-$0.00 Sales Tax ( 9 %)$9,585.73 $116,093.85 -$0.00 $0.00 TERMS ( SUBJECT TO APPROVAL): Amount to Finance $116,093.85 Length of Term Est. PMT. W/ Ins. INSURANCE AGENT:Est. Pmt. W/O Ins. NEW BASIC AS IS / NO WARRANTY (DESCRIBE) NEW EXTENDED USED (DESCRIBE)(DESCRIBE) (Store Address):By:Title: By:Title: By: Title:Date:Date: $106,508.12 BUILD SHEET AT LIST PRICE YEAR PRE DELIVERY INSPECTION, TRAINING, LOCAL DELIVERY MODEL BILL TO 310SLEQUIPMENT JOHN DEERE TBD PAPÉ MACHINERY, Inc. DELIVERY DATE (EST): Down Payment FINANCED ON ACCOUNT CASH/COD NEW 2021 JOHN DEERE 310SL BACKHOE LOADER EQUIPPED AS SPECIFIED ON ATTACHED DEERE FACTORY FREIGHT SHIP TO INVENTORY Customer No.: Balance Due SALES ORDER Zip: CITY OF BREMERTON SOURCEWELL CONTRACT NUMBER 032119-JDC 46% OFF LIST REFERENCE NUMBER TRANSACTION $0.00 BUYER BILL OF SALE: FOR TRADE -IN DESCRIBED HEREIN. WE CERTIFY THAT THERE IS NO LIEN, CLAIM, DEBT, MORTGAGE OR ENCUMBERANCE OF ANY KIND, NATURE OR DESCRIPTION AGAINST THIS PROPERTY NOW EXISTING, OF RECORD OR OTHERWISE AND THAT SAME IS FREE AND CLEAR AND IS MY/ OUR SOLE AND ABSOLUTE PROPERTY EXCEPT AS NOTED ABOVE. BUYER'S SIGNATURE: X Territory Mgr 3607 - 20th Street East TACOMA, WA 98424 (253) 922-8718 PRICE $ FINANCE $0.00 Net Trade in If Tax Exempt, Provide Certificate or enter Rate Below AGREED Total Price This Sales Order is subject to additional terms and conditions on the reverse side of this document. The undersigned Buyer agrees that it has read and understands the terms and conditions, warranty disclaimers, and limitations of liability set out in the additional terms and conditions on the reverse side of this document and that the same are included in and are part of this Sales Order as if set forth on the face hereof. Doc Fee sourcewell admin fee WARRANTY Del'y / F.O.B. NA SERIAL NUMBERMAKE SALE RPO NEW USED RENT X X QUOTE DATE 6/23/2020 WORK ORDER # 19148 NAME / ADDRESS City of Bremerton 104 Oyster Bay Ave N Bremerton, WA 98312 Ship To City of Bremerton 104 Oyster Bay Ave N Bremerton, WA 98312 PMI Truck Bodies, Inc. (WA) PO NUMBER Chuck E TERMS 50/50 REP RAB SHIP VIA PMI Signature: Total Subtotal Sales Tax (9.0%) 2219 112th Street E. Tacoma, WA 98445-3731 253-539-3339 / 253-539-3335 fax DISCLAIMERS: - SIGNED QUOTE NOT VALID WITHOUT CHASSIS BUILD SHEET (ASK SALES FOR REQUIREMENTS) - LEAD TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO PRODUCT AVAILABILITY - REVISIONS AFTER APPROVAL DATE ARE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CHARGES - PRICES SUBJECT TO CHANGE W/O NOTICE. - NO RETURNS OR CANCELLATIONS ON CUSTOM ORDERS, NON CUSTOM ORDERS SUBJECT TO 35% RESTOCKING FEE - CREDIT CARDS NOT ACCEPTED - HAND WRITTEN NOTES NOT ACCEPTED Date: DESCRIPTION QTY COST Total TRUCK: 2020 F350, 60" CAB TO AXLE, REGULAR CAB, DUAL REAR WHEEL, DIESEL REFERENCE COLUMBIA QUOTE 19138 ALUMINUM PUNCH METAL BASKET - 22"W X 12" T X 74" L - INSTALLED ON TOP OF COMPARTMENTS DRIVERS SIDE 1 1,172.00 1,172.00T BOSS BULLET 80D ROTORY SCREW COMPRESSOR - 25HP KUBOTA D902 ENGINE, TIED TO VEHICLE FUEL TANK AND BATTERY - 80CFM @ 100 PSI - GENERATOR OPTION, 6KW SINGLE 2 POLE RECEPTACLE - PLUMBED TO HOSE REEL - INSTALLED ON PASSENGER SIDE CARGO PACK ***** NOTE: SINGLE FUNCTION OPERATION ONLY ***** 1 19,526.00 19,526.00T ************************************************************************************* DISCLAIMERS: - CHANGES: EACH CHANGE AFTER QUOTE APPROVAL WILL CONSTITUTE A $500.00 CHANGE FEE IN ADDITION TO THE COST OF THE CHANGE. NO CHANGES WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER PRODUCTION BEGINS. - DRAWINGS: BASE COST FOR DRAWINGS IS $500.00 AND CHARGED AT $150.00 PER HOUR. - PAINT: PMI TRUCK BODIES, INC. DOES NOT GUARANTEE A PERFECT COLOR MATCH DUE TO INCONSISTENCIES IN FACTORY PAINTS, PROCEDURES AND CONTOUR DIFFERENCES. - TIMING: ESTIMATES NOT IN WRITING FROM AUTHORIZED PMI PERSONNEL WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED ************************************************************************************* 0.00T $22,560.82 $20,698.00 $1,862.82 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: December 9, 2020 Professional Services Agreement with Mingay Golf Course Design Ltd. for Master Plan Architectural and Design Services for the Gold Mountain Cascade Course COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: Parks & Recreation Presenter: Jeff Elevado Phone: (360) 473-5428 SUMMARY: Request for Qualifications (RFQ) were solicited for Golf Course Architectural and Design Services to develop a Master Plan for the Gold Mountain Cascade Course. Mingay Golf Course Design, Ltd. was selected based on experience and references from similar successfully completed projects in the Pacific Northwest. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment #1: Professional Services Agreement; Attachment #2: Scope of Work (Exhibits A, B & C) FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Funds are available in the Golf Replacement Reserve Account. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☒ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Bremerton and Mingay Golf Course Design, Ltd. in the amount not to exceed $41,000.00; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented; and further authorize a budget adjustment in the same amount in the Golf Replacement Account. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 3A Page 1 of 8 Bremerton/Mingay Golf Course Design, Ltd. Gold Mountain Cascade Course Master Plan Development Rev. 06/2020 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Golf Course Master Plan Development Gold Mountain Cascade Course The City of Bremerton (“City”) and Mingay Golf Course Design, Ltd. (“Consultant”), referred to collectively as the “Parties,” enter into the following Agreement for professional services: I. Scope: The Consultant agrees to perform the services more specifically described in the Scope of Work, dated November 25, 2020, including any attachments thereto, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which is incorporated by reference herein. The Scope of Work may be modified only pursuant to Section VII.H of this Agreement. If the Scope of Work provides for unspecified additional services such services shall only be performed upon the express written request of the City. Consultant further represents that the services furnished under this Agreement will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices in effect at the time such services are performed. II. Term: The City and the Consultant agree that work will begin on the tasks described in Exhibit A immediately upon execution of this Agreement. The parties agree that the work described in Exhibit A is to be completed as provided for in the work schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B; provided however, that additional time shall be granted by the City for excusable delays or extra work as provided for in Section IX.A of this agreement. III. Compensation: In consideration of the services provided pursuant to this Agreement, the City shall pay Consultant in an amount not to exceed $41,000.00. Consultant’s charges and bills shall conform to the fee schedule attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference. The Consultant shall submit regular billing statements detailing work performed and amount charged on each task or portion thereof. The descriptions shall conform to and fall within the categories set out in the Scope of Work and/or Fee Schedule. Upon receipt of a conforming billing statement, the City shall promptly process payment. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, the City reserves the right to prioritize scoped work and accelerate and/or delay work tasks under the time frame set forth in Section II herein. The Consultant's labor rates and billing fees shall be as delineated in Exhibit C. Consultant shall not perform work beyond the Scope of Work, nor shall be compensated for such work, unless the Scope of Work or amount of compensation is modified pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall only be compensated for additional services if requested pursuant to Section I and, if not otherwise provided, such compensation shall be in accordance with Exhibit C. If a billing statement does not conform to this Agreement, the City may withhold payment until the statement is brought into compliance. Such withholding does not relieve Consultant of its obligations under this Agreement. Page 2 of 8 Bremerton/Mingay Golf Course Design, Ltd. Gold Mountain Cascade Course Master Plan Development Rev. 06/2020 IV. Relationship of Parties: Consultant represents that it is skilled in the matters addressed in the Scope of Work and is performing independent functions and responsibilities within its field of expertise. Consultant and its personnel are independent Consultants and not employees of the City. Consultant and its personnel have no authority to bind the City or to control the City’s employees and other Consultants. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including, but not limited to, compensation, insurance, and unemployment insurance are available from the City to the employees, agents, representatives, or sub-Consultants of the Consultant. Consultant will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Consultant's agents, employees, representatives and sub-Consultants during the performance of this Agreement. The City may, during the term of this Agreement, engage other independent Consultants to perform the same or similar work. As an independent Consultant, Consultant is responsible for its own management. The City’s administration and enforcement of this Agreement shall not be deemed an exercise of managerial control over Consultant or its personnel. As an independent Consultant, Consultant is responsible for payment of all taxes and licensing fees necessary to perform its obligations under this Agreement. These taxes and fees include but are not limited to State industrial insurance, Business & Occupation, State professional licensing, and City business licensing. If any taxes or fees due the City have been declared delinquent, the City may withhold the delinquent amount, plus any additional charges arising from the delinquency, from any payments due Consultant. V. Indemnification: A. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement except for that portion of the injuries and damages caused by the City’s sole negligence, unless Consultant is conducting work pursuant to Subsection B below. The City's review or acceptance of any of the work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. B. Architects, Engineers and Any Other Professional Listed In and Performing Services Defined in RCW 4.24.115. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that Consultant’s services provided pursuant to this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONSULTANT'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE Page 3 of 8 Bremerton/Mingay Golf Course Design, Ltd. Gold Mountain Cascade Course Master Plan Development Rev. 06/2020 PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. VI. Insurance: The Consultant 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 Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees, sub-consultants or sub-Consultants. Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, the Consultant 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 limit per occurrence and general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property damage; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU) if applicable; and 3. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than 1,000,000 limit per occurrence and aggregate. 4. Professional Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 limit per occurrence/claim. 5. 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. Any payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the Consultant. 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. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant and a copy of an endorsement that is acceptable to the City, which names the City as an additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all the required insurance policies and endorsements. The City further reserves the right to reject any unacceptable policies and/or endorsements. The Consultant'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. Page 4 of 8 Bremerton/Mingay Golf Course Design, Ltd. Gold Mountain Cascade Course Master Plan Development Rev. 06/2020 The Consultant's insurance shall be primary and non-contributory insurance as respects the City and shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the City for claims arising out of a ny operations, liabilities and obligations to which coverage applies. It shall be an affirmative obligation upon Consultant to advise the City’s Risk Manager by fax at (360) 473-5161, or by certified mail, return receipt requested to City of Bremerton, Attn: Risk Management, 345 6th Street, Suite 100, 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. The City 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. In the event that the Consultant employs other consultants or contractors (sub-consultants or sub-contractors) as part of the work covered by this Agreement, it shall be the Consultant’s responsibility to require and confirm that each sub-consultant or sub-contractor meets the minimum insurance requirements specified above. The Consultant shall, upon demand of the City, deliver to the City copies of such policy or policies of insurance and the receipts for payment of premiums thereon. VII. General Conditions: A. Reports and Information: When requested by the City, Consultant shall furnish periodic reports and documents on matters covered by this Agreement. The reports and documents shall be furnished in the time and form requested. Consultant shall maintain accounting records in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) to substantiate all billed amounts. B. Ownership and Use of Records and Documents: Original documents, drawings, designs and reports, including those in electronic format, developed under this Agreement are the property of the City. All written information submitted by the City to the Consultant in connection with the services performed by the Consultant under this Agreement will be safeguarded by the Consultant to at least the same extent as the Consultant safeguards like information relating to its own business. If such information is publicly available or is already in Consultant's possession or known to it, or is rightfully obtained by the Consultant from third parties, Consultant shall bear no responsibility for its disclosure, inadvertent or otherwise. All data, documents and files created by Consultant under this Agreement may be stored at Consultant's office in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Consultant shall make such data, documents, and files available to the City upon its request at all reasonable times for the purpose of editing, modifying and updating as necessary until such time as the City is capable of storing such information in the City's offices. Duplicate copies of this information shall be provided to the City upon its request, and at reasonable cost. All documents, including all reports, drawings, specifications, computer software or other items prepared or furnished by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, are instruments of service Page 5 of 8 Bremerton/Mingay Golf Course Design, Ltd. Gold Mountain Cascade Course Master Plan Development Rev. 06/2020 with respect to the project and are the property of the City. Any reuse by the City for other than the specific purpose intended will be at City’s sole risk. C. Use of Photographs and Images. Consultant shall not use or distribute photographs or images depicting City officials, personnel, property, or equipment whether prepared by Consultant or provided by City without prior written consent of the City. The City will not unreasonably withhold its consent. D. Work Performed at Consultant's Risk: Consultant shall take all precautions necessary and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and sub -consultants in the performance of the work hereunder and shall utilize all protection necessary for that purpose. All work shall be done at Consultant's own risk, and Consultant shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the work. E. Place of Work: The Consultant shall perform the work authorized under this Agreement at its offices in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Meetings with the City staff as described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, shall take place at the City's offices, or at locations mutually agreed upon by the parties. F. Entire Agreement: This Agreement and its Exhibits constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties, and the Parties acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or oral, that have not been set forth in the text of this Agreement. G. Severability: Should any part of this Agreement be found void, the balance of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. H. Modification: This Agreement may only be modified by written instrument signed by both Parties. I. Written Notices: All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed below by registered or 1st class mail, or by personal service, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing. Notices to be sent to: Notices to be sent to: CITY: CONSULTANT: Attn: Jeff Elevado Attn: Jeff Mingay City of Bremerton Mingay Golf Course Design, Ltd. 345 6th Street, Suite 100 832 Dovercourt Road Bremerton, WA 98337 Toronto, Ontario M6H 2X3 Canada Page 6 of 8 Bremerton/Mingay Golf Course Design, Ltd. Gold Mountain Cascade Course Master Plan Development Rev. 06/2020 J. Waiver: Failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of that provision. Waiver of any right or power arising out of this Agreement shall not be deemed waiver of any other right or power. K. Non-Waiver of Breach: The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained herein, or to exercise any option herein conferred in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of said covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. L. Compliance with Laws: Consultant shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws in performing its obligations under this Agreement. M. Choice of Law and Venue: This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of Washington. Any judicial action to resolve disputes arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Kitsap County Superior Court. N. Attorneys’ Fees: In the event of litigation to enforce any of the terms or provisions herein, each party shall pay all its own costs and attorney’s fees. O. Assignment: Any assignment of this agreement by the Contractor without the written consent of the City shall be void. VIII. Equal Employment Opportunity Statement: In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement, the Consultant, its subcontractors, or any person acting on behalf of Consultant shall not discriminate in any employment practice on the basis of age (40+), sex, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation/gender identity, marital status, military status, or the presence of any physical, mental or sensory disability. IX. ADA Statement: The City of Bremerton does not discriminate on the basis of disability in programs and activities, which it operates pursuant to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and ADA Amendments Act. This policy extends to both employment and admission to participation in the programs, services and activities of the City of Bremerton. Reasonable accommodation for employees or applicants for employment will be provided. X. Termination: This Agreement shall remain in force until completion and acceptance of the services, terminated by written instrument upon mutual consent, or by the City of Bremerton for convenience. This Agreement may be immediately terminated for cause by a Party if the other Party substantially fails to perform through no fault of the terminating Party, and the non- performing Party does not commence correction of the failure of performance within thirty (30) days of the terminating Party’s sending notice to the non-performing Party. Any Notice by Consultant shall include a report showing the status of all items listed in the Scope of Work current through the termination date. If the City receives reimbursement by any federal, state, or other source for work described in Section I herein, and that funding is withdrawn, reduced or limited in any way, or the project is Page 7 of 8 Bremerton/Mingay Golf Course Design, Ltd. Gold Mountain Cascade Course Master Plan Development Rev. 06/2020 cancelled or substantially reduced after the execution date of this Agreement and prior to the completion of the work, the City may summarily terminate this Agreement. A. Excusable Delays: The right of Consultant to proceed shall not be terminated nor shall Consultant be charged with liquidated damages for any delays in the completion of the work due to: 1) any acts of the federal government in controlling, restricting, or requisitioning materials, equipment, tools, or labor by reason of war, national defense, or other national emergency; 2) any acts of the City, its consultants, or other public agencies causing such delay; and 3) causes not reasonably foreseeable by the parties at the time of the execution of the Agreement that are beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God, fires, floods, strikes, or weather of unusual severity. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the Consultant must promptly notify the City within ten (10) calendar days in writing of the cause of the delay. If, on the basis of the facts and the terms of this Agreement, the delay is properly excusable, the City shall, in writing, extend the time for completing the work for a period of time commensurate with the period of excusable delay. B. Rights Upon Termination: In the event of termination, the City shall pay for all services performed by the Consultant to the effective date of termination, as described on a final invoice submitted to the City. After termination, the City may take possession of all records and data within the Consultant's possession pertaining to this project which may be used by the City without restriction. Any such use not related to the project which Consultant was contracted to perform shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant. XI. Suspension & Debarment. For contracts involving Federal funding, Consultant hereby certifies, by signing this agreement, that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. Consultant shall provide immediate written notice to the City if at any time it learns that it is or has become ineligible for certification. Should Consultant enter into a covered transaction with another firm, Consultant agrees by signing this agreement that it will verify that the firm with whom it intends to do business is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, excluded or disqualified. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties below have executed this Agreement. CITY: CONSULTANT: CITY OF BREMERTON By: By: Print Name: Greg Wheeler Print Name: Its: Mayor Its: Date: Date: Page 8 of 8 Bremerton/Mingay Golf Course Design, Ltd. Gold Mountain Cascade Course Master Plan Development Rev. 06/2020 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: By: By: Bremerton City Attorney City Clerk R:\Legal\Legal\Forms\FORMS ON COBWEB\Professional Services Agreement Rev. 03 2018.docx 1. Jeff Mingay Golf Course Architect Mingay Golf Course Design Ltd. _____________________________________________________________________________________ EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK November 25, 2020 City of Bremerton Development of a Golf Course Improvement Plan Cascade course at Gold Mountain Golf Club INTRODUCTION This exhibit presents Mingay Golf Course Design Ltd.’s proposed scope of work for development of a Golf Course Improvement Plan (GCIP) for the Cascade course at Gold Mountain Golf Club. The GCIP is proposed to illustrate design concepts relative to improvement of the Cascade course. This plan will be packaged in a tender document booklet including related construction drawings, specifications and a bid document required for solicitation of contractor bids to implement the GCIP. A proposed schedule for this scope of work is provided in Exhibit B. A proposed fee for this scope of work, and payment schedule, is provided as Exhibit C. The following tasks are associated with this scope of work. Task 1 — Initial site visit and preliminary meetings Objective Site visit to review the Cascade course, meet with all interested parties and obtain project data. Activities The following activities will be performed as part of this task: — Site visit to review Cascade course and related facilities at Gold Mountain Golf Club. — Preliminary meetings with City of Bremerton officials, representatives of Columbia Hospitality and Gold Mountain Golf Club to discuss project objectives. — Development of preliminary ideas to prepare 50% design concepts as a preliminary draft of the GCIP for review by all interested parties at the City of Bremerton, Columbia Hospitality and Gold Mountain Golf Club. Assumptions Project duration is estimated to be six (6) months; see Exhibit B. 2. Task 2 — Development of preliminary design concepts (50%) and onsite review Objective Preparation of 50% design concepts based on initial site visit and meetings; to be delivered as a prelimi- nary draft of the GCIP; following delivery of a preliminary draft, onsite review to be conducted by the golf course architect with all interested parties from the City of Bremerton, Columbia Hospitality and Gold Mountain Golf Club. Activities The following activities would be performed as part of this task: — Preparation and delivery of a preliminary draft of the GCIP, representing 50% design concepts. — Onsite review of the preliminary draft with City of Bremerton officials, representatives of Columbia Hospitality and Gold Mountain Golf Club. — Accumulation of additional data relative to finalizing the GCIP. Deliverables The following deliverables will be prepared: — A narrative booklet discussing strengths and weaknesses of the Cascade course along with identifica- tion of opportunities and potential threats — An overview drawing of the Cascade course illustrating recommended improvement with focus on tees, fairways, rough areas, bunkers, greens, contouring, drainage, cart paths, traffic routes, tree and vege- tation management, practices areas and all other related course components and golf-related facilities. Assumptions Design review meeting will be attended by all interested parties from the City of Bremerton, Columbia Hospitality and Gold Mountain Golf Club to facilitate completion of a final draft of the GCIP. Task 3 — Delivery of final design concepts (100%) and tender package Objective Preparation of 100% design concepts for delivery as a final draft of the GCIP presented by an overview drawing of the course and a tender package including related construction drawings, specifications and a bid document. Activities The following activities would be performed as part of this task: — Preparation of a final draft of the GCIP from the 50% plan and onsite review, to be delivered as 100% design concepts. — Preparation and delivery of a tender package, including related construction drawings, specifications, erosion control plan, and a bid document. 3. Deliverables — A revised narrative booklet discussing strengths and weaknesses of the Cascade course along with identification of opportunities and potential threats, also further explaining recommendations illustrated on the overview golf course plan. — A revised overview drawing of the Cascade course illustrating recommended improvement with focus on tees, fairways, rough areas, bunkers, greens, contouring, drainage, cart paths, traffic routes, tree and vegetation management, practices areas and all other related course components and golf-related facili- ties. — An 11-inch x 17-inch tender package booklet featuring individual overview plans for each hole, in- cluding related construction drawings, specifications, erosion control plan and all other information re- quired for solicitation of contractor bids to implement the GCIP. — AutoCAD and PDF files of all drawings and documents. Assumptions Engineering, irrigation and landscape design is outside the scope of this proposal. If it is determined, in the interest of the client, any of these additional services are required, this would be an additional task and expense handled by the City of Bremerton in consultation with the golf course architect. The cost of an arborist is not included in this proposal. If it is determined, in the interest of the client, to retain an arborist, this would also be handled by the City of Bremerton in consultation with the golf course architect. EXHIBIT B — PROPOSED SCHEDULE Work Element Completed By Notice to Proceed December 16, 2020 Initial site visit and meetings January 15, 2021 Delivery of 50% design concepts and plans March 15, 2021 Onsite review March 22, 2021 Delivery of 100% design concepts and plans, and tender package May 15, 2021 EXHIBIT C — PROPOSED FEE AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE Proposed fee for development of GCIP $41,000.00 Payment schedule: Upon Notice to Proceed $15,000.00 Upon Delivery of 50% design concepts $13,000.00 4. Upon delivery of 100% design concepts $13,000.00 Note: Additional work requested outside this defined scope for development of a GCIP for the Cascade course will be billed at $200/hour plus related travel-related expenses, including flights, car, fuel, ferry, accommodation, meals etc., billed at actual cost. Total travel-related expenses are estimated to be an addi- tional $500 per trip/visit. Respectfully submitted, Jeff Mingay Golf Course Architect AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Contract Modification No. 2 to Professional Services Agreement with the Johnston Group Study Session Date: December 9, 2020 COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: PW &U Presenter: Tom Knuckey Phone: (360) 473-2376 SUMMARY: In January 2019 the City executed a Professional Services Agreement with the Johnston Group to assist with federal lobbying and to help build collaborative working relationships with federal agencies and legislators. In 2019, they facilitated a series of meetings between the City and our congressional delegation, and also assisted in coordinating meetings with the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), setting the stage for the City’s 2020 award of $690K in grant funds for the $750K Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan. Work by Johnston in 2020 focused on assisting the City in securing the OEA grant, along with a variety of efforts to communicate the City’s priorities as legislation was developed to implement the Defense Community Infrastructure Program (DCIP, new construction grant program), along with pursuing a medium-sized City set aside for Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding. Work for 2021 will focus on revising DCIP evaluation criteria, continue pursuit of the STP program enhancements, and engage with our local officials to push forward the City’s needs as the new administration establishes and implements their priorities. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Contract Modification No. 2 to PSA with the Johnston Group; 2) Exhibit A (November 2020) which includes Summary of 2020 Accomplishments and 2021 Scope of Work FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): This contract is $5,000 per month except for travel expenses, which will be reimbursed to the Johnston Group based on actual expenses. This item is included in the City’s 2021 expense budget. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☒ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Contract Modification No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with the Johnston Group for Federal Legislative/Agency Representation Services and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 3B Page 1 of 2 Contract Modification Rev. 10/2019 CONTRACT MODIFICATION AGREEMENT NO. 2 BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND THE JOHNSTON GROUP PROJECT: Federal Legislative/Agency Representation Services CONSULTANT: The Johnston Group THIS CONTRACT MODIFICATION AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY AMENDS THE Professional Services Agreement (the "Contract") entered into between the City of Bremerton and the Johnston Group on January 10, 2019. All provisions in the Contract shall remain in full force and effect except as expressly modified by this document. For valuable consideration and by mutual consent of the parties, the modifications to the Contract are as follows: I. Section I. Scope , is modified as follows: Exhibit A is replaced with updated Exhibit A (November 2020); attached to this Contract Modification. Section II. Term , is modified as follows: The Consultant shall complete the work described in this Contract Modification Agreement by December 31, 2021. Section III. Compensation , is modified as follows: The original contract amount was $60,000 and was amended to $120,000 by Contract Modification No. 1 which was approved by the City Council on December 18, 2019. The City shall pay the Consultant for the additional work described above, based on time and materials, an amount not to exceed $60,000 for a total amended contract amount of $180,000, including this Contract Modification. II. Consultant accepts all requirements of this Contract Modification by endorsing below. Consultant further agrees that this Contract Modification constitutes full and final settlement of all of the Consultant’s claims for contract time and for all costs of any kind, including without limitation, costs of delays related to any work either covered or affected by this Contract Modification, claims related to on-site or home office overhead, or lost profits. This Contract Modification does not limit the City’s right to bring a claim for past performance. The undersigned consultant approves the foregoing Contract Modification as to the changes, if any, in the contract price specified for each item, including any and all supervision costs Page 2 of 2 Contract Modification Rev. 10/2019 and other miscellaneous costs relating to the change in work, and as to the extension of time allowed, if any, for completion of the entire work due to said Contract Modification. This document will become a supplement of the contract and all provisions will apply hereto. It is understood that this Contract Modification shall be effective when approved by the City of Bremerton. The parties whose names appear below warrant that they are authorized to enter into a contract modification that is binding on the parties of this contract. In addition, Consultant warrants that it has or will inform the surety of this change, and shall take appropriate action to modify any bonds required under the contract to address this change. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Contract Modification on the day and year first written above. City Engineer / Public Works Director approved to process _________________________ (Initials and Date) CONSULTANT THE CITY OF BREMERTON By: By: Print Name: Print Name: Its: Its: Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: By: By: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, Bremerton City Attorney ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: Mr./Mrs. Title City of Bremerton Engineering Dept. Address 1 Address 2 Phone/Fax R:\Legal\Legal\Forms\FORMS ON COBWEB\Contract Modification Rev. 10 2019.docx Page 1 of 7 November, 2020 Exhibit A Scope of Work and Summary of Accomplishments This Exhibit outlines some of the major accomplishments achieved in 2020 and outlines a Scope of Work in prioritized order for 2021. 2020 Major Accomplishments The Johnston Group helped the City of Bremerton make major gains in 2020 in support of its federal legislative agenda. Specifically, we accomplished the following key goals: 1. Worked with the City of Bremerton to obtain a $690,000 grant from the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) at the Department of Defense that will create a master Commuter Workforce plan to solve the parking and transportation challenges associated with the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. a. Secured delegation support for this grant application. b. Lobbied for funding for the Office of Economic Adjustment to support this grant program. 2. Worked on the development of the Defense Community Infrastructure Program (DCIP) at the Department of Defense. a. Lobbied for funding to set up the Defense Community Infrastructure Program which would allow the Department of Defense to make infrastructure and quality of life grants to communities that support military installations. b. Secured $50 million in initial program funding for the DCIP. c. Created comments on the draft DCIP during the formal comment period and submitted to the Office of Economic Adjustment to ensure that the program was set up to meet the needs of communities like Bremerton. d. Worked with the Congressional delegation to develop appropriations and authorization amendments that were based on Bremerton’s analysis of the DCIP. e. Secured that amendment into the House version of the FY 2021 Defense Authorization bill. The final bill will be finalized following the election. f. The City of Bremerton intends to modify the DCIP to make it a program that can fund the projects identified by the PSNS Commuter Workforce study currently underway. 3. Continued to develop the necessary relationships between the City and its key regional and federal partners including the Congressional delegation, the City of Lakewood (host community to Joint Base Lewis McChord), the South Sound Military and Community Partnership, the Office of Economic Development and the Association of Defense Communities. 4. Lobbied for a medium sized set aside for federal transportation grants so that cities between 10,000 and 75,000 have access to grant programs. While we weren’t successful with this effort in 2020, we did build support within the congressional delegation, drafted an amendment that was cosponsored by Reps. Derek Kilmer, Rick Larsen, Suzan DelBene, Pramila Jayapal and Denny Heck. We also built a coalition of 16 Washington cities in support of this effort and we look forward to pushing forward with this effort next year. Page 2 of 7 November, 2020 2021 Proposed Agenda The 2021 scope of work builds on our short-term success from 2020 and continues to build support in 2021 and for longer-term initiatives in the years ahead. Additionally, we follow the work being done by partner agencies and organizations and will levy support when and where appropriate. Some of these organizations include the Association of Washington Cities, the Association of Defense Communities, the Puget Sound Regional Council and Kitsap County, among others. These items are listed in priority order. 1. Supporting the City’s OEA grant to develop a comprehensive Pedestrian and Commuter Strategy for the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) is a key economic factor for the City of Bremerton with insufficient parking, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and drop-off areas for a commuting workforce. The City has done an excellent job of researching the challenge and looking at potential mitigation strategies and has obtained a $690,000 grant from the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) at the Pentagon to develop a comprehensive strategy and capital plan. This grant fits with the Joint Land Use Study conducted for the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Naval Base Kitsap and enjoys the support of the Base Commander and the Congressional delegation. This grant is expected to develop a comprehensive set of prioritized infrastructure projects with correlating cost estimates for completion. The City intends to apply for funding within the Defense Community Infrastructure Program (see below) to fund these projects once the study is complete. Part of our work in 2021 will be to ensure that funding is maintained and to keep our congressional delegation informed about the work being done as key milestones are hit. This grant will result in a blueprint that will we use to seek federal funding to support the city’s improvements. 2. Defense Community Infrastructure Program (DCIP) In 2018, Congress included the creation of the Defense Community Infrastructure Program (DCIP) in the Defense Authorization bill with an initial authorization of $100 million for the program. This program was the result of a multiple-year effort led by the City of Lakewood and pushed by Rep. Denny Heck with the support of Rep. Derek Kilmer and Rep. Adam Smith. This new federal program created a new funding program for the Department of Defense to help cities construct infrastructure that serves military installations. Congress failed to fund the program in 2018 but we were able to get $50 million appropriated in 2019 to establish the program and support the first round of grants. As 2020 unfolded, the Office of Economic Adjustment established the DCIP with an emphasis on projects that enhanced military quality of life and de-emphasized infrastructure. Page 3 of 7 November, 2020 Our work in 2020 is pending results. We have two active projects underway. The first would increase the amount of appropriated funds from $50 million to $100 million. The Senate version of the Appropriations bill contains this increase but the House bill is at $50 million. These bills are currently being negotiated and a final outcome is not yet known. The second project is to modify the DCIP so that infrastructure projects able to be funded. Again, this is the program we envision for funding the PSNS commuter workforce investments that are currently being studied. The House version of the Defense Authorization bill contains language that would accomplish this goal and is modelled after comments that the City of Bremerton submitted on the program’s development. The Senate version of the bill does not contain these reforms. The bill is currently being negotiated between the two chambers and a final outcome is not yet known. In 2021, funding the DCIP and ensuring that the program adequately prioritizes the types of projects we envision needing in Bremerton is our top priority. 3. Transportation Currently, there are a lack of federal funding programs that the City can use for its transportation and infrastructure goals. To make investments in local infrastructure in this environment, the City should pursue targeted requests of its federal delegation and support broader efforts to define more opportunities at a federal level. We expect Congress to take up an infrastructure bill early in 2021 with the support of the Biden Administration. Finally, we expect that earmarks may make a comeback in 2021 for public agencies. Each of these opportunities defines some policy priorities for the City of Bremerton. Funding for Non-Motorized Infrastructure For decades, Congress has debated the amount of funding from the federal gas tax revenues that should go towards projects that are not directly highway related. These projects include transit systems and non-motorized projects like sidewalks, trails and other programs. The share of federal dollars being made available to non-motorized projects has diminished over the past few transportation bills and there is a concerted effort to eliminate funding for transit and non-motorized access all together. As Congress debates a new Transportation bill and considers the continued funding of the BUILD Program (formerly known as the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, or TIGER, discretionary grant program), the City should continue to lobby for a portion of federal infrastructure dollars be allocated for transit and non-motorized projects. Medium Sized City Set Aside Page 4 of 7 November, 2020 Most federal infrastructure spending has a rural set aside which is critical for smaller communities to be able to access federal dollars. There is no comparable medium sized city set aside. Instead, medium sized cities compete against large cities like Seattle, Portland and Los Angeles for limited resources. Medium sized cities need a defined pool to compete within so as to make federal funds available in a way that simply aren’t in their current status. As Congress debates a new Transportation bill and considers the continued funding of the BUILD Program (formerly known as the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, or TIGER, discretionary grant program), the City should lobby for a portion of federal infrastructure dollars be set aside for medium sized cities. This policy position is consistent with the work the city has been doing for years and is supported broadly by similar sized cities throughout the state. The BUILD program is the key federal funding program for local infrastructure investments. Yet, all cities compete within the same funding pool, putting smaller and medium sized cities at a competitive disadvantage for funding even as the transit and commuter challenges are similar to those of larger communities. There are efforts in Congress to create funding tiers so that cities of similar size can compete for federal funds. The City should support efforts to designate a portion of federal transportation spending for cities between 10,000 and 75,000 in population size. We built support in 2020 for this effort but did not push it across the finish line. We have a coalition of 16 cities in Washington State supporting this effort and the support of the key members of our congressional delegation. That said, we face opposition from other regions and other members of congress and need to keep working on this effort in order to be successful in 2021. Funding for MPOs Federal transportation funding is generally distributed in Washington State via the State Department of Transportation (DOT) or via a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) like the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). In the most recent Transportation bill from 2016, Congress changed the allocation of funds from 50%-50% between DOTs and MPOs to 55%-45% with MPOs gaining the larger amount. As Congress starts to consider the next Transportation bill, the City should support increasing this proportion to the benefit of MPOs and oppose any attempt to preclude the formation of new MPOs to meet regional needs. This should dovetail with the City’s work at PSRC to more highly value cities with military installations in competitive funding pools. 4. Defense Policy / Issues As the host community to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Naval Base Kitsap, the City is keenly impacted by Defense policies. The following issues comprise a key portion of our 2020 federal policy agenda. Page 5 of 7 November, 2020 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) The City should support a BRAC round to focus limited federal funding on critical military infrastructure needs. The City urges Congress to invest in the Office of Economic Adjustment with any BRAC round. While the prospects of a BRAC round before 2022-23 are unlikely, the DOD and our congressional delegation are supportive, including most importantly, Rep. Adam Smith who is the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee with jurisdiction over this issue. A BRAC round is the best way to direct military construction and infrastructure funding to the bases and locations that need the most investments. More, for bases that see an increase in missions or personnel following a BRAC, Congress should consider creating a new funding support to address deficiencies on those installations. Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) As Congress moves forward with annual Defense Authorization bills, preserving funding for the Office of Economic Adjustment at the Pentagon is a key priority for the City. OEA funds economic studies and planning for cities that experience reductions or growth in their military installations. We expect OEA to become a critical partner to the City for many of our shared initiatives in support of PSNS and NBK. Funding for OEA is under persistent threat and the City should lobby for stable funding for OEA in recognition of its strong role in the economic growth in our region. Association of Defense Communities Engagement The Association of Defense Communities (ADC) has the potential to become a key ally for the City. The ADC’s support for the Defense Infrastructure Program was key to enactment in 2018. Additionally, its steadfast support for the Office of Economic Adjustment has been critically important for the viability of that agency. The City should look for ways to deepen its relationship with ADC and consider participating in ADC conferences with the eventual goal of seeking committee and board positions with ADC. Support for MilCon Projects at PSNS and NBK As the City develops its relationships with base leadership at PSNS and NBK, it should lobby for projects at both installations that the bases are seeking funding support for within the congressional spending bills. Carefully watch shipyard budgets for PSNS and advise City about impacts The Navy has identified a multi-billion infrastructure needs at its major shipyards but has failed to adequately fund the need to date. Watching this budget and analyzing its impacts on the City of Bremerton will be a key priority for the Johnston Group in 2021 and the years ahead. Page 6 of 7 November, 2020 5. Community and Economic Development Programs Restoration of Earmark Authority Congress is considering restoring the earmarking authority to the legislative branch following the election. The Administration is currently not funding the obligations directed by Congress and many elected officials want more authority over how funds are allocated. The City should support earmarks with the following criteria: o Only available to public agencies. o Fully transparent process for requests. o Limited to economic development, infrastructure, transportation and human services funding programs. Of note, the city’s Member of Congress, Rep. Derek Kilmer, chaired a bipartisan committee to modernize Congress – especially during a pandemic. Of the more than 100 reforms suggested by the committee, restoring earmarking authority to Congress was one of the top recommendations. We hope this recommendation results in enactment in 2021. If it is, the Johnston Group is prepared to assist the City with identifying and securing earmark support. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and the Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) o The City of Bremerton uses Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funding to support local initiatives that benefit the City’s vulnerable population. Funding in the CDBG program increased by 30% in 2018 after falling to a decade low in 2017 and has been holding steady at that rate since then. The City should support the CDBG and HOME program at the federal level and lobby for increased funding that could be put to use in Bremerton immediately. Support Municipal Tax Policy Congress has adjusted various tax policies that have a direct impact on the City of Bremerton, including the New Markets Tax Credit, the Affordable Housing Tax Credit and the State and Local Sales Tax Deduction. These policies, in addition to policies that would negatively value municipal bonding authority, remain under debate in Congress in 2021 and the City should advocate for strong municipal authority and tax credits that facilitate economic development and meet our region’s critical housing needs. 6. Support the Green Stormwater Infrastructure Initiatives. Page 7 of 7 November, 2020 Representatives Derek Kilmer and Denny Heck have developed a long-term strategy to modify federal laws, funding opportunities and programs to benefit the Puget Sound ecosystem. This effort has multiple policy components: Add green stormwater treatment as a scoring criteria for federal transportation awards. This would advantage projects seeking federal funds that include a stormwater management component. Create a tax credit program for stormwater retrofits and new development. If enacted, this program would provide a 50% tax credit for individuals and developers that incorporate stormwater projects such as rain gardens, bioswales and similar projects. Create a new federal program to fund culvert replacement, fish passage improvements and habitat restoration in municipal streams and creeks. Those efforts have been stalled over the past few years with a lack of support from the Trump Administration. Rep. Kilmer is inclined to push this agenda again in 2021 with a new Biden Administration and we should support this effort and look for ways to bring new partnerships and funding opportunities to the Bremerton community and the Puget Sound. While short term success on this effort in 2021 might be too much to expect, having the City support this effort and play a role in its development will be a key strategy. From:Roy Runyon To:City Council Subject:Contract Modification No. 2 to Professional Services Agreement with the Johnston Group Date:Wednesday, December 16, 2020 1:30:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Councilmembers, Vote NO on the contract modification for federal lobbying services with the Johnston Group and follow-up with action to end the contract. I object to any taxpayer dollars being used to pay for a third party firm to lobby the federal government on behalf of the City of Bremerton government for the following reasons: 1) the Citizens of Bremerton already pay for lobbying efforts by the mayor and other city officials; 2) Bremerton Citizens are represented by other elected officials at the local, state and federal levels all of whom can lobby on our behalf; 3) City of Bremerton government lobbying may conflict with the rights, privileges and interests of Citizens 4) taxpayers already pay for lobbying by the Association of Washington Cities which can can conduct lobbying of the federal government on our behalf and 5) taxpayers already pay to have the federal government provide the means to contact and lobby any branch and agency. Our 6th Congressional District representative to the U.S. Congress, Derek Kilmer, maintains an office in the Norm Dicks Federal Building. His staff is available if Congressman Kilmer is not available. What prevents Greg from walking downstairs to visit the congressman's office? I tested this myself last year before the council first approved the existing contract which I also objected to. For Greg's convenience, Congressman's Kilmer's office addresses and hours are: 345 6th St, Suite 500, Bremerton, WA 98337, phone: 360-373-9725, M-F: 9:00 am to 5:00 pm (PST). Likewise, our two U.S. senators also maintain physical offices in our state. For Maria Cantwell, Greg and others can contact her staff or the senator at: 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 615, Tacoma, WA 98402 phone: 253-572-2281. For Patty Murray, Greg and others can contact her or her staff at: 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 650, Tacoma, WA 98402 phone: 253-572-3636. To lobby the federal executive branch of government, Greg and others can contact President Donald Trump via the White House web page at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ for to contact a specific agency of the federal government, Greg and others can go to https://www.usa.gov/agencies. Vote NO on the contract modification and follow-up with action to end the contract. --Roy Runyon Taxpayer and Citizen 360-440-0620 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 5410 amending Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.46.010 of the Zoning Code regarding Accessory Dwelling Units Study Session Date: December 9, 2020 COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 16, 2020 Department: DCD Presenter: Allison Satter Phone: 360.473.5845 SUMMARY: The action before Council is to conduct a Public Hearing and adopt an Ordinance amending BMC Title 20 for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). The Code Amendments are to: Revise the regulations to change the maximum number of ADUs allowed per lot, revise the maximum size limitations, reduce the design criteria, amend the parking requirement, remove the owner occupancy requirement, and allow certain nonconforming structures to be converted for use as ADUs. The justification to amend the ADU code was started with the City’s Infill Toolkit and then was subsequently encouraged by Washington State Legislature (which requested cities to consider ways to increase residential capacity such as revising the ADU code). This proposed code would allow the construction of more ADUs within the City. This ADU code has been through a thorough public process including: Planning Commission, presenting at the Kitsap Building Association, discussion with property owners, and even a recent Kitsap Sun article. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 5410 Exhibit A - Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions Staff Memo Updated Attachment 1 - Planning Commission’s Minutes for May 18, 2020 (workshop), and October 19, 2020 (public hearing) Attachment 2 - Public comments received FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☐ No Presentation ☒ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☒ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION Updated Option 1 – Move to pass Ordinance No. 5410 as recommended by the Planning Commission to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.46.010 entitled “Accessory Dwelling Units.” Option 2- Move to pass Ordinance No. 5410 to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.46.010 entitled “Accessory Dwelling Units” as presented and to further amend the proposed ordinance and exhibits to eliminate the code revisions that change allowable ADU's from one per residence to two and the parking regulations required for the second ADU. Option 3 – Move to defer action on Ordinance No. 5410 and direct staff to schedule an additional study session and public hearing in the first quarter of 2021. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 4A Updated 1 Title 20 BMC Updates ORDINANCE NO. 5410 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending the Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.46.010 entitled Accessory Dwelling Units. WHEREAS, through practical use and application of the Zoning Code the need for modification has been identified; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton (“City”) 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, the Washington State Legislature passed House Bill 1923, which provides incentivized recommendations for jurisdictions to amend local zoning codes relating to housing, with one recommendation concerning ADU standards; and WHEREAS, the City has received grant funding under the provisions of House Bill 1923 to pursue these zoning code amendments; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a workshop on the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on May 29, 2020, and October 2, 2020 a State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) Determination of Nonsignificance (“DNS”) was issued for the proposed action and no appeals were filed; and WHEREAS, on June 1, 2020, and October 2, 2020 the proposed Zoning Code amendments were circulated to the State Agencies for the requisite review and comment period; and WHEREAS, on October 2, 2020, 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 October 19, 2020, 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 2 Title 20 BMC Updates WHEREAS, on December 2, 2020, the public was notified by a legal advertisement in the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in the public hearing on December 16, 2020 by the City Council; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2020, 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. Findings and Recitals Incorporated. The findings and recitals set forth above are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Planning Commission Findings. 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. SECTION 3. Chapter 20.46 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Special Development Standards” is hereby amended by amending Section 20.46.010 to read as follows: 20.46.010 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) may be permitted anywhere a new or existing single- family dwelling unit (hereafter, "principal unit") is allowed. Accessory dwelling units are exempt from the density requirements of the underlying zone and shall be subject to the following requirements: (a) An ADU shall comply with the development standards of the underlying zone for the principal unit including setbacks, height, and lot coverage or BMC 20.44.060, accessory structures setbacks for detached ADUs. (b) An ADU may be attached or detached from the principal unit. (c) Only one (1) Two (2) ADUs may be created per lot. The lot shall only contain one (1) single-family dwelling unit and one (1) a maximum of two (2) ADUs. (d) Manufactured homes may be allowed as an accessory dwelling unit provided it complies with the design criteria of ADUs and must comply with BMC 20.46.040, manufactured home provisions, excluding BMC 20.46.040(a)(2) and (6) regarding size and roof pitch. (e) An ADU shall be subordinate to the principal unit. The ADU shall be limited to 1,000 square feet or not more than sixty (60) percent of the principal unit’s total habitable floor area, whichever is greater, with the following exception: (1) To encourage the compact infill development and use of existing single- family homes, if a residence that was constructed or remodeled prior to January 1, 2017 December 31, 2020, is proposed to be divided into a principal unit and an ADU, the Director may allow equal square footage for the principal unit and the ADU if the ADU is located completely on a single floor of the existing residence. This does not apply to detached ADUs. (f) Any ADU shall be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of a single-family residence and should architecturally blend into the existing neighborhoods through careful design. Unless the ADU is limited to only interior remodeling of an existing single- family dwelling, a proposed ADU shall meet the following design standards: 3 Title 20 BMC Updates (1) Exterior Finish. The exterior of an ADU shall have siding and roofing which in color, material and appearance are comparable to the predominant materials of the primary dwelling unit and/or characteristics of the neighborhood. (i) Roofing. A roof of equal or greater pitch as the principal unit. (ii) Eaves. The minimum projection is twelve (12) inches. (2) Detailed Design. All ADUs shall provide detailed design using at least four (4) of the following architectural features: (i) Trim to denote all building’s roof lines, porches, windows and doors that is at least three (3) inches wide; (ii) Dormers; (iii) Gables; (iv) Recessed entries; (v) Covered porch entries; (vi) Offsets in building face or roof (minimum sixteen (16) inches); (vii) Bay windows; (viii) Decorative cornices and roof lines; (ix) Shutters; (x) Brickwork, masonry or stucco; (xi) Any alternative feature providing visual relief similar to the options listed above provided it must be approved by the Director. (g) The entrance to an attached ADU shall not be on the same facade of the structure as an entrance to the principal unit. Exterior stairway shall not be constructed on the street-frontage side of the principal dwelling unit. (h g) The second aAccessory dwelling units shall provide one (1) off-street parking space in addition to that which is required for the principal unit. If only one ADU is onsite, it is not required to provide additional off-street parking space. The site must comply with BMC 20.48, specifically that the required parking spaces for the principal unit shall be provided and that When adding an ADU, all driveways and areas used for loading, parking, and maneuvering vehicles on the parcel shall have a paved surface. (I h) When development of an ADU is for people with disabilities, the Director may allow reasonable deviation from the stated requirements to install features that facilitate accessibility such as those required by the International Building Code. (j i) An ADU shall be required to be served by City water and sewer or an approved septic system. (k j) The property owner, which shall include titleholders and contract purchasers, must abide by the following: occupy either the principal unit or the ADU as their permanent residence for all twelve (12) months of the year. (1) International Property Maintenance Code Chapter 3 Section 302 concerning Exterior Property Areas, as adopted at BMC 17.04.020(f), except those not adopted as enumerated in BMC 17.04.110, or as hereby amended, and (2) All applicable provisions in Chapter 6 of the BMC regarding Health and Sanitation including maintaining nuisance vegetation, proper garbage and refuse containment, and maintaining the buildings to not qualify as an unfit dwelling, building, structure and/or premise. 4 Title 20 BMC Updates (l) An ADU shall have a deed restriction recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor to indicate the presence of the ADU, the requirement of owner occupancy, and other standards for maintaining the unit as described above. (k) Conversion of existing detached structures. To encourage the compact infill development of existing structures throughout the City, a detached ADU that does not comply with certain development standards of this chapter may be permitted provided the requirements of this section (20.46.010) are met. The following shall apply to all development seeking to utilize this provision: (1) The structure must have been constructed prior to December 31, 2020. The structure must either have received a City or County permit, not needed a permit at the time of construction, or be recognized as a structure per the Kitsap County Assessor records. (2) The structure must meet, either currently or through permitted remodeling, the requirements of the Building (BMC Title 17) and Fire (BMC Title 18) code for habitable structures. (3) The conversion of an existing structure to an ADU, with no expansions, may be exempt from: (i) Compliance with the development standards for setbacks, height, and lot coverage, of the underlying zone. (ii) Compliance with the ADU provisions of 20.46.010 related to size and design, except as provided at BMC 20.46.010(k)(4). (4) An existing structure may be enlarged or extended, provided the following provisions are met: (i) The enlargements do not violate underlying zone requirements. Structures that do not conform to the setback requirements may expand up to 20% of the gross floor area, and to the building line, provided these enlargements do not further violate setback requirements. (ii) The enlargements do not cause the entire structure to exceed the ADU size requirements of 20.46.010(e). (iii) Any altered or new facades shall have siding and roofing which in color, material, and appearance, match or compliment the predominant materials of the existing structure. SECTION 4. Corrections. The City Clerk and codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including but not limited to, the correction of scrivener, clerical, typographical, and spelling errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. SECTION 5. 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 6. 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 ____________________, 2020. 5 Title 20 BMC Updates _________________________________ ERIC YOUNGER, Council President Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2020. _________________________________ GREGORY WHEELER, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ ________________________________ ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 2020. EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 2020. ORDINANCE NO. ____________ 1 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Summary: Proposed amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code related to Accessory Dwelling Units. I.FINDINGS OF FACT 1.Project Description: The proposed amendment includes revisions to Bremerton Municipal Code 20.46.010, Accessory Dwelling Units, as follows: A.Increasing the ADU minimum size. B.Increasing the maximum number of ADUs per lot from one (1) to two (2). B.Removing parking requirements for the first ADU. C.Removing owner occupancy and ownership requirements. D.Changing the design standards. E.Adding standards for nonconforming detached structures to become ADUs. 2.Procedural History: 2.1 Planning Commission Workshops: May 18, 2020 2.2 Washington State Department of Commerce Notice: June 1, 2020 AND October 2, 2020 2.3 SEPA Threshold Determination DNS: May 29, 2020 and October 2 2020 2.4 Notice of Public Hearing: October 2, 2020 2.5 Planning Commission Public Hearing: October 19, 2020 3.Public and Agency Comment: 3.1 At the workshop held on March 19, 2018, two public comments were received: 3.1.01 A. Marcus expressed support. 3.1.02 Russ Shiplet, representing the Kitsap Building Association, expressed support. 3.2 Written comments are summarized below: 3.2.01 Comment 01: R. Runyon submitted a potential code amendment. 3.2.02 Comment 02: L. King is supportive of ADU amendments. 3.3 At the Planning Commission Public Hearing on October 19, 2020, the following people testified: R. Runyon R. Shiplet for the Kitsap Building Association S. Plahn J. Vogt 4.SEPA Determination: A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on May 29, 2020, to date no comments or appeals have been filed. A subsequent DNS was issued on October 2, 2020 as additional code revisions were requested by the public for the City to consider. 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. Exhibit A 2 (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: The amendment continues to uphold the objectives, goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan such as: o Policy LU1(B): Coordinate Bremerton’s growth consistent with the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies and the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Vision 2040, and state requirements. o Policy LU4(C): Provide land use regulations that give opportunities for the community to have fair access to livelihood, education, and resources. o Policy LU4(D): On an annual basis review and provide amendments, if necessary, to the goals and policies and the Land Use Map to address changing circumstances and/or emergencies. o Housing Vision: To encourage the growth of Bremerton by strategically locating a wide variety of housing types throughout the City in a way that protects the environment and fosters community health. o Housing Goal H2: Encourage the development of a variety of new housing options and densities to meet the changing needs of Bremerton’s residents. o Policy H2(C): Supporting infill development and increased densities and the use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure efficient and cost-effective utilization of existing public utilities. o Housing Goal H3: Support access to quality and affordable housing for all Bremerton residents. o Policy H3(A): Provide opportunities for the production of new housing for all incomes, ages, and family types through infill by stimulating growth of non- traditional housing types such as townhomes, carriage units, accessory dwelling units, and duplexes in locations where they will seamlessly infill into the fabric of the existing neighborhoods. o Policy H3(E): Eliminate unnecessary regulatory impediments to the development of affordable housing. o Goal H4: Implement and coordinate strategies that promote public and private efforts to facilitate improvements to the housing stock. o Policy H4(F): Promote increased housing density to provide a broader customer base for more affordable public services including utilities. (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: _____________________________________________ _________________________________ Andrea L. Spencer, Director of Community Development Nick Wofford, Planning Commission Chair Exhibit A Attachment A To: City Council From: Allison Satter, Planning Manager Date: November 25, 2020 Subject: Amendments to the Zoning Code regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) SUMMARY City Council will be holding a public hearing on an Ordinance that amends the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). The revisions to the ADU provisions include increasing the maximum ADU size, increasing the number of allowed ADUs per parcel to two (2), removing parking requirement for a single ADU, removing the owner occupancy requirement, simplifying the design standards, and adding provisions to allow certain nonconforming structures to be converted for use as ADUs. This Staff Memorandum will go over the history of ADUs within the City, and further information on each topic for the proposed changes to the ADU provisions. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Single Family home and ADU built in 2015 on E 30th St. Single Family home and ADU built in 2008 off Marion Avenue Attached ADU added to existing home in 2016 off Petersville Rd Memo to ADU Ordinance Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission unanimously recommended the ADU amendments at a Public Hearing held on October 19, 2020. Minutes from this meeting as well as the workshop held on May 18, 2020, are attached to this report at Attachment 1. At the Planning Commission’s public hearing, each topic of proposed changes to the ADU code was discussed independently prior to the vote. Minority Report: Though Planning Commission unanimously recommended the Zoning Code Amendments in regards to the ADU proposed amendments, two (of the seven) commissioners were supportive of a proposed amendment regarding facades. The code change, which is not incorporated into proposed ordinance, would require facades of attached ADUs and single family homes to be modulated or designed to not avoid being a mirrored image of the two units’ entrance. Majority of the Planning Commission’s felt as ADUs will be used an infill tool, they did not want to put provisions on the façade that could be limiting. In addition, Bay Vista housing development (picture shown below) was talked about as having good design, through their entrances are very similar (and something the minority report code could prohibit). Bay Vista Housing Development off Oyster Bay Not an ADU, but shown for façade’s entrance consideration Memo to ADU Ordinance Page 3 SUMMARY OF ACCESORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU) Accessory Dwelling Units in Washington State Many Washington cities and counties are required by the 1993 Washington Housing Policy Act to adopt ordinances encouraging the development of accessory apartments or accessory dwelling units in single-family zones. Local codes must incorporate the model ordinance recommendations prepared by the Department of Commerce (RCW 43.63A.215 and RCW 36.70A.400). State law allows local communities some flexibility to adapt these recommendations to local needs and preferences. ADU ordinances have been widely adopted in Washington, since the 1993 Act. In part, this is because ADUs have helped local jurisdictions meet GMA goals to encourage affordable housing and provide a variety of housing densities and types, while preserving the character of single- family neighborhoods. History of ADUs Bremerton has had ADU provisions in zoning code shortly after the 1993 Act was passed. In general, development of accessory dwelling units can be traced back to the early twentieth century, when they were a common feature in single-family housing. After World War II, an increased demand for housing led to a booming suburban population. This development can be characterized as large lots and an emphasis on the nuclear family, suburban development conformed to Euclidean-type zoning codes, a system of land-use regulations that segregate districts according to use. Suburbs continued to be a prevalent form of housing development throughout the 1950s and 1960s. The rapid growth of suburbs reinforced the high demand for lower-density development, and ultimately led most local jurisdictions to prohibit ADU construction. In spite of zoning restrictions, illegal construction of ADUs continued in communities where the existing housing stock was not meeting demand; San Francisco was one such community. During World War II, the Bay Area experienced a defense boom that created a high demand for workforce housing, resulting in a large number of illegally constructed second units. By 1960, San Francisco housed between 20,000 to 30,000 secondary units, 90 percent of which were built illegally. Today, City of San Francisco assumes 20% of their marketed rental properties are illegal. In response to suburban sprawl, increased traffic congestion, restrictive zoning, and the affordable housing shortage, community leaders began advocating a change from the sprawling development pattern of suburban design to a more traditional style of planning. Urban design movements, such as Smart Growth and New Urbanism, emerged in the 1990s to limit automobile dependency and improve the quality of life by creating inclusive communities that provide a wide range of housing choices (the Washington State Growth Management Act is another prime example). Both design theories focus on reforming planning practices to create housing development that is high density, transit-oriented, mixed-use, and mixed-income through redevelopment and infill efforts. In the late 1970s to the 1990s, some municipalities Memo to ADU Ordinance Page 4 adopted ADU programs to permit the use and construction of accessory units. Many of these programs were not very successful, as they lacked flexibility and scope. Although a number of communities still restrict development of accessory dwelling units, there is a growing awareness and acceptance of ADUs as a way to increase the residential housing supply and address illegal units already in existence. Source: U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research: Accessory Dwelling Units: Case Study: https://www.HUDuser.gov/portal/publications/ADU.pdf Why is Bremerton discussing ADU revisions? ADUs are building at a slow rate in Bremerton Presently Staff receives a few ADU applications each year, but we discuss ADU requirements several times a month with interested individuals. Most of these inquiries do not result in applications to construct ADUs. Many owners are not able to abide by the current ADU requirements, and as a result of this, the City processes very few ADU permits (average of about 2 ADUs a year). Year No. of ADUs Constructed 2007 3 2008 2 2009 1 2010 2 2011 0 2012 0 2013 2 2014 0 2015 2 2016 3 2017 1 2018 3 2019 3 2020 (Ongoing) 2 (in construction) TOTAL (14 years) 24 ADUs The trend of permitting very few ADUs is common in many cities within the State and has caused many jurisdictions to reduce ADU development standards. Many cities have been exploring policy changes that would increase the production of ADUs. The City of Seattle has extensively revised its ADU regulations recently by removing parking requirements, allowing two ADUs per parcel in certain low-density residential zones, removing owner occupancy requirements, and increasing the maximum allowable size for ADUs. (source: Accessory Dwelling Unit: https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/permits/common-projects/accessory-dwelling-units) The City of Kirkland has also removed owner occupancy and parking restrictions for ADUs, as well as raised the maximum size cap to 1,200 square feet. (source: Accessory Dwelling Units: https://www.kirklandwa.gov/depart/planning/Code_Updates/Projects/Accessory_Dwelling_Units. htm) Memo to ADU Ordinance Page 5 Washington State Legislature is encouraging code revisions In addition to the City’s Infill Toolkit that states the City will review ADU code to allow the construction of more ADUs, in 2019, Washington State passed into law a new bill, House Bill 1923, aimed at increasing ‘Urban Residential Building Capacity’. This law contains several specific housing recommendations in order to achieve that goal. One of these recommendations relates to Accessory Dwelling Units. The following table shows the State Recommendations for ADUs as outlined in House Bill 1923. In light of these new recommendations, and as a result of the unprecedented housing pressure in the Puget Sound region and Bremerton specifically, the Planning Commission has recommended potential amendments to the ADU criteria to increase the chance that this lower- impact development option may be utilized. The City of Bremerton is an urban city with high residential demand, and the proposed codes that reflect that aspect and provide for infill in the City’s residential zones. House Bill 1923 ADU Recommendations Does current code meet Recommendations? Relevant Bremerton Code: BMC 20.46.010 Size: Should not limit ADU size smaller than 1000 sf. No Current code restricts the ADU size to 60% of the floor area of the main unit. Parking: Should not require on-site parking for the ADU. No Current code requires one additional parking space be provided for the ADU, in addition to the two mandatory parking spaces provided for the main unit. Occupancy: Should not require owner occupancy No Current code requires owner occupancy year-round. Types of ADUs: Should authorize attached ADUs on all parcels containing single family homes, provided the lot is at least 3200 sf. AND Should authorize attached and detached ADUs on all parcels containing single family homes, provided the lot is at least 4356 sf. Yes This requirement is satisfied by current code. ADUs are currently allowed anywhere a new or existing single family dwelling is allowed. Rent/Sale: Should allow the ADU to be rented and/or sold separately from the main unit. Yes This requirement is satisfied by current code. No current restriction exists against this provision. Memo to ADU Ordinance Page 6 What is proposed for Bremerton’s ADU regulations? Planning Commission sees the potential benefits of ADUs and recommends reducing the regulations to make ADUs a more viable option in Bremerton. The increasingly tight housing market means fewer affordable housing units available citywide; and the COVID-19 emergency only makes the problem of a shortage of housing more acute. ADUs are one way to provide infill housing without significant investments in new infrastructure to support housing growth. The proposed amendments to the ADU code include: 1. Change the maximum number of ADUs per lot: The existing code limits the maximum number of ADUs per lot to one (1), either attached or detached. The amended code as recommended by the Planning Commission raises this limit to two (2) ADUs, either two attached, two detached, or one attached and one detached. The Planning Commission’s decision was based on public comment that was supportive of multiple ADUs on a parcel, as well as the example of neighboring cities that have introduced similar ADU standards. The City of Seattle currently allows up to two ADUs per lot, as does Kirkland. Looking further, the State of California now permits up to two ADUs statewide on all family zoned for low density residential uses. While this amendment would allow one additional dwelling unit on lots where ADUs are currently an allowed use, all structures and development would still be required to comply with the development standards of the underlying zone. For example, in the Low Density Residential (R-10) zone, all development must comply a maximum development coverage on the lot of 60%, setbacks, and maximum height of no more than 35 feet. Memo to ADU Ordinance Page 7 2. Revise the maximum size limitations Currently, Code limits the size of ADU’s to 60% of the principal unit’s habitable floor area. This has the potential to penalize the owners of smaller homes by possibly requiring a potential ADU to be too small to be economical. The proposal is to change the size restrictions to a maximum ADU square footage of 60% of the primary structure, or 1000 square feet, whichever is larger. This is in line with the State recommendations as part of House Bill 1923. The City of Vancouver, British Columbia, has had similar ADU requirements for years, with a maximum ADU size of 900 square feet. In 2018, Vancouver completed a survey (linked here) of tenants and owners of detached ADUs (note: in Vancouver, detached ADUs are largely known as ‘laneway houses’). The finding was that the primary desire from occupants of detached ADUs in the city was to have more interior living space. Development coverage standards will still apply to residential lots. For instance, in the R- 10 zone, the maximum that a lot may be covered by impervious surfaces is 60%. Thus, if the existing structures and pavement occupy 40% of the lot, new ADU construction could only occupy a maximum of 20% of the lot area (for a total of 60% lot coverage). Additionally, the recommended code change updates the size exception section of the code. This section allows the square footage of an internal ADU to encompass an entire existing floor (such as the second floor may a unit and the first floor is a unit). This section is proposed to stay functionally identical, but the cut-off construction date will be updated from January 1st, 2017 to December 31st, 2020. This will allow more recently built houses to take advantage of this feature, while still prohibiting new construction of oversize ADUs. Example of ADU Memo to ADU Ordinance Page 8 3. Reduce design criteria required Currently, code requires that the appearance of the building remains that of a single- family residence. It also requires that an ADU architecturally blend into the existing neighborhoods, have a roof of an equal or greater pitch as the main unit, and have eaves that project at least 12 inches. The owner must choose at least four standards from a list of architectural features that includes options such as dormers, bay windows, shutters, and brickwork. Additionally, ADUs cannot have entrances on the same façade as the principal unit, and they cannot have exterior stairways on the street frontage side of the unit. Some of these design standards have proven to be barriers to the creation of ADUs. In particular, staff commonly encounters parties interested in converting existing structures to ADUs that are not capable of complying with the provision that the roof must be “of equal or greater pitch as the principal unit”. The City of Bainbridge Island has simplified their design standards to simply state that: ‘Accessory dwelling units shall be designed to maintain the appearance of the primary dwelling as a single-family dwelling…’. The City of Seattle, in a recent comprehensive reform of their ADU code, has removed the vast majority of their design restrictions, only maintaining standards for ADU entrances on certain facades. Removing design restrictions is becoming a popular method to encourage more diverse types of ADUs. Additionally, the City imposes no design standards on single family dwellings, The Planning Commission unanimously recommended removing the bulk of these design standards at the October 19 Public Hearing. However, they proposed to keep phrasing that requires ADUs to have a ‘matching or complimentary’ exterior design to the single- family residence or the neighborhood. Memo to ADU Ordinance Page 9 4. Amend the parking requirement Currently, code requires one parking space be provided for an ADU, in addition to the two parking spaces that are required for single family dwellings (for a total of three parking spaces). The proposed code revisions are to not require the additional parking space for the first ADU. In other words, a property with a single-family home and ADU in the R-10 zone would have to provide two off-street parking spaces (instead of three). Please note that this code revision, to not require an additional parking space to be installed, would only apply to the first ADU onsite. If an R-10 zone lot had a single-family home and two ADUs, for three units, this property would have to provide three parking spaces. Proposed Code for Parking Single Family Home One ADU onsite Two ADU onsite Two (2) parking spaces required No additional parking space required (current code requires 1 space) One (1) additional parking space required (for a total of 3 spaces) Adding parking is a typical reason why ADUs are not built in the City. One 8’x18’ parking space (the minimum size permittable) requires 144 square feet of pavement, which can be difficult and expensive to provide on lots with inconvenient site conditions. In addition, many ADUs are used as housing for aging, younger, or disabled family members who may not require a vehicle. In these cases, requiring the addition of a parking space adds cost and reduces usable lot space unnecessarily. According to US Census Data from 2018, 14.4% of Bremerton’s households do not own a vehicle, comparable to Seattle at 17.3%, and much higher than Washington as a whole at 6.9%. In Portland, widely considered to be the leader in the US on ADU construction, no parking is required to be provided for ADUs. Despite this, 63% of Portland’s ADUs still provide an off-street parking space, and according to a State of Oregon study, the impact of ADUs on parking standards is negligible. The State of Oregon’s determination was that unless factors change substantially from what they observed, “the fear that ADUs harm parking conditions will have little rational basis”. This is partly because ADUs are dispersed throughout the city, making any single ADU increase parking demand only minutely, and typically by much less than other types of residential development. The full study is linked here. Attached to this report is an online article, which summarizes many of these points in more detail. Memo to ADU Ordinance Page 10 Though it is required with the current code, the proposed code further clarifies that a primary dwelling must have, or construct, the required parking spaces in accordance with existing residential parking code, in order for an ADU to be permitted. In most cases, this would be two paved parking spaces. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended removing parking requirements for an ADUs. 5. Remove owner occupancy requirements Currently, code requires that a property owner occupy either the ADU or the primary residence of the ADU year-round. This Planning Commission recommends removing this requirement in order to conform with State recommendations. This is an increasingly common choice in areas with a strong need for housing and is supported as part of the City’s Infill Toolkit. This amendment would mean that both the single-family dwelling and the ADU could both be rented out at the same time. The City’s recommended code represents the minimum amendment within the scope of the State recommendations in HB 1923, with the addition of property maintenance requirements supported in other sections of the BMC. These are included due to concerns that removing owner-occupancy requirements would lead to absentee landlords, and thus negatively impact property maintenance. For the record, there are a few facts that should be considered: · Little evidence exists that renters on average maintain their housing units in worse condition than property owners do, and there is no current code that restricts those that own single family dwellings from posting them for rent. The City’s previous Commissioner, Commissioner Nerf, made applicable comments in 2017 about this: he explained that there is no City code that would prohibit a neighborhood from being rentals, why do we care so much about the owner-occupied requirement for ADUs? · Other Cities: The City of Portland removed owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs in 1998. Despite this, 64% of Portland properties with ADUs remain owner-occupied. Portland’s experience with their revised ADU provisions is linked here. Other Washington cities that do not require ADU owner-occupancy include Gig Harbor, Bainbridge Island, Olympia, Lacey, and Vancouver. Staff anticipates with this State recommendation, more cities will remove this requirement. · Existing BMC Protections: Existing standards in Bremerton’s code currently require that properties be maintained, whether the property is renter or owner occupied. These requirements also apply to ADUs. For instance, at BMC 17.04.110, the City adopts the majority of the International Property Maintenance Code’s third chapter, regarding External Property Areas. In addition to more detailed standards, this requires that all exterior property areas are maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. Chapter 6 of BMC, regarding Health and Sanitation, also contains existing Code that applies to ADUs including maintenance of nuisance vegetation and proper Memo to ADU Ordinance Page 11 garbage control. The City recommends that these existing maintenance standards be cited in the revised ADU code section. 6. Allow non-conforming structures to be converted to ADUs No current code exists regulating nonconforming ADUs distinctly from other nonconforming structures or uses, The Planning Commission recommends Code amendments that would allow certain structures that do not conform to the development standards of the underlying zone to be used as ADUs, provided all life safety, building, and fire codes are met. This would allow some unused garages located on the property line and other existing structures, that under current code may go underutilized, to be used as ADUs. In order for a structure to be eligible to convert to an ADU under the proposed code amendment, it must have to be constructed prior to December 31st, 2020. This is in order to ensure that new nonconforming structures are not built in order to take advantage of this provision. Additionally, the structure must have been permitted by the City or the County. All structures must comply, or be able to comply with, the current building and fire codes for health and safety. If the structure is not proposed to be expanded, it may be exempt from the current setback, height, and lot coverage requirements, while if an expansion is proposed, certain design and development standards would need to be met. This additional code provision would allow the many underutilized structures in Bremerton to more easily reach their highest and best use, and allow more affordable housing options for those who do not have the resources to build a new structures but are desirous of housing family or gaining a passive income source by renting. This garage does not conform to the development standards for dwellings in its zone as it does not meet front yard setbacks. The recommended code could allow it to be converted to an ADU upon meeting safety standards. Memo to ADU Ordinance Page 12 What are other cities ADU regulations? Loosening development restrictions for ADUs is an important tool that the city can utilize to provide a variety of housing types and income sources for the public. Both nationally and within Washington, providing more ADU flexibility is becoming increasingly utilized. Over the next three pages is a table showing what regulations other jurisdictions are implementing: Jurisdiction Required to be Owner Occupied? Size? Parking Required? Design criteria? How many ADUs per lot? Seattle (amended 2019) (population 754,000) No 1000 sf maximum None None Two- either attached or detached in all single family zoned homes. Second ADU must be green construction or affordable. Tacoma (amended May 2019) (population 218,000) No 85% of the principal unit not to exceed 1,000 square feet None Generally match the main house in materials One Kirkland (amended March 2020) (population 93,000) No 1,200 sf maximum None for first ADU, one for second Entrance should be secondary in appearance Two- either attached or detached. No affordability requirements. Burien (amended December 2019) (population 52,000) No Detached: 800 square feet Attached: 1000 square feet No parking required for ADU if within a ¼ mile of transit stops Additions shall be consistent with the existing design features, detached ADUs shall match or compliment SFR. Two – one type of each attached and detached. No affordability requirements. Memo to ADU Ordinance Page 13 Jurisdiction Required to be Owner Occupied? Size? Parking Required? Design criteria? How many ADUs per lot? Poulsbo (not recently amended) (pop. 11,000) Yes – 6 months 800 sf maximum Yes, one space ADU should be consistent in appearance with primary house One Bainbridge Island (not recently amended) (pop. 25,000) No 900 sf maximum One for ADU, plus required SFR parking Must be designed to maintain appearance of SFR One Port Orchard (amended August 2020) (pop. 15,000) Yes – year round Attached: 40% of SFR + ADU, or 1000 sf, whichever is greater Detached: 40% of SFR, or 1000 sf, whichever is greater None for ADU, required SFR parking must be present Consistent in materials and design to the SFR One Kitsap County (not recently amended) (pop. 260,000) Yes, year round 50% of SFR, or 900 sf, whichever is smaller One No design requirements. One Vancouver, WA (amended 2017) (pop. 184,000) No 800 sf maximum None ADU should be architecturally compatible with existing building One Memo to ADU Ordinance Page 14 Jurisdiction Required to be Owner Occupied? Size? Parking Required? Design criteria? How many ADUs per lot? Portland, OR (amended March 2019) (pop. 655,000) No 75% of the principal unit not to exceed 800 square feet None ADUs taller than 15 feet must meet design standards One Bremerton (current) (pop. 41,000) Yes – year round 60% of the principal unit Yes, one space Criteria for roof pitch, eaves, materials, and an a la carte menu of design features One Bremerton (proposed) No 1000 square feet or 60% of the principal unit, whichever is larger None for first ADU, one for second ADU must match or complement the principal unit Two- either attached or detached What does this mean for people who already have ADUs? If an ADU was permitted prior to this code adoption, the code provisions at the time of application is what the property vest to. The property owner is allowed to maintain the ADU for the life of the structure. If they wanted to remove the owner-occupied requirement, a separate permit would be required to remove the current notice to title that is on their property deed. APPROVED CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF VIRTUAL MEETING (Via Zoom) May 18, 2020 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 Staff Present Chair Wofford Vice Chair Tift Commissioner Coughlin Commissioner Mosiman Commissioner Pedersen Commissioner Rich Commissioners Excused None Quorum Certified Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Allison Satter, Planning Manager, Department of Community Development Isaac Gloor, Planner, Department of Community Development Sarah Lynam, DCD Project Assistant, Department of Community Development APPROVAL OF AGENDA VICE CHAIR TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Commission approved the minutes of April 20, 2020 as presented. 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: Discussion on Accessory Dwelling Units with Focus on Washington Legislature E2SHB 1923 APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2020 ~ Page 2 of 6 Ms. Satter reminded the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan is a blueprint document that sets the vision, goals and policies for the City for the next 20 years, and the Zoning Code is a supporting document outlin ing the specific development standards. The Comprehensive Plan can only be amended once each year, but the Zoning Code can be amended multiple times throughout the year. She reviewed that the Washington State Legislature recently issued guidelines for increasing urban residential building capacity. The intent is for local jurisdictions with populations greater than 20,000 to adopt code amendments that are consistent with the recommendations of state guidelines. Ms. Satter explained that the purpose of the workshop is to discuss potential Zoning Code amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The amendments to Bremerton’s code are related to size requirements, parking requirements and owner- occupancy and ownership requirements. Staff is seeking enough direction from the Commission to move forward with a comprehensive environmental review and agency outreach. Following environmental review, the proposed amendments will be presented to the Commission for a public hearing and recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision. Ms. Satter advised that ADUs are essentially additional living quarters on a single-family lot that are independent of the primary unit. An ADU must include a kitchen and bathroom and may be detached from or attached to the main unit. New ADUs must meet all building and fire code regulations, including fire separation. She noted that there are man y different types of ADUs (attached, detached, converted garage, basement conversion, etc.) Ms. Satter reviewed the amendments that were adopted in 2017 relative to ADUs. The Commission’s recommendation to the City Council at that time was to remove the owner-occupancy requirement, which staff pointed out was difficult to regulate. However, there was some citizen concern about removing the requirement due to the perception that the properties might not be adequately maintained. Staff recommended some additional design criteria in lieu of the owner-occupancy requirement. The City Council adopted the design criteria, but decided to extend the owner -occupancy requirement from 6 to 12 months a year. Ms. Satter said the City is still permitting a few ADUs in the City each year, even after the 2017 amendments were adopted. However, staff believes that the current code requirements are an impediment to this housing type. In recent years, it has become clear that more housing capacity is needed within the City, and the state has asked cities to reconsider amending their zoning codes to provide more housing opportunities. In addition, ADUs were identified in the City’s Infill Toolkit as potential options for increasing residential capacity without significantly impacting existing neighborhoods. Ms. Satter further reviewed that, in an effort to encourage increased residential capacity in larger jurisdictions throughout the State, the Washington State Legislature passed House Bill (HB) 1923, which took effect on July 28, 2019. While the bill does not mandate the requirements, it strongly encourages local jurisdictions to implement them. The intent is to increase residential development capacity, as well as local government emphasis on affordable housing. The bill provides multiple housing recommendations for local jurisdictions to consider, and the City has decided to focus on ADUs and cluster housing. The bill also provides incentives for cities to participate, and the City has received grant funding to implement Zoning Code amendments. The amendments must be adopted by April of 2021. Ms. Satter referred to Attachment A of the Staff Report, which outlines the requirements of HB1923 in mark -up format, and invited Mr. Gloor to provide a summary of the bill and its associated requirements. Mr. Gloor explained that the City’s current code does not meet the State’s ADU recommendations related to parking, size and occupancy/ownership requirements. However, the City’s current code does satisfy the State’s recommendations relative to types and the sale of ADUs. He reviewed each of the requirements as follows: Size (Amendment A). The City currently restricts ADUs to no more than 60% of the floor area of a single-family residence, but HB1923 doesn’t allow the City to restrict ADU size below 1,000 square feet. Many houses in Bremerton are quite small, so potential ADUs would have to be extremely small. The current code acts as a small -house penalty for these homeowners. The proposed amendment would allow a maximum ADU square footage of 60% of the floor area of a home or 1000 square feet, whichever is larger. For large houses, the proposed amendment would still allow ADUs that are greater than 1,000 square feet. Based on a 2014 study in Vancouver, Washington, the primary desire of most ADU residents was for more interior living space. Potential impacts of the proposed amendment, such as larger ADUs, could APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2020 ~ Page 3 of 6 be mitigated via design standards and development coverage standards. For example, in the R-10 zone, the maximum development coverage is 60%. Commissioner Mosiman asked for clarification about whether the guidelines in HB1923 were recommendations or requirements. Mr. Gloor explained that guidelines in HB1923 are recommendations from the State and not mandates. Parking (Amendment B). The City’s current code requires one parking space for an ADU and two parking spaces for the primary residence, but HB1923 doesn’t allow the City to require on-site parking for ADUs. Many ADUs serve aging, young or disabled family members as an alternative form of housing. These people might not use vehicles, and requiring parking might be expensive and unnecessary. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Br emerton has very low vehicle access compared to the rest of Washington. 14.4% of Bremertonians do not have access to a vehicle compared to just 7% of Washingtonians and 17% of Seattleites. Portland, Oregon doesn’t require parking for ADUs, but 63% include parking anyway. In a 2014 study by the State of Oregon, it was determined that the fear that ADUs harm parking conditions had little rational basis. Because ADUs are typically dispersed throughout a city, there wouldn’t be a large increase in parking in any one area. The potential amendment would eliminate the parking requirement for an ADU, provided the underlying parking requirement for the zone is met. For example, in the R-10 zone, all properties with ADUs would have a minimum of two parking spaces. If a single-family residence in the R-10 zone doesn’t have two parking spaces, an additional space must be added before an ADU can be granted occupancy. Occupancy (Amendment C). Currently, the City requires that owners must live on the property year-round, and HB1923 does not allow the City to require owner -occupancy at all. Removing the owner -occupancy requirement is becoming commonplace in the Pacific Northwest. For example, Gig Harbor, Bainbridge Island, Olympia, Lacy, Vancouver and Seattle have all removed the requirement. The City Council expressed some concern in 2017 that removing the requirement would lead to absentee landlords. However, there is little evidence that renters maintain units worse than owners, and Bremerton is close to 50% renter occupied anyway. There is currently no code that requires owners of single - family residences to live on the premises and nothing stops owners from renting out stand alone single-family residences. Other cities have removed the requirement without ill effects. Portland has not had an owner-occupancy requirement since 1998, yet 64% of the ADUs remain owner-occupied. Lastly, the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) requires owners to maintain their units whether they reside in them or not. The proposed amendment would remove the owner -occupancy requirement. Instead, a provision would be added to require property owners to abide by Chapter 3, Section 302 of the International Property Maintenance Code and all applicable provisions in BMC Chapter 6 regarding health and sanitation. Staff anticipates that most properties would remain owner -occupied and all properties would be required to be maintained regardless of owner occupancy. Types. HB1923 requires that the City authorize both attached and detached ADUs, and the City’s current code satisfies this requirement. Attached and detached ADUs are allowed on all lots that contain single-family residences. Rent/Sale. HB1923 requires that the City allow ADUs to be rented and/or sold separately from the main unit, and the City’s current code satisfies this requirement. Currently, the code is silent on the sale or renting of ADUs. Mr. Gloor summarized that if the proposed amendments are adopted, ADUs could be added wherever a single -family residence currently exists and could be sold independently of the main dwelling. In addition, ADUs could be up to 1,000 square feet regardless of the sizes of the main dwelling or greater than 1,000 square feet if the main dwelling is 1,350 square feet or greater. No additional parking would be required if the main dwelling already has as many spaces as the underlying zone requires, and ADUs could be rented out alongside the main dwelling. All other code provisions related to ADUs would still apply, including height limits and setbacks for accessory structures. Vice Chair Tift asked how an owner would sell an ADU separate from the main dwelling. Would a short plat be required, or would the land be leased to the new owner? Ms. Satter said the property could be subdivided into two primary units if the density requirements of the zone could be met. Another option would be to condominiumize the ADU. Other cities try to limit who can sell and who can buy rental ADUs, but the City’s code is silent on how to deal with this issue. It would be difficult to separate an ADU to be sold separately from the main residence. APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2020 ~ Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Coughlin asked staff to verify the 1,350 square foot number that was mentioned earlier by Mr. Gloor. He suggested that the correct number would be 1,660 square feet. Secondly, he asked if someone who wants to renovate a basement as a separate unit would have to have it permitted as an ADU in order for it to be considered legal, livable space. Ms. Satter answered that if the space is rented out as a separate unit, it must be permitted as an ADU. The inte nt is to make sure that the ADU meets all of the building codes for safety, etc. Ms. Satter recalled that, as discussed in 2017, a two -story residential structure could be divided into two units (upper and lower) as long as the structure meets the building code requirements. Chair Wofford asked how the City would guarantee access to both structures if an ADU and primary residence are sold to separate owners. Ms. Satter said the condominium process is outlined by State law, and it would include provisions to ensure access to both units. Director Spencer clarified that, in the condominiumization process, an owner would sell the unit, but not the land. A complex legal agreement would be required, as well as a notice on title, so the new owner would be fully aware of what is being purchased. Ms. Satter said no one has approached the City with a request to sell the two units separately, and staff is not proposing any changes to the current provisions related to sell and rental. Commissioner Mosiman pointed out that if a property is of sufficient size, it could be subdivided so that the units could be sold separately. If that were the case, the ADU would be considered a single -family residence and parking would be required as per the code. Ms. Satter agreed that parking would be required as part of a short-plat, and the ADU would be considered a primary residence. In addition to amending the Zoning Code to meet the requirements of HB1923, Ms. Satter said staff is proposing amendments to the ADU Design Standards (Amendment D). She reviewed that the design criteria were increased as part of the 2017 update using the model ordinance that was provided by the State in 1998. As per the current criteria for all ADUs, the roo f pitch must match the single-family home, have 12-inch eaves, have the appearance of a single-family home, and architecturally blend into the neighborhood. In addition, detached ADUs must provide four of the following architectural features: dormers, gables, recessed entries, covered porches, offset in building face or roof, bay windows, shutters, decorative cornices and rooflines, brickwork/masonry/stucco, or alternative features. Ms. Satter requested feedback from the Commission on whether the current design provisions are appr opriate and adequate or if amendments are needed. One option is to remove the design standards entirely. Another option would be to simplify the design standards. A potential amendment, patterned after Bainbridge Island, would require that ADUs preserve the appearance of the primary dwelling as a single -family residence. Another potential amendment, patterned after Lacey, would require that the ADU be integrated into the main unit and that the design present the overall appearance of the structure as an individual single-family residence. Designs that give the impression of a “duplex” would not be permitted. A third option would be to maintain the current standards with no changes. She summarized that, while amending the design standards is not requir ed, it would help the City accomplish its goal to allow more residential capacity and would meet the state’s requirement by removing additional impediments. Ms. Satter said the current ADU code says that and ADUs entrance cannot be on the same façade as the main entrance. The intent of the provision is to avoid the appearance of a duplex, but it limits some homes from converting interior space. She shared examples to illustrate optional façade designs (Amendment E) and requested feedback from the Commission about whether or not the façade definition should be amended. Ms. Satter said the Commission’s order of the day is to consider public testimony and provide direction to staff on the proposed changes. Staff will conduct environmental review and public outreach prior to the public hearing before the Commission. Chair Wofford opened public comments Alex Marcus, Bremerton, said he owns property in the Manette Neighborhood. He and his wife have considered building an ADU to support their potentially growing family, but they ran into all of the issues that have been discussed by staff. Specifically, the owner-occupancy and architectural requirements were show-stoppers for them. While they currently live in their home full time, they don’t know what the future will hold. They would like to have the ability to rent either or both units, if necessary, in the future. The ala carte architectural requirements seem a little overbearing, dictating how specific t he designs APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2020 ~ Page 5 of 6 must be and increasing the cost of construction. He said he supports the State’s recommendation to eliminate the owner - occupancy requirement. Russ Shiplet, Executive Officer, Kitsap Building Association, said the association has been a strong proponent of the infill toolkit and everything that staff has been trying to do over the last few years. All of the recommendations presented by sta ff make sense. Most importantly, the proposed amendments address affordable housing. It makes sense to r emove roadblocks and make it easier for people to build affordable housing in Bremerton. Building associations throughout the United States a re seeing similar trends, and are in favor of changes such as those being proposed. While they are interested in giving builders more work, the changes make sense for promoting affordable housing. Building associations are doing their part to address the need, and they hope that cities and counties are doing so, too. He said he supports all of the proposed changes and appreciates the City staff’s efforts. There were no other public comments. Commissioner Coughlin asked if the current design requirements for ADUs are the same as those for new single-family residential construction. Ms. Satter said the design criteria for new single-family residential construction is minimal. Commissioner Coughlin commented that Bainbridge Island’s requirement that an ADU maintain a single -family residential appearance on the outside seems too subjective. Ms. Satter said the City’s current code requires that the ADUs appearance is complimentary to the main residence. She agreed that it can become subjective and based on the opinion of the planner who is reviewing the application. Chair Wofford asked if the 5-foot side setback is measured from the side of the house or the eave. Ms. Satter the setback is measured 5 feet from the primary structure, but the eaves can extend up to 16 inches into the setback. Chair Wofford commented that if the eave requirement is removed, the size of the ADU could potentially be increased. Ms. Satter explained that the front setback requirement is 15 feet, and 20 feet for a garage entrance. The side setback is typically 5 feet. However, you can build an ADU up to 3 feet from the property line in the rear or side, provided you can do fire -rated construction (no windows or openings). The footprint of the ADU could be larger, but the 60% lot coverage limitation would still apply. The Commissioners provided comments on each of the amendments as follows: Amendment A – Size Requirement. Commissioner Mosiman said he likes the proposed Amendment A, and the remainder of the Commissioners concurred. However, Vice Chair Tift observed that, as proposed, an ADU could be significantly larger than the primary residence. Would the ADU then be considered the primary residence ? Ms. Satter clarified that, as proposed, property owners with homes less than about 1,600 square feet would be allowed to build an ADU up to 1,000 square feet. In cases where the ADU is larger than the initial structure, the ADU would become the primary structure. However, ADUs associated with larger homes would be limited to 60% of the square footage of the primary residence. Amendment B – Parking Requirement. Commissioner Pedersen said he supports the proposal to eliminate the parking requirement for ADUs. Commissioner Mosiman commented that the language in the staff’s presentation appears to be prohibitive in nature so that a property owner could not provide parking for an ADU. He said he likes the language in the Staff Report better. It indicates that off-street parking would not be required for an ADU, but it doesn’t prohibit a property owner from providing off -street parking. Mr. Gloor agreed that the language was not intended to be prohibitive. The Commissioners indicated general support for the proposed amendment, as presented in the Staff Report. Amendment C – Owner-Occupancy Requirement. Commissioner Mosiman and Commissioner Rich indicated support for Amendment C, which would eliminate the owner-occupancy requirement. Chair Wofford said he would prefer to have an owner-occupancy requirement. Ms. Satter noted that there are concerns that eliminating the requirement will lead to people not caring for their properties. It is important to note that the amendment includes additional language to emphasize that property owners will be required to comply with existing code requirements related to health and sanitation. Commissioner Coughlin said he also supports removing the owner -occupancy requirement, with the logic that someone could rent out a very large single-family residential house without having to even be a City resident. It seems inconsistent to impose an owner-occupancy requirement on ADUs. APPROVED CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF VIRTUAL MEETING October 19, 2020 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 Staff Present Chair Wofford Vice Chair Tift Commissioner Coughlin Commissioner Mosiman Commissioner Pedersen Commissioner Rich Commissioners Excused None Quorum Certified Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Allison Satter, Planning Manager, Department of Community Development Garrett Jackson, Planner, Department of Community Development Isaac Gloor, Planner, Department of Community Development Sarah Lynam, DCD Project Assistant, Department of Community Development Others Present Dan Nickel, The Watershed Company CHAIR CALL FOR MODIFICATIONS TO AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2020, AS SUBMITTED. COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 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 Hearing: Zoning Code Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units (BMC 20.46.010) Ms. Satter and Mr. Gloor provided the Staff Report. Ms. Satter briefly reviewed that the Commission discussed Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) previously at a workshop on May 18th. At that time, she explained that the Legislature (House Bill 1923) asked cities in the State (zoned under the Growth Management Act) to review their ADU provisions and look for opportunities to increase residential capacity. The Commission indicated general support for the ADU amendments presented Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 2 of 12 by staff, but requested staff consider alternatives to design standards. Since the May 18th workshop, staff has amended the design standards, conducted environmental review and agency outreach, incorporated public feedback, and added amendments for detached nonconforming structures. Ms. Satter briefly reviewed the format for the public hearing, noting that the public would have an opportunity to comment twice. She also provided an outline for the topics that would be discussed: x Size. Currently, the code allows ADUs up to 60% of the primary residence, and House Bill (HB) 1923 encourages jurisdictions to consider allowing 1,000 square feet or 60% of the primary residence, whichever is larger. x Parking.The current code requires 2 parking spaces for the residential unit and 1 parking space for the ADU. HB1923 encourages jurisdictions to remove the requirement of one additional parking space ADUs. x Owner Occupancy.HB1923 encourages jurisdictions to remove the owner-occupancy requirement. A few options will be discussed, including modifying the owner-occupancy requirement. x Number of ADUs.The current code allows one ADU, and there has been public interest in allowing two. Some cities in the region have already adopted this provision. It is not something HB1923 requested jurisdictions do, but it is being presented for the Commission’s consideration. While the Staff Report suggests otherwise, staff supports either one or two ADUs, and the environmental review was done for both options. x Design Standards.Design standards not required by HB1923 but are common in ADU standards in other jurisdictions. There are a few options for modifying the design criteria, and the one being proposed by staff is to remove design criteria completely. x Detached Structure Conversion.This is something new that hasn’t been discussed by the Commission before. The provision would allow existing structures that do not meet certain development standards to be established as ADUs. An example is an existing garage that does not meet setback requirements. The current ADU code requires that the underlying setbacks are met, and the proposed provision would allow existing structures to be converted to ADUs. However, certain requirements would apply. As proposed: o The provision would only apply to legally constructed buildings and not to new construction. o The structures would have to meet the health and safety requirements of the building and fire code. o An ADU could be enlarged into the setback up to 20% provided it doesn’t increase the size beyond what ADUs are allowed by code. Existing structures that are greater in size would be allowed to convert to ADUs, as long as there are no modifications other than those needed to create a livable space. o Expanded areas must match or compliment the primary dwelling and contain architectural features. Director Spencer noted that this provision was added to the Staff Report late in the afternoon and was not included in the original Staff Report. The updated Staff Report is available on the City’s website for review. Ms. Satter concluded by reminding the Commissioners that they will be asked to make a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The Commission’s recommendation will be presented to the City Council on December 16th. She recommended that citizens send their email addresses to either her or Sarah Lyman to be added to the email list of interested parties. Ms. Satter reported that one question was received late in the day requesting clarification on the size limits for ADUs. She responded that multi-story structure ADUs would be allowed, and the size would be based on habitable space. Garage space is usually exempt from the requirement. ADUs would have to comply with the height limit in the zoning code, which is 35 feet in most residential zones. Chair Wofford opened the public hearing and invited public comment. APPROVED APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 3 of 12 Roy Runyan, Bremerton,said he likes the flexibility that allowing detached structure conversion would provide. He also likes the idea of following the guidelines set by HB1923 regarding size (1,000 square feet or 60% the size of the principal residence), but he would prefer 80%. He supports removing the parking requirement, since ADUs are often used by people who do not need an additional parking space. He also supports removing the occupancy requirement and allowing multiple ADUs. He suggested that a formula be created whereby property owners in lower density areas could put as many ADUs on a property as technically feasible. He asked why the Commissioners are leaning towards retaining as many design standards for ADUs as possible. This would, in effect, hold ADUs to a higher standard than manufactured homes and single-family residences. Russ Shiplet, Executive Officer, Kitsap Building Association, voiced the Association’s 100% support for the proposed amendments. The staff’s presentation addressed each of their concerns. He urged the Commission to recommend approval and move it to the City Council. He said he would participate in the public hearing before the City Council, as well. Susan Plahnn, Bremerton, asked if there would be any provisions for alternative features such as composting toilets. She also asked if energy-efficiency standards would be required. Jason Vogt, Bremerton, commented that building an ADU on his property would not be feasible unless the parking requirement is changed. He has owned his home for six years and has considered creating an ADU in his large backyard. He expressed his belief that the proposed changes might make it feasible for him to move forward with an ADU in the future. Chair Wofford closed this phase of the public comment period and invited staff to respond to the public comments and continue the presentation. Director Spencer responded to Ms. Plahn’s comments by clarifying that energy codes are part of the Building Code that was adopted by Washington State and internationally, and ADU’s would have to comply, as well. She doesn’t believe that composting toilets would be allowed, as ADU’s would be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Ms. Satter referred to the draft amendments outlined in Attachment A and presented six questions for the Commissioners to consider as they prepare their recommendation to the City Council: x How many ADUs should be allowed on a single parcel?The current code (Alternative A) allows just one ADU, either attached or detached. Alternative B would allow two ADUs, one attached and one detached, and Alternative C would allow two ADUs, either attached or detached. If the Commission supports either Alternative B or Alternative C, staff is recommending that an additional parking space be required for the 2nd ADU. The recommended proposed parking revision would require two off-parking spaces for the principal unit and one parking spaces for the second ADU for a total for three units with three parking spaces. Vice Chair Tift said he supports providing maximum flexibility (Alternatives B or C), but he believes that requiring an additional parking space for the 2nd unit would be essential. Commissioner Rich noted that staff is recommending that the parking requirement be eliminated to be consistent with HB1923. She asked if the amendment would remain consistent with HB1923 if the Commission were to recommend either Alternative B or C, plus a requirement for an additional parking space for the 2nd unit. Ms. Satter answered that, as proposed, no additional parking space would be required for the 1st ADU to be compliant with HB 1923, and she believes that requiring a parking space for the 2nd ADU would also be consistent with HB1923.Commissioner Rich said she also supports maximum flexibility (Alternatives B or C). Commissioner Pedersen said he supports maximum flexibility (Alternatives B or C), but he does not support a parking requirement for the 2nd ADU. He felt that property owners should be allowed to make these decisions. Commissioner Coughlin said he supports Alternative B. He is concerned about allowing two detached ADUs. In these situations, it might be better for a property to subdivide rather than create three separate residential units on a single lot. APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 4 of 12 Commissioner Mosiman said he supports flexibility, as well. He supports Alternative C, as long as the property can support two independently sited ADUs. He pointed out that Alternatives B and C would both result in three residential units, and he questioned why the parking requirement should be different for Alternative C.Ms. Satter clarified that staff is recommending the additional parking requirement for both Alternatives B and C.Commissioner Mosiman said he doesn’t have a strong opinion, either way, regarding the parking requirement. Chair Wofford requested clarification on the maximum size for an ADU. Ms. Satter answered that, as proposed, the maximum size would be 1,000 square feet or up to 60% of the primary residence, whichever is greater. For example, if the primary structure is 10,000 square feet, the ADU could be up to 6,000 square feet. Chair Wofford pointed out that property owners who create ADUs will need to work with the United States Postal Service to determine the appropriate addresses for the units. If the City allows existing garages to be converted to ADUs, it is important to note that many property owners obtain extra income by offering these spaces as unofficial parking for shipyard workers. Eliminating these parking spaces might result in additional parking chaos. Chair Wofford asked if Alternatives B and C would limit the number of ADUs to a maximum of two. Ms. Satter responded that either option would allow a maximum of two ADUsregardless of lot size, and ADUs would only be allowed on properties that are developed with single family homes. ADUs would not be allowed on properties that are developed as multifamily. The majority of the Commission indicated support for the most flexible option which is Alternative C, which would allow two ADUs, either attached or detached. The majority also supported requiring one additional parking space for the 2nd ADU. x What should be the maximum size limit for ADUs?The current code (Alternative A) limits the size of an ADU to 60% of the size of the primary dwelling unit. Alternative B would be consistent with HB1923, allowing 1,000 square feet or 60% of the size of the primarily dwelling, whichever is larger. Vice Chair Tift observed that, as per Alternative B, a 3,000 square foot house could have an ADU much larger than 1,000 square feet. He noted that there aren’t a lot of 5,000+ square foot houses in Bremerton. On the other hand, there are a number of homes that are around 1,000 square feet, and a 600 square foot ADU is quite small. Alternative B would allow all ADUs to be at least 1,000 square feet. He said he supports Alternative B, which is consistent with HB1923. Commissioner Mosiman said he supports the Alternative B, as well. The Commissioners indicated support for Alternative B. Director Spencer reminded the Commission that ADUs would be subject to the lot coverage requirements. Even if two detached ADUs are allowed on a parcel, their size would be limited to the lot coverage requirement, which is 60% for most residential zones. Chair Wofford asked if the lot coverage requirement is based on stormwater capacity or the desire to avoid a lot of hardscape. Ms. Satter answered that it is both. Chair Wofford asked about the average home size in Bremerton, and Ms. Satter answered that, as per a comment from Mr. Shiplet from the Kitsap Builders Association, the average size in 1,500 square feet. x What should the ADU design standards include?As per the current code (Alternative A), ADUs must have a matching or complimentary exterior and a roof of equal or greater pitch as the primary unit. The eaves must be at least 12 inches, and the design must incorporate at least four architectural features from the list. Lastly, there must be an entrance on a different façade than the primary dwelling. Alternative B would modify the design standards to require a matching or complimentary exterior, an entrance that is visually distinct from the primary dwelling, and at least four architectural features from the list. Alternative C would completely remove the design standards. Ms. Satter advised that the City received one public comment suggesting that the term “appearance of a duplex” can have different meanings. If the Commission recommends Alternative B, the words “appearance of a duplex” would be deleted. APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 5 of 12 Commissioner Coughlin said he supports Alternative B, including the modification described above. The provision that the roof and exterior could either match the existing house or fit in with the general neighborhood represents a bare minimum without being too onerous. Commissioner Rich agreed, but said she is interested in hearing more about the alternatives through public testimony at this hearing. Commissioner Pedersen said he was having a hard time deciding between Alternatives B and C. He is anxious to provide flexibility for ADUs, but most people in Bremerton would likely prefer some design standards. At their previous workshop discussion, he recommended lowering the number of design standards. Commissioner Mosiman said he is also divided between Alternatives B and C. By nature, he believes in having some level of design standards. Eliminating the design standards could result in unattractive development. On the other hand, he questioned the fairness of requiring design standards for ADUs when there are none for the primary residence. He likes the idea of a design standard that requires the ADU to be reflective of the primary residence so there is visual cohesiveness. Chair Wofford asked when the ADU design standards were adopted. Director Spencer answered that design standards were proposed to make ADUs more palatable without the owner-occupancy requirement. Chair Wofford asked when the City’s general design standards were adopted. Director Spencer answered that there are no general design standards, but there are design standards that apply to the Downtown Subarea. Ms. Satter added that, when the ADU code was adopted in the early 2000, it was based on a state model that included design criteria for roof pitch, eaves, and matching the primary residence. Alternative B would eliminate the roof pitch and eave requirements. Roof pitches vary throughout the City. Also, because of the City’s topographyand existing housing design, it is difficult for ADUs to meet the height requirement and roof pitch. Chair Wofford asked when design standards were established for single-family residences, and Director Spencer answered that there are none. Currently, the City’s only design standards are for ADUs and for projects in the downtown that are over a certain scale and require design review. Again, she said the ADU design standards were added a few years ago when the Commission recommended that the owner-occupancy requirement be eliminated. What was actually adopted made ADU development more difficult, as the owner-occupancy requirement was retained and design standards were added. Vice Chair Tift said he supports Alternative B, as he believes it is important to have some design standards in place. Director Spencer noted comments in the chat box from Mr. Runyan, suggesting that having design standards for ADUs makes affordable housing much more difficult. Ms. Satter said another comment was received, asking about the design criteria for manufactured homes. She explained that, currently, manufactured homes are allowed as ADUs provided they comply with the design criteria for manufactured homes, excluding the criteria for size and roof pitch. If Alternative B is adopted, it would apply to manufactured homes, as well. The majority of the Commissionvoiced support for Alternative B, including removing the words “appearance of a duplex.” x What should the parking requirements be for ADUs?The current code (Alternative A) requires one additional parking space per ADU. If two ADUs are allowed, a total of four parking spaces may be required for most typical single-family lots. Consistent with HB1923, Alternative B would eliminate the parking requirement for the 1st ADU. If the Commission recommends allowing two ADUs, one parking space would be required for the 2nd one. Director Spencer clarified that, as per Alternative B, the 1st ADU would not be required to provide parking, but the 2nd would be required to have one. If the current code is retained, one parking space would be required for each of the units. Commissioner Mosiman asked if staff has an idea of the likely impact of any of the options. For example, eliminating the parking requirement for ADUs could result in more on-street parking, which would impact the surrounding neighborhood. Director Spencer answered that no study has been done, and the impact would likely depend on the location of the ADU. For example, it would be very easy for the large lots in East Bremerton to accommodate additional units, but the impact could be greater in other areas of the City where there is already limited on-street parking. Ms. Satter Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 6 of 12 reminded the Commissioners that eliminating the parking requirement for the 1st ADU was a request from the State and would be consistent with HB1923. The Commissioners indicated general support for Alternative B. x Should owners be required to live on site?As per the current code (Alternative A), the owner must live on site year- round. Alternatives B and C would eliminate the owner-occupancy requirement, consistent with HB1923. Alternative B would provide clarity and code citations for property maintenance, and Alternative C would not. However, it is important to emphasize that, in the absence of the code citations, a property owner would still have to qualify for property maintenance. Alternative D would require the property owner to live on site for at least six months after issuance of occupancy for an ADU. Commissioner Coughlin said he prefers Alternative B, which would eliminate the owner-occupancy requirement and provide clarity and code citations for property maintenance. This option would ensure that properties are maintained in accordance with the code.Commissioner Rich said she also supports Alternative B, and she appreciates the clarity it offers regarding property maintenance requirements. Although Alternative C would carry the same maintenance requirements, she felt it was better to make it very clear. Commissioners Pedersen and Tift also indicated support for Alternative B. x Should detached, nonconforming structures be permitted as ADUs?The current code (Alternative A) does not allow detached, nonconforming structures to be converted to ADUs. Alternative B would allow detached structures that do not conform to some development standards to be converted to ADUs. Commissioner Mosiman said he was not initially in support of this provision until he considered how it could be implemented in his own neighborhood. Someone on his street turned a garage into an ADU. The structure was far too close to the street and did not meet the setback requirement, but it was well done and attractive. He has changed his mind and now supports Alternative B. Vice Chair Tift said he had a similar concern and Commissioner Mosiman’s comment provide him with reassurance that it is possible to properly convert nonconforming structures into ADUs. He now supports Alternative B, as well. Commissioner Coughlin indicated support for Alternative B, too. The Commission voiced general support for Alternative B. Ms. Satter said a comment in the chat box asked if the public would have an opportunity to comment when an ADU project comes forward. She answered no. Currently, ADUs require a Type I Building Permit, which does not include any public outreach. Staff is not proposing to change the process to include a public comment period in the permit review process. Ms. Satter provided a brief summary of the Commission’s discussion and Chair Wofford invited final public comments. Susan Plahn, Bremerton, said she is curious how eliminating the parking requirement for ADUs would impact the downtown area where residential properties are small and very close together with little or no off-street parking. As proposed, these property owners could add ADUs in their backyards without providing any parking. The residents of both the primary unit, as well as the ADU unit would have to park on the street. She would be opposed to that. Roy Runyan, Bremerton, said he appreciates and supports the changes being discussed by the Commission, but feels they fall short of where the City needs to be. He is an advocate for removing all design standards. If this is done, he anticipates there will be an explosion in the number of ADUs being built. If the purpose is to increase the amount of affordable housing available in the City, additional changes will be needed in the future. However, the proposed changes represent a good first step. He acknowledged that the City Council could make additional changes, including removing all of the design standard requirements. If they fail to do that, he is considering running an initiative that would build on the work of the Planning Commission. If the design standard requirement is removed entirely, the proposal would be almost perfect from his point of view. Jason Vogt, Bremerton, said he supports eliminating the parking requirement for the 1st ADU. As he considered doing an ADU, he didn’t have enough land to provide an additional parking space beyond the two that he already has for his primary residence. These changes are important given the current housing situation. APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 7 of 12 There were no other public comments, and Chair Wofford closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mosiman said he is still struggling with the design standard provision. If an ADU is built to reflect the single- family home on the same lot, he is not sure why additional design standards would be needed. Design standards could actually result in an ADU looking different than the original structure. He asked staff to provide more information about why the design standards were adopted in the first place. Ms. Satter compared the current code (Alternative A) with the proposed language (Alternative B). She reviewed that the current code (Alternative A) requires that ADUs be designed so the appearance of the building remains that of a single-family home that blends architecturally into the existing neighborhood. It also requires exterior finishes and roof pitch similar to the primary structure, eaves that project at least 12 inches, and the entrance cannot be on the same façade of the structure as the principal unit. In addition, it requires at least four architectural features from a provided list. Alternative B would modify the design standards to require a matching or complimentary exterior, an entrance that is visually distinct from the primary dwelling, and at least four architectural features from the list. Alternative C would completely remove the design standards. She summarized that Commissioner Mosiman appears to be suggesting that Alternative B be modified to remove the ala carte list of architectural features and require a matching and complimentary exterior and a visually distinct entrance. She summarized that Alternative B would eliminate the design standards related to roof pitch and eaves and add a new section regarding the placement of the entrance. It would also require at least four of the architectural features on the ala carte list. Commissioner Mosiman said that, although he agrees with the ala carte architectural features in general, he doesn’t believe they are necessary in this particular application. Requiring them could result in an ADU that looks quite different than the primary residence. He isn’t sure that is the intent of the design standards. Vice Chair Tift pointed out that, as written, both Alternatives A and B would require an ADU to have a brick finish if the primary residence has a brick finish. Under the criteria in either alternative, a manufactured home could not be placed next to a brick home with a pitched roof. Ms. Satter agreed that the manufactured home would need to have a brick façade. However, Alternative B would eliminate the requirements of a pitched roof and 12-inch eaves. Vice Chair Tift voiced concern that removing all of the design criteria could open the door to undesirable situations. There must be some oversight. Chair Wofford commented that the design standards may not be necessary for ADUs that aren’t visible from the street. Ms. Satter clarified that, as per Alternative B, the entrance criteria would only apply when visible from the right-of-way, but all of the other design criteria would apply regardless of the ADUs location. Chair Wofford generally questioned why the design standards need to be applied to ADUs that are not visible from the street. Commissioner Coughlin clarified that Alternative B would require the exterior finish on an ADU to match the color, material and appearance of the primary dwelling unit and/or the characteristics of the neighborhood. If the primary residence is brick but there are wood structures nearby, the ADU could have wood siding. Ms. Satter agreed that the applicant could make the argument that wood siding matches better with the overall character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Coughlin agreed that some minimum design standards are needed, but they could remove the ala carte menu of detailed design features. Instead, the design standards could simply require that an ADU match the exterior of the primary dwelling unit and/or the characteristics of the neighborhood. He felt this would be sufficient to address the concerns related to appearance. Commissioner Rich agreed that the ala carte menu could be eliminated. Requiring that an ADU match the general character of the neighborhood could assuage some of the concerns people might have about ADUs. Commissioner Pedersen agreed that some kind of design standard is appropriate, but the ala carte menu could be eliminated. The Commissioners indicated support for modifying Alternative B by eliminating the ala carte menu of detailed architectural design features (Item f.3). Ms. Satter referred to the new design standard regarding ADU entrance placement (Item f.2). As proposed, there are four different ways an applicant can differentiate the ADU entrance from that of the principal dwelling unit. Vice Chair Tift said he would prefer to retain the design standard related to entrance placement. Commissioner Coughlin agreed and noted that it would not be an onerous requirement. Commissioner Pedersen agreed, as well. Commissioner Rich said she wants to make APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 8 of 12 things as easy as possible, but she also understands the concern that produced the provision. She said she doesn’t feel strongly enough about the provision, based on the information available, to support it, and she is leaning towards removing it. Commissioner Mosiman said he has lived in a number of midwestern cities around the country. In those areas that have been around longer, a number of homes constructed between 1910 and 1940 were built as upper/lower flats. They are beautiful homes of extraordinary quality. Most often, both doors are located on the front porch, which wouldn’t be allowed as currently proposed. However, these types of structures are not present in the City’s current housing stock. While he doesn’t see a need for the entrance standard, he also wouldn’t have a problem if it was retained. Chair Wofford pointed out that some of the original townhomes in Bay Vista have adjacent doors. Vice Chair Tift pointed out that these units have architectural features that differentiate the two residents. He felt that some level of differentiate is important. The majority of the Commission indicated a desire to eliminate the entrance standard (Item f.2), but they agreed that a minority report should be presented to the City Council along with their recommendation. The minority report of the Commission was for a proposed amendment to the code for ADU façade design, and the Commission was opposed 4-2. Ms. Satter summarized that, consistent with the Commission’s discussion, Alternative B would be modified to read: f) “Unless the ADU is limited to only interior remodeling of an existing single-family dwelling, a proposed ADU shall meet the following design standards: 1) Exterior Finish. The exterior of an ADU shall have siding and roofing which in color, material and appearance are comparable to the predominant materials of the primary dwelling unit and/or characteristics of the neighborhood.” Ms. Satter summarized the Commission’s discussion as follows: x Maximum Size for ADUs. The Commission indicated support for Alternative B, which is consistent with HB1923 and allows ADUs up to 1,000 square feet or 60% of the size of the primarily dwelling, whichever is larger. x Parking Requirement for ADUs. The Commission indicated support for Alternative B, which is consistent with HB1923 and eliminates the parking requirement for the 1st ADU. One parking space would be required for the 2nd ADU. x Number of ADUs Allowed. The Commission indicated support for Alternative C, which would allow two ADUs, either attached or detached. Parking would be required for the 2nd ADU. x Design Standards for ADUs.The majority of the Commission indicated support for Alternative B, as modified to eliminate the standards in Items f.2 and f.3. x Owner-Occupancy Requirement for ADUs. The Commission indicated support for Alternative B, which eliminates the owner-occupancy requirement and provides clarity and code citations for property maintenance. x Detached, nonconforming structures be permitted as ADUs?The Commission indicated support for Alternative B, which would allow detached structures that do not conform to some development standards to be converted to ADUs. COMMISSIONER PEDERSEN MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT TEXT AMENDMENTS TO BMC 20L.46.010 FOR ADUs, AS DIRECTED IN THE MEETING, BASED ON THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, STAFF’S PRESENTATION, AND FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT. COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Commission took a 5-minutes break at 7:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m. Public Workshop: Discussion of Amendments for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Periodic Update Mr. Jackson introduced Dan Nickel, of The Watershed Company, the consultant who is assisting the City in its SMP Periodic Update. He reminded the Commissioners that this would not be a major update. Instead, the changes are meant to reflect updates in state and local regulations and to address portions of the code that staff has identified for improvement. Areas of improvement include adding more flexibility and proportionality to the code. Staff has run into a number of scenarios where the amount of mitigation required by the code, particularly for single-family development, is out of sync with the amount of development proposed. He advised that the update would be a joint process with the Department of Ecology (DOE). A joint public hearing is tentatively scheduled for November 16th, and notices will go out later in the week. He advised that the 30- APPROVED APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 9 of 12 day public comment period would extend beyond the public hearing. Staff will advise the Commission of any comments of substance that haven’t already been addressed. Mr. Jackson reviewed that the online public engagement tool was launched on October 1st. The tool is meant to keep the public involved in the SMP update process, answer their questions, lay out the proposed amendments, and notify the public of important dates throughout the process. Mr. Jackson recalled that the Commission raised questions at their last meeting regarding the Gap Analysis (Attachment A), and staff has updated the analysis to reflect the comments that were provided. He reviewed that the Gap Analysis was created by the consultant to point out areas of the SMP and CAO that could be improved to be in compliance with state regulations and local code changes. Mr. Jackson reviewed the proposed amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) as follows: x Wetland Buffer Requirements. o Re-categorize Habitat Scores, resulting in reduced buffers.The Wetland Form categorizes and scores wetlands based on size, vegetation, connectivity to other wetlands, etc. The state has updated the regulations associated with the habitat scores, and the City is proposing amendments to reflect those changes. o Adjust the minimization measures to allow for reduced buffer options. Minimization measures are steps that need to be considered if a property owner is seeking to reduce a wetland buffer. It includes such things as directing lights away from a wetland, stormwater requirements and habitat corridors. The criteria will be updated to be consistent with the state regulations. o Clarify that habitat corridor requirements are only for higher-functioning wetlands. A specific site may be a portion of a larger system, and they need to consider how that larger system can be preserved. x Fish and Wildlife Habitat o Encourage conifer over deciduous plantings. The consultant has found that conifers provide a higher ecological benefit than deciduous trees so they aren’t necessarily needed in the same density numbers that are otherwise required by the current code. They have run into situations where too many trees are required for mitigation, making property improvements prohibitive. o Allow a one-time exemption from the Habitat Management Plan for single-family homes that impact 500 square feet of mitigation. This revision recognizes that existing homes may need a bit of flexibility over time. Property owners should be allowed to do small expansions, install driveways, add small water-enjoyment features, etc. without providing a complete buffer enhancement. o Allow departures from buffer standards with state and federal mitigation approval. The regulations to not quite fit in all instances. Staff would review these cases with the state and federal environmental stakeholders to determine whether the ecological functions would still be served by an alternative plan that doesn’t quite meet the letter of the code. The current code does not allow this flexibility. x Shoreline Environment Designations. These changes will either alter or add a shoreline designation to select properties in the City. The shoreline designations primarily coincide with the City’s zoning map. o Add a shoreline designation of “Urban Conservancy” to a small island at the northern portion of Oyster Bay. This is a small uninhabited island in its natural state. There are no utilities or other improvements. An Urban Conservancy Designation is most appropriate in this situation. o Extend the Commercial Shoreline designation by one parcel in two locations. There are two instances where existing commercial buildings are not located within the Commercial Shoreline designation. The map change would expand the Commercial Shoreline Designation to include these two properties. One of the properties is a brick building on Shore Drive within the Manette Neighborhood Center. The other is located on Wheaton Way and within the new Eastside Village Subarea. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 10 of 12 o Add a shoreline designation of “Isolated” to the area surrounding Evergreen Park. Currently, Sheldon Boulevard separates Evergreen Park and the shoreline from the properties landward. The Isolated Shoreline Designation is intended for properties like these that are essentially divorced from the shoreline by physical barriers. o No longer being considered. The Staff Report identified an area for a possible change to a commercial designation that is no longer being considered by staff. This is an existing law office. Changing the designation to “Commercial” would have been out of character, as well as a one-property shoreline designation. The property can continue on in its current commercial use. Next, Mr. Jackson reviewed the proposed changes to the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) as follows: x Vegetation Management Plan Allowances. Vegetation Management Plans (VMPs) are planting plans that are required for all new development. The plans require that the entire buffer area be replanted with native vegetation. Theyare created by qualified biologists and recorded as a notice to title. o Exempt development that avoids the buffer. In instances where proposed development is not located in the protected shoreline buffer, mitigation for replanting the buffer would not be required. This amendment brings the City more in line with other jurisdictions and was recommended by the DOE. o Clarify that a VMP would still be required. In stances where proposed development is located outside of the buffer, a VMP would still be required to document existing vegetation along the shoreline and within the buffer to ensure it is preserved. The plan would be recorded as a notice to title. o Waive bonding for small projects. It can be very hard for small-dollar projects to secure bonds. Banks are often not willing to provide the small bonds, and this extra step is onerous for small development on the shoreline. x Shoreline Buffer Reduction Options. o Buffer averaging. Currently, averaging is based on all the structures located within a numbered block. Staff found that the number of homes within a numbered block varies widely. In some instances, a direct neighbor may not be in the same numbered block. Staff is proposing a replacement system here the average is based on neighboring structures located on either side of a property. The goal is not to get structures closer to the water than the current code allows. However, there will be situations where structures can be closer or further away, depending on which system is used. The revision is intended to make the process simpler and more commonsense. o Buffer reduction menu. This menu provides a list of options (improvements or ecological enhancements) that could be made in order to qualify for a buffer reduction. An open-ended criterion was added, as well. If the Department of Fish and Wildlife agrees with an alternative mitigation proposal, a buffer reduction could be allowed in that instance, as well. x Interrupted Buffer. This provision is intended to clarify what is meant by an “isolated” designation, which is for properties that are separated from the shoreline by physical barrier. However, a property can qualify as an isolated property without being mapped. The existing code includes criteria for properties that are not mapped as isolated but meet the same criteria as “isolated” in the code. To provide clarification, the proposed amendment would retain the definition for “isolated” and add a definition for “interrupted buffer” to address properties that are not mapped as isolated but still meet the criteria. x Nonconforming Structures. Currently, the code requires that if a property owner invests 75% of a structure’s value or more into improvements, the structure must be brought up to all code requirements. This includes planting the entire buffer area and potentially moving the home out of the buffer entirely. A lot of existing homes were built in the 1940s, and the value of improvements can quickly add up to greater than 75% of the value of a structure. To recognize these situations, staff is proposing a provision that would allow improvements to a structure, up to replacing it, in its current footprint and location. The provision would not apply to overwater homes, and some mitigation would still be required, as outlined in the code. x Eastside Village Subarea Plan. The amendment proposes to make sure compliance with the recently updated Eastside Village Subarea Plan. Specifically this inlcudes an increase in height to meet zoning allowances through view impact demonstration. A current code provision allows developers to build higher than 35 feet via a Shoreline Conditional Use APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 11 of 12 Permit. Rather than requiring this permit, staff is proposing that a greater height be allowed if an applicant can demonstrate that the views from neighboring properties would not be negatively impacted. This provision would only apply in commercial zones, as the height in single-family residential zones is capped at 35 feet. x Climate Resiliency. Additional provisions were added to consider sea level rise impacts with new development and redevelopment. Mr. Jackson reviewed the remaining timeline for the SMP and CAO update. The 30-day joint DOE/City public comment period will start in late October, and a joint DOE/City public hearing is tentatively scheduled for November 16th. Staff will submit an initial determination to the DOE in December, and the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to review and recommend changes as necessary in early 2021. It is anticipated that the SMP update will be adopted by the City Council in the spring of 2021. He emphasized that all of the dates are tentative and will be adjusted as necessary. Vice Chair Tift asked if the proposed amendments would allow a property owner to increase the footprint of a nonconforming building that is repaired, restored, expanded or replaced without requiring any mitigation. Mr. Jackson clarified that mitigation may be required if square footage is added, and other code requirements could apply, as well. Vice Chair Tift asked if the small island in Oyster Bay that is proposed for an Urban Conservancy Designation is privately owned. Mr. Jackson answered affirmatively. He explained that, currently, the island has no land use designation. The proposed amendment would provide this missing designation. Vice Chair Tift asked if the proposed designation would limit the property owner’s options. Mr. Jackson answered affirmatively. He explained that the proposed land use designation reflects that the property is currently undeveloped. He questioned the feasibility of adding utilities and developing the island. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Wofford encouraged everyone to vote. Director Report Director Spencer announced that the City Council adopted the Eastside Village Subarea Plan, and the area is now ready for revitalization. Director Spencer referred to the Planning Commission By-Laws that were sent out prior to the meeting. She asked them to review the document and be prepared to discuss potential changes at their November meeting. The Commission will also elect new officers at their November meeting. She announced that on November 4th, the City Council will re-appoint Commissioners Tift and Mosiman to serve another term on the Commission, and Faye Flemister will be appointed to fill the vacant position. Old Business There was no old business. New Business There was no new business. APPROVED APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2020 ~ Page 12 of 12 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:01 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ____________________________________________________________ Andrea L Spencer, AICP Nick Wofford, Chair Executive Secretary Planning Commission Attachment E Written Public Comments Received Comment 01: R. Runyon submitted draft code for the City to consider. Runyon’s comments were presented to the Planning Commission. Comment 02: L. King comments that the City should allow garages to be used as ADUs. Comment 03: D. Kimble submitted a Kitsap Sun article regarding an ‘ADU Beauty Pageant’ and believed that the County should follow suit on these proposed revisions. Comment 04: K. Walthall expressed enthusiastic support for the proposed revisions and highlighted ADUs potential as sources of alternative/passive income. PAGE 1 PAGE 2 COMMENT 01 COMMENT 02 COMMENT 02 1 Allison Satter From:Greg Wheeler Sent:Sunday, November 15, 2020 8:56 PM To:jndkimble@wavecable.com Cc:City Council; Jennifer Hayes; Andrea Spencer; Allison Satter Subject:Fwd: Loosening ADU Restrictions Attachments:ADU Beauty Pageant gallery - Kimble.pdf; ATT00001.htm Thank you Dave for your email and for sharing this potential action with Commissioner Garrido. I am sharing your email with the City Council and City staff for their information and to add your comments as a matter of record. We agree on the importance of this ADU and I appreciate you took the time to offer your support. Take care and I hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. Sincerely, Greg Wheeler Mayor City of Bremerton (360) 473-5266 Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Dave Kimble <jndkimble@wavecable.com> Date: November 15, 2020 at 12:35:10 PM PST To: Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Loosening ADU Restrictions Reply-To: <jndkimble@wavecable.com> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Greg, So do you think the chances are this time of getting the adjustments approved for ADU type structures strong? I shared the recent article regarding your plan with Charlotte Garrido. She mentioned she did not note the nuisance of the story and thanked me for 'catching it' for her. I sure think it would be wise for the county to move in the same direction. They are really missing the boat if they don't. Sincerely, Dave Kimble Manchester The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Virus-free. www.avg.com ADU Beauty Pageant gallery https://www.kitsapsun.com/picture-gallery/opinion/2020/02/26/adu-beaut... 1 of 5 8/17/2020, 11:25 AM ADU Beauty Pageant gallery https://www.kitsapsun.com/picture-gallery/opinion/2020/02/26/adu-beaut... 2 of 5 8/17/2020, 11:25 AM ADU Beauty Pageant gallery https://www.kitsapsun.com/picture-gallery/opinion/2020/02/26/adu-beaut... 3 of 5 8/17/2020, 11:25 AM ADU Beauty Pageant gallery https://www.kitsapsun.com/picture-gallery/opinion/2020/02/26/adu-beaut... 4 of 5 8/17/2020, 11:25 AM ADU Beauty Pageant gallery https://www.kitsapsun.com/picture-gallery/opinion/2020/02/26/adu-beaut... 5 of 5 8/17/2020, 11:25 AM 1 Allison Satter From:Greg Wheeler Sent:Sunday, November 15, 2020 7:40 AM To:Kevin Walthall Cc:Lori Wheat; Thomas Knuckey; Allison Satter; Andrea Spencer; Jennifer Hayes Subject:Re: ADUs and 6th Street Good morning Kevin, Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts this weekend on both the upcoming ADU ordinance being proposed to City Council and the ongoing discussion on how to make 6th St. better for residents and businesses. I am including officials from the City of Bremerton Department of Community Development and Public Works in my reply for their information and to add your comments as a matter of record. Take care and I hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. Greg Wheeler Mayor City of Bremerton (360) 473-5266 Sent from my iPad On Nov 14, 2020, at 1:51 PM, Kevin Walthall <kswalthall@gmail.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi all, First off, I hope you're all staying sane in these fairly insane times. Thanks for being public servants. I've been a social worker, and I'd imagine being a public servant is sort of like that, but with more public criticism. Thank you. Second, I'm elated by the news about loosening restrictions on ADUs. If there is anything I can do to promote that cause, let me know. I think it's a win-win-win. In terms of home value, Bremerton has been extraordinarily good to us. Our home value has more than doubled since we bought our home five years ago. I consider this a huge blessing, but I'm aware others aren't so privileged. Through the years, I've kicked around various schemes for leveraging this equity we stumbled into for not just a dream home, but a dream development. I want to build for others. It's simply a good investment, but also I've realized that when we have people over for dinner and I spend four hours cooking paella and we serve it up in my hand-built garden, I have the same feeling that I get when I scheme for these developments. I just genuinely like creating experiences and environments for others to enjoy. My hospitality drive pushes me to aspire to developing, while my obligation to my wife and baby keep me grounded in a healthy fear of failure. I've come to the conclusion that I want to leverage our equity to build multifamily and use some rentals to supplement our income - and my retirement, which, quite frankly, is not promising. I see a duplex-quadruplex in Bremerton (or the Bremerton area) as the ultimate insurance against a beleaguered Social Security. But for several years, I've lived with the conclusion that my own property is simply beyond developing, as is almost all of Bremerton. We've thought about adding a 2 second story - we love our neighborhood's amenities and our location, but we simply don't want a dream home, we want (and perhaps need) an income-generating investment. So spending upwards of $100k to add some square footage to our house doesn't make sense if we can't add some means to pay for it. A basement ADU conversion would subsidize our growth as a family. Like most Bremerton homes, we have a basement that could be converted, but the single biggest roadblock in our way was the parking requirement for ADUs. It isn't hard to dig an exterior entrance into a basement. It is hard however - and visually scarring - to dig a second driveway into our house, built on a slope, with a basement garage. The parking part was totally cost-prohibitive in our situation. We co uld add some square footage for our own enjoyment, but our property was of limited income value to us. We had resigned ourselves to look elsewhere, even outside Bremerton city limits. Allowing ADUs lets us leverage our most valuable asset to our benefit. Loosening these restrictions will make every basement in Bremerton a potential source of income - and an affordable dwelling for those looking to rent. I'm proud of you guys for tackling the multiple issues holding ADUs back at the same time: parking minimums, aesthetic design criteria, and owner occupancy. Another issue for us was that if we ever did move, we would have to sell our home. That made it less attractive to build a basement ADU. Overnight, we're looking at a potential game-changer as our family outgrows our little 2-bed, 1-bath "starter home." If these deregulations pass, our home can grow with us in every way, contributing to our incomes as well as our square footage. Please, please, please - continue to go big on this thing. Finally, I'm concerned the best ideas about revamping 6th Street are stalling out. 6th is a bad neighbor. It serves non-tax-paying commuters to the detriment of the tax-paying residents. It's noisy. It's ugly. It hosts blight. My priorities for 6th's redesign are ultimately 1) traffic calming/safety, and 2) aesthetics/attracting new development. And I guess I could write a novel about those things that would bore Dostoyevski, but are there better alternatives? Would it be hard to establish a Union Hill Advisory Council? I have no desire to be a lone visionary - the Garguilles of Noah's Ark fame have done well on this street, and I would really really value their opinion going forward. I've talked to "Cash," Midtown Market's owner, and he has a vision for his own property that he thinks is prohibited. There's room for many people's vision on 6th; I just want it to be the best that it can be, and I fear we're losing momentum and vision with 6th's rebuild. I would like to see narrower lanes, wider sidewalks, street trees, landscaped pedestrian islands, landscaped chicanes - anything, really, that will beautify 6th and make it more attractive to redevelopment and the people who cross it on a near daily basis. I would like to see 6th become an attractive, pedestrian-friendly boulevard linking the heart of pedestrian-friendly Charleston and the heart of pedestrian-friendly downtown, a gateway for bikes and pedestrians in the same way Charleston Beach Rd. is a gateway for cars entering the city. I fear I'm becoming a constant critic. I want to become an effective contributor to solutions. How can I best do that? There's a great maxim in the Orthodox Christian tradition: "Love your neighbor, and don't move around a lot." Essentially, don't bail when loving your neighbor or neighborhood is hard. That's something I'm trying to live by. The ADU issue makes it easier to do. Hearing more input on 6th and tailoring it to redeveloping the heart of a neglected neighborhood does the same. -- Sincerely, Kevin Walthall To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Importance: City Council Greg Wheeler; Andrea Spencer; Roger Lubovich; Allison Satter RE: Response to Requests for "ADU Public Hearing" (Council President Eric Younger) Tuesday, December 15, 2020 4:59:00 PM Attachment 1: KBA Emails.pdf Attachment 2: Sept 2020 Planning Commission Minutes.pdf High Attn: Council Members (FYI) From: Allison Satter Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 4:45 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Roger Lubovich <Roger.Lubovich@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: ADU Public Hearing (Council President Eric Younger) Lori, Can you please forward this on? Staff’s respond to the questions related to the ADU code proposal are provided in Red Text. There are two documents reference below that are attached to this email. And the links provided below will lead you to different City websites. Thanks in advance, Allison Satter Planning Manager From: Eric Younger Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 10:10 PM To: Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: ADU Public Hearing Lori/Christine: Please share with the entire city council: Andrea: In preparation for the Public Hearing on Wednesday, please provide a copy of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission referred to on page 2 of the October 19, 2020 Planning Commission minutes as well as any other staff reports provided to the Planning Commission concerning ADUs. Also, are there any other jurisdictions in Washington that have in their ADU ordinance a provision for allowing detached non-conforming structures to be established as ADU’s? If so please provide some examples. The Planning Commission held a Workshop and Public Hearing specifically on code amendments to ADU’s in May and October 2020; which those meetings minutes have been included in the City Council packet for consideration. But the links on the calendar dates will lead you to the Planning Commission packet. You can see all the Planning Commission packets at the following link: http://www.bremertonwa.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-Commission-4 or http://www.bremertonwa.gov/230/Planning-Commission (click “View Most Recent Agendas and Minutes”). As you have requested the Planning Commission Packet for discussions about ADUs, and ADUs were part of the City’s Infill Toolkit and have been discussed during the City’s 2018 annual comprehensive plan update (should we add a housing policy to “incentivize infill development?”) the following are additional Planning Commission meetings where ADUs were discussed: o March 19. 2018 (meeting minutes are linked here) o July 15, 2019 (meeting minutes are linked here) o October 21, 2019 (meeting minutes are linked here) From reading the public testimony and written comments - it appears the number one impediment cited for not building an ADU may be the requirement to provide off-street parking vs. the owner-occupancy requirement. Would this be an accurate statement based on your staff’s fielding of inquiries concerning ADU regulations over the past few years? ·The City of Pacific allows an ADU to be built within an existing building, per 20.92.058. Pacific’s code does require that the building be setback 5’ from the rear and side property line, which is consistent with the International Building Code (as structures have to have more fire protection when closer than 5’ to a property line to an adjacent property). · Bremerton’s adopted setback regulations allow some structures to be 3’ from a rear or side property line, but the building cannot include openings such as windows or vents if they are this close to a property line. Most structures are no closer than 5’ from side property lines. The ADU amendment is proposing that these existing structures be allowed to be used as ADUs. If the structure is closer than 5’ but is at least 3’ from a side property line the owner must ensure that fire protection measures are in place. · The City of Burien allows non-conforming detached structures with non-conforming setbacks to be expanded, provided that expansion does not increase the level of nonconformity. For example, if a structure was located within the front yard setback by 5 feet, the structure could be expanded horizontally or vertically, if that expansion did not encroach any further into the setback. Burien provides some restrictions to this provision that will be discussed later in this email. · The City of Seattle allows ADUs in some existing detached structures, please see their helpful handout. Except for front and side yard requirements in single family zones, the Seattle Director may allow exceptions to development standards for DADUs to allow conversion of existing structures. Seattle’s single-family zones typically have a 20’ front yard setback or the average of the front yards of the single-family residences on either side of your lot, whichever is less. Side yard setback in Seattle is 5’ (which is consistent with the Fire Safety regulations). · The State of California has established statewide regulations for how accessory structures may be converted to ADUs, declaring that they are not subject to any additional zoning development standards (they shall meet the 4’ side yard setback for Fire Safety regulations). They can be expanded by up to 150 sf. No such statewide mandate exists in Washington. This requirement would allow all structures capable of achieving life safety requirements, that were at one point built legally, to become ADUs. · Though there may not be many Washington State examples, the City of Bremerton has a unique issue with being an older town and many structures that do not comply with the setbacks identified in today’s code. The proposed code revision to allow certain nonconforming structures to be converted to an ADU. By having this provision in the code, it would allow many existing structures to be converted to a higher use. The Planning Commission believed that it was a good way to accommodate housing while not changing what the built environment of the City’s neighborhoods looks like. Please provide an explanation/differentiate between a duplex and a home with an ADU (not a DADU). Similarly please compare and contrast a triplex vs. a home with two ADUs under the proposed changes to the ordinance. · The Bremerton Municipal Code contains the following definitions that probably address your questions the most directly (see BMC 20.42): 1. "Accessory dwelling unit (ADU)" means a second dwelling unit on a lot with an existing principal unit added to or created for use as a complete, independent or semi-independent living unit with provisions for cooking, eating, sanitation and sleeping, and which complies with the development and design standards contained in this code for ADUs (BMC 20.46.010). 2. "Dwelling, single-unit structure" means a structure containing one (1) dwelling unit. (Also referred to as a "single-family dwelling," or a "house.") 3. "Dwelling, duplex" means a building designed and arranged exclusively for occupancy by two (2) families living independently of each other in separate dwelling units. 4. "Dwelling, townhouse," for purposes of this code, means a single-unit structure in a row of at least three (3) or more such units in which each unit has its own access to the outside, no unit is located over another, and each is separated from any other unit by one (1) or more common fire- resistant walls. 5. "Dwelling, multi-unit structure" means a structure containing three (3) or more dwelling units. (Also referred to as a "multifamily structure.") Please also consider the following comments in response to this question because it isn’t so straightforward…. ·State Law requires that the City must permit ADUs, and we cannot have regulations that effectively prohibit their creation. The Planning Commission has reviewed the ADU code and developed a recommendation that removes impediments so that the City can achieve the intent of State law. The Commission’s recommendations are reflective of the initiatives laid out in the 2019 Infill Toolkit (which was created with the goal in mind to create more housing) and the 2019 State House Bill 1923 which seeks to increase the residential building capacity of our cities. · Part of the Commission’s recommended code contains language that says “any ADU shall be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of a single-family residence and should architecturally blend into the existing neighborhoods through careful design. The exterior of an ADU shall have siding and roofing which in color, material and appearance are comparable to the predominant materials of the primary dwelling unit and/or characteristics of the neighborhood.” As laid out above, “single-family residence” is a structure containing one (1) dwelling unit. If the City received a permit for an attached ADU on a home that appeared as two units, or three units, the City would not be able to approve the proposal. In the picture below, Picture #1 is two units (basement unit and upper unit), but as the site design includes one paved access from the sidewalk and the basement unit’s door is situated below the primary unit home, it appears as a single-family home and the City could approve Picture #1 as an ADU. As for the Picture #2, it is a duplex (or 2 units that are side-by-side). Picture #3 is a three-unit townhome (or triplex). If a permit was received to approve an ADU that appeared as picture #2 or #3 (even if they could meet all the other ADU codes), the City would not be able to approve the permit as “the ADU is not designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of a single-family residence.” It is clear from Picture #2 and #3 that there are multiple units within this structure; which is a violation of current code and in the proposed ADU amendments for design criteria. ·The Commission has taken the ADU code amendments a step further than just removing impediments, it has unanimously recommended to allow more than one ADU per residence; they made this recommendation because of persuasive public testimony. The Commission received a comment from Mr. Roy Runyon which requested multiple ADUs depending on your size of your lot (page 188 out of 225 of the City Council packet for 12/16/2020 meeting). As was stated in an email from Director Spencer last week, this recommendation comes as a surprise to City Council, and we acknowledge that it was a late addition to what was being proposed as part of the ADU update discussion. The City Council can deny adoption of this portion of the code, delay adoption, or remand this section back to the Planning Commission for more work. There is a motion on the agenda bill for Council to consider that ensures that adoption of two ADU’s does not occur now. A proponent of the proposed ADU changes wrote an opinion piece published today in the Kitsap Sun informing the public that ADUs still must observe a 15-foot front setback under the proposed revisions to the ordinance. I read the provisions allowed under the proposed ordinance revision under 20.46.010 (k)(3)(i) to allow the conversion of a non-conforming structure right up to the front property line. Please indicate which answer is correct under the proposed ordinance as written. ·This is the Kitsap Sun opinion piece that staff reviewed and we believe that you are referring to: https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/opinion/columnists/2020/12/12/kevin-walthall-bremerton-proposed-adu-changes-affordable- housing/6514454002/ ·The Kitsap Sun opinion piece states that ADUs must be 15 feet from the front property line, which is accurate if it is a NEW ADU as it must meet the underlying development standards for the R-10 (Low Density Residential) zone. New development of residences or detached ADUs must comply with the 15-foot front yard setback. This is existing code for the R-10 zone and no amendments are proposed for this code. ·Existing structures within the 15-foot front setback are considered nonconforming. The City’s nonconforming code BMC 20.54 does not allow an existing nonconforming structures to become an ADU. Structures could be non-conforming for a variety of reasons, but usually it’s because they don’t meet the setback requirements or the “lot coverage” standards. Staff has frequent conversations with property owners that want to use their existing structures to create ADUs, and as shared above these structures may not meet the city’s current development regulations. Staff shares with them that they have to modify their structure to meet the current development regulations if they want to create an ADU. This is much more extensive construction than what property owners bargain for, and therefore these proposals are usually abandoned and ADUs are not created. This is why the proposed subsection (k) in the ADU ordinance – it would allow certain nonconforming structures (including a garage on a property line) to be able to convert to an ADU, without requiring them to come into conformance with the development standards of the underlying zoning (i.e. move the structure back to comply with the underlying zoning setback). Therefore, you are reading the provision correctly under proposed ordinance revision under 20.46.010 (k)(3)(i) to allow the conversion of a nonconforming structure right up to the front property line. Often a photo helps explain “why” this code provision is proposed, so here’s an example: The picture below is a property in Bremerton that has a single- family home, a garage built in the 1990’s and an old carriage house that is 5-foot from the side yard and 6-foot from the front property line (Bremerton has a lot of old carriage houses as they would store their carriage’s as close to the street as possible and kept the horses close by). The property owner wants to convert the carriage house to an ADU. That structure is nonconforming as it is only 6 feet from the front property line (it does not meet the required 15-foot front yard setback; it would need to be moved 9 feet back to comply). If the proposed ordinance revision under 20.46.010 (k)(3)(i) to allow nonconforming detached structures to become an ADU was passed, this example would allow the carriage house to become an ADU in its current location (without requiring it to be moved). This scenario exists in many neighborhoods throughout the City. ·At the Study Session, a concern was raised that the cost of capital improvement projects that require right-of-way acquisition would be much more costly to buy structures that were residences versus a garage or storage building. City of Burien has existing code to address this concern in their nonconforming provision, “Nonconforming structures in residential zones with nonconforming setbacks may extend horizontally and vertically along existing building setbacks if the proposed expansion: (ii) Will not interfere with adopted City plans or regulations requiring additional right-of-way width;” and other standards (but this is the applicable standard to this conversation). STAFF RECOMMENDS AN AMENDING MOTION TO ADDRESS THIS CONCERN: Move to amend the proposed ordinance under 20.46.010 (k)(3)(i) to add subsection (5) to state, “A conversion of the structure to an ADU will not be approved if it conflicts with the City’s plans, Capital Improvement Plan or other capital projects related to nearby expansion of utilities or infrastructure including the need for additional right-of-way.” Unless I misunderstood, during last Wednesday’s study session, Allison indicated that the Kitsap Building Association planned to initiate a citizen referendum if the ADU ordinance was not changed. If I am correct in my understanding, please provide a summary of the changes the KBA requested the City make to the ADU ordinance. · Mr. Bill Broughton, as a Board of Directors for the Kitsap Building Association (KBA), provided the attached document (called “01 KBA Emails”) on February 25, 2019 for 1st Draft of proposed ADU code updates. The discussion was that they were considering taking these code amendments to a vote-of-the people through an initiative. The attached proposal includes allowing two ADUs and removing the owner-occupied requirements. Mr. Broughton provided that to staff to inform the City of KBA’s actions and get us to help answer a couple questions. As the City had developed the City’s Infill Toolkit in September 2018 (prior to that correspondence with Mr. Broughton), City Staff was able to tell the KBA at this time, that the City is considering amendments to the ADU code in the near future (as that was identified in the Infill Toolkit) so the KBA should participate in the public process. City Council confirmed this fact during the July 24, 2019 Council meeting to provided general support on the Infill Toolkit and it’s proposals (which included considering ADU code revisions, and figuring out ways to remove impediments to increase the construction of ADUs, and thus more residential capacity in the City). The City was informed that additional KBA proposals to change the ADU code were discussed within the KBA public meetings, as was considering options to get the signatures for the vote-of-people initiative. However, the KBA was split on working on a vote-of-the-people, and the other option to work through the City of Bremerton public process of Planning Commission and City Council to amend the ADU code. The KBA has expressed general support for the proposed code amendments (please see Russ Shiplet’s comments on behalf of the KBA on page 215 out of 255 of the City Council packet for 12/16/2020 meeting). Staff is not aware of any future plans by the KBA to sponsor an initiative or public referendum relating to ADUs, nor the details of what a potential referendum may include. Mr. Roy Runyon, a Bremerton resident, participated in the Planning Commission process and provided public comment and testimony in support of the creation of more than one ADU per residence. He also commented to the Commission that he was interested initiating a citizen referendum if the City Council did not adopt immediate changes to the ADU regulations. This can be seen in the September Planning Commission meeting minutes which are attached to this email (called “02 Sept 2020 Planning Commission Minutes”). Please share your response with the entire Council. Council: Please consider emailing Director Spencer any questions you may still have as soon as possible so DCD has ample opportunity to research and provide an answer before Wednesday’s meeting. - Eric 1 Allison Satter From:Bill Broughton <bill@kitsaplawgroup.com> Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 11:57 AM To:Andrea Spencer; Allison Satter Subject:ADU initiative Attachments:ADU initiative.docx Greetings Here is the first draft of the proposed amendment of the Bremerton ADU code by initiative. The KBA would like to invite you to a committee meeting to comment and discuss. Is it possible to easily determine how may parcels would be able to support 2 ADUs under this proposal? Thanks for your input. Bill William H. Broughton Templeton Horton Weibel and Broughton PLLC 3212 N.W. Byron St. Silverdale, WA 98383 Phone - (360) 692-4888 Fax - (360) 692-4987 bill@kitsaplawgroup.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This Electronic Message contains information belonging to the Broughton Law Group, Inc., P.S. which may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. The information is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Kitsap Building Assocation (KBA) emails to City regarding ADU Page 1 of 5 20.46.010 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. TwoAn accessory dwelling units (ADUs) may be permitted where a new or existing single-family dwelling unit (hereafter, "principal unit") is allowed. Accessory dwelling units are exempt from density requirements and shall be subject to the following requirements: (a)An ADUs shall comply with the development standards of the underlying zone for the principal unit including setbacks, height, and lot coverage or BMC 20.44.060, accessory structures setbacks for detached ADUs. (b)An ADUs may be attached or detached from the principal unit. (c)Only twoone (12) ADUs may be created per lot. The lot shall only contain one (1) single-family dwelling unit and twoone (21) ADUs. (d)A Manufactured homes may be allowed as an accessory dwelling unit provided it complies with the design criteria of ADUs and must comply with BMC 20.46.040, manufactured home provisions, excluding BMC 20.46.040(a)(2) and (6) regarding size and roof pitch. (e)An ADU shall be subordinate to the principal unit. EachThe ADU shall be limited to not more than sixty (60) percent of the principal unit’s total habitable floor area with the following exception: (1)To encourage the compact infill development and use of existing single-family homes, if a residence that was constructed or remodeled prior to January 1, 2017, is proposed to be divided into a principal unit and and 1 or 2 ADUs, the Director may allow equal square footage for the principal unit and eachthe ADU if the ADU is located completely on a single floor of the existing residence. This does not apply to detached ADUs. (f)Any ADU shall be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of a single -family residence and should architecturally blend into the existing neighborhoods through careful design. Unless the ADU is limited to only interior remodeling of an existing single-family dwelling, a proposed ADU shall meet the following design standards: (1)Exterior Finish. The exterior of an ADU shall have siding and roofing which in color, material and appearance are comparable to the predominant materials of the primary dwelling unit and/or characteristics of the neighborhood. (i)Roofing. A roof of equal or greater pitch as the principal unit. Kitsap Building Assocation (KBA) emails to City regarding ADU Page 2 of 5 (ii)Eaves. The minimum projection is twelve (12) inches. (2)Detailed Design. All ADUs shall provide detailed design using at least four (4) of the following architectural features: (i)Trim to denote all building’s roof lines, porches, windows and doors that is at least three (3) inches wide; (ii)Dormers; (iii)Gables; (iv)Recessed entries; (v)Covered porch entries; (vi)Offsets in building face or roof (minimum sixteen (16) inches); (vii)Bay windows; (viii)Decorative cornices and roof lines; (ix)Shutters; (x)Brickwork, masonry or stucco; (xi)Any alternative feature providing visual relief similar to the options listed above provided it must be approved by the Director. (g)The entrance to an attached ADU shall not be on the same facade of the str ucture as an entrance to the principal unit. Exterior stairway shall not be constructed on the street-frontage side of the principal dwelling unit. (h)Accessory dwelling units shall provide one (1) off-street parking space in addition to that which is required for the principal unit. When adding an ADU, all driveways and areas used for loading, parking, and maneuvering vehicles on the parcel shall have a paved surface. (i)When development of an ADU is for people with disabilities, the Director may a llow reasonable deviation from the stated requirements to install features that facilitate accessibility such as those required by the International Building Code. Kitsap Building Assocation (KBA) emails to City regarding ADU Page 3 of 5 (j)An ADU shall be required to be served by City water and sewer or an approved septic s ystem. (k)The property owner, which shall include titleholders and contract purchasers, must occupy either the principal unit or the ADU as their permanent residence for all twelve (12) months of the year. (l)An ADU shall have a deed restriction recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor to indicate the presence of the ADU, the requirement of owner occupancy, and other standards for maintaining the unit as described above. (Ord. 5330 §3, 2017: Ord. 5301 §3 (Exh. B) (part), 2016: Ord. 5008 §4, 2007: Ord . 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) Kitsap Building Assocation (KBA) emails to City regarding ADU Page 4 of 5 1 Allison Satter From:Andrea Spencer Sent:Tuesday, March 12, 2019 9:26 AM To:Russ Shiplet Cc:Allison Satter Subject:RE: Meet w/KBA Group Russ – Allison Satter is my point person on code amendments related to ADU’s amendments and can be there next Tuesday. Andrea From: Russ Shiplet <ExecOff@kitsapbuilds.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 9:19 AM To: Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Meet w/KBA Group Good morning, Andrea. KBA has formed a small Ad Hoc Committee to address ADU and owner occupancy restrictions in the city of Bremerton. I know that you’ve had an opportunity to meet with Kurt Wiest on this, but I was wondering if you could personally meet with our committee this next Tuesday morning, March 19 @ 8:00 AM, KBA conference room? We appreciate and value your opinion. Taking this on is not a small task for KBA, and we want to know what we’re heading into before we move forward. If you personally are unable to attend, could you suggest another member of your team to join us? Thanks for considering the meeting. Please let me know if that day and time would work for you or one of your staff members. Russ Russ Shiplet, Executive Officer Kitsap Building Association 5251 Auto Center Way Bremerton, WA 98370 (360) 479-5778 office (360) 479-4210 direct Kitsap Building Assocation (KBA) emails to City regarding ADU Page 5 of 5 APPROVED CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF VIRTUAL MEETING September 21, 2020 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 Staff Present Chair Wofford Vice Chair Tift Commissioner Coughlin Commissioner Mosiman Commissioner Pedersen Commissioners Excused Commissioner Rich Quorum Certified Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Allison Satter, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Garrett Jackson, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Isaac Gloor, Planner, Department of Community Development Jon Rauch, Bremerton Kitsap Access Television (BKAT) Staff Sarah Lynam, DCD Project Assistant, Department of Community Development Others Present Dan Nickel, Watershed Company Alex Capron, Watershed Company APPROVAL OF AGENDA THE AGENDA WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2020, AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH COMMISSONER PEDERSEN ABSTAINING. 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. Roy Runyon, Bremerton, advised that Bremerton is a 1st Class City, which means that citizens retain the right of initiative and can create legislation if the City Council is unable or unwilling to act. He reported that he recently drafted a new initiative related to accessory dwelling units (ADUs). He recalled that the City Council did not adopt the changes recommended by the Planning Commission to make the ADU regulations less restrictive, and he doesn’t think it is appropriate to wait any longer. APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2020 ~ Page 2 of 7 He referred to the Comprehensive Plan amendments that will be the subject of the Commission’s public hearing, which talk about the availability of affordable housing and changing the density. He stressed that the changes won’t be meaningful without also amending the ADU ordinance to make it less restrictive. He outlined the items included in his proposed initiative as follows: • Eliminate all of the design criteria for ADUs. He questioned why there should be a more restrictive standard for ADUs compared to single-family residential construction. • Allow more than one ADU per lot. There should be a formula that allows people with large lots to develop multiple ADUs with a minimum square foot requirement. For example, an additional ADU could be allowed for each 4,350 square feet of property, keeping in mind the setback requirements, etc. Mr. Runyon said he will closely monitor the Planning Commission and City Council discussions and actions related to ADUs going forward, and will modify his initiative accordingly. He said he is prepared to take the proposal to the people for a vote. It is time to make the appropriate code changes to get more affordable housing in the City. Currently, there are only two new ADUs created each year in the City. With the initiative, he is hopeful there will be 20 new ADUs per year. Talking about affordable housing is only effective if appropriate code changes are made to enable private property owners to develop ADUs on their properties. Chair Wofford closed the public portion of the meeting. Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the 2020 Docket, Related to Establishing a Minimum Density Threshold Ms. Satter advised that the Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing and provide a recommendation to the City Council. She reviewed that the Commission held a workshop in January to discuss the amendments. Since that time, staff has conducted the environmental review and completed agency and public outreach. Following the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the City Council will conduct a public hearing (tentatively scheduled for October 21st) and make the final decision. Ms. Satter advised that the proposal before the Commission includes both a Comprehensive Plan amendment and an associated Zoning Code amendment to implement the Comprehensive Plan amendment. She explained that the Comprehensive Plan is a blueprint document that establishes the vision, goals and policies for how the City will grow in the next 20+ years. With the exception of subarea plans, the Comprehensive Plan can only be amended once a year. The Zoning Code implements the vision, goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan through the development standards and design guidelines in Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20. It addresses standards such as height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc. There is no limit on how often the Zoning Code can be amended. Ms. Satter reminded the Commissioners of the approval criteria that must be considered when reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments: • Is it compliant with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) and other City plans and documents? • Is it compatible with the existing and planned development patterns? • Will it not negatively affect the City’s ability to provide urban services? • Will the proposed changes bear a reasonable relationship to benefiting the public health, safety and welfare? Ms. Satter also reminded the Commissioners of the approval criteria that must be considered when reviewing Zoning Code amendments: • Is it compliant with other City, State and Federal Codes, regulations, and ordinances? • Is it consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan? If a Comprehensive Plan amendment is required, approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment must occur prior to or concurrently with the Zoning Code amendment. They must be consistent. APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2020 ~ Page 3 of 7 Ms. Satter advised that the proposed amendment would change the minimum residential density citywide from 5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) to 6 du/ac. Following the January workshop, the Commission asked staff to analyze if 7 du/ac would be appropriate. However, based on public feedback, staff is only proposing to increase the minimum to 6 du/ac. She reviewed that the Washington State Legislature passed House Bill (HB) 1923 in 2019, which encourages cities to increase opportunities for more residential capacity. The bill offered a menu of options to increase the supply of affordable housing. The City reviewed these options and agreed to consider the following three: • Establish a minimum density of 6 du/ac. (subject of September 21 public hearing) • Amend the ADU regulations. (subject of October 19 Commission public hearing) • Amend the Zoning Code to address cluster housing and cottages. (briefing scheduled for early 2021) Ms. Satter pointed out that the minimum density option requires both a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a Zoning Code amendment, whereas the other two initiatives under HB 1923 only require a Zoning Code amendment. Ms. Satter advised that the amendment would apply to new development in the Low-Density and Medium-Density Residential zones, as well as four zones in the Downtown Subarea Plan (Downtown Multifamily Residential 1 and 2 and Downtown 1 and 2 Family Residential). As proposed, the Comprehensive Plan would be amended to change the minimum density in these zones from 5 du/ac to 6 du/ac. The Zoning Code would also be amended to change the minimum density from 5 du/ac to 6 du/ac. The maximum lot area would also be changed from 7,712 to 7,260 square feet. Ms. Satter shared examples to show how a 1- acre parcel could be developed based on the current 5 du/ac per acre versus the proposed 6 du/ac. She also shared an example of a recently-approved subdivision with a density of 7 du/ac. She provided examples of existing development in the City to illustrate what development at 6 du/ac might look like: • Dibb Street between Robin Avenue and Eagle. The property was developed at 6 du/ac and the average lot size is 7,114 square feet. • 8th Street between Olympic Avenue and Rainier Avenue. The property was developed at 10 du/ac and the average lot size is 4,350 square feet. • Dockside on Osprey Circle between Cormorant and Widegon Court. The property was developed at 5 du/ac and the average lot size is 8,700 square feet. Ms. Satter shared examples of recent development in Bremerton, noting that very few plats were subdivided at the minimum density. The range was between 7 du/ac and 13 du/ac. She summarized that, as per the Buildable Lands Review, projects in Bremerton are currently subdividing at an average of 10 du/ac citywide, so this change to the minimum will not likely affect development. Ms. Satter emphasized that the amendments would not require existing lots and homes to squeeze in extra units. They would only impact future subdivisions and development. The proposal would change the minimum density, but the maximum density would remain the same, and there would be no changes to the zoning maps, either. Ms. Satter reported that two public comments were received. One expressed opposition to the amendment and the other was generally supportive of increasing residential density but had other ideas for the Commission to consider. Chair Wofford opened the hearing for public comments. Roy Runyon, Bremerton, said he supports the proposed amendment. However, he suggested that, if they want to encourage increased density, the Commission should also look at other development regulations that drive up the cost of development, such as impact fees. If the cost of development is higher in Bremerton than in unincorporated Kitsap County, then the City is losing out and is not meeting the intent of the GMA. He asked the Commission to consider what changes it can recommend to the City Council to make residential development in the City more affordable. While the proposed amendment is a step in the right direction, they also need to consider other practical changes that will make it easier for developers to increase density. Chair Wofford said the Commission seeks input from time to time about what can be done to make development easier and more feasible for contractors. Director Spencer pointed out that while there are general facility charges to hook up to the APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2020 ~ Page 4 of 7 water and sewer systems, the City of Bremerton hasn’t adopted any impact fee ordinances. On the other hand, Kitsap County, Port Orchard and Poulsbo have all adopted transportation impact fee ordinances. Kevin Walthall, Bremerton, voiced support for the proposed amendments. However, he asked if they would hold any implication for duplexes to meet the minimum requirement. He also asked if the amendments would alter the setback requirement in single-family and multi-family residential zones. If not, he could see the setback requirements becoming a stumbling block for developers. He voiced his support for allowing duplexes, which would help developers meet the minimum requirement. Ms. Satter pointed out that the maximum density requirement actually has more impact on duplex development than the minimum density requirement, since the goal is usually to fit more units on a lot. Because the amendments would only apply in the low-density and medium-density residential zones, it is likely that developers will choose to construct single- family homes rather than duplexes. She said the amendments would not reduce the setback requirement, since developers are successfully developing at 8 and more du/ac and can still meet the current setbacks. Chair Wofford closed the public portion of the hearing. Vice Chair Tift referred to the public comment, which indicated support for the proposed amendment but wanted the minimum density to be mandated. He asked if that was practical. Ms. Satter answered that, once adopted, the amendment would establish a minimum of 6 du/ac for all new subdivisions, and it would become a mandate. The only exception would be if a property owner wants to retain one larger lot where his/her home is located. While the entire property might not meet the minimum density requirement at the time of subdivision, the property where the house is located would be subdivided at a later date to meet the requirement. That provision would not change, recognizing that Bremerton has a lot of existing development and people have a desire to keep their one house and subdivide the rest of the lot they aren’t utilizing. Vice Chair Tift asked if developers have indicated support for the proposed amendment. Ms. Satter said the proposal was sent to the Kitsap Building Association and the real estate group, but they have been silent on the matter since most developers are already developing at a higher rate. COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS AND BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS INCLUDED IN ATTACHMENT D. COMMISSIONER PEDERSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Public Workshop: Discussion of Amendments for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Periodic Update Mr. Jackson introduced Dan Nickel and Alex Capron, from the Watershed Company, the consultants hired to assist the department with the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) update. He explained that this is a workshop for discussion and education purposes, and no formal decisions will be made at this time. It is anticipated that the project will be completed in mid-2021, and updates will be provided to the Commission over the next several months. Mr. Jackson explained that the SMP is a set of state-required policies and regulations that are intended to protect state shorelines, promote public access to the shorelines, and ensure that uses that need to be located on the shoreline have priority. In addition to updating the SMP, the City will also update its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) for consistency with the SMP and other limited changes. Mr. Jackson advised that the SMP applies to “Shorelines of the State,” which are waterbodies that meet certain criteria. The shoreline jurisdiction is generally areas that are located within 200 feet of a high-tide line, some larger lakes and streams and other exceptions. Examples of those in Bremerton include Lake Kitsap, portions of the Union River and Gorst Creek, and all marine waters. He shared an example of a shoreline designation map, noting that the colored lines follow waters that are regulated by the SMP. Each of the colors represents a different shoreline designation and they correspond closely with the zoning map designations. For example, the Low-Density Residential Zone has a Single-Family Residential Shoreline Designation. He explained that the shoreline designations were assigned based on an analysis in the Inventory Characterization Report. The report was done in 2013 and took a snapshot of existing development on Bremerton shorelines and identified shoreline resources they wanted keep. For example, the area located south of Gorst was designated as Urban Conservancy APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2020 ~ Page 5 of 7 because it is an environmentally-sensitive area they want to preserve, and the area around the shipyard was designated as Industrial based on existing development. Areas that are waterward of the high-tide mark were designated as Aquatic. Mr. Jackson explained that the state requires jurisdictions to update their SMPs every eight years to ensure they are compliant with current state laws and changes in local plans and regulations and to incorporate new or improved data and information. The periodic update will not re-evaluate the ecological baseline, which was established as part of the 2013 comprehensive update that is used to determine no net loss. The ecological baseline is a snapshot inventory that established what the City’s shorelines currently look like. It identified the ecological situation, the areas that were degradated, and the areas that had environmental resources. One of the main goals of the SMP is to assure no net loss of the 2013 baseline. Mr. Jackson referred to the Gap Analysis Report (Attachment A), which was prepared by the Watershed Company and points out areas that the City has to improve upon in order to be compliant with the update process. He explained that staff will propose a number of amendments as part of the proposed update, and a full draft of the proposed amendments will be presented at a future workshop. He shared examples of the anticipated amendments to both the SMP and CAO as follows: SMP Amendments • Definitions. This section will be amended to be consistent with the state. For example, an updated definition for “floating residences” will be included. In addition, some definitions that are located in the nonconforming section of the SMP will be moved to the definition section of the SMP. • Exemptions. The exemptions for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits will be updated to be consistent with what is available from the state. • Applicability. A statement will be added to clarify that the SMP doesn’t apply to federal lands. Currently, there is no statement that the shipyard is not part of the SMP. • Restoration Projects. Some of the dimensional standards for restoration projects will be updated. • Nonconforming Structures. The amendments will look at the applicability of the code as it pertains to certain structures and the proportionality of mitigation required in some of those cases. For example, is the amount of mitigation required for a small addition proportional to the expansion? • Shoreline Buffer Reduction Options. They are looking at minor revisions to this section to clarify buffer averaging provisions and to ensure that no net loss is achieved. Currently, the buffer averaging calculations are complicated, and the goal is to make them simpler. • New Sheridan/Harrison Center Subarea Plan. Amendments will align the SMP with the new subarea plan that was recently adopted. • Vegetation Management Plan Allowances. Portions of this section will be updated to provide relief for single- family property owners. The plan is required with any new shoreline development. It provides a snapshot of existing vegetation and describes how a developer will mitigate and add native vegetation to buffer areas. • Consolidation. All of the SMP policies will be consolidated into one chapter. Currently, they are scattered throughout the document, and it would read much more clearly if they were located in one section. • Climate Resiliency. Proposed language would be added for climate resiliency. As the department learns more about the ongoing effects of the global climate, it is important to ensure that the knowledge is represented in the environmental documents. • Minor Mapping Changes. Minor updates to the Shoreline Environment Designations will be made to reflect new information and improve consistency with zoning. APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2020 ~ Page 6 of 7 CAO Amendments • Wetland Buffers. The existing buffer requirements for wetlands will be clarified to be consistent with the Department of Ecology (DOE) guidelines. • Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. Other minor amendments will be made to provide flexibility within Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. Mr. Jackson announced that an online tool will be launched on October 1st to orient the public to the SMP update process. A full draft of the proposed amendments will be presented at a Planning Commission workshop on October 19th. The state has some specific requirements for the City to accomplish, one being a shared public comment period and shared public hearing. The joint public comment period will occur in November, and the joint public hearing is scheduled for November 16th. It is anticipated that the draft update will be presented to the DOE for an initial determination of compliance with DOE standards in January of 2021, and the Planning Commission review and recommendation, if necessary, will occur in February 2021. Local adoption will likely occur in Spring 2021. He emphasized that all of the dates are tentative at this time, and staff will take as much time as needed with the Commission and public to work through the process. Mr. Jackson said that the online open house that will launch on October 1st is one way to engage the public and ensure they are involved in the SMP update process. It will review background information and project timelines so the public can understand the issues that are being addressed and provide comments. It will also provide an opportunity for the public to sign up to be notified of future actions on the update. Roy Runyon, Bremerton, asked how many individual property owners/developers have been impacted by the current SMP and what their costs have been. He noted language regarding flexibility and minimizing the impact of the SMP and said he would be interested to see what that information shows. He recommended that this data be presented to the Commission, City Council and public for background. Sue Plahn, Bremerton, asked if the slide set from the staff’s presentation could be made available to the public. Ms. Satter answered that it would be sent to all of the property owners who received notification of the workshop. Vice Chair Tift asked if the Vegetation Management Plan applies in the event that the shoreline is damaged during construction. Mr. Jackson answered that the Vegetation Management Plan is intended to repopulate the buffer areas as mitigation for the development and not just those areas disturbed during construction. It identifies how much of the buffer area should be populated with native vegetation and trees. Commissioner Mosiman recognized that the presentation was intended to be just an overview. However, as they get into more detail at future meetings, he would like clarification on the following: • Attachment A, Page 6, Item e, which talks about the difference between timber harvesting and timber cutting. It would be helpful to have a map showing where timber harvesting might take place within the City. • Attachment A, Page 23, Item 9, which references a specific Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provision regarding public access requirements. It would be helpful for the Commission to see the actual WAC language to know what is being referenced. Years ago, a map was provided to show where public access was located within the City of Bremerton. If they are considering changes to public access, it would be helpful to have that map to provide some reference about what changes would take place and where. • Attachment A, Page 24, Item 12, which has to do with climate change resiliency as it relates to bulkheads. Bulkheads are important in marine environments, and they have an impact on the upland of property owners. It would be helpful to have clarification on the City’s policies relevant to sea level rise. • Attachment A, Page 24, Item 14, which has to do with the portionality and scale of development. Would a developer be required to provide an entire buffer with native plants? Are you changing the residential permitting requirements to be simpler? He supports simplicity but without losing the ability to make the kinds of changes and impacts the City wants to see for the environment. APPROVED Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2020 ~ Page 7 of 7 Commissioner Mosiman asked if the tribes have been informed that the City is in the process of updating its SMP. He would be curious to know what their interest might be. Commissioner Pederson referred to Attachment A, Page 24, Item 12 and said he is also curious about the City’s policies relevant to sea level rise. Olympia’s 2019 Sea Level Rise Plan is referenced, and he is interested in learning more about what that plan entails. He asked staff to provide a link to the plan prior to the next workshop. Ms. Satter said staff is working on climate resiliency documents, and other documents related to this effort have also been prepared. Information will be sent to the Planning Commission soon about a recent Kitsap County study related to sea level rise. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Wofford acknowledged the citizens who participated in the Zoom meeting and thanked those who provided input. Director Report Director Spencer reported that staff is settling into the new normal. There have been a lot of permit applications, and remote operations are going smoothly. A fun statistic showed that more than 1,000 people were able to engage with the online materials that were made available during the Eastside Employment Center planning process, which is encouraging to note. At this time, the City will proceed with digital meetings until there is a change in the governor’s order. Old Business There was no old business. New Business There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ______________________________ ______________________________ Andrea L Spencer, AICP Nick Wofford, Chair Executive Secretary Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU) December 16, 2020 Presenter: Allison Satter, Planning Manager 1 THE CITY NEED MORE HOUSING Citing the City of Bremerton & Kitsap County Affordable Housing Recommendation Report •Kitsap County, as a whole, needs to grow 25,000 more homes in 17-years, or approximately 1,500 units a year •Current development trends: single-family detached •Triple their annual rates of net housing production •Bremerton should strive to construct 515 units per year to meet the need •2020 –300 units in the hopper (this includes constructed units and waiting-to-be-constructed units) WHAT IS AN ADU ? •Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) •AKA -Granny flats, in-law units, backyard cottages, secondary units and more •Attached –part of the home (basement unit) •Detached –a separate structure, could be on top of a garage 3 ADUs CAN BE PART OF THE SOLUTION TO HOUSING SHORTAGE ADUs CAN BE PART OF THE SOLUTION TO HOUSING SHORTAGE Three Bremerton examples of ADUs on the left (Pennsylvania, E. 30th and 6th Street) City is not receiving many ADU applications Washington Stat Law –Must allow ADUs State mandate as ADUs are an easier housing type to construct that can fit into existing neighborhoods (where there is existing infrastructure) Planning Commission proposed removing impediments to ADUs to increase residential supply HOW MANY ADU s IS THE CITY BUILDING? •Permitted ~20 ADUs in 14 years •In 2020, received at least 65 written inquires •Resulting in 5 ADU applications •2 ADU Permits are in Construction or Completed •3 ADU are on HOLD: •Two are fire/ Bldg Code concerns •One is parking related (would be resolved with proposed Ord) ADUs Built in Bremerton Between 2003-2020 Constructed ADUs In-construction ADUs City Limits and Council Districts True Statement: Staff conversations about ADUs with public about their property rarely result in application for ADU PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION •Workshop •May 2020 •SEPA/Agency/Public Outreach between May and October 2020 •Public Hearing •October 2020 •Infill Toolkit Chat (which included ADUs): •July 2019 and October 2019 •Proposed Ordinance and code changes to ADUs are the Planning Commission’s Recommendation 7 Zoning code amendments to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) relating to: Number of ADUs Size Parking Owner Occupancy Design Standards Façade Entrances Nonconforming detached structures 7 HB 1923 Encouraged HB 1923 Encouraged HB 1923 Encouraged •Six different topics to discuss for ADUs •Started with City’s Infill Toolkit •Encouraged by State to considered ways to increase residential capacity •HB 1923 items 8 How Many ADUs onsite? Current –One ADU Proposed –Two ADUs Note: Only allowed on lots with SFR Zoning code amendments to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) relating to: Number of ADUs Size Parking Owner Occupancy Design Standards Façade Entrances Nonconforming detached structures Attached Garage converted to ADU If Council prefers to postpone the vote on Two ADUs, there is a motion on the Agenda Bill to consider all other proposed ADU amendments except those related to two ADUs onsite. 9 What is the Maximum Size an ADU can be? Current –Not more than 60% of home Proposed –Not more than 60% or 1,000 square feet max, whichever is greater Zoning code amendments to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) relating to: Number of ADUs Size Parking Owner Occupancy Design Standards Façade Entrances Nonconforming detached structures 9 Example of proposal: SFR = 600 square feet (sqft) ADU max size is 1,000sqft SFR = 1,000sqft ADU max size is 1,000sqft SFR = 2,000sqft ADU max size is 1,200sqft (60% of 2,000) 10 What Off-street Parking is Required for ADUs? Zoning code amendments to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) relating to: Number of ADUs Size Parking Owner Occupancy Design Standards Façade Entrances Nonconforming detached structures What doesn’t Change: Single-family home still needs 2 parking space Example : 2 units onsite (SFR and ADU) would require 2 parking spaces (per other code requirements) Example: 3 units onsite (SFR and Two ADUs) would require 3 parking spaces 11 Does property owner needed to live onsite (in ADU or home)? Current –Owner must live onsite Proposed –Remove requirement of Owner Occupancy Add reference to Property Maintenance Code Note: Property Maintenance Compliance still required Zoning code amendments to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) relating to: Number of ADUs Size Parking Owner Occupancy Design Standards Façade Entrances Nonconforming detached structures 12 What does the ADU need to look like? Current –Many standards Proposed –Simplify standard to appear as a single-family home and architecturally blend into the neighborhood and the single-family home Note: Single-family homes do not have design standards Zoning code amendments to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) relating to: Number of ADUs Size Parking Owner Occupancy Design Standards Façade Entrances Nonconforming detached structures Single -family home and ADU Appears as single - family home City could approve 13 If proposed as Single - family home and ADU Appears as duplex , and not single -family home City Could NOT approve If proposed as Single - family home and ADU Appears as triplex , and not single -family home City Could NOT approve ✓ 14 NEW: Allow existing structures that do not meet certain development standards to be established as ADUs. Allows existing structures, that present little new impact, to reach highest and best use. Zoning code amendments to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) relating to: Number of ADUs Size Parking Owner Occupancy Design Standards Façade Entrances Nonconforming detached structures NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO AN ADU •What if this structure conflicts with City’s projects? •Possible Amending Motion: Move to amend the proposed ordinance under 20.46.010 (k)(3)(i) to add subsection (5) to state, “A conversion of the structure to an ADU will not be approved if it conflicts with the City’s plans, Capital Improvement Plan or other capital projects related to nearby expansion of utilities or infrastructure including the need for additional right-of-way.” PUBLIC COMMENTS AND OUTREACH •Council #4 District Meeting (late 2019) to discuss Infill Toolkit including ADU •Three Published Kitsap Sun Articles •Planning Commission public process and associated notices •Notification of Parties of Record and DCD’s e-News •31 comments received (as of 315PM of public hearing date) •74% generally supportive of ADU proposal •26% generally oppose of ADU proposal 16 OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL? •Three motions and Amending Motion: •Option 1 –Move to pass Ordinance No. 5410 as recommended by the Planning Commission to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.46.010 entitled “Accessory Dwelling Units.” •Option 2 –Move to pass Ordinance No. 5410 to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.46.010 entitled “Accessory Dwelling Units” as presented and to further amend the proposed ordinance and exhibits to eliminate the code revisions that change allowable ADU's from one per residence to two and the parking regulations required for the second ADU. •Option 3 –Move to defer action on Ordinance No. 5410 and direct staff to schedule an additional study session and public hearing in the first quarter of 2021. •AMENDING MOTION:Move to amend the proposed ordinance under 20.46.010 (k)(3)(i) to add subsection (5) to state, “A conversion of the structure to an ADU will not be approved if it conflicts with the City’s plans, Capital Improvement Plan or other capital projects related to nearby expansion of utilities or infrastructure including the need for additional right-of-way.” STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU) December 9, 2020 Presenter: Allison Satter, Planning Manager 1 WHAT IS AN ADU ? •Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) •AKA -Granny flats, in-law units, backyard cottages, secondary units and more •Attached –part of the home •Detached –a separate structure, could be on top of a garage Fonz lived in an ADU above the Cunningham’s garage 2 3 Zoning code amendments to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) relating to: Number of ADUs Size Parking Owner Occupancy Design Standards Façade Entrances Nonconforming detached structures 3 HB 1923 Encouraged HB 1923 Encouraged HB 1923 Encouraged •Planning Commission Recommendation •Six topics to discuss for ADUs •Infill Toolkit •Encouraged by State to considered ways to increase residential capacity 4 How Many ADUs onsite? Current –One ADU Proposed –Two ADUs Note: Only allowed on lots with SFR Zoning code amendments to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) relating to: Number of ADUs Size Parking Owner Occupancy Design Standards Façade Entrances Nonconforming detached structures 4 Attached Garage converted to ADU 5 What is the Maximum Size an ADU can be? Current –Not more than 60% of home Proposed –Not more than 60% or 1,000 square feet max, whichever is greater Zoning code amendments to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) relating to: Number of ADUs Size Parking Owner Occupancy Design Standards Façade Entrances Nonconforming detached structures 5 Example of proposal: SFR = 600 square feet (sqft) ADU max size is 1,000sqft SFR = 1,000sqft ADU max size is 1,000sqdt SFR = 2,000sqft ADU max size is 1,200sqft (60% of 2,000) 6 What Off-street Parking is Required for ADUs? Zoning code amendments to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) relating to: Number of ADUs Size Parking Owner Occupancy Design Standards Façade Entrances Nonconforming detached structures No proposed Code change to Single Family Home Parking Proposal: 2 units onsite (SFR and ADU) requires 2 parking spaces Proposal: 3 units onsite (SFR and Two ADUs) would require 3 parking spaces 7 Does property owner needed to live onsite (in ADU or home)? Current –Owner must live onsite Proposed –Remove requirement of Owner Occupancy Add reference to Property Maintenance Code Note: Property Maintenance Compliance still required Zoning code amendments to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) relating to: Number of ADUs Size Parking Owner Occupancy Design Standards Façade Entrances Nonconforming detached structures 8 What does the ADU need to look like? Current –Many standards Proposed –Simplify standard to architecturally blend into the neighborhood and the single-family home Note: Single-family homes do not have design standards Zoning code amendments to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) relating to: Number of ADUs Size Parking Owner Occupancy Design Standards Façade Entrances Nonconforming detached structures 9 NEW: Allow existing structures that do not meet certain development standards to be established as ADUs. Allows existing structures, that present little new impact, to reach highest and best use. Zoning code amendments to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) relating to: Number of ADUs Size Parking Owner Occupancy Design Standards Façade Entrances Nonconforming detached structures 1 Comment # Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes 01 Runyon 6 Snyder Ave Supports multiple ADUs, with lot size restrictions. Supports increasing the maximum size of ADUs from current baseline. Supports loosening design restrictions. Supports removing parking requirements. Supports loosening owner occupancy requirements. No specific comment. Submitted a draft code revision for ADUs. Draft code was noted. 02 King 3 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way No comment. No comment, supports ‘tiny homes’. No specific comment. No specific comment. Believes the City has the ‘legal means to keep them owner- occupied’. Supports converting existing structures like garages to ADUs and ADU like housing. Presented idea of allowing interested parties to purchase garages and convert them to ADUs. The proposed code would allow some garages to be converted to ADUs. 03 Kimble Not City resident. Supports this proposal. No specific comment. No specific comment. No specific comment. No specific comment. No comment. Shared Kitsap Sun article, “ADU Beauty Pageant”. Stated County should follow suit with City’s ADU proposals. Walthall 4 Pennsylvania Ave Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Shared that the largest barrier for him in creating an ADU in his basement is the parking requirement. Sharman 2 E 18th Street No specific comment. No specific comment. No specific comment. No specific comment. No specific comment. No specific comment. States that the City is experiencing a housing crisis of affordability, supports the new proposals for ADUs. Hopes that the City will reconsider how RV’s are defined. Tiny homes may be permitted as ADUs, both with current and proposed code. However, all dwellings in the City of Bremerton must be connected to the ground with a foundation and connected to City utilities. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED (as of 315PM on 12/16/2020) Tan Box = Generally Opposed Green Box = Generally Supportive 2 Comment # Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Kitsap Building Association (Organization Comment, no specific district) Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal Supports this proposal. States the City does not regulate the design of Single-Family- Residences, and should treat ADUs the same. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Manning 2 Sanders Ave Opposes allowing two ADUs. Supports allowing a maximum ADU size of 1000 square feet, opposes larger ADUs. No specific comment. Opposes removing parking requirements, states there is a parking problem in West Bremerton and other neighborhoods. Opposes removing owner occupancy requirements, states owners ‘keep things in check for the neighborhood’. No specific comment. Studies conducted by the State of Oregon have shown most properties with ADUs remain owner occupied, even when it is not required. Rich 6 N Callow Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that they fully support relaxing ADU regulations. Digby Not provided. States the opinion that Bremerton does not have the ability to accommodate additional hardscape with the current capacity of storm water runoff containment. Also states that construction removes vegetation, which is bad for the environment. No specific comments. Stated the opinion that ADUs should not be built in styles that results in Bremerton ‘regressing to a city known for slum housing’. States that it should be ensured that there is adequate street parking for an ADU. No specific comment, supports limit on vacation rentals. No specific comments. Bremerton’s low density residential zone has a maximum development coverage limit (maximum amount of impervious surfaces per lot) of 60%. That is not proposed to change. City code does not regulate the design of single-family residences, duplexes, or triplexes. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED (as of 315PM on 12/16/2020) Tan Box = Generally Opposed Green Box = Generally Supportive 3 Comment # Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Halverson 6 Shorewood Dr/Madrona Point Dr Opposes this proposal. Opposes this proposal. Opposes this proposal. States that the on street parking on Shorewood Drive is an issue. Opposes this proposal. Opposes this proposal. States that they are opposed to the ‘amendment proposed below as it regards the Shorewood drive/Madrona Point neighborhoods.’ Broussard Not City resident. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that they became homeless after fleeing their home. Would like the opportunity to live in Kitsap County again in a tiny home. Grant 6 Madrona Point Dr Opposes increasing the number of allowed living units. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. States that there are parking issues on Madrona Point. ADUs are subject to additional development standards, including Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, in shoreline areas like Madrona Point. McDonald 3 Marlow Ave Opposes the provision to allow two ADUs. No specific comments. Opposes the design criteria proposal. Believes with the proposed design standards, ADUs will be cheap and unattractive. Believes parking should be required for ADUs in areas with a residential parking permit requirement. Opposes removing the owner occupancy requirement. Believes removing it will create landlord-tenant problems. No specific comments. Supports postponing the changes to ADU code. City code does not regulate the design of single-family residences, duplexes, or triplexes. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED (as of 315PM on 12/16/2020) Tan Box = Generally Opposed Green Box = Generally Supportive 4 Comment # Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Lewis 2 Sanders Ave Opposes allowing ‘single resident/family lots to be turned into multi structure lots’. Believes this only helps big building companies. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. Opposes removing this requirement. Believes this will encourage ‘slum lord style ownership which will lead to the destruction of the community over time.’ No specific comments. Recommends the City focus energy on repairing neighborhood roads in East Bremerton or adding sidewalks. Current and proposed design standards would prohibit designs that appear to be multi- unit structures. No current code prohibits owners of single-family residences from renting their houses and living off site. Greising 7 Shorewood Dr Opposes this proposal. Believes too many rentals will bring down the quality of a neighborhood. No specific comment. No specific comment. Opposes this proposal. Believes parking car clutter will be a major problem. Opposes this proposal. No specific comment. Believes this proposal will ‘turn Bremerton into a third class junker city.’ No quantitative evidence suggests that renters lower neighborhood safety. Property maintenance code requires that owners maintain their properties, regardless of whether they are owner or renter occupied. The City utilizes pro-active code enforcement. Berbells 7 Shorewood Dr Opposes this proposal. Believes Bremerton is nicer to live in than Seattle because neighborhoods are less crowded. Believes overcrowding leads to more stress and crime, as well as noise and street traffic. No specific comments. No specific comment. No specific comment. No specific comment. No specific comment. Believes the City should use outlying areas for more homes, or possibly have homes in the County. See notes for comment 15. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED (as of 315PM on 12/16/2020) Tan Box = Generally Opposed Green Box = Generally Supportive 5 Comment # Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Adams 5 7th St. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. Supports ADUs. Does not believe they will solve the issue of affordable housing. Provided further comments about other suggestions for the City Council. Younger 7 Madrona Point Dr. No specific comments. No specific comments. No specific comments. Opposes removing parking requirement for first ADU. Opposes removing this requirement. Believes it will lead to absentee landlords. No specific comments. Believes the city should investigate other forms of providing affordable housing. Believes the notification of this proposal was not transparent. See notes on comment 15. City staff performed all required public noticing, including publishing notifications in the Kitsap Sun about each of 3 public meetings thus far, two of which had opportunities for public comment. Staff are continuously studying how to better reach members of the community. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED (as of 315PM on 12/16/2020) Tan Box = Generally Opposed Green Box = Generally Supportive 6 Comment # Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Morris Not provided. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Requests that the City Council lift ordinances on ADUs. Believes ADUs help elderly people, young peple, and low income people afford safe and sanitary housing. States that the City needs to implement all the housing situations available, especially with the ongoing pandemic. Buck 6 N. Wycoff Ave Opposes this proposal. States that ‘I've had a few good renter/neighbors, but the vast majority have not been good neighbors.’ No specific comments. No specific comments. Opposes removing parking requirement. States that parking is an issue, particularly in North Callow. States that renters in ADUs near them ‘take no responsibility for the neighborhood they live in.’ No specific comments. Believes a better solution for the housing shortage is to increase the availability of apartments and condominiums in Downtown Bremerton. See notes on comment 15. Development is continuing on housing projects in Downtown Bremerton. Large multifamily developments are expensive and time consuming undertakings, usually attempted by large developers. By contrast, most ADUs are developed by individual homeowners and provide small scale desirable housing, as well as income to homeowners. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED (as of 315PM on 12/16/2020) Tan Box = Generally Opposed Green Box = Generally Supportive 7 Comment # Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Sundberg Not provided. Supports the proposal. Supports the proposal. Supports the proposal. Supports the proposal. Supports the proposal. Supports the proposal. Torrez- Riley 4 5th St Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that they ‘love this small urban center [of the Union Hill neighborhood] and the affordable housing options available through ADUs’. Gray Not provided. No specific comments. No specific comments. Supports this proposal. States that the design standards should be relaxed. Supports this proposal. States that they believe that the rules around parking should be relaxed. No specific comments. No specific comments. States that ‘ADUs are a great way to expand housing’ and ‘ADUs are needed and wanted.’ Reynolds 3 Not provided. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that they ‘cannot be more happy that the City Council is meeting to discuss the current requirements.’ Requests that the City Council review the requirement that a single-family residence have two paved parking spaces prior to adding an ADU. The requirement of a single-family residence to supply two paved parking spaces is not proposed to be amended by this code. Specifically, the paving requirement is in consideration of the City’s right-of-ways and stormwater system, as gravel negatively impacts both. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED (as of 315PM on 12/16/2020) Tan Box = Generally Opposed Green Box = Generally Supportive 8 Comment # Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Merrigan 4 Naval Ave Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that they are ‘writing in support of ADUs. Our region is changing, lots of people are moving to Bremerton. We need lots of options to house them’. Lunden 2 Callahan Dr Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that there is always ample street parking in the Union Hill neighborhood, and it is easy walking / biking / transit distance from Downtown. Supports this proposal. States that concerns about defunct housing can be addressed through code enforcement. Supports this proposal. Trettin 4 8th St/14th St Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that ‘adding housing via ADUs will allow Bremerton to grow in a responsible manner.’ Albright Not provided Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that ADUs will ‘provide more good quality, affordable housing in our neighborhoods without the need to tear down entire blocks for apartments.’ Hopes to use an ADU to someday house elderly family members. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED (as of 315PM on 12/16/2020) Tan Box = Generally Opposed Green Box = Generally Supportive 9 Comment # Council District & Street Number of ADUs Maximum Size of ADUs Design Criteria Parking Requirements Owner Occupancy Non- conforming structure conversion Other comments: Staff Notes Archer Not provided. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that they are extremely excited about the proposal. States: “Maximize the potential of properties that can support this type of situation and it would greatly benefit everyone all the way around.” Runyon (2nd Comment) 6 Snyder Ave Supports this proposal. States that the proposal “allows for an increase in housing stock WITHOUT direct taxpayer subsidy”. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that the code “brings ADU design criteria into conformity with design criteria for single family residential development.” Supports this proposal. States the proposal “reduces the need to create additional impervious surface by reducing the parking requirement”. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. States that the proposal brings the City into conformance with Legislature passed bill 1923. States that the proposal “helps restore and preserve private property rights.” Kitsap County Association of Realtors (Organization Comment, no specific district) Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. Supports this proposal. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED (as of 315PM on 12/16/2020) Tan Box = Generally Opposed Green Box = Generally Supportive From:Andrew Sharman To:City Council Subject:ADU Regulations Date:Monday, November 30, 2020 11:18:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Bremerton City Council, I have been informed that the city council is looking at making changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations. I wanted to share my story regarding a former tiny house that was located on my property in Bremerton. Unfortunately the city's current regulations left me no choice but to remove the tiny house. Removing the tiny house took away what was a beautiful example of affordable housing in an established supportive community. I hope that the changes that the city is looking to make reflect the needs of the everyday residents of Bremerton and not just big delopors. We have an opportunity with ADU's to change the house crises. With reduced regulations neighbors, friends, and family's would be able to open up their homes to create more housing that is grounded in the community. I hope this story can be an example of what we want to see change in these new regulations. Here is my story: A few years ago I felt stuck. Like the only point in life was to work so that I could pay a pile of bills society decided I needed to pay (rent, insurance, utilities, gas... the list goes on). I was living in a city with no sign of getting more affordable and at the beginning of my career making next to nothing scraping by. As I started to evaluate my life I looked at how I could simplify life to reduce the stress of feeding into this cycle. Work, eat, pay rent, work, eat, pay more bills... One of the biggest expenses that came up for me that I felt I had very little control over was Housing. I felt that there needed to be more options other than paying rent or buying a house. Both were too expensive. Having roommates was one way to decrees that expense but it didn’t make that much of a difference in the long run and commonly came with other issues. Like cleaning up after messy people. As I approached my mid twenties I thought to myself "How do I get out of this endless cycle?" For me finding a way to reduce my housing cost was crucial and at the center of how I could make a change. I started to dog sit on the side to save extra money. It also gave me some time away from roommates and I got to play and have fun with other people’s dogs. As I started to get booked for more and more dog sittings I realized what is the point in paying rent if I’m never home. So I sold most of my stuff and put what I wanted to keep in my parents garage and started moving every week from dog house to dog house. I did this for about two years. As I started putting money aside from my dog sitting and not having to pay rent anymore I felt hope. It started to open up opportunities I had never considered. As I considered things I could do with the money I was saving I kept coming back to “do I want to get back into the cycle of working to pay a bill?” I realized quickly I wasn’t going to rent another overly priced place and I wasn’t willing to take on the stress of a mortgage. So I started looking for that other option I longed for. I started with the idea of living on a boat, but didn’t like the idea of living on a boat in winter or having limited head space. I didn’t even want to commit to slip fees, pump out fees and utilities. So I thought I might like to build something. I liked design and loved creating things. Did I have any real experience building? No. Did I feel that I needed experience to build? No. So I went for it! I started by designing a bus conversion. Then tiny houses. A tiny house felt right because I could build it to fit me. I could build it to reflect who I am, what I like in a home and it would give me the freedom I desired. I learned to budget what I thought it would cost and I decided if I could get half saved I would be able to get started and save the other half as I built. It worked! It was hard. It was lonely at times. It felt crazy. It was an adventure but most of all it worked and brought me freedom to escape the cycle I so loathed As I finished the build I started to think about where I would park my tiny house. It was hard to find anything that was close to my work or any major city that I could possibly work in. I had done so well in gaining the skills building my tiny house that I decided it would be a good investment to take on a fixer upper. The big house would give me a new project, an investment, and most of all a place to park the tiny house. I found the perfect fixer and moved in with my brother to start renovations. Shortly after finishing the improvements on the big house I was able to move the tiny house to the property and use the big house to help others. Over the last few years I have been able to help numerous friends by housing them as they transition in their lives. Some have been through divorces and have used the big house as a refuge to get back on their feet, Others have been saving to pay off student loans or saving to go back to school. My brother and his girlfriend have been able to save for a place of their own some day. I like to call it the house that keeps giving back. In return I have been able to live in a community of amazing friends and with the perfect spot to park the tiny house. Unfortunately as time has gone by the city of Bremerton has made changes to implement code enforcement to a new level. I have been asked in the last few months to no longer occupy my tiny house even though I have full access to my big house and use the big house for cooking, showering, and other restroom needs. The reality is my tiny house falls into a grey area. It is not an ADU because it is too small in square footage and it is not on a foundation. It isn't an RV because it was built on a utility trailer and has never been registered as an RV. The city has decided to categorize it as an RV rather than work to create a new category. As an RV I am only allowed to occupy it 30 day in a calendar year and can not use it as a primary residents. Also it is required to be parked on pavement or a driveway as an RV. Because of these restrictions the city will not let me pave an existing driveway to keep it parked in its current location. Even if the city did allow me to keep it and pave the driveway for a place to park it, according to the code I would be breaking the law sleeping in it each night. It saddens me that Bremerton has decided to not work with me after so many years of creative problem solving to get to this point. The impact this decision makes on me is minor in comparison to the number of people's lives it could have helped that would have come through my big house over the years. It's very important to me that the city and its citizens work together to create more housing. We are in a serious housing crisis. Without more housing we are not doing our part to help low income people and people that have fallen into homelessness as a result of the housing inequality. I am trying to do my part to create affordable housing and fix up existing properties so that we can live in a better community. I hope we can create a system that helps lift people out of the hopeless cycle I felt as a young adult. I want to thank you for your hard work as you design these new regulations on ADU's. I hope my story can help in some way to bring change. If you would ever like to talk more about this story please feel free to reach out by email or phone (360)-689-7804 Best regards, 5251 Auto Center Way, Bremerton, WA 98312 (360) 479-5778 www.kitsapbuilds.com December 7, 2020 Bremerton City Council 345 6th St, Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 Dear Council Members, The Kitsap Building Association (KBA) wishes to formally support the proposed amendments to BMC Title 20 for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), drafted by Community Development and unanimously approved by the City’s Planning Commission. Specifically, the KBA urges the Council to approve and adopt the following amendments: •Revise the regulations to change the maximum number of ADUs allowed per lot (proposal is to allow all lots with a single-family home to have 2 ADUs) •Revise the maximum size limitations (as the State of Washington recommends) •Refine the design criteria, which currently requires that the ADU exterior must compliment the single-family home and/or neighborhood. The City does not currently regulate single-family homes design. This should not extend to ADUs. •Amend the parking requirement (additional parking spaces is not required for 1st ADU, and a 2nd ADU onsite would have to provide one additional parking space). •Remove the owner occupancy requirement. •Allow certain non-conforming structures to be converted for use as ADUs (this would allow existing garages on front property line to be converted to ADU). The KBA wishes to thank Community Development Director Andrea Spencer, and Planning Manager Allison Satter for engaging us in the amendment discussions. I would also like to acknowledge the City Planning Commission, and their efforts to ensure the proposed changes to BMC Title 20 for ADUs are in the best interest of Bremerton, WA. Sincerely, Russ Shiplet Russ Shiplet, Executive Officer Kitsap Building Association From:MDM To:City Council Cc:Pat Sullivan Subject:RE: 12/9/2020 Bremerton City Council Study Session and 12/16/2020 Council Meeting - ADU’s Date:Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:25:31 PM City Council, Based on a quick read of the proposed revised ordinance, it appears the following are the primary proposed revisions to the ADU ordinance: -Allow 2 ADUs and a primary dwelling on the property. -ADUs may be up to 1,000 sq ft or not more than 60% of the primary dwelling whichever is greater -All exterior design elements requirements have been removed. -Only the 2nd ADU must provide 1 off-street parking space. -Property owner does not have to live in the primary dwelling. Removing a requirement to provide off-street parking will be detrimental to existing neighborhoods. There is already a serious parking problem in West Bremerton, and that is occurring in more Bremerton City neighborhoods. If it cannot sustain off-street parking, it should not be allowed to be built in a location. While it is ideal to think of having a heavily walkable or bicycle friendly city, with great public transit options, Bremerton is far away from being that City. The majority of renters/homeowners have more than one vehicle so this change could add a minimum of three more cars cramming into existing street parking throughout the city. That is a negative impact to residents and neighbors, so I disagree with this change. Allowing ADUs to be 1,000 feet or greater depending on the size of the primary dwelling is also potentially detrimental to existing neighborhoods and residents and will not be a benefit to affordable or deeply affordable housing. What the City lacks is more modest sized homes that provide great rental or home ownership to those just starting out on their own. A 1,000 square foot home is sufficient space for two people to live comfortably and provides a more affordable option to more people, thus helping our home insecurity problem. I strongly encourage a maximum size for ADUs of 1,000 square feet. Allowing 2 ADUs per property without more definitive requirements based on the size of the property, etc., is an appalling change. I strongly disagree with allowing more than one ADU per property. Removing the requirement that the primary unit be owner-occupied just turns this into trouble for neighborhoods. We have one house in our neighborhood that rents rooms out to military men and women. The property owner lives out of state. There have been up to eight additional cars on the street based on the number living in this house. It's easy to imagine four vehicles per ADU if the size is over 1,000 sq feet. There have been other issues throughout the years with this rental situation - excessive speed, trash on the sidewalks and streets, loud parties, illegal fireworks, etc. Having a property owner live on the property helps keep things in check for the neighborhood. I disagree with removing this requirement - it's a benefit to developers or rental owners - not to residents and neighborhoods. Thanks, Diane Manning From:rdm3525@comcast.net To:City Council Subject:Re: FW: Invitation to December 9 City Council Study Session - "Item A16 - ADU"s" Date:Wednesday, December 9, 2020 8:13:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I appreciate the chance to provide some observations to this proposed ordinance change. I do have some concerns with the proposed changes. If what the city wants to allow is more rental units in the city then call it what it is. Don't mislead the city residents by changing an ordinance for ADU'S. Changing the name of things seems to be the way certain people get what they want these days. Such as suggesting LIFt and UBER is different than a taxi. It's just a way to get around regulations that could affect the ridership. I've read the Planning commissions minutes and it seems that they are forwarding these changes based off of several factors. 1.One of the public meeting they reference was in 2018. Prior to the pandemic. What an opportunity for the city to pass a controversial issue is during a pandemic. 2.Their reasoning for changing the current ordinance is based off of state recommendations. I question the need for the city charter if we are just going to follow state recommendations. 3.The reason for ADU's to begin with was to allow family members to better care for their loved ones. Now they're just going to be rentals as well as the primary house. 4.Some of the 7 people that spoke in favor of the changes seem to be interested in rental income. It seems Bremerton already has its fair share of rentals all ready. I'm not sure how they came up with the fact the owner occupied homes and rentals are maintained to similar standards. Is that a Code Enforcement Fact? 5.Do we really want to push more cars out on to the street to park? It's bad enough already. I could go on and on as to why I would hate to see this proposal passed. I've lived in Bremerton 65 of my 67 years so I have a little history to look back on. I'm also a retired city employee with 31 years of service and have seen first hand how this city has changed. I haven't read anything about the quality of life aspect the people like myself may loose if this ordinance is passed. I bought my current house in a single family residential area with the expectation that I would have some separation between my neighbors. It this proposal passed that expectation is gone. Within the last 4 months an ADU was just built to lots down from me. The initial house on the lot is less than 900 sq. ft. The ADU is just under 1200 sq ft.(Info from the County parcel search). How it was allowed is beyond me if the current codes were followed. So now the house next to me has a house 3' from their rear property line. Why is it so important to pack more people into already small spaces? Again I question the quality of life issue. I would urge the Council to vote no on this proposal if for no other reason because we're in the middle of a pandemic and it's not the best time to go to your neighbors to educate them on a major change to the zoning code. Regards, Ron McKiernan 3525 Parker Lane From:Matt Hebard To:City Council Subject:Comment on Ordinance No. 5410 amendment re: ADUs Date:Friday, December 11, 2020 10:23:36 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. President Younger, Mayor Wheeler, esteemed Council Members: I encourage you to either "deny", "table", or "take no action" at the December 16th council meeting regarding the amendment to the BMC No. 5410. This amendment will very likely start a rather radical change to the landscape of Bremerton not only for the people who reside in Bremerton, but also for the people who visit and commute to, or through, Bremerton. Such an amendment deserves more time to consider. (I am rather surprised the SEPA review made a "Nonsignificance" determination......and that the decision was not appealed....) Although it appears all legally required notices and public commenting periods have been followed thus far, please consider that this has been done under the dark cloud of the COVID pandemic when citizens have been either preoccupied with other aspects of life, or simply disengaged from matters such as this. The situation is very reminiscent of when and how the Bremerton Marina construction decision was made: citizens felt the decision lacked transparency and smacked of backroom dealings, especially for such a major change to Bremerton. Expect a similar public rejoinder if this amendment is passed on December 16th...... I do respect the need for adequate dwelling inventory in the city and county and for proper community planning. But, by allowing two ADUs per single family residence this amendment is probably going too far. Respectfully, Matt Hebard (Residing in the Port of Tracyton/unincorporated City of Bremerton) This comment can be included in the December 16th Council meeting record Testimony of Dave Kimble Bremerton City Council's 12-16-20 Public Hearing on proposed Design Standard Changes for Accessory Dwellings. Our family fully supports modification of accessory dwelling units allowed and occupancy requirement changes. Our collective families have owned property within Bremerton City Limits in the past; we do not presently own property in Bremerton. We would like to see Bremerton set the standard for these ADU regulatory requirement changes. We would hope that Kitsap County would be encouraged by Bremerton's passage of these changes to effect their own changes. In our case, we have a pre-existing 1200 sq ft two level Boat House that construction was stopped before completion when the owner passed away in 1967. We bought the property in 1977. We have continued to maintain the structure since acquiring this property in 1977. The structure has sewer and power available. We had previously considered converting "The Boat House" which in fact was grandfathered as a "Net Shed" since constructed by the prior landowners. They were of course fisherman, being Gill-netters. We started to work toward getting this old net shed to be permitted as an accessory dwelling in 2007, but stopped and shifted gears due to the more difficult access it would have presented from my mom. We did have an agreement with County to expand the footprint north and south if we removed the overhanging seawall that encroaches on the beach. We elected to construct an accessory dwelling behind our primary dwelling instead due to access issues for my mom. Due to the requirements to be able to fit the accessory dwelling on the upper part of our property, we had to build up and did so to a height of approx. 42 feet. Height is measured from the average elevation, which in our case puts the unit height at both 35 feet from 1 location and 42 feet, or so, from another elevation measured. With the building limitations we faced we had to install and elevator for access for mom. If Bremerton can set the new standards for two accessory dwellings on single-family properties, we would love to see the Ktisap County as a whole adopt the same new standards. If that happens, we would consider finishing the lower 1200 sq. ft. structure that was originally constructed as "guest quarters" by the former property owners. This would make a great second accessory dwelling. We currently are renting out the 1549 sq. ft. accessory dwelling behind our primary dwelling. Manchester Accessory Dwelling Development Requirements. Manchester as designation a Rural Village of Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development. Two Dwelling Units are allowed per Acre (MVLR) Permits: Residential Building Permits needed are a conditional use permit, state environmental policy act review, shoreline master program review since on shoreline. Our permits totaled approximately $4,300 in 2009 Minimum lot size requirement for single family dwelling in Manchester MVLR (non- commercial) is 21,780 sq. ft. Our property was previously larger enough for ADU when we constructed, but when the county later re-calculated GIS data our property would not have met minimums. Property went from .48 to .28 acre. Maximum size of ADU is 50% of residential livable area with maximum of 900 sq. ft. Kitsap permits one ADU per single residential property, attached or detached. Attic spaces and garage spaces (for storage) that are typically non-habitable do not count against maximum 900 sq. ft. limit. Access to ADU same side street entrance as primary dwelling. One additional parking space for ADU in addition to two parking spaces required for primary dwelling. ADU location: Within 150 ft. of primary residence. Setbacks: 50' front (20' front for historic lots), front 5' and back 5'. Residency Requirements: Owner must reside in either primary or accessory dwelling, either one may be rented. Appearance of ADU: Must be designed to maintain appearance of the primary residence. ADU heights for Manchester, I assume other areas as well are generally: Accessory Dwelling heights are 8' with maximum of 35' feet in view overlay corridors 35' permitted if: No existing view of downtown Seattle, the Cascades, Mt. Rainier, or the Puget Sound from the subject property or any adjacent properties or if: owners of all adjacent properties approve the building height prior to building permit issuance; or it can be explicitly shown that the structure will not cause the blockage of existing views from any of the adjacent properties. ADU is behind flat roof house - Boat House on lower property From:Dave Kimble To:City Council Cc:Greg Wheeler Subject:Our efforts in Manchester Date:Thursday, December 10, 2020 3:59:50 PM Attachments:Also Basement Apartment.BMP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Council Members: We have been following what Seattle has done with ADU regs. and believe Bremerton and the County is missing a bet on not allowing two additional dwelling units, or accessory dwelling units per qualified parcels or city lots. As I recall our permit fees with the County back in 2008 were approximately $4300. Not blocking neighbors in back when built as they were and still are vacant lots. Height is anyone's guess due to grade and how you measure but greater then 37 feet and blessed by the wise men from the County. Separate gas, power, garbage. Average rent is $1730/mo. and landlord pays sewer and water only. We also have a 900 sq ft waterfront apartment that was permitted and due to entry within primary dwelling (also entry from basement and egress window in bedroom) we essentially have two rental units on single family lot. County does not consider the space below primary dwelling to be ADU. We do have three car garage under the ADU and two or three additional parking areas on concrete off the private lane. Sincerely, Dave Kimble Manchester From:Kate Rich To:City Council Subject:Adu proposal Date:Friday, December 11, 2020 10:55:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello! I'm a home owner in district 6. I fully support relaxing adu regulation. I would love to provide affordable housing in my own back yard whole simultaneously making my own life more affordable. Please vote yes on this proposal Katelyn From:Paul Grant To:City Council Subject:Public hearing regarding ADUs Date:Friday, December 11, 2020 4:08:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a resident of Madrona Pt. I am very much opposed to increasing the number of allowed living units. My neighbor routinely parks on the street blocking the view from my driveway. From: Paul [mailto:oysterbay007@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 2:11 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Fwd: Important Public Hearing Next Wednesday regarding ADUs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please see my comments below regarding the ADU amendment. Paul Halvorsen, 1310 Shorewood Drive, Bremerton WA 98312 Begin forwarded message: From: Paul <oysterbay007@comcast.net> Subject: Fwd: Important Public Hearing Next Wednesday regarding ADUs Date: December 11, 2020 at 2:02:38 PM PST Dear Neighbors, I am very much opposed to the amendment proposed below as it regards the Shorewood Drive/Madrona Point neighborhoods. The increased population in our little community will bring about increased parking demands. Some of those demands will be met by on street parking. Already the on street parking on Shorewood Drive is an issue. Where it exists folks have difficulty exciting their driveways and safely entering the street. I have had close calls in the past for this very reason. Paul From:Allison Satter To:simplyshellib Cc:City Council Subject:RE: ADU input from a homeless wanderer prior home owner district 4 Date:Friday, December 11, 2020 2:00:53 PM Shelli, Thank you for your comments, I have forwarded them on to City Council for their consideration. Best Regards, Allison Satter Planning Manager From: simplyshellib <simplyshellib@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:22 PM To: Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: ADU input from a homeless wanderer prior home owner district 4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I am providing comment about ADU if that is what the city is working on dealing with those unfortunate souls who have no place to live in safety. In June 2019 I had to flee my home. As this is a public forum, I became homeless. Couch surfing. I own a home on 9th street, in Bremerton. After a long ugly divorce, that sale is just now in closing. Therefore, with some equity, I could live in a tiny home. I have been a good neighbor. Please allow me the opportunity to live in Kitsap County again. It is a travesty that we in the USA do not benefit from shelter and safety as a basic necessity of life. Thank you, Shelli Broussard Present co owner (non resident due dv) 1525 9th St Bremerton WA 98337 Simplyshellib@yahoo.com Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. From:Claire Trettin To:City Council Cc:William Trettin Subject:Bremerton ADU Proposed Changes Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 5:12:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Bremerton city council, My partner and I write to you to express our support for the proposed ADU changes to Bremerton's code. Adding housing via ADUs will allow Bremerton to grow in a responsible manner. As Seattle and the PNW region continue to grow in population, we should expect and plan for Bremerton to grow as well. Adding more units within occupied land will allow us to grow without expanding Bremerton's footprint. With increased density, more residents will be able to walk to work, and our metro systems will be more efficient. We can't pretend that Bremerton can stay single-family-residential forever. This region will only become more incorporated with Seattle and the surrounding economy. Without responsible city planning, we will continue to see ballooning housing prices (only adding to our homelessness crisis) and congested streets. I hope you all agree that this proposal represents a first step towards a new urban approach to Bremerton's design. Please reply for any further clarification on our stance. Claire and William Trettin From:Danessa Gray To:City Council Subject:ADU"s are Awesome! Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 3:10:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ADU's are a great way to expand housing in our cute little city, and we definitely need that. ADU's are needed and wanted! I believe that the rules around parking (see below) should be relaxed: (h) Accessory dwelling units shall provide one (1) off-street parking space in addition to that which is required for the principal unit. When adding an ADU, all driveways and areas used for loading, parking, and maneuvering vehicles on the parcel shall have a paved surface. I also believe that the design standards should be relaxed as well so that they do not have to match the existing home: (f) Any ADU shall be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of a single- family residence and should architecturally blend into the existing neighborhoods through careful design. Thank you so much, Danessa Gray Bremerton WA From:Jakob Lunden To:City Council Subject:PRO Proposed ADU Regulations Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 6:39:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members, I am writing in support of the proposed changes to ADU regulations. My boyfriend and I bought and restored two historic homes on one lot in the Union Hill neighborhood neighborhood. Our tenants in the backyard cottage now enjoy a lovely, efficient, stand-alone home for reasonable rent ($1,100) with water/sewer/garbage paid. If allowed a third unit, we'd contemplate finishing off a basement suite and renting it out, too. There's always ample street parking and it's an easy walking/biking/transit distance to downtown, the yard and the ferries. Attached and detached ADUs have always been a part of Bremerton's housing stock. Bremerton has many a backyard cottage or house with basement suite, sometimes even on the same lot! The proposed changes will bring about more affordable housing, and incentivize homeowners and landlords alike to help solve our housing crunch. The extra income from ADUs can help homebuyers qualify for a mortgage, make their payments and pay down their homes sooner, as well as provide a little extra income in retirement. An owner-occupancy requirement doesn't do anything to create more affordable housing stock, and it's ill-suited to a town where military members and DOD employees are often on the move. I understand concerns about slumlords, but that can be managed through code enforcement. It's not like run-down old housing stock can magically multiply - any newly- created units would need to go through permitting anyhow, so they'd be safe, and, well, new. I look forward to Wednesday's meeting and hope the council says yes to more affordable housing options! From:Jessica Torrez-Riley To:City Council Subject:Support loosening ADU changes Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 3:22:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a new resident of Bremerton, I am happy to call the Union Hill neighborhood home and feel so lucky to have bought my first house here in Bremerton. I love this small urban center and the affordable housing options available through ADUs. Have met some great neighbors of all ages and backgrounds living in these units. I encourage the City Council to approve loosening of the ADU guidelines to allow Bremerton to use all our space efficiently and help provide more housing options throughout the city. Thank you, Jessica Torrez Riley Bremerton 98337 -- -- Jessica Torrez-Riley C: 425-442-4712 linkedin.com/in/jessicatorrezriley From:Laurie Berbells To:City Council Cc:lberbells@comcast.net Subject:City Council Meeting On Wednesday, December 16 at 5:30pm Date:Sunday, December 13, 2020 4:42:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Bremerton City Council, We are NOT in favor of allowing single-family residential homes to have 2 accessory dwelling units in addition to a private resident in Bremerton. Bremerton has always been so much better to live in then Seattle due to nicer neighborhoods that are less crowded. Overcrowding adds to more stress and crime. There are many walkers on our neighborhood street where additional traffic due to additional dwellings could hurt our walkers and/or their pets. Also, it would be an increase in noise. We understand it is a way for the city to increase their funding revenue, but we think the city should use their outlying areas for more homes or increase the size, if possible from the county. Thank you, Jim and Laurie Berbells 1702 Shorewood Drive Bremerton, WA. 98312 360-377-7733 From:Jim McDonald To:City Council Subject:Proposed Amendments to the ADU regulations Date:Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:41:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council members, It is interesting to see what 10 years or so does to change one's perspective. A decade ago, the City Council goals focused on reducing the number of rentals; increasing home ownership; and the average household income of the City's residences. Those were lofty goals and I wonder about their relevance when considering the proposed changes to the ADU regulations. It would also have been helpful to evaluate the proposed changes with data related to rental rates in Bremerton and home ownership rates. I would support postponing the changes of this regulation until it can be fine tuned a bit more. Specifically: 1. Eliminate the provision to have 2 ADUs per lot. This is a de facto new zoning code and it should be eliminated. 2. Change the parking requirement based on an analysis of the current parking environment. For example, require the additional parking if the ADU is in an area that already has a residential parking permit requirement. 3. Maintain the home-ownership requirement for the initial permitting of the ADU. We have Landlord - tenant problems already. We should not be looking to increase these problems for our neighborhoods. 4. Reinstate some or all of the design standards. I agree that designing an ADU to more closely match the existing house will cost more; however, those costs will be more than offset by the rent and the appearance and appreciation to the homeowner and the neighborhood. As currently written, shed roofs that matched the color and siding of the existing house would be allowed. Cheap and unattractive is not what I envision for infill in our neighborhoods. Thank you for your consideration and your service! R, Jim McDonald 1311 Marlow Ave, B6 Bremerton, WA 98310 From:Jodi Morris To:City Council Subject:ADU Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 6:24:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please lift ordinances on ADUs to help our elderly, young people just starting out and low income citizens afford safe, sanitary and affordable housing. This is such an obvious solution to the housing shortage that one wonders why changes were shot down in 2017. With still no real plan for getting covid under control as we don't have enough vaccines for everyone, many people are facing homelessness at no fault of their own plus most of us are an emergency away from becoming homeless to begin with. We need to implement all the housing solutions available at this time. Jodi Morris From:Keri Weber To:City Council Subject:December 16, 2020 City Council Meeting - Question for purposed updates to ADU city requirements Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 11:16:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings, My husband and I are currently in the beginning planning stages of building an ADU on our property within Bremerton city limits and cannot be more happy that the city council is meeting to discuss the current requirements! We will definitely be viewing the council meeting scheduled tomorrow. I did want to suggest one comment/question for consideration by the city council as it does relate to current requirements. One topic for discussion is to remove the requirement for adding an additional dedicated off-street parking spot if adding one ADU, which is an update we strongly support. My concern pertains to the requirements for the primary single-family dwelling. I see that regardless of the purposed changes to 20.46.010 for parking, the primary must still comply with BMC 20.48. I reviewed 20.48.060 and also confirmed with the city Planning Department that the parking for the single family residence would be required to meet code: two paved, off-street parking spaces, a minimum of 8 x 18 feet. This will be a condition of approval of the ADU building permit (& the paving would need to be completed before Final Occupancy). Our property already has two dedicated off-street parking spots, however it is currently gravel. The cost for paving the existing parking spots is a large expense (approx. $5,000) and we are questioning the need to have them paved. While paving is a nice improvement, we would like the city council to review the requirement for it to be paved and if that requirement can be waived in place of using a different material, such as gravel. Thank you for your time and consideration. Keri Reynolds Manette Resident Sent from my iPhone Please excuse any typos December 14, 2020 Bremerton City Council: I am writing in regards to the proposed ADU amendment to the BMC. Like many of you know, I am a Libertarian who strongly believes in private property rights. That said, I am not opposed to ADUs as a whole; rather, certain aspects of this proposal concern me. In the last eight months, I have walked the Madrona Point neighborhood almost every day. One of the good things about my daily ramble is that I have become very well acquainted with my neighbors and the 100+ homes in our small community. Owner occupancy Yesterday, I spoke with several people of varying political viewpoints. They had mixed opinions about the number of ADUs, but all strongly agreed that the owner should live on the property. Over the years, I have fielded constituents' calls. Many involve an absentee landlord who only worries about getting paid. If the owner lived on the site, they would care about loud noises in the wee hours of the morning, guns shots/fireworks, aggressive dogs, vehicles on the front lawn - - all things that have been issues. Lack of transparency and the appearance of “under the table” deals The City’s notification in regards to this change reminds me of the section in Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: “But the plans were on display…” "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." "That's the display department." "With a flashlight." "Ah, well, the lights had probably gone." "So had the stairs." "But look, you found the notice, didn't you?" "Yes," said Arthur, "yes, I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard." The comic satire reflects the City’s notification to Bremerton homeowners. Last week, the mayor said to go out to the various community groups. Despite the obvious fact we are in a stay-at-home order and cannot interface in person, I have attended several community Zoom meetings and never heard anything about this change. This issue came to my attention, not as one would have supposed (from my husband); rather, an acquaintance told me about it. He is a large Kitsap County home developer and informed me that he recently had several meetings with the mayor to get the new ADU amendment passed. He builds $500k+ homes, which I have no problem with since my father was a high-end home builder, but do not be fooled into thinking my friend and other developers plan to build low-income homes. My father found out years ago that there is much more profit in high-end homes. The question will likely be denied, but I suspect that developers have permit packages ready to submit the moment this passes. Once "the genie is out of the bottle," I see no way stricter requirements could be later imposed. The unintended consequences are numerable. Illegal ADUs During my daily walks, I was surprised to discover the number of ADUs (rented basements, garages, and separate structures), almost all “illegal” under the current code. City officials made it clear that they have no intention of curbing illegal ADUs, which begs the question: WHY HAVE RULES/ZONING CODE? It is like speed limits but no enforcement… Affordable Housing by design rather than this 'Band-aid approach' Affordable housing could have been addressed in the redevelopment of Anderson Cove, which the Bremerton Planning Commission favored, yet the council failed to approve. As a regular watcher of the city council meetings, you could have addressed the affordable housing issue this time last year by rezoning the Anderson Cove area into a higher density. Ironically, those who strongly support affordable housing voted against it. That was an opportunity when you could have made a beneficial long-term solution for the housing shortage. The West Park redevelopment is another example of creating a deliberate positive rezoning of an area to increase affordable housing. This current proposal is like applying an infected band-aid to treat a heart attack – it will not fix the problem but makes the situation worse. Parking Issues Bremerton has long had a parking problem. You formed task forces, made proposals, yet the issue continues. Adding more residents will exasperate the problem. Assuming that a vehicle will park in a garage is invalid. Especially with smaller homes, garages are often used as a storage unit rather than a parking place. If the city encourages residents to park on the street that hinders large emergency vehicles a quick approach to those in need, tragic consequences will occur. Please consider that your actions could dramatically harm our residential neighborhoods. Kristina Younger 1415 Madrona Point Drive From: To: Subject: Date: Martin Lewis City Council Re (ADU) zoning Monday, December 14, 2020 7:27:28 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning Counsel members, I have read through the rezoning proposal and do not agree with it. I feel that allowing this to pass would severely hurt the neighborhoods of Bremerton and take a bad turn towards slum lord property owners. Allowing single resident/family lots to be turned into multi structure lots ONLY helps big building companies and allowing the property owner to not live on the property will encourage slum lord style ownership which would lead to the destruction of the community over time. As a resident I feel that this bill should be struck down and the committee focus on more things to help the community like repairing neighborhood roads in East Bremerton, or adding sidewalks to the neighborhoods to make it safer for kids and families to walk. Thank you. Martin Lewis From:Matthew Adams To:City Council Subject:ADU comments for City Council Meeting-For Public Record Date:Sunday, December 13, 2020 11:52:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor Wheeler, City Council Members and Citizens of Bremerton, My name is Matthew Adams, and with my family we reside in District 5. I am in favor of ADUs (Auxillary Dwelling Units). But I do not believe this will solve the issue of affordable housing within Bremerton. Since the City of Bremerton currently allows for ADUs to be built, at an average of 2 a year, is this really the issue? By its very definition affordable housing is "housing which is deemed affordable to those with a median household income." The median household income for Bremerton is $54,000. That's not a lot. Is the real issue the amount of homes available, or the median household income? On 30 Oct 2017, during the debate at the Admiral Theatre hosted by Kitsap Sun writer Josh Farley, Michael Goodnow stated "I am PRO affordable housing!" And yet, since being elected what has Councilman Goodnow done to further the issue of affordable housing in Bremerton? Nothing. But he has focused solely on using his position to further his personal interests, as well as leverage his special interest groups into positions to benefit from the Citizens of Bremerton. That sounds like his "White Privilege, lots of it" Speech from July 2020 is on full display now for the public to witness for themselves. We have families in District 5 that do not meet the threshold for the Bremerton median household income. For the families who do not meet this criteria, this holiday season will be a difficult, and challenging time. Everyday life for them is a struggle. These families, as well as others throughout Bremerton are hungry, broken and looking for relief to help their families. Despite this, Councilman Goodnow has 3 Christmas trees in his home on full display for the public. Honestly, it's a slap in the face to those who walk by his home, and are unable to provide for themselves. This shows how out of touch Councilman Goodnow is with his constituents, Citizens of Bremerton and with the affordable housing issue in Bremerton. Another example of "White Privilege, lots of it" to quote the Councilman himself. On 30 Oct 2020, Councilman Goodnow went on the "Heilman & Haver Podcast" to promote his personal agenda. This clip is available on Youtube, as well as Twitter. I encourage the public to watch the clip. No COVID-19 protocols were being followed, and this was during a time when the business he was hosting the interview in was actually shut down to the public. No masks, no social distancing, just Michael doing what he does best: promote himself at the expense of the Citizens of Bremerton. I want to thank Mayor Wheeler and the City Council Members who demanded to hear from their constituents prior to casting their votes. You get it. You understand, and you allow for the Citizens of Bremerton to be heard. For those of you who don't want to listen to the voters in your districts, your true colors are showing. Do not forget, you were voted into this position to listen first, vote second. If Bremerton Lives Matter to you, then help out the families who helped put you where you are today and address the issue with the median household income in Bremerton. The first step is taking a portion of your December wages from your elected positions and donating that not to a special interest group that you have ties to, but to the Citizens of Bremerton who are hungry, and struggling during this holiday season. May your conscience be your guide. Happy Holidays to you all and your families. v/r, Matthew Adams District 5 From:Monica Sundberg To:City Council Subject:Proposed Changes to ADU"s Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 12:43:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi there, I'm emailing to voice my support for the proposed changes to the ADU code. I agree with all of the proposed code changes: amending the parking requirements, reducing or removing the design standards, allowing 2 ADU's per lot, removing owner occupancy, revising max size limits, and allowing certain non-conforming units to be converted for use as ADUs. Thank you, Monica Sundberg From: To: Subject: Date: Patrick Buck City Council Accessory Dwelling Units Tuesday, December 15, 2020 7:41:21 AM City Council, I reside in District 6 and saw the article about Accessory Dwelling Units in the Kitsap Sun and even though the author has some valid points, he completely neglects others. I've owned my home at 1910 N. Wycoff Ave for almost 20 years now. I have a Duplex on one side of my house and a house with an ADU on the other. I've had almost 2 decades of experience with renters and landlords as well a have seen the effects that multiple ADU's have on a neighborhood. If you are familiar with Callow, north of 15th, you know that there are several houses with ADU's in that neighborhood. Parking is atrocious, the street looks like a used car lot most times of the day. I had this problem where I live, my trash didn't get picked up for 3 weeks because the renters in the ADU's take no responsibility for the neighborhood that they live in and park wherever they want, and that I have found is the main problem that the author is ignoring. Renters, probably mostly good people, don't take any responsibility for the neighborhood that they live in. I've had a few good renter/neighbors, but the vast majority have not been good neighbors. You can't place complete blame for this on the landlord, try as they might, when they get someone who appears at first to be a good renter but then turns out to be terrible, it takes them months to evict that person and the whole while the neighborhood suffers. By allowing more ADU's into a neighborhood that was designed to be a single family home neighborhood you increase parking issues, noise complaint issues, traffic issues, and the ones who suffer are the homeowners who live in those neighborhoods. I believe a better resolution to the housing shortage would be more condiminiums or apartments in the downtown core, somewhere that is designed to have high density, not turning somewhere that wasn't designed to be high density into a high density area. Thanks for your time. Patrick Buck 1910 N. Wycoff Ave Bremerton Patrick.Buck@comcast.net From:ron greising To:City Council Subject:ADUs Date:Sunday, December 13, 2020 6:46:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. A terrible idea. Parking car clutter will be a major problem. To many rentals bring down the quality of a neighborhood. Renters do not maintain there living space as well. What is to stop investors from buying homes and building ADUs on the property. The same could be done by be existing home owners. Build the ADU then move out and rent both units or more. Again very bad idea. Great way to be turn bremerton into a third class junker city. From:Susan Digby To:City Council Subject:Input to the ADU meeting 16 December 2020 Date:Monday, December 14, 2020 9:49:22 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am generally in favor of ADU’s but with caveats. Bremerton already has a considerably higher percentage of rental properties than other cities so I think we need to move stepwise and cap the ADU development at one per lot and take into account the following issues: 1) Ensuring that ADUs reduce local housing shortage. We need to ensure that ADU’s do increase the number of housing options available to people and do not just result in short term holiday rentals. Short term holiday rentals benefit the home owner but they do not solve the issue of housing shortage. In increasing the allowable number of ADUs we need to put a limit on the number that can be used for short term (holiday) rentals. 2)Parking safety We need to ensure that parking for ADUs is available somewhere. 86.6% of Bremertonians own a car and probably 100% of holiday renters own cars, (sometimes more than one if it involves a family gathering). Hence there needs to be room on the ADU’s street to park a car belonging to a renter without impeding traffic or pedestrians. 3)Storm water runoff mediation Bremerton’s ability to handle storm water runoff is already taxed to the limit which results in periodic sewage overflows during periods of heavy rain. With increased hardscape we need to ensure that we maximize local water retention by using water-permeable surface materials. Permeable materials include pavers, permeable concrete or gravel rather than asphalt. Environmentally this is a good solution as, in addition to not compounding the sewage overflows issue, permeable surfaces reduce pollutants that are otherwise routed into the Sound. Recent work has shown that chemicals from tires, (6PPD-quinone), kill salmon before they can spawn. Dyes Inlet, which Bremerton surrounds (and extends into with its various peninsulas such as Marine Drive), is an important route for spawning salmon. Water- permeable surface materials also reduce surface heating which, in a time of accelerating climate change, is important. In removing vegetation to build ADUs we are negatively impacting the environment so we need to do what we can to minimize our impact. The environment speaks to the need to cap ADUs to one per lot. Rain gardens are also a solution to surface runoff. Again this speaks to the need to cap ADUs to one per lot; the minimum lot size for an ADU is environmentally small at 3200sq. ft., (eg. 40ft x 80ft or 57 ft. sq). 4)Good Design I don’t know what to suggest but I have the following concern. We need to ensure that ADUs are built in styles that do not result in Bremerton regressing to a city known for slum housing. I don’t know how this can be done but the approach needs to focus on “small, functional and cute” rather than on a return to cheap, hastily constructed, wartime housing. It would seem that good design, whatever that means, increases the value of the property and increases the image of Bremerton as a whole. An approach of matching an ADU to an existing house style may not be the best approach. Good design is needed without a huge number of regulations. I think some thought needs to go into this question. Best regards, Susan Digby From:Travis Merrigan To:City Council Subject:Support for ADUs Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:57:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi city council, I'm writing in support of ADUs. Our region is changing, lots of people are moving to Bremerton. We need lots of options to house them. Big apartment complexes? Great. Vast tracks of new suburban housing? Sure. But here within the core of the city, we can provide relatively inexpensive homes, and opportunities for home owners to create additional sources of revenue. I live next to an ADU in my home on Naval. I like having an extra set of eyes on the street. I can't really think of a downside. Please support ADUs. Thanks, Travis Merrigan Hi City Council - please vote in favor of the proposed ADU Changes today! They'll provide more good quality, affordable housing in our neighborhoods without the need to tear down entire blocks for apartments. I am in the process of buying a home in Bremerton and hope to be able to build an ADU for my parents to live in one day, to have them close and to help care for them as they age. David DALBRIGHT.COM | @DALBRIGHT 206.498.7904 | david@dalbright.com From:D MA To:City Council Subject:ADU changes 2020-2021 Date:Wednesday, December 16, 2020 10:21:12 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I just wanted to say that I am extremely excited to see the changes to the current ADU regulations! As our family ages we want to be prepared to transition our elderly into a place that still rockers them independence but still have us close enough for peace of mind!!! I look forward to seeing the regulations ease up enough to make this possible for a lot of families in our situation!! Not to mention as our little city continues to grow this will offer possible dwelling units to young people in college or couples just starting out. Maximize the potential of properties that can support this type of situation and it would greatly benefit everyone all the way around!!! Respectfully, Donna Archer From:Roy Runyon To:City Council Subject:Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 5410 to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.46.010 of the Zoning Code regarding Accessory Dwelling Units Date:Wednesday, December 16, 2020 12:43:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Councilmembers, Although not perfect, I support passage of Ordinance No. 5410 as recommended by the Planning Commision to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.46.010 entitled “Accessory Dwelling Units.” As a seventeen year resident, taxpayer, property owner and former elected official, I take special interest in the potential of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to positively affect the housing situation in Bremerton. In 2017, after I left the City Council and during my medical incapacitation, the Council under Eric Younger's control, amended the BMC to make the ADU code more draconian rather than reduce restrictions on ADU development. I commend the Planning Commission and city staff for their efforts this past year to work through the issues regarding the ADU code, analyze other city's ADU rules, solicit and consider input from citizens and concerned groups and craft proposed amendments to the BMC that would achieve the following: 1) reduces the cost of development of ADUs; 2) allows for an increase in housing stock WITHOUT direct taxpayer subsidy; 3) reduces the need to create additional impervious surface by reducing the parking requirement; 4) brings ADU design criteria into conformity with design criteria for single family residential development; 5) brings the BMC into conformity with "Washington State Legislature passed House Bill 1923, which provides incentivized recommendations for jurisdictions to amend local zoning codes relating to housing, with one recommendation concerning ADU standards" and 6) helps restore and preserve private property rights. I call on all of you to vote to pass Ordinance No. 5410 as recommended by the Planning Commission to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.46.010 entitled “Accessory Dwelling Units.” --Roy Runyon, Taxpayer, property owner and voter 360-440-0620 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Allison Satter City Council FW: Bremerton Municipal Code 20.46.010, regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) Wednesday, December 16, 2020 2:56:05 PM From: Devin Gombosky <Devin@kitsaprealtor.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 2:55 PM To: Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Bremerton Municipal Code 20.46.010, regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Allison, My apologies for the late notice but the Kitsap County Association of Realtors would like to officially support the amendment to Bremerton Municipal Code 20.46.010, regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). We are not wishing to testify as our comments would largely echo those of Russ Shiplet from the Kitsap Building Association. I will be observing tonight’s meeting and anxiously awaiting a decision from council. Best, DEVIN GOMBOSKY GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS DIRECTOR KITSAP COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® C: 360-742-2676 E: devin@kitsaprealtor.org W: kitsaprealtor.org A: 3689 Munson Street, Silverdale WA 98383 From:Evan Deans To:City Council Subject:YES on proposed ADU Regulations! Date:Wednesday, December 16, 2020 4:24:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members, I am writing in support of the proposed changes to ADU regulations. I own two historic homes on a single lot in the Union Hill neighborhood. Our tenants in the backyard cottage now enjoy a lovely, efficient, stand-alone home for reasonable rent ($1,100) with water/sewer/garbage paid. If allowed a third unit, we'd contemplate adding a basement suite to renting as well. Street parking is ample and it's an easy walking/biking/transit distance to downtown, the yard and the ferries. Attached and detached ADUs have long been a significant component of Bremerton housing stock, with backyard cottages and basement suites. The proposed changes will provide much needed affordable housing. It incentivize homeowners and landlords alike to contribute to solving the dire need for more housing options. The extra income from ADUs helps homebuyers qualify for a mortgage (myself included), make their payments and pay down their homes sooner, as well as provide a little extra income in retirement. An owner-occupancy requirement doesn't do anything to create more affordable housing stock, and it's ill-suited to a town where military members and DOD employees are often on the move. concerns about shady landlords and ill managed rentals can be managed through code enforcement. New housing units will need to go through permitting, so they'd be safe, and... new. I look forward to Wednesday's meeting and hope the council says yes to more affordable housing options! Regards, -Evan Deans From: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 8:24 AM To: sggriffith@fastmail.com Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: ADU opinion (Suzanne Griffith) Ms. Griffith, This is to acknowledge that your email was received, and will be provided to the Council Members for their review and consideration. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be shared with Mayor Wheeler, as well as the Department of Community Development Director and Planning Manager for their information. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments, which will also be included as a part of the final record. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us www.BremertonWA.gov -----Original Message----- From: sggriffith@fastmail.com <sggriffith@fastmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 7:20 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: ADU opinion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Council Members, I am writing to express my support of easing the restrictions on ADUs in the City of Bremerton so that more can be built. I lived in two ADUs in Houston, Texas, and they were economical and decent dwellings. One was an apartment built on the back of an existing house, and the other was a garage apartment. The garage apartment was preferable, I thought, because I had privacy. In the other situation, I frequently had contact with the homeowners. This can be ok, but it's better to be able to come and go without landlord-tenant interaction, as a general rule. So in my opinion, some privacy regarding tenant exit and egress should be included in the design of the dwelling. I have seen a lot of ADUs in other cities. They are generally quaint, even picturesque. Landscaping helps unify the dwelling into the lot and the neighborhood. If we build a lot of ADUs in Bremerton, there will be a need for more cafes and stores -- not a bad thing! Further, we will be able to absorb a few more working people to fit in to what has been traditionally a working class city. Navy people can rent an ADU and become part of the culture. I rent out a room in my home, since I no longer use my second floor. This has been a very satisfactory arrangement. I think other citizens of Bremerton will benefit from the opportunity for ADUs. Please let me know if you have any questions about my thoughts on this subject. Suzanne Griffith 350 Hill Ct. (District 1) -- sggriffith@fastmail.com From: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 8:32 AM To: chris@barnesnw.com Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: ADU Comments & Questions (Chris Barnes) Mr. Barnes, This is to acknowledge that your email was received, and will be provided to the Council Members for their review and consideration. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be shared with Mayor Wheeler, as well as the Department of Community Development Director and Planning Manager for a response to your questions. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments, which will also be included as a part of the final record. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us www.BremertonWA.gov From: chris@barnesnw.com <chris@barnesnw.com> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 5:38 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: Message for District 4 I would like to understand the purpose of the new ADU rules? Is it to provide denser housing? More housing? Low income housing? Homeless housing? With the limited public transit in Bremerton most people are still using cars. The streets in union hill at least are crowed with cars. At times our recycle has not been collected due to cars making the street too narrow for the trucks to pass. I am in favor of providing more low and homeless housing but no in allowing landlords to add that many more families with cars. You cannot assume each ADU will add just one car. Parking is really my only concern with this proposal. I am fine with making more housing available especially low income. But adding more cars to the streets is really not an option. there is no where to place them. Could we modify the proposal to restrict the number of cars at each tax parcel no matter how many ADUs? Or perhaps to a survey of how many street parking spaces are available on each block and limit the number of additional ADUs to the number of spaces? It would be great to hear the main issues driving these changes. Thanks! Chris Barnes KF7ZEI chris@barnesnw.com 206-503-4597 --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Message for District 4 From: "City Council" <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Date: 12/15/20 3:25 pm To: "City Council" <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> To: District 4 Constituents From: Council Member Lori Wheat ------------------------------------------------- Dear Community Members, I hope this message finds you safe and well. I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to you for being civically engaged and for your valuable contributions as part of the community. Protecting ourselves and each other from COVID Due to COVID, connection with each other has looked different this year. Although virtual meetings can never replace in-person contact, I am grateful for the technology that allows us to safely connect with each other. For the latest information about COVID, please refer to CDC guidelines as well as Washington State and local Kitsap Public Health District information at the following websites: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html https://coronavirus.wa.gov/ https://kitsappublichealth.org/CommunityHealth/CoronaVirus.php Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) proposed changes Tomorrow, Wednesday, December 16 at the 5:30 pm virtual Bremerton City Council meeting, the council will be discussing, and there is a planned vote on, changes to the City’s ADU regulations. City of Bremerton Department of Community Development staff have put together the following summary of the ADU code revisions. If you'd like to review the entire proposed ordinance and information packet you can find it here: http://www.bremertonwa.gov/706/Agenda-Packet. Choose the link for the December 16, 2020 meeting, the ADU code is the item under “Public Hearing” (Item #4A). What is an ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit)? • An ADU is a separate unit on a single-family home lot. It can be either Attached (part of the home) or Detached to the home. Also known as In-law Unit, granny flat, backyard cottage, and many other names. • Want to know more about ADUs in general, visit - MRSC - Accessory Dwelling Units How is the City of Bremerton changing the Code for ADUs? • There are 6 topics that are being considered: 1. How many ADUs can I have on my property? o Proposal is to allow all lots with a single-family home to construct two ADUs, instead of one ADU (State law requires us to allow one unit). 2. How big can an ADU be? o An ADU in today’s code must be 60% of the square footage of a single-family home o Proposal to allow 60% of the square footage of a single-family home or 1,000 square feet, whichever is greater (this is consistent with the State of Washington recommendations from House Bill 1923) 3. What should the ADU look like? o The proposal is to refined the design criteria to require that the ADU exterior shall be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of a single-family residence and should architecturally blend into the existing neighborhoods through careful design. That includes the provision that the exterior of an ADU shall have siding and roofing which in color, material and appearance are comparable to the predominant materials of the primary dwelling unit and/or characteristics of the neighborhood. o This proposal simplifies the design provision. The City does not regulate how a single- family homes design should be so the proposal keeps it consistent for ADUs. 4. How much parking will the ADU have to provide? o The proposal – 1stADU onsite does not need to provide an additional parking space, the 2ndADU onsite would have to provide one additional parking space. o The current code requires that one parking space be installed for the ADU. 5. Does the property owner need to live onsite? o Currently – yes, the owner must live onsite o Proposal – The owner does not need to live onsite, but property maintenance code is referenced so they acknowledge that the property must be maintained per City regulations. 6. New Code Provision for Nonconforming Structures to become ADUs. o New provision to allow certain nonconforming existing structures (nonconforming because they do not meet setbacks from property line or lot coverage requirement) to be converted to an ADU. o Current code does not allow this. o An example - an existing outbuilding/garage on the front property line does not meet the 15’ front yard setback, current code would not allowed that outbuilding to become an ADU. The proposed code allows an opportunity for some structures (such as that outbuilding) to be converted.” I encourage you to provide your valuable feedback by emailing (city.council@ci.Bremerton.wa.us) or attending the virtual Bremerton City Council meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, December 16 at 5:30 pm using the link at the following web page: https://www.bremertonwa.gov/691/Council-Meetings Continuing with civic engagement As always, the following are ways to continue with your civic engagement. Attend virtual Bremerton City Council meetings and Study Sessions: https://www.bremertonwa.gov/691/Council-Meetings You can review the full City Council agenda packet, which is the same material council members review to prepare for Study Sessions and Council Meetings, here: https://meetings.municode.com/PublishPage/index?cid=BREM&ppid=d33416d7-25d1-44e6-9d32- 55b97fa53824&p=-1 To stay informed, there are a variety of City notifications you may sign up for, such as “City of Bremerton Alerts“ and “Emergency Alerts” (which can be found under the category “Alert Center”) as well as “Public Notices” (which can be found under the “News Flash” category): https://www.bremertonwa.gov/list.aspx If you would like to hear more about what is happening in District 4 and Bremerton, please feel free to check out the interview I did with Constance on BKAT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0nuq-5EZdg Thank you, as always, for your civic and community engagement. I wish you very happy holidays! Best, Lori Lori Wheat Bremerton Council Member, District 4 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Allison Satter Lori Wheat Andrea Spencer; City Council; Greg Wheeler; Jennifer Hayes RE: Response to ADU Question (Council Member Lori Wheat) Wednesday, December 16, 2020 10:37:44 AM 2020 Inquiries Summary on ADUs: The following is the best summary I could acquire through the Planning Staff on your inquiry. They have reviewed their correspondence from the last year and here is a summary of their ADU inquiries: Lambert: 20 West Bremerton inquires; including on streets: 11th, 17th, 18th, 6th & Marion, Cambrian, Eastview, High, Kitsap Lake Rd, Lyle, Madorna Pt, N. Montgomery, N. Wycoff, Rainier, S. Charleston, S. Summit, Snyder, W. Marine and Washington 8 East Bremerton inquiries; including on streets Eagle, Hayward, Perry, Petersville, Shore, Trenton, and Walnut 10 inquires where no addresses were provided Rowland: 7 Bremerton inquires; including on streets: 8th, Trenton, Snyder, Bloomington, E. 17th, 18th, and Washington. Gloor: 3 West Bremerton inquiries; including on streets: 11th & Marguerite, 7th & Rainier, and 15th & Cambrian. Jackson: 10 West Bremerton inquiries; including on streets: Olympic, 11th, 7th, 18th, Bloomington, Madrona Pt, N. Montgomery, 11th, Snyder, and Marion. 3 East Bremerton inquiries; including on streets: E. 18th, Tracyton Beach, Marlow 4 inquiries where no addresses were provided The list above is just the ones that could be found in our written correspondence, it is not reflective of phone calls that have been received from the public about ADUs. Please realize that Staff receives inquiries from people seeking to legitimize existing ADUs, and want to do the right thing to apply for approval but realize that they can't meet the regulations, and therefore they don't tell us the location because they don't want to receive enforcement. The list above also does not reflect the inquiries that we receive at the DCD customer service counter (prior to COVID closure in mid-March citizens would often drop by to ask questions about how to create ADUs). To summarize, the Planners have received at least 65 written inquiries on ADUs within the last year. In 2020, the City has issued two permits for ADUs (thus adding two units to the City), and three ADU permits are “HOLD” as the City cannot issue the permit at this time (two permits are on HOLD due to building/safety code compliance and one permit is on hold as they are considering how to accommodate the needed off- street parking requirement). Hope that answer your question. Best Regards, Allison Satter Planning Manager From: Lori Wheat Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 5:37 PM To: Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jennifer Hayes <Jennifer.Hayes@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: ADU question Hello Allison, Thank you for your extensive work on the proposed changes to Bremerton ADU regulations. During the council study session, there was discussion about which areas of the City may be more likely to have ADUs added, if the proposed changes to ADU regulations are passed by the council. Are the ADU requests/inquiries DCD has received (perhaps over the last couple of years) tracked in regard to where in the city the requesters have in mind to build the ADUs? If so, that might be helpful information for the council to understand where in the City there is most demand for ADUs, or if there is a relatively even spread of interest across the City. Thanks, again, for the important work you do! Best, Lori Lori Wheat Bremerton Council Member, District 4 Disclaimer: Public documents and records are available to the public as provided under the Washington State Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). This e-mail may be considered subject to the Public Records Act and may be disclosed to a third-party requestor. From: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 6:04 PM To: Anna Mockler <upstream@riseup.net> Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Andrea Spencer <Andrea.Spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: RE: ADU Code Change (Anna Mockler) Ms. Mockler, This is to acknowledge that your email was received, and will be provided to the Council Members for their review and consideration. Due to the subject matter, a copy will also be shared with Mayor Wheeler, as well as the Department of Community Development Director and Planning Manager for their information. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments, which will also be included as a part of the final record. Christine Grenier Legislative/Auditor Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473-5280 City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us www.BremertonWA.gov -----Original Message----- From: Anna Mockler <upstream@riseup.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 5:25 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: ADU Code Change CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Councilors, There are six main code changes being considered by Council: I disagree with the addition of a second ADU, and vehemently object to permitting owners to live off site. 1. Number of ADUs per property — 1 required by State law, 2 proposed by City. I disagree with the addition of a second ADU on a property. This changes the whole character of the property and its neighborhood, in the same way that a date is changed by the addition of a little brother, or any one-on-one is changed by adding a third person. Most Bremerton lots would have a very tough time squeezing in 2,000 square feet of additional building (see #2, below). Were this two tiny houses, I would be 100% on board, but 1,000 square feet is a 3-bedroom house. Two of those is a whole lot of extra to tack on. 2.ADU size — see above. If we adhere to HB1923, any lot with two ADUs of 1000 sf or more will have virtually no green space, as well as increased traffic & parking. Sewage from this much square footage will put additional strain on an aging system designed primarily for single-family homes. 3.ADU design — I have no comment on this. 4.ADU parking. — This doesn’t make sense to me, as so much of Bremerton parking is on-street. I would like clarification. Is the proposal to create off-street parking for the ADU? In 2019, was it not the code policy to require 2 off-street parking spaces for the main house, and 1-2 spaces for the ADU? 5.ADU Owner required to live on-site — proposed change to owner no longer required to live onsite. I disagree with this very strongly indeed. When the landlord lives on-site, tensions between renters & owners can be quickly resolved, and may never even escalate to conflict, since owners are interested in maintaining property value AND in maintaining decent relations among neighbors. These incentives disappear once the owner leaves the site. What the eye doesn’t see, the heart doesn’t grieve over. Why should you care about your neighborhood if you don’t live in it? Many, many Bremertonians are interested in having an ADU — adding a story or building a separate structure. Every one I’ve spoken to is interested in having a small rental that they can oversee, or having a separate space for extended family members. Once you permit owners to live off-site, you pull out the essential element that ensures neighborhood continuity. It’s already tough enough to keep neighborhoods whole in a city where so many residents are here between tours or contracts, or only using Bremerton as a bedroom community. Removing homeowners and replacing them at random with multiple renters is just a bad, very bad, not good idea. 6.Nonconforming ADUs — This sounds like each existing structure will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Is that correct? If so, that sounds fine to me. Bremerton needs housing badly. It needed it badly before the pandemic; now, with so many unemployed or seriously under-employed, housing is a vital necessity. I myself think that the $215,000 spent on five brand-new police vehicles would have been better spent on rental assistance, or housing creation. However, I digress. I am a strong proponent of ADUs. Permitting one ADU per lot would gradually and certainly change a neighborhood’s density and character over time. Permitting two ADUs would change neighborhoods abruptly and drastically, especially when combined with the owners’ absence. There may be absentee landlords of multiple low-income properties who care for their properties and their renters as if they lived on the properties in question. I, however, have yet to meet such landlords. There were a number of proposals presented in spring/summer 2019 for increasing housing in our town, like the cottage / townhouse style on view at 15th and Snyder, or adding a story to some of the many duplexes around town, or the townhouses built at 15th and Lafayette. All of these are well-designed and serve as infill. There are also many empty commercial structures in Bremerton. These could be converted to housing and would certainly have plenty of parking! Tiny house villages on these extensive parking lots would be temporary structures that could ease the transition while new housing policies are calmly debated, thoughtfully designed, and implemented with plenty of oversight. Having a roof overhead is a certain good. I truly hate to disagree with the Mayor, and with many housing advocates, but I think that preserving the connections among the people in our neighborhoods will keep all of us safer, and more engaged with the well-being of our town. Thank you for taking the time to review my comments, and may we find a way to house our fellow human beings quickly, surely, and warmly. Yours, Anna Mockler 1123 N Cambrian Ave Bremerton WA 98312 360.509.8280 upstream@riseup.net MAYOR’S REPORT December 16, 2020 Photo courtesy of Port of Bremerton Permits Approved by Year, 2003-2020 *Includes Olympic College Instructional Center construction valued at $36.3 Million **Permits through December 11, 2020 Permit Activity –December 2016-2020 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $2,641,244 $2,038,443 $4,384,262 $2,521,434 $17,670,744 Holiday Message from Mayor Greg Wheeler Thank you to the City Council and Bremerton employees for their hard work to move Bremerton forward during COVID-19. I am grateful to the citizens of Bremerton for their determination, spirit and strength over this past year. I send our City Council, citizens and Bremerton employees peace, hope and best wishes for the holiday season!