HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/26/2021 STUDY SESSION AGENDA PACKET______________________________________________________________
CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 100, Bremerton, WA 98337 Phone (360) 473-5280
* * * A M E N D E D * * *
WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2021
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA
5:00 PM – Via Zoom Webinar
To help reduce the spread of COVID-19, the City Council is conducting a Study Session via Zoom Webinar.
The Study Session is open to the public to listen in, but there will be no opportunities for input; no action is
anticipated; and the content of these items is subject to change. If approved by the Council, these items will be
placed on the June 2, 2021 City Council Virtual Meeting Agenda…
Members of the public are invited to join the Zoom webinar by clicking on the following link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83334604483?pwd=Vkdwc1pQQm9LemlnMisrVUhLK2dhdz09
Or iPhone one-tap:
US: +12532158782,,87026242108#,,,,*209823# or +13462487799,,87026242108#,,,,*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 +1 929 205 6099
Webinar ID: 833 3460 4483
Passcode: 209823
Public questions or comments may be submitted ahead of time to City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us
A. BRIEFINGS ON AGENDA ITEMS
1. Renewal of Pollution Liability Insurance with Hartford Insurance Company
2. Accept Surface Transportation Grant from the Puget Sound Regional Council; and approve
WSDOT Local Agency Agreement for the West Kitsap Way Planning Study
3. Professional Services Agreement with LNS Engineers, Inc. for the Downtown Library HVAC
Systems Project Item postponed until June 9…
4. Goods & Services Agreement with At-Work Commercial Enterprise, LLC for Landscape
Maintenance & Services
5. Briefing on Water System Plan Update (Information only)...
6. Proposed Public Hearing on Ordinance to amend Title 20 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
related to Boundary Line Adjustments and Lot Size Averaging
7. Proposed Public Hearing on Ordinance to amend Section 20.46.040 of the Bremerton Municipal
Code related to Manufactured Homes
B. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS
o Race Equity Advisory Committee Monthly Briefing – Chair Leslie Daugs
o Public Works Committee Monthly Briefing – Vice Chair Kevin Gorman
o Finance, Investment & Parking Committee Monthly Briefing – Chair Michael Goodnow
o Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Request for Proposal Guidelines – Chair Michael Goodnow
o Other General Council Business
C. ADJOURNMENT OF STUDY SESSION
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Renewal of Pollution Liability
Insurance with Hartford Insurance Company
Study Session Date: May 26, 2021
COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 2, 2021
Department: City Attorney’s Office –
Risk Management
Presenter: Melisa Vaal Folmer
Phone: (360) 473-5302
SUMMARY: The Bremerton Municipal Code authorizes the Risk Management Specialist, with the
approval of the City Attorney, to bind insurance and requires City Council approval for the
continuation of any bound coverage that exceeds an annual premium of $25,000. Pollution liability
insurance coverage for 2021 through 2023 has been bound with Hartford Insurance Company. The
premium for the two-year term of 2021 through 2023 is $69,379.01 ($6,197.99 less than the 2019
through 2021 premium). This coverage is subject to a $100,000 self-insured retention per loss.
ATTACHMENTS: No attachments.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Sufficient funds were budgeted in the Risk
Management Fund for pollution liability insurance for 2021. However, due to the City’s liability and
cyber insurance doubling in premium, Risk Management will be asking for a mid-year budget
adjustment to cover those increased insurance premiums.
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the purchase of the 2021 through 2023 pollution
liability insurance bound with Hartford Insurance Company in the amount of $69,379.01.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
A1
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: May 26, 2021
Accept Surface Transportation Grant from
the Puget Sound Regional Council; and
approve W SDOT Local Agency Agreement
for the West Kitsap Way Planning Study
COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 2, 2021
Department: PW & U
Presenter: K. Ketterer
Phone: (360) 473-5334
SUMMARY: The City has been awarded a federal Surface Transportation Program grant via the
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) to conduct a transportation planning study for Kitsap Way
from SR 3 to Chico Way. West Kitsap Way was originally constructed as State Route 21 in the early
1900s, it has concrete pavement in poor condition and lacks pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
The study will determine, through a public process, updated road geometry, channelization and a 5-
10% level of design for the future reconstruction of the roadway. The total project budget is
$606,000 and the grant requires a 13.5% match of local funds. Grant documents are WSDOT
standard forms, with terms and conditions specific to the federal fund source. The grant request was
submitted as a 2023/2024 project but was not selected in the original round of grant awards.
However, the project has been selected from the contingency list and funded in 2021 due to regional
rebalancing of the PSRC budget.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Vicinity Map 2) Local Agency Agreement 3) Power Point Presentation Added
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The project budget is $606,000 and the grant
award amount is $524,190. A local match of 13.5% is required for STP grants which equals $81,810.
The project will be included in the Transportation Capital Projects fund in the mid-year budget
adjustment.
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to accept the Surface Transportation Program grant and to approve the Local Agency
Agreement for the West Kitsap Way Planning Study 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
A2
Updated
KITSAP WAY / SR 310
VICINITY MAP
SHEET 1 OF 2BREMERTONNBK - BREMERTONKITSAP LAKEELEMENTARYNBK - JACKSON PARKN.A.D. PARKKITSAP WAYSR 3SILVERDALECHICO WAYNBK BANGOR
SR 3HARLOW DR.KITSAP WAYLAKEHURST DR. NWBURCHFIELD DRLYLE AVEBEGIN PROJECTEND PROJECTPROJECT EXTENTSKITSAP LAKEELEMENTARYN.A.D. PARKBREMERTONCITY LIMIT (TYP)NBK JACSON PARKKITSAP WAY / SR 310VICINITY MAPSHEET 2 OF 2
Page 1
Revised 12/2020
Local Agency Agreement
Agency CFDA No. 20.205
(Catalog or Federal Domestic Assistance)
Address Project No.
Agreement No.
For OSC WSDOT Use Only
The Local Agency having complied, or hereby agreeing to comply, with the terms and conditions set forth in (1) Title 23, U.S. Code
Highways, (2) the regulations issued pursuant thereto, (3) 2 CFR Part 200, (4) 2 CFR Part 180 – certifying that the local agency is not
excluded from receiving Federal funds by a Federal suspension or debarment, (5) the policies and procedures promulgated by the
Washington State Department of Transportation, and (6) the federal aid project agreement entered into between the State and Federal
Government, relative to the above project, the Washington State Department of Transportation will authorize the Local Agency to
proceed on the project by a separate notification. Federal funds which are to be obligated for the project may not exceed the amount
shown herein on line r, column 3, without written authority by the State, subject to the approval of the Federal Highway Administration.
All project costs not reimbursed by the Federal Government shall be the responsibility of the Local Agency.
Project Description
Name Length
Termini
Description of Work
Project Agreement End Date Claiming Indirect Cost Rate
Yes NoProposed Advertisement Date
Type of Work
Estimate of Funding(1)
Estimated Total
Project Funds
(2)
Estimated Agency
Funds
(3)
Estimated Federal
FundsPE
%a. Agency
b. OtherFederal Aid
Participation
Ratio for PE
c. Other
d. State
e. Total PE Cost Estimate (a+b+c+d)Right of Way
%f. Agency
g. OtherFederal Aid
Participation
Ratio for RW
h. Other
i. State
j. Total R/W Cost Estimate (f+g+h+i)Construction
%k. Contract
l. Other
m. OtherFederal Aid
Participation
Ratio for CN
n. Other
o. Agency
p. State
q. Total CN Cost Estimate (k+l+m+n+o+p)
r. Total Project Cost Estimate (e+j+q)
DOT Form 140-039
Washington State
Department of Transportation
By Director, Local Program
Agency Official
By
Title Date Executed
City of Bremerton
345 6th Street, STE 100
Bremerton, WA 98337
West Kitsap Way Planning Study 1.43
Chico Way to SR 3
12/31/2027
N/A
55,000.00 7,425.00 47,575.00
13.5 Consultants 548,000.00 73,980.00 474,020.00
3,000.00 405.00 2,595.00
606000 81810 524190
0 0 0
0 0 0
606000 81810 524190
Mayor
DOT Form 140-039 Page 2
Revised 12/2020
Construction Method of Financing (Check Method Selected)
State Ad and Award
Method A - Advance Payment - Agency Share of total construction cost (based on contract award)
Method B - Withhold from gas tax the Agency’s share of total construction coast (line 5, column 2) in the amount of
$ at $ per month for months.
Local Force or Local Ad and Award
Method C - Agency cost incurred with partial reimbursement
The Local Agency further stipulates that pursuant to said Title 23, regulations and policies and procedures, and
as a condition to payment of the federal funds obligated, it accepts and will comply with the applicable provisions
set forth below. Adopted by official action on
, , Resolution/Ordinance No.
Provisions
I. Scope of Work
The Agency shall provide all the work, labor, materials, and services necessary to perform the project which is described and set
forth in detail in the “Project Description” and “Type of Work.”
When the State acts for and on behalf of the Agency, the State shall be deemed an agent of the Agency and shall perform the
services described and indicated in “Type of Work” on the face of this agreement, in accordance with plans and specifications as
proposed by the Agency and approved by the State and the Federal Highway Administration.
When the State acts for the Agency but is not subject to the right of control by the Agency, the State shall have the right to perform
the work subject to the ordinary procedures of the State and Federal Highway Administration.
II. Delegation of Authority
The State is willing to fulfill the responsibilities to the Federal Government by the administration of this project. The Agency agrees
that the State shall have the full authority to carry out this administration. The State shall review, process, and approve documents
required for federal aid reimbursement in accordance with federal requirements. If the State advertises and awards the contract, the
State will further act for the Agency in all matters concerning the project as requested by the Agency. If the Local Agency advertises and
awards the project, the State shall review the work to ensure conformity with the approved plans and specifications.
III. Project Administration
Certain types of work and services shall be provided by the State on this project as requested by the Agency and described in the
Type of Work above. In addition, the State will furnish qualified personnel for the supervision and inspection of the work in progress. On
Local Agency advertised and awarded projects, the supervision and inspection shall be limited to ensuring all work is in conformance
with approved plans, specifications, and federal aid requirements. The salary of such engineer or other supervisor and all other salaries
and costs incurred by State forces upon the project will be considered a cost thereof. All costs related to this project incurred by
employees of the State in the customary manner on highway payrolls and vouchers shall be charged as costs of the project.
IV. Availability of Records
All project records in support of all costs incurred and actual expenditures kept by the Agency are to be maintained in accordance
with local government accounting procedures prescribed by the Washington State Auditor’s Office, the U.S. Department of
Transportation, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. The records shall be open to inspection by the State and
Federal Government at all reasonable times and shall be retained and made available for such inspection for a period of not less than
three years from the final payment of any federal aid funds to the Agency. Copies of said records shall be furnished to the State and/or
Federal Government upon request.
V. Compliance with Provisions
The Agency shall not incur any federal aid participation costs on any classification of work on this project until authorized in writing
by the State for each classification. The classifications of work for projects are:
1. Preliminary engineering.
2. Right of way acquisition.
3. Project construction.
Once written authorization is given, the Agency agrees to show continuous progress through monthly billings. Failure to show
continuous progress may result the Agency’s project becoming inactive, as described in 23 CFR 630, and subject to de-obligation of
federal aid funds and/or agreement closure.
If right of way acquisition, or actual construction of the road for which preliminary engineering is undertaken is not started by the
close of the tenth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which preliminary engineering phase was authorized, the Agency will repay to
the State the sum or sums of federal funds paid to the Agency under the terms of this agreement (see Section IX).
If actual construction of the road for which right of way has been purchased is not started by the close of the tenth fiscal year
following the fiscal year in which the right of way phase was authorized, the Agency will repay to the State the sum or sums of federal
funds paid to the Agency under the terms of this agreement (see Section IX).
DOT Form 140-039 Page 3
Revised 12/2020
The Agency agrees that all stages of construction necessary to provide the initially planned complete facility within the limits of this
project will conform to at least the minimum values set by approved statewide design standards applicable to this class of highways,
even though such additional work is financed without federal aid participation.
The Agency agrees that on federal aid highway construction projects, the current federal aid regulations which apply to liquidated
damages relative to the basis of federal participation in the project cost shall be applicable in the event the contractor fails to complete
the contract within the contract time.
VI.Payment and Partial Reimbursement
The total cost of the project, including all review and engineering costs and other expenses of the State, is to be paid by the Agency
and by the Federal Government. Federal funding shall be in accordance with the Federal Transportation Act, as amended, 2 CFR Part
200. The State shall not be ultimately responsible for any of the costs of the project. The Agency shall be ultimately responsible for all
costs associated with the project which are not reimbursed by the Federal Government. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as
a promise by the State as to the amount or nature of federal participation in this project.
The Agency shall bill the state for federal aid project costs incurred in conformity with applicable federal and state laws. The agency
shall minimize the time elapsed between receipt of federal aid funds and subsequent payment of incurred costs. Expenditures by the
Local Agency for maintenance, general administration, supervision, and other overhead shall not be eligible for federal participation
unless a current indirect cost plan has been prepared in accordance with the regulations outlined in 2 CFR Part 200 - Uniform Admin
Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, and retained for audit.
The State will pay for State incurred costs on the project. Following payment, the State shall bill the Federal Government for
reimbursement of those costs eligible for federal participation to the extent that such costs are attributable and properly allocable to
this project. The State shall bill the Agency for that portion of State costs which were not reimbursed by the Federal Government (see
Section IX).
1. Project Construction Costs
Project construction financing will be accomplished by one of the three methods as indicated in this agreement.
Method A – The Agency will place with the State, within (20) days after the execution of the construction contract, an advance in the
amount of the Agency’s share of the total construction cost based on the contract award. The State will notify the Agency of the exact
amount to be deposited with the State. The State will pay all costs incurred under the contract upon presentation of progress billings
from the contractor. Following such payments, the State will submit a billing to the Federal Government for the federal aid participation
share of the cost. When the project is substantially completed and final actual costs of the project can be determined, the State will
present the Agency with a final billing showing the amount due the State or the amount due the Agency. This billing will be cleared by
either a payment from the Agency to the State or by a refund from the State to the Agency.
Method B – The Agency’s share of the total construction cost as shown on the face of this agreement shall be withheld from its
monthly fuel tax allotments. The face of this agreement establishes the months in which the withholding shall take place and the exact
amount to be withheld each month. The extent of withholding will be confirmed by letter from the State at the time of contract award.
Upon receipt of progress billings from the contractor, the State will submit such billings to the Federal Government for payment of its
participating portion of such billings.
Method C – The Agency may submit vouchers to the State in the format prescribed by the State, in duplicate, not more than once
per month for those costs eligible for Federal participation to the extent that such costs are directly attributable and properly allocable
to this project. Expenditures by the Local Agency for maintenance, general administration, supervision, and other overhead shall not be
eligible for Federal participation unless claimed under a previously approved indirect cost plan.
The State shall reimburse the Agency for the Federal share of eligible project costs up to the amount shown on the face of this
agreement. At the time of audit, the Agency will provide documentation of all costs incurred on the project. The State shall bill the
Agency for all costs incurred by the State relative to the project. The State shall also bill the Agency for the federal funds paid by the
State to the Agency for project costs which are subsequently determined to be ineligible for federal participation (see Section IX).
VII. Audit of Federal Consultant Contracts
The Agency, if services of a consultant are required, shall be responsible for audit of the consultant’s records to determine eligible
federal aid costs on the project. The report of said audit shall be in the Agency’s files and made available to the State and the Federal
Government.
An audit shall be conducted by the WSDOT Internal Audit Office in accordance with generally accepted governmental auditing
standards as issued by the United States General Accounting Office by the Comptroller General of the United States; WSDOT Manual
M 27-50, Consultant Authorization, Selection, and Agreement Administration; memoranda of understanding between WSDOT and
FHWA; and 2 CFR Part 200.501 - Audit Requirements.
If upon audit it is found that overpayment or participation of federal money in ineligible items of cost has occurred, the Agency shall
reimburse the State for the amount of such overpayment or excess participation (see Section IX).
VIII.Single Audit Act
The Agency, as a subrecipient of federal funds, shall adhere to the federal regulations outlined in 2 CFR Part 200.501 as well as all
applicable federal and state statutes and regulations. A subrecipient who expends $750,000 or more in federal awards from all sources
during a given fiscal year shall have a single or program-specific audit performed for that year in accordance with the provisions of 2
CFR Part 200.501. Upon conclusion of the audit, the Agency shall be responsible for ensuring that a copy of the report is transmitted
promptly to the State.
DOT Form 140-039 Page 4
Revised 12/2020
IX. Payment of Billing
The Agency agrees that if payment or arrangement for payment of any of the State’s billing relative to the project (e.g., State force
work, project cancellation, overpayment, cost ineligible for federal participation, etc.) is not made to the State within 45 days after
the Agency has been billed, the State shall effect reimbursement of the total sum due from the regular monthly fuel tax allotments to
the Agency from the Motor Vehicle Fund. No additional Federal project funding will be approved until full payment is received unless
otherwise directed by the Director, Local Programs.
Project Agreement End Date - This date is based on your projects Period of Performance (2 CFR Part 200.309).
Any costs incurred after the Project Agreement End Date are NOT eligible for federal reimbursement. All eligible costs incurred prior
to the Project Agreement End Date must be submitted for reimbursement within 60 days after the Project Agreement End Date or they
become ineligible for federal reimbursement.
X. Traffic Control, Signing, Marking, and Roadway Maintenance
The Agency will not permit any changes to be made in the provisions for parking regulations and traffic control on this project
without prior approval of the State and Federal Highway Administration. The Agency will not install or permit to be installed any signs,
signals, or markings not in conformance with the standards approved by the Federal Highway Administration and MUTCD. The Agency
will, at its own expense, maintain the improvement covered by this agreement.
XI. Indemnity
The Agency shall hold the Federal Government and the State harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense
all claims, demands, or suits, whether at law or equity brought against the Agency, State, or Federal Government, arising from the
Agency’s execution, performance, or failure to perform any of the provisions of this agreement, or of any other agreement or contract
connected with this agreement, or arising by reason of the participation of the State or Federal Government in the project, PROVIDED,
nothing herein shall require the Agency to reimburse the State or the Federal Government for damages arising out of bodily injury to
persons or damage to property caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of the Federal Government or the State.
XII. Nondiscrimination Provision
No liability shall attach to the State or Federal Government except as expressly provided herein.
The Agency shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of any USDOT-
assisted contract and/or agreement or in the administration of its DBE program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. The Agency
shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of
USDOT-assisted contracts and agreements. The WSDOT’s DBE program, as required by 49 CFR Part 26 and as approved by USDOT,
is incorporated by reference in this agreement. Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms
shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon notification to the Agency of its failure to carry out its approved program, the
Department may impose sanctions as provided for under Part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under
18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S. C. 3801 et seq.).
The Agency hereby agrees that it will incorporate or cause to be incorporated into any contract for construction work, or modification
thereof, as defined in the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Labor in 41 CFR Chapter 60, which is paid for in whole or in part with
funds obtained from the Federal Government or borrowed on the credit of the Federal Government pursuant to a grant, contract, loan,
insurance, or guarantee or understanding pursuant to any federal program involving such grant, contract, loan, insurance, or guarantee,
the required contract provisions for Federal-Aid Contracts (FHWA 1273), located in Chapter 44 of the Local Agency Guidelines.
The Agency further agrees that it will be bound by the above equal opportunity clause with respect to its own employment
practices when it participates in federally assisted construction work: Provided, that if the applicant so participating is a State or Local
Government, the above equal opportunity clause is not applicable to any agency, instrumentality, or subdivision of such government
which does not participate in work on or under the contract.
The Agency also agrees:
(1) To assist and cooperate actively with the State in obtaining the compliance of contractors and subcontractors with the equal
opportunity clause and rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor.
(2) To furnish the State such information as it may require for the supervision of such compliance and that it will otherwise assist the
State in the discharge of its primary responsibility for securing compliance.
(3) To refrain from entering into any contract or contract modification subject to Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, with
a contractor debarred from, or who has not demonstrated eligibility for, government contracts and federally assisted construction
contracts pursuant to the Executive Order.
(4) To carry out such sanctions and penalties for violation of the equal opportunity clause as may be imposed upon contractors
and subcontractors by the State, Federal Highway Administration, or the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Part II, subpart D of the
Executive Order.
In addition, the Agency agrees that if it fails or refuses to comply with these undertakings, the State may take any or all of the
following actions:
(a) Cancel, terminate, or suspend this agreement in whole or in part;
(b) Refrain from extending any further assistance to the Agency under the program with respect to which the failure or refusal
occurred until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been received from the Agency; and
(c) Refer the case to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal proceedings.
DOT Form 140-039 Page 5
Revised 12/2020
XIII. Liquidated Damages
The Agency hereby agrees that the liquidated damages provisions of 23 CFR Part 635, Subpart 127, as supplemented, relative to
the amount of Federal participation in the project cost, shall be applicable in the event the contractor fails to complete the contract within
the contract time. Failure to include liquidated damages provision will not relieve the Agency from reduction of federal participation in
accordance with this paragraph.
XIV. Termination for Public Convenience
The Secretary of the Washington State Department of Transportation may terminate the contract in whole, or from time to time in
part, whenever:
(1) The requisite federal funding becomes unavailable through failure of appropriation or otherwise.
(2) The contractor is prevented from proceeding with the work as a direct result of an Executive Order of the President with
respect to the prosecution of war or in the interest of national defense, or an Executive Order of the President or Governor of
the State with respect to the preservation of energy resources.
(3) The contractor is prevented from proceeding with the work by reason of a preliminary, special, or permanent restraining
order of a court of competent jurisdiction where the issuance of such order is primarily caused by the acts or omissions of
persons or agencies other than the contractor.
(4) The Secretary is notified by the Federal Highway Administration that the project is inactive.
(5) The Secretary determines that such termination is in the best interests of the State.
XV. Venue for Claims and/or Causes of Action
For the convenience of the parties to this contract, it is agreed that any claims and/or causes of action which the Local Agency
has against the State of Washington, growing out of this contract or the project with which it is concerned, shall be brought only in the
Superior Court for Thurston County.
XVI. Certification Regarding the Restrictions of the Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying
The approving authority certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
(1) No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or
an employee of a member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the
making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment,
or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
(2) If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to
influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee
of a member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall
complete and submit the Standard Form - LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions.
(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at
all tiers (including subgrants, and contracts and subcontracts under grants, subgrants, loans, and cooperative agreements) which
exceed $100,000, and that all such subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into.
Submission of this certification as a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S.
Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than
$100,000 for each such failure.
XVII. Assurances
Local agencies receiving Federal funding from the USDOT or its operating administrations (i.e., Federal Highway Administration,
Federal Transit Administration, Federal Aviation Administration) are required to submit a written policy statement, signed by the Agency
Executive and addressed to the State, documenting that all programs, activities, and services will be conducted in compliance with
Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Additional Provisions
Instructions
1.Agency Name and Billing Address – Enter the Agency of primary interest which will
become a party to the agreement.
2.Project Number – Leave blank. This number will be assigned by WSDOT.
3.Agreement Number – Leave blank. This number will be assigned by WSDOT.
4.
a.Project Description – Enter the project name, total length of the project (in miles),
and a brief description of the termini. Data entered here must be consistent with the
name, length, and termini noted in the STIP and Project Prospectus
Example: (Name) “Regal Road”, (Length) “1.2 miles”, (Termini) “Smith Road to
Main Street”
b.Description of Work – Enter a concise statement of the major items of work to be
performed. Statement must be consistent with the description of work noted in the
STIP and Project Prospectus.
Example: “Overlay Regal Road; install curb, gutter, and sidewalk; illumination; and
traffic signal at the intersection of Regal Road and Dakota Avenue.”
c.Project Agreement End Date – Enter your Project Agreement End Date. This date
is based on your projects Period of Performance (2 CFR 200.309).
For Planning Only projects – WSDOT recommends agencies estimate the end of the
project’s period of performance and add three years to determine the “Project
Agreement End Date”.
For PE and RW – WSDOT recommends agencies estimate when the phase will be
completed and add three years to determine the “Project Agreement End Date”.
For Construction – WSDOT recommends agencies estimate when construction will
be completed and add three years to determine the “Project Agreement End Date”.
d.Proposed Advertisement Date – At construction authorization only, enter the
proposed project advertisement date.
e.Claiming Indirect Cost Rate – Check the Yes box if the agency will be claiming
indirect costs on the project. For those projects claiming indirect costs, supporting
documentation that clearly shows the indirect cost rate being utilized must be
provided with the local agency agreement. Indirect cost rate approval by your
cognizant agency or through your agency’s self-certification and supporting
documentation is required to be available for review by FHWA, WSDOT and /or
State Auditor. Check the No box if the agency will not be claiming indirect costs on
the project. See section 23.5 for additional guidance.
5.Type of Work and Funding (Round all dollar amounts to the nearest whole dollar)
a.PE – Lines a through d show Preliminary Engineering costs for the project by type
of work (e.g., consultant, agency, state services, etc.).
*Federal aid participation ratio for PE – enter ratio for PE lines with amounts in
column 3.
Line a – Enter the estimated amount of agency work in columns 1 through 3.
Line b & c – Identify user, consultant, etc., and enter the estimated amounts
in columns 1 through 3.
Line d – State Services. Every project must have funding for state services.
Enter the estimated amounts in columns 1 through 3.
Line e – Total of lines a + b + c + d.
b.Right of Way – If a Right of Way phase is authorized on the project, the appropriate
costs are shown in lines f through i.
*Federal aid participation ratio for RW – enter ratio for RW lines with amounts in
column 3.
Line f – Enter the estimated amount of agency work in columns 1 through 3.
Line g & h – Identify user, consultant, etc., and enter the estimated amounts
in columns 1 through 3.
Line i – State Services. Every project must have funding for state services.
Enter the estimated amounts in columns 1 through 3.
Line j – Total of lines f + g + h + i.
c.Construction – Lines k through p show construction costs for the project by type of
work (e.g., contract, consultant, agency, state services, etc.).
*Federal aid participation ratio for CN – enter ratio for CN lines with amounts in
column 3.
Line k – Enter the estimated cost of the contract.
Lines l, m, & n – Enter other estimated costs such as utility and construction
contracts or non‑federally matched contract costs.
Line o – Enter estimated costs of all construction related agency work.
Line p – State Services. Every project must have funding for state services.
Enter the estimated amounts in columns 1 through 3.
Line q – Total Construction Cost Estimate. Total of lines k + l + m + n + o +
p.
d.Total Project Cost Estimate
Line r – Total Cost Estimate of the Project. Total of lines e + j + q.
*Please remember, if the federal aid participation rate entered is not the maximum
rate allowed by FHWA, then the participation rate entered becomes the maximum
rate allowed.
6.Signatures – An authorized official of the local agency signs the agreement, and writes in
their title. Note: Do NOT enter a date on the Date Executed line.
7.Method of Construction Financing – Choose the method of financing for the construction
portion of the project.
a.Method “A” is used when the state administers the contract for the agency.
b.Method “B” is also used when the state administers the contract for the agency.
c.Method “C” is used with projects administered by the local agency. The agency will
submit billings monthly through the state to FHWA for all eligible costs. The
billings must document the payment requests from the contractor. If state-force
work, such as audit and construction engineering, is to receive federal participation,
it will be billed to the agency and FHWA simultaneously at the indicated ratio. To
show continuous progress agencies should bill monthly until agreement is closed.
8.Resolutions/Ordinances – When someone other than the County Executive/Chairman,
County Commissioners/Mayor is authorized to sign the agreement, the agency must submit
to WSDOT with the agreement a copy of the Resolution/Ordinance designating that
individual.
9.Parties to the Agreement – Submit one originally signed agreement form to the Region
Local Programs Engineer. It is the responsibility of the local agency to submit an additional,
originally signed agreement form if they need an executed agreement for their files. The
agreement is first executed by the agency official(s) authorized to enter into the agreement.
It is then transmitted to the state for execution by Local Programs. The agreement is dated at
the time of final execution by Local Programs.
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: May 26, 2021
Professional Services Agreement with LNS
Engineers, Inc. for the Downtown Library
HVAC Systems Project
COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 2, 2021
Department: PW&U
Presenter: Wayne Hamilton
Phone: (360) 473-5207
SUMMARY: The Public Works Department is seeking to award the Professional Services
Agreement to LNS Engineering, Inc. for the HVAC System Design, Electrical, Mechanical, Technical
Specifications and other services that are required for the construction plans and bidding documents
for the Downtown Library Building at 612 Fifth Street.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Professional Services Agreement; 2. LNS Engineers, Inc. Fee Proposal
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Funds are available for this agreement within the
General Facilities Capital Improvement Budget: Library Building HVAC System Main Floor/Basement
Floor. Not to exceed $30,000.00.
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 LNS
Engineering, Inc. and the City of Bremerton for the Downtown Library HVAC Systems 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
A3
Postponed to June 9
Page 1 of 7
Bremerton/LNS Engineers
Library HVAC Systems
Rev. 06/2020
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Library HVAC Systems Project #49125
The City of Bremerton (“City”) and LNS Engineers, Inc. (“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 April 1, 2021, 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. Design and Permit Submittal
completion to be within 120 days from date of City’s Notice to Proceed.
III. Compensation: In consideration of the services provided pursuant to this Agreement, the
City shall pay Consultant in an amount not to exceed $30,000.00. Consultant’s charges and bills
shall conform to the fee schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A 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.
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
A.
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.
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 o f the
City. Consultant and its personnel have no authority to bind the City or to control the City’s
Page 2 of 7
Bremerton/LNS Engineers
Library HVAC Systems
Rev. 06/2020
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
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.
Page 3 of 7
Bremerton/LNS Engineers
Library HVAC Systems
Rev. 06/2020
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-contractors.
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; and
4. Professional Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 limit per
occurrence/claim; and
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.
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 any
operations, liabilities and obligations to which coverage applies. It shall be an affirmative
Page 4 of 7
Bremerton/LNS Engineers
Library HVAC Systems
Rev. 06/2020
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 Gig Harbor, Washington. 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
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.
Page 5 of 7
Bremerton/LNS Engineers
Library HVAC Systems
Rev. 06/2020
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 Gig Harbor, Washington. 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: Chris Mottner Attn: Larry Storset
City of Bremerton LNS Engineers, Inc.
345 6th Street, Suite 100 PO Box 2598
Bremerton, WA 98337-1891 Gig Harbor, WA 98335
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
Page 6 of 7
Bremerton/LNS Engineers
Library HVAC Systems
Rev. 06/2020
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
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,
Page 7 of 7
Bremerton/LNS Engineers
Library HVAC Systems
Rev. 06/2020
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 LNS Engineers, Inc.
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
R:\Legal\Legal\Forms\FORMS ON COBWEB\Professional Services Agreement Rev. 06 2020.docx
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: May 26, 2021
Goods & Services Agreement with At-Work
Commercial Enterprise, LLC for Landscape
Maintenance & Services
COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 2, 2021
Department: PW&U
Presenter: Wayne Hamilton
Phone: (360) 473-5207
SUMMARY: The Public Works Department is seeking to award the Goods and Services Agreement
to At-Work Commercial Enterprise, LLC. For Landscape Maintenance and Services for a term of five
years with an additional two year negotiated extension with approvals allowed by the Public Works
and Utilities Director.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Goods and Services Agreement; 2) Scope of Work; 3) Bid Proposal from At-
Work Commercial Enterprise, LLC; 4) Bid Tabulation Form
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Funds are available for this agreement within the
Utility and General Fund Budgets. Total cost of agreement is $88,303.08 per year and will be
included in maintenance budgets throughout the contract term.
Utilities Funded Amounts: Water $14,217.96, Stormwater $6,906.24, Wastewater $22,890.00.
General Funded Amounts: General Facilities $11,863.56, Parking $1,922.76,
Streets $30,502.56
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Goods and Services Agreement between At-Work
Commercial Enterprise, LLC and the City of Bremerton for Landscape Maintenance and 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
A4
Page 1 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 06/2020
GOODS AND SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of Bremerton, a Washington
Municipal Corporation ("City"), and At Work Commercial Enterprise, LLC ("Vendor"), whose
mailing address is: 1935 – 152nd Place NE, Bellevue, WA 98007.
The parties agree as follows:
I. VENDOR SERVICES. The Vendor shall provide the following goods and materials
and/or perform the following services for the City: The vendor agrees to perform the services more
specifically described in the Scope of Work and Duties, including any attachments thereto,
attached hereto as Exhibit A, which is incorporated by reference herein. The Scope of Work and
Duties may be modified only pursuant to section “VI Changes” of this agreement. If the Scope of
Work and Duties provides for unspecified additional services, such services shall only be
performed upon the express written request of the City. Vendor 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 as outlined in the work
Specifications.
II. TIME OF COMPLETION/TERM. Vendor shall commence the work and provide all
goods, materials, and services on receiving of the City’s official Notice to Proceed, after contract
award and will terminate on June 30th, 2026 unless terminated earlier pursuant to this agreement.
This time period is the initial five (5) year “Term” of the Agreement, with an additional two (2),
two (2) year extensions that may be offered and negotiated by both parties.
III. COMPENSATION. The City shall pay the Vendor in an amount not to exceed $7,000.00
per month, including applicable Washington State Sales Tax, for the goods, materials and services
contemplated in this Agreement. The City shall pay the Vendor for services at the specified rates,
attached hereto as Exhibit B, Bid Proposal, which is incorporated by reference herein. Vendor shall
submit regular billing statements describing work performed and amount charged for landscape
maintenance and service. The descriptions and work locations shall conform to and fall within the
categories set out in the Scope of Work. Upon receipt of a conforming billing statement, the City
shall promptly process the payment.
A. Defective or Unauthorized Work. The City reserves its right to withhold payment
from Vendor for any defective or unauthorized services. If vendor is unable for any reason, to
complete any part of this Agreement, the City may obtain the goods, materials or services on its
own or from a third party, and Vendor shall be liable to the City for any additional costs incurred
by the City. "Additional costs" shall mean all reasonable costs, including legal costs and attorney
fees, incurred by the City beyond the maximum Agreement price specified above. The City further
reserves its right to deduct the cost to complete this Agreement, including any Additional C osts,
from any and all amounts due or to become due the Vendor.
IV. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Vendor is and shall be at all times acting as an
independent contractor and not as an employee of the City. The Vendor shall secure at its expense
Page 2 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 06/2020
and shall be responsible for all payments of income tax, social security, state disability insurance
compensation, unemployment compensation, and all other payroll deductions for the Vendor,
officer, agents, employees, and subcontractors. The Vendor shall also secure all applicable
business licenses, if required, in connection with the contract services, including all required
licenses for Vendor's officers, agents, employees and subcontractors. The vendor shall also adhere
to all applicable Washington State prevailing wage rate provisions.
V. TERMINATION
A. The City may terminate this Agreement for good cause. "Good cause" shall
include, without limitation, any one or more of the following events:
1. The Vendor’s refusal or failure to supply a sufficient number of
properly skilled workers or proper services for completion of this
Agreement. Or failure to perform services as outlined in the work
specifications.
2. The Vendor’s failure to complete this Agreement within the time
specified in this Agreement.
3. The Vendor’s failure to make full and prompt payment to
subcontractors or for material or labor.
4. The Vendor’s failure to comply with federal, state or local laws, rules
or regulations.
5. The Vendor’s filing for bankruptcy or becoming adjudged bankrupt.
If the City terminates this Agreement for good cause, the Vendor shall not receive any
further monies due under this Agreement until the goods, materials, and services required by this
Agreement are completed and fully performed by the City or a third party of the City’s choosing.
B. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause “For Convenience.”
1. The City shall have the right upon ninety (90) days written notice to the
other party to terminate this Agreement without cause. If this
Agreement is so terminated, the parties shall be liable only for
performance rendered or costs incurred in accordance with the terms of
this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination.
VI. CHANGES. The City may issue a written change order for any change in the goods,
materials, or services to be provided during the performance of this Agreement. If the Vendor
determines, for any reason, that a change order is necessary, Vendor must submit a written change
order request to an authorized agent of the City within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date
Vendor knew or should have known of the facts and events giving rise to the requested change. If
the City determines that the change increases or decreases the Vendor's costs or time for
Page 3 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 06/2020
performance, the City will make an equitable adjustment. The City will attempt, in good faith, to
reach agreement with the Vendor on all equitable adjustments. However, if the parties are unable
to agree, the City will determine the equitable adjustment as it deems appropriate. The Vendor
shall proceed with the change order work upon receiving either a written change order from the
City or an oral order from the City before actually receiving the written change order. If the Vendor
fails to require a change order within the time allowed, the Vendor waives its right to make any
claim or submit subsequent change order requests for that portion of the contract work. If the
Vendor disagrees with the equitable adjustment the Vendor must complete the change order work;
however, the Vendor may elect to protest the adjustment as provided below:
A. Procedure and Protest by the Vendor. If the Vendor disagrees with anything
required by a change order, another written order, or an oral order from the City, including any
direction, instruction, interpretation, or determination by the City, the Vendor shall:
1. Immediately give a signed written notice of protest to the City.
2. Supplement the written protest within fourteen (14) calendar days with a
written statement that provides the following information:
a. The date of the Vendor's protest.
b. The nature and circumstances that caused the protest.
c. The provisions in this Agreement that support the protest.
d. The estimated dollar cost, if any, of the protested work and how that
estimate was determined.
e. An analysis of the progress schedule showing the schedule change
or disruption if the Vendor is asserting a schedule change or disruption.
3. The Vendor shall keep complete records of extra costs and time incurred as
a result of the protested work. The City shall have access to any of the Vendor's records needed
for evaluating the protest.
The City will evaluate all protests, provided the procedures in this section
are followed. If the City determines that a protest is valid, the City will adjust payment for work
or time by an equitable adjustment. No adjustment will be made for an invalid protest.
B. Vendor's Duty to Complete Protested Work. In spite of any protest, the Vendor
shall proceed promptly to provide the goods, materials and services required by the City under this
Agreement.
C. Vendor's Acceptance of Changes. The Vendor accepts all requirements of a change
order by: (1) endorsing it, (2) writing a separate acceptance, or (3) not protesting in the way this
section provides. A change order that is accepted by Vendor as provided in this section shall
constitute full payment and final settlement of all claims for contract time and for direct, indirect,
and consequential costs, including costs of delays related to any work, either covered or affected
by the change.
Page 4 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 06/2020
D. Failure to Protest Constitutes Waiver. By not protesting as this section provides,
the Vendor also waives any additional entitlement and accepts from the City any written or oral
order (including directions, instructions, interpretations, and determination).
E. Failure to Follow Procedures Constitutes Waiver. By failing to follow the
procedures of this section, the Vendor completely waives any claims for protested work and
accepts from the City any written or oral order (including directions, instructions, interp retations,
and determination).
VII. CLAIMS. The Vendor shall give written notice to the City of all claims other than change
orders within fourteen (14) calendar days of the occurrence of the events giving rise to the claims.
Any claim for damages, additional payment for any reason, or extension of time, whether under
this Agreement or otherwise, shall be conclusively deemed to have been waived by the Vendor
unless a timely written claim is made in strict accordance with the applicable provisions of this
Agreement; or, if (and only if) no such provision is applicable, unless that claim is set forth in
detail in writing and received by the City within seven (7) calendar days from the date Vendor
knew, or should have known, of the facts giving rise to the claim. At a minimum, a Vendor's
written claim must include the information set forth regarding protests in Section VI(A)(2)(a)-(e).
FAILURE TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE, WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF CLAIM
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED SHALL BE AN ABSOLUTE WAIVER OF ANY CLAIMS
ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM THE FACTS OR EVENTS SURROUNDING THAT CLAIM
OR CAUSED BY THAT DELAY.
Vendor must, in any event, file any claim or bring any suit arising from or connected with
this Agreement within 120 calendar days from the date the contract work is complete.
VIII. INDEMNIFICATION. Vendor 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. Vendor’s obligation to indemnify shall not extend to that portion
of damages caused by the City’s sole negligence.
The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Vendor's work when completed shall not be
grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification.
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 Vendor and the
City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Vendor's liability hereunder shall
be only to the extent of the Vendor's negligence.
IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS
INDEMNIFICATION CONSTITUTES THE VENDOR'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER
Page 5 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 06/2020
INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY
NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER.
The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
IX. INSURANCE. The Vendor shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement,
insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property that may arise from or in
connection with the performance of the contract work by the Vendor, its agents, representatives,
employees or subcontractors.
Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, the Vendor shall
provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing:
A. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined
single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and
B. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with
limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 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; and employer's
liability.
C. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 limit per
occurrence and aggregate.
D. Professional Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 limit per
occurrence/claim.
E. 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
Vendor.
All required policies shall be provided on an “occurrence” basis except professional
liability insurance (if required), which shall 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 Vendor and a copy of the
endorsement naming the City as 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.
The Vendor'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,
Page 6 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 06/2020
except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability.
The Vendor'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 any
operations, liabilities and obligations to which coverage applies. It shall be an affirmative
obligation upon Vendor 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 required 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.
X. MISCELLANEOUS.
A. Licenses and Taxes. Vendor shall possess a current Bremerton Business License
and any regulatory license required to fulfill Vendor's obligations under this Agreement. B&O
taxes shall be paid when due, and Vendor, by this Agreement, assigns any payments due under
this Agreement to the City Clerk for payment of such taxes which have been declared delinquent.
B. Conflict and Precedence. In the event of a conflict between the contract documents,
the document which rates higher on the following list shall take precedence:
1. Amendments / Change Orders to Goods and Services Agreement
2. Goods and Services Agreement
3. Specifications
4. Scope of Work and Duties (Exhibit A)
5. Vendor’s Proposal (Exhibit B)
C. Documents Incorporated by Reference. The following documents are incorporated
by reference, including but not limited to:
1. Scope of Work and Duties (Exhibit A)
2. Specifications,
3. Proposal, (Exhibit B) and
4. Non-Collusion Affidavit.
D. Use of Photographs and Images. Vendor shall not use or distribute photographs or
images depicting City officials, personnel, property, or equipment whether prepared by Vendor or
provided by City without prior written consent of the City. The City will not unreasonably
withhold its consent.
E. Equal Employment Opportunity Statement. In the hiring of employees for the
performance of work under this Agreement, the Vendor, its subcontractors, or any person acting
on behalf of Vendor 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
Page 7 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 06/2020
status, or the presence of any physical, mental or sensory disability.
F. 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.
G. Compliance with Laws. Vendor shall comply with all federal, state and local laws,
rules and regulations throughout every aspect in the performance of this Agreement.
H. Prevailing Wages. Vendor shall file a “Statement of Intent to Pay Prevailing
Wages” with the State of Washington Department of Labor & Industries prior to commencing the
contract work. Vendor shall pay prevailing wages and comply with Chapter 39.12 of the Revised
Code of Washington, as well as any other applicable prevailing wage rate provisions. The latest
prevailing wage rate revision issued by the Department of Labor and Industries is attached.
I. Work Performed at Vendor's Risk. Vendor shall take all precautions necessary and
shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and subcontractors in the performance
of this Agreement. All work shall be done at Vendor's own risk, and Vendor 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.
J. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Washington. If any dispute arises between the City and Vendor under
any of the provisions of this Agreement, resolution of that dispute shall be available exclusively
under the jurisdiction, venue and rules of the Kitsap County Superior Court, Kitsap County,
Washington.
K. Attorney's Fees. In any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties'
performance of this Agreement, each party shall be responsible for payment of its own legal costs
and attorney's fees incurred in defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit; however, nothing in
this subsection shall limit the City's right to indemnification under Section IX of this Agreement.
L. Written Notice. All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the
parties at the addresses listed below, unless otherwise notified. Any written notice shall become
effective upon delivery, but in any event three (3) calendar days after the date of mailing b y
registered or certified mail and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the
address stated in this Agreement.
Page 8 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 06/2020
Notices to be sent to: Notices to be sent to:
CITY: VENDOR:
Attn: Chris Mottner Attn: John Song
City of Bremerton At Work Commercial Enterprise
345 6th Street, Suite 100 1935 152nd Pl. NE
Bremerton, WA 98337-1891 Bellevue, WA 98007
M. Assignment. Any assignment of this Agreement by the Vendor without the written
consent of the City shall be void.
N. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of
this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative
of the City and Vendor.
O. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this
Agreement are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portion of this Agreement and the remainder shall remain in full force and effect.
P. Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this Agreement, together
with any attached Exhibits, supersede all prior verbal statements by any representative of the City,
and those statements shall not be construed as forming a part of or altering in any manner this
Agreement. This Agreement and any attached Exhibits contain the entire Agreement between the
parties. Should any language in any Exhibit to this Agreement conflict with any language
contained in this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail.
Page 9 of 9
Goods and Services Agreement
Rev. 06/2020
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties below have executed this Agreement.
CITY: VENDOR:
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
R:\Legal\Legal\Forms\FORMS ON COBWEB\Goods and Services Agreement Rev 06 2020.docx
Exhibit A - 1
Exhibit A
SCOPE OF WORK AND DUTIES FOR
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICES
The contractor shall provide the following services where applicable
1. Lawn care, mowing and trimming
2. Edging
3. Fertilization
4. Weed control
5. Insect control
6. Pruning
7. Bed raking and beauty bark additions
8. Leaf collection
9. Litter control and inspection
10. Irrigation system operation
11. Special site requirements
Locations:
A. Waste Water lift stations: Six (6) different locations
a. CE-1, 1750 Park Avenue.
b. SB-3, 3481 West Belfair Valley Road.
c. CW-1, 2304 19th Street.
d. KL-3, 1457 Cedarwood Drive.
e. OB-2, 1429 Madrona Pt. Drive.
f. EB-2, 99 Lower Shore Drive.
B. East Side Treatment Plant, 2475 Stephenson Avenue.
C. Police Facility: Two (2) different locations
a. Police Department Building, 1025 Burwell Street.
b. Police Department employee parking lot, 1028 Burwell Street.
D. Down Town Parking Facility, 405 Washington Ave.
E. Library Building, 612 5th Street.
Exhibit A - 2
F. Fire Station #1, 911 Park Avenue.
G. UV Treatment Facility, 8601 W. Belfair Valley Road.
H. Public Works and Utilities Operations, 100 Oyster Bay Ave. N.
I. Lillian Walker Storm Water Park, 1914 Taft Ave.
J. Municipal Court Facility, 550 Park Ave.
K. Lebo Blvd. Three (3) Sites
a. Lebo Blvd. from Wheaton Way west to Campbell Way.
b. 550 Lebo Blvd, 2 planter strips in ROW.
c. Lebo Blvd. at Sheridan Road grass area at NE corner of intersection.
L. Lower Wheaton Way: Three (3) different locations.
a. East 18th Street, Marlow Street at Wheaton Way. Both sides of the street.
b. Lower Marlow Street at Wheaton Way.
c. Winfield Street at Wheaton Way Both sides of the street.
M. Manette Bridge: Two (2) different locations.
a. West Side Bridge.
b. East Side Bridge, upper and lower.
N. Adele Avenue at Kitsap Way, both sides of the street.
O. Warren Avenue at 11th Street and 12th Street both areas on west side of Warren Avenue.
P. Naval Station Kitsap, intersection of Farragut Ave. and Charleston Blvd. landscape area
on all four corners and intersection/crosswalk landscape islands.
Exhibit A - 3
SPECIFICATIONS
General:
A. All interested bidders are strongly encouraged to attend a site visit to ALL locations to
familiarize themselves with the scope of work, service specifications and extent of the
area to be maintained by this contract. Some of these are secure and restricted access
areas. Please call the City’s Representative to set up an appointment to view these
locations and service areas as needed for landscape maintenance.
B. Washington State prevailing wage rates may apply to this service contract. For more
information, and State determinations go to: http://www.lni.wa.gov/pervailingwage. By
responding to this ITB, bidders agree to comply with Chapters 39.08 and 39.12 of the
Revised Code of Washington, as well as any other applicable prevailing wage rate
provisions.
C. Executing the Contract: The successful contractor shall be required to execute a Goods
and Services Agreement. The terms, conditions, requirements, and specifications
included in the Requests for Bids are included as part of the Agreement.
D. City key assignment and site access:
1. City provided keys will be issued and become the responsibility of the landscape
contractor. No duplication of city keys is permitted. Transfer or loan of assigned city
keys by authorized key holders to individuals not authorized to hold such keys is not
permitted. Improper use of keys, loss of keys, leaving secure areas open and
unattended or allowing unauthorized access to restricted/secure sites may result in
loss of key privileges, and possible loss of contract.
2. Site access is allowed only for the purpose of landscape maintenance and services and
is only for the contractor and assigned employees. Secure and restricted sites must be
protected from unauthorized access and trespassing when serviced by contractor.
Report any suspicious persons or activities immediately to the City’s Representative.
Any violation of the above will result in termination of contract.
3. Sensitive areas: Some of the locations are of sensitive nature due to the operations
and workings of The City of Bremerton Utilities Department. Report any damages
that may occur to any structure, piping, fencing or other infrastructure of the locations
to the city representative immediately.
E. Insurance Requirements:
a. Before beginning work the contractor shall provide a certificate of insurance
evidencing: All insurance as required, per the Goods and Services Agreement.
b. Additional information on the insurance requirements and coverage limits, can be
obtained by contacting the City’s Representative.
Exhibit A - 4
F. If any terms of this contract are not met, the City of Bremerton will notify the contractor
by e-mail of unsatisfactory service and request an in person meeting. If there is no
improvement within one week of the meeting, a letter will be sent by certified mail
outlining the issues with service and steps that need to be taken to correct performance in
order to meet City standards. If it is determined that there is still not satisfactory
improvement and/or City standards are not met within one week of the contractor
receiving the certified letter steps will be taken to terminate the Landscape Maintenance
and Services contract.
G. Termination of Agreement for Convenience
The City shall have the right upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other party to
terminate the Agreement without cause. If the Agreement is so terminated, the parties
shall be liable only for performance rendered or costs incurred in accordance with the
terms of the Agreement prior to the effective date of termination.
H. Safety Requirements: By responding to the ITB you are agreeing to comply with all state
and local safety requirements. Respondents agree to submit their current and 3-year
average Experience Factor and that they have an Experience Factor as recorded by
Department of Labor of less than .90.
I. The City of Bremerton follows Bid Protest procedures as outlined in RCW 39.04.105.
1. Protesting bidder submits notice in writing of its protest no later than two full business
days following bid opening. Intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are not
counted.
2. Only bidders who submitted a response can protest and it must be in writing.
3. Protests are limited to bid opening evaluation and bid responses.
4. Protests regarding acceptance and opening of proposals must be within 24 hours of
opening.
5. Protests regarding evaluation of proposals may be made following award.
SPECIFICATIONS
Maintenance Services:
1. Lawn Care (Mowing and Trimming)
Lawns shall be maintained in a healthy growing condition by furnishing necessary services
including the following:
1. Mow all turf grass areas as often as needed to maintain a desired length of 2 inches
March 1 through October 31. All litter is removed prior to mowing to avoid shredding.
2. Mow all sites “as needed” between November 1 to February 28, depending on weather
during winter months.
3. General turf areas will be mowed at a height of two inches. Aeration to be provided
annually or as needed.
4. Clippings will be swept or blown free from sidewalks, porches, and pathways after
each mowing.
Exhibit A - 5
5. Trimming around trees and shrubs shall be performed using herbicides, hand labor, or
edger as needed.
6. Take necessary precautions while operating around trees and plantings with equipment
and hand tools to prevent tree and plant damages.
7. Leaves and storm debris will be blown bi-monthly during winter months.
8. Sidewalks and entryways are to be blown off on same schedule as mowing. Taking
special care not to blow dirt and debris onto Streets, buildings, or into storm water
drains.
2. Edging
1. Edging of all accessible sidewalks, pathways, and concrete/asphalt edges will be done
every week and bed edges every other week. Edging will be done on an “as-needed”
schedule during winter months.
2. Dirt and debris from edging operations shall be removed and areas swept or blown
clean, taking special care not to blow debris or dirt onto buildings.
3. Fertilization
1. Turf fertilization will provide the equivalent of four to six pounds of nitrogen per 1000
square feet per year in no less than four applications.
2. Trees and shrubs will be fertilized twice yearly using granular fertilizer for bed plants
and plant tabs for trees growing in turf. All fertilizers to be E.P.A. approved and
applications to be done during spring and fall seasons.
3. Apply a minimum of four (4) fertilizer applications annually. Contractor to provide the
City with a fertilizer program annually including type, amount, location of application
and date applied.
4. Weed Control
1. Broad leaf weeds may be controlled with herbicides provided the product used is E.P.A.
approved and applied by a licensed applicator. All applications shall be posted and
recorded in compliance with all regulatory requirements. Herbicides to be E.P.A.
approved and consistent with the City’s vegetation management plan.
2. Keep beds weed free on a rotations parcel basis by hand weeding with supplemental
contact and pre-emergent herbicides applied per manufacturer’s recommendation as
conditions permit. Herbicides to be E.P.A. approved.
3. Hand weed, till and rake planting beds each time contractor is on premises and will
keep to a bed rotation schedule.
4. Contractor shall provide proof of appropriate applicator licensing along with a copy of
all required application records to the City’s Representative for review.
Exhibit A - 6
5. Insect Control
1. Report any significant insect infestations to the City’s Representative immediately
upon discovery.
2. All approved and agreed upon insect control actions will be considered as “extra
services” and planned accordingly.
6. Pruning
1. Prune trees to maintain desired shape, balance, and space limitations.
2. Prune deciduous trees during winter dormancy. Prune evergreen trees in early summer
or as needed.
3. Trim shrubs to maintain desired shape and function as needed to provide a neat, trim
appearance.
4. Clear Ivy off of buildings, walkways and sidewalks.
5. Trim tree bases of sucker shoots and saplings as needed.
7. Bed Raking
Beds will be raked where no ground cover exists to maintain a fresh appearance. Beauty
Bark or rock shall be replaced as needed. Replacements and additions of product to be
considered as “extra services” and planned accordingly.
8. Leaf Collection
Leaves shall be removed from the site to maintain a neat and clean appearance.
9. Litter Control and Inspection
During each visit all areas will be inspected and all litter and debris and all improprieties
will be reported to the City Representative.
10. Irrigation Operation
1. All irrigation will be turned on no later than May 1 st and be shut off and winterized no
later than October 1st unless otherwise instructed.
2. All automatic irrigation controllers will be set to operate when most convenient. All
controllers will also be adjusted for proper watering time to insure maximum turf and
plant development.
3. Sprinkler heads will be checked regularly during the growing season to maintain
proper coverage and operation.
4. Valves and valve boxes will be maintained for proper operation and accessibility.
5. Systems will be checked monthly to ensure watering efficiency until in rhythm with
summer.
6. Irrigation rates to be minimal to prevent water waste.
Exhibit A - 7
11. Special Site Requirements
1. At location I. there are storm water collection structures that require special
attention when performing landscape maintenance and services.
a. Remove any litter or trash from detention areas and rain gardens.
b. Lightly trim vegetation within these areas only when required for maintenance
access or encroachment into lawn or sidewalk areas.
c. Report any abnormal storm water puddling or discharges to City’s
representative.
d. For additional information on the City’s storm water management plan or
maintenance of these structures contact the City’s Representative.
Extra Services
1. Extra services, other than those services listed, may be required at various locations. An
estimate will be requested of the landscape services contractor to provide material and labor
pricing for the additional services. All extra services will be negotiated and approved by
the City’s Representatives or his/her designee, before additional work begins. All extra
services will be charged to the City of Bremerton separately from the regular landscape
maintenance and services billing.
2. Extra services may include but are not limited to.
a. Irrigation repair.
b. Removal and/or replacement of dead plants and tree plantings to be consistent with
the City’s standards.
c. Removal of major storm debris.
d. Power raking or thatching.
e. Additional fertilization.
f. Insect infestation control.
g. Pressure cleaning of landscape rocks, and gravel areas.
h. Shrub and tree replacements.
i. Landscape design, tree planting design services. To be consistent with the City’s
standards.
j. Irrigation system installations.
k. Bark and/rock additions.
Exhibit A - 8
Service Requirements:
1. Each location will be maintained and serviced as specified in the Scope of Work and
Duties, frequency will be decided by contractor to maintain City Standards.
NOTE: “Per Month” is based on contractor estimate of visits per month over a year’s time.
2. Landscape maintenance and services billing will be monthly and statements will be for
individual locations A. through P. received by the City no later than the last day of the
month being billed for.
3. The City of Bremerton will have the option to add other locations to this contract, if needed,
pending a negotiated addendum and contractor’s consent and ability to provide additional
services. Deletion of sites and services may also occur at the City’s discrection.
4. Supervisory duties are required quarterly to ensure control, employee performance and to
advise owner of additional required landscape services, changes or alterations.
5. All landscape maintenance and services will be performed during normal work days and
between the hours of 7:00 am to 6:00 pm. Weekend work, holiday or extended hours of
work will be allowed only by authorization of the City’s Representative.
6. All landscape maintenance and services will be performed to the level of industry standards
and generally accepted landscape practices and procedures. Failure to do so may result in
contract termination.
7. The landscape contractor shall take precautions to prevent the possibility of injury or
damage to any City employee personal property and City property located at the service
sites.
8. All requested estimates/invoices for any extra services will be at no additional charge to
the City of Bremerton.
9. It will be the service contractor’s responsibility to ensure that all locations are secure at the
end of work or at any time the site is left unattended by the contractor.
10. Service contractor will perform monthly maintenance checks to insure sites are being
tended to per contract specifications. Failure to do so may result in contract termination.
11. Any person working for service contractor at a City site will be clearly identified both by
markings on service vehicle as well as a uniform or badge baring the service contractors
name and or logo.
Site Service Frequencies
1. Landscape maintenance and service frequencies will be determined by the contractor based
on weather, grow season and location. It is the contractor’s responsibility to check sites
frequently to determine whether a service is required to maintain City of Bremerton
Standards outlined in the maintenance and services specifications (exhibit A – 4). Failure
to do so will result in termination of contract.
Exhibit A - 9
City Contact List:
A. Chris Mottner, Inventory/Facilities Supervisor-City Representative
Phone: (360) 473-2316 Email: chris.mottner@ci.bremerton.wa.us
B. Joe Stansbery, Lead Facilities Service Specialist-City Representative
Phone: (360) 473-5335 Email: joe.stansbery@ci.bremerton.wa.us
C. Customer Response Dispatcher (24 hour message phone)
Phone: (360) 473-5920
Term:
A. Services will be for a five (5) year period, beginning upon formal award of contract.
B. An additional two (2), two (2) year extensions may be offered and negotiated by both
parties, with rates adjusted to compensate for increases to cost of living rates.
C. All service contract extensions are to be approved by the Public Works & Utilities
Director, after annual reviews and performance evaluation.
Additional Sites Requiring Landscape Maintenance and Services
A. Additional landscape areas and locations may be added to this service contract. All new
additions will be reviewed, scope of services determined, and increases negotiated by
contractor and The City Representative.
B. Any and all additional services that become routine landscape maintenance and services
will be added to the City’s existing contract by amendments, and all specifications that
apply to the new location will become effective on date of agreed upon start of service.
Form Created 5/4/15
INFORMATION ONLY ITEM
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Briefing on Water System Plan
Update
Study Session Date: May 26, 2021
Presenter: Cami Apfelbeck
Phone: (360) 473-2315
SUMMARY: Water system planning is required by Washington Administrative Code 246-290, and
the Water System Plan must be updated every 6-10 years. The plan assesses present and future
drinking water demands, system capacity and performance, recommended capital investments, and
financial viability. The plan also describes the means to meet all requirements consistent with federal,
state, and local regulations.
Budget: $250,000 expenditure approved in the Capital Improvement Plan.
This update is a combined effort of city staff and consultants.
HANDOUTS: Presentation
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☐ No Presentation ☒ Full Presentation
A5
2020 WATER SYSTEM PLAN
UPDATE STATUS
Cami Apfelbeck, Water Utility Manager
May 26, 2021
2020 WATER SYSTEM PLAN
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
•WAC 246-290-100
•Water systems must have a plan and update the plan every 6 or 10 years
(last update –2012)
•Water Use Efficiency Plan and goals must be updated (WAC 246-290-810)
•Public process required
•BMC Chapter 15 –the plan must be
•Approved by the Mayor
•Adopted by City Council
•Administered by the Director of Public Works and Utilities 2
2020 WATER SYSTEM PLAN
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
•Identify present and future needs
•Set forth the means to address these needs
•Demonstrate that the water system has the operational, technical, managerial,
and financial capability to maintain compliance with all relevant regulations
3
2020 WATER SYSTEM PLAN
WHAT’S DONE
•Chapters 1 -7
•Intro and Water System Description
•Planning Background Info
•Sources of Supply
•Water Quality and Regulatory
Compliance
•Treatment, Transmission, and
Distribution System
•Operations Program
•Performance and Design Criteria
WHAT’S IN PROGRESS
•Chapters 8 –10
•System Analysis
•Capital Improvement Plan
•Financial Plan
4
2020 WATER SYSTEM PLAN
WHAT’S DONE
•Associated Updates
•Service Area Adjustments/Agreements
•7 Monitoring Plans
•Water Use Efficiency Plan
•Water Shortage Contingency Plan
•Watershed Control Program Plan
•Wellhead Protection Program Plan
•Risk and Resilience Assessment
WHAT’S IN PROGRESS
•Associated Updates
•Emergency Response Plan
•Asset Inventory
5
2020 WATER
SYSTEM PLAN
•WHAT’S DIFFERENT
ABOUT THIS UPDATE
•10-year plan (w/10-
year and 20-year
planning horizons)
•Consolidated system
(Main, W517Z, and
Rocky Point)
6
2020 WATER SYSTEM
PLAN
•WHAT’S CHANGED SINCE 2012
PLAN
•Corrosion control re-optimization
•Replaced gas chlorine with liquid
hypochlorite
7
2020 WATER SYSTEM
PLAN
•WHAT’S CHANGED SINCE 2012
PLAN
•Service area adjustments
•Silverdale Water District
•Rocky Point Water District
•Sunnyslope Water District
•Split parcels
8
2020 WATER SYSTEM PLAN
•WHAT’S CHANGED SINCE 2012 PLAN
•Growth –two sets of downtown apartment
buildings, continued redevelopment of East Park
and Bay Vista, increased housing in W580 and
W650 pressure zones, commercial development in
W517 pressure zone, Olympic College expansion,
and annexation
•1900 accounts added to the system (as of WY
2019), but 10% reduction in water demand
9
2020 WATER SYSTEM PLAN
•CHALLENGES
•Climate change
•Increased risk for wildfire
•Increased tree disease
•Decreasing inflow to the reservoir per inch of rainfall
•Water quality regulatory changes (10 new/anticipated rule changes)
•Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (codified July, 2020)
•State PFAS Rule (in draft, targeted final rule by end of 2021)
•Watershed protection and security
•Energy efficiency
•Water rights new and change applications require modeling and mitigation for surface water
impacts (primarily stream flow)
•Must change our approach from assuming new sources and water rights to water reclamation/reuse
to optimize existing sources and water rights 10
2020 WATER SYSTEM PLAN
•BIGGEST RISKS
•Wildfire
•Large seismic event
•Intrusion and trespass in the watershed
•Cybersecurity, but….
•SCADA system converting to Virtual Private Network
•City network security improvements
11
2020 WATER SYSTEM PLAN
•WHAT’S NEXT
•DRAFT plan completion/submittal (end of June?)
•Dept of Health (DOH), Ecology, Council, Kitsap Public Health, Kitsap County, and adjacent
water purveyors
•3 months for review, but DOH backlog due to COVID-19 will delay
•Complete SEPA review
•Address comments
•Submit final plan and water use efficiency goals to public/Council for adoption by
resolution (end of 2021?)
12
QUESTIONS?
13
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: May 26, 2021
Proposed Public Hearing on Ordinance to
amend Title 20 of the Bremerton Municipal
Code related to Boundary Line Adjustments
and Lot Size Averaging
COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 2, 2021
Department: DCD
Presenter: Kelli Lambert, Sr. Planner
Phone: (360) 473-5245
SUMMARY: The action before Council is to conduct a Public Hearing and adopt an Ordinance
amending BMC Title 20 related to two topics Boundary Line Adjustments and Lot Size Averaging.
• Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA): A BLA is the process for adjusting property lines between
legally created lots. The proposal is for the City to codify a process for lot adjustments as Bremerton
is the only City in the County that does not regulate BLAs. This ordinance is important because it will
ensure that lot lines that are being adjusted are in conformance with City codes and therefore lot
adjustments will not cause conflicts for current and future property owners. The proposed code is
similar to other local jurisdictions (Poulsbo and Port Orchard). This proposed code was sent to
representatives from the Kitsap Building Association and the Kitsap Relator Group for
review/comments.
• Lot Size Averaging: This allows for individual lots located within a development to be smaller
than typically permitted, provided the average of all lots within a subdivision do not exceed the
maximum allowed density. The proposal code allows averaging in the R-10 and R-18 zones. If these
provisions are adopted, there will be added flexibility when subdividing, and in some cases will allow
more logical lot line boundaries and more opportunity to achieve the density of the underlying zone.
This proposed ordinance does not increase the allowed density in subdivisions, that will remain the
same.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment #1 - Proposed Ordinance
Exhibit A – Planning Commission’s Findings and Conclusions for BLAs
Exhibit B – Planning Commission’s Findings and Conclusions for Lot Size Averaging
Attachment #2 - Staff Memo
Attachment 2.1 - Planning Commission’s Minutes for the workshops (July 20, 2020, and
January 22, 2021) and public hearing (Draft, April 19, 2021)
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 Ordinance No. _____ as recommended by the Planning
Commission to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Section Title 20 related to Boundary Line
Adjustment and Lot Size Averaging.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
A6
1
Title 20 BMC Updates – BLA & Lot Size Averaging
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending the Bremerton Municipal Code
Title 20 related to Boundary Line Adjustments and Lot Size
Averaging.
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, these amendments develop a City process to review and provide a
decision on Boundary Line Adjustments (BLA); 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 to allow lot size averaging in all zoning districts where
single-family homes are permitted; and
WHEREAS, the Low-Density Residential (R-10) and Medium-Density
Residential (R-18) zones are the zoning districts where single-family homes are permitted and
with minimum lot sizes that would benefit from Lot Size Averaging; and
WHEREAS, these amendments to BMC 20.60.065 entitled Allowable Density
and Lot Area within the R-10 zone and BMC 20.78.065 entitled Allowable Density and Lot Area
in the R-18 zone would allow lot size averaging in all zoning districts where single-family homes
are permitted, and thus complying with House Bill 1923; and
WHEREAS, the City has received grant funding under the provisions of House
Bill 1923 to pursue these zoning code amendments; and
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a workshop
on the proposed amendments related to Boundary Line Adjustments; and
WHERAS, on January 22, 2021, the planning Commission conducted a workshop
on the proposed amendment related to Lot Size Averaging; and
2
Title 20 BMC Updates – BLA & Lot Size Averaging
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2021 for Lot Size Averaging’s amendments, a State
Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) Determination of Nonsignificance (“DNS”) was issued for
the proposed action with a comment period, and no appeals were filed; and
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2021 for Boundary Line Adjustment’s amendments, a
State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) Determination of Nonsignificance (“DNS”) was
issued for the proposed action with a comment period, and no appeals were filed; and
WHEREAS, March 11, 2021 for Lot Size Averaging’s amendments and March
22, 2021 for Boundary Line Adjustment’s amendments, the proposed Zoning Code amendments
were circulated to Department of Commerce and the State Agencies for the requisite review and
comment period; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2021, 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 April 19, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted two public
hearings on the Zoning Code amendments and formulated two recommendations to forward the
amendments for City Council consideration; and
WHEREAS, the amendments would develop a new process for the City to review
and provide a decision for BLAs, and Rate Table C, per Ordinance 5405, does not identify the
cost for BLA permitting; and
WHEREAS, until such time that the City annually updates its Rates and Fees, the
City would charge an hourly review as identified by Rate Table C, or as hereby amended, for the
time it took to process, review, issue a decision for the BLA permit; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2021, 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 June
2, 2021 by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2021, 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 and Exhibit B are adopted
and incorporated as if set forth herein in full.
3
Title 20 BMC Updates – BLA & Lot Size Averaging
SECTION 3. Chapter 20.12 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Land
Division” is hereby amended by adding Section 20.12.175 to read as follows:
20.12.175 BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide procedures and criteria for the
review and approval of adjustments to boundary lines of legal lots or tracts in order to rectify
defects in legal descriptions, to allow the enlargement of lots to improve or qualify as a building
site, to achieve increased setbacks from property lines or sensitive areas, to correct situations
wherein an established use is located across a lot line, or for other similar purposes. A Boundary
Line Adjustment (BLA) shall not be used to subdivide land, i.e., it shall not create any new or
additional lot, tract or parcel. The BLA is not for the purpose of avoiding public improvement
requirements that would be associated with a replat or other new land division approval.
(b) Procedure.
(1) A request for a BLA is processed as a Type I Director’s decision pursuant
to Chapter 20.02 BMC.
(2) BLAs may also be accomplished as part of a plat or short plat.
(3) At the Director’s discretion, a Site Plan Review or separate permit may be
required prior to the submittal of a BLA or concurrently with the BLA permit.
(c) Application submittal requirements. An applicant shall submit a complete BLA
application to the City. The following shall accompany a complete application for the purposes
of this chapter:
(1) Evidence of ownership or authorization from the property owner to apply.
(2) A site plan of both the existing and proposed property line configuration
that contains the following:
(i) A vicinity map that clearly marks the site in relation to the nearest
major streets, roads, and waterways in the area;
(ii) A map at a scale of not less than one inch to fifty feet which depicts
the existing property configuration, including all lot lines, dimensions and lot area.
(iii) The location and dimensions of all structures/improvements existing
upon the affected lots and the distance between such structures/improvements and the existing
and proposed boundary lines.
(iv) The location and dimensions of any easements within or adjacent to
the affected lot(s).
(v) The location, dimensions and names of all existing or platted street
rights-of-way, whether public or private, within or adjacent to the affected lots.
(vi) The location of all existing and proposed water, sewer and storm
drainage facilities, on-site wastewater disposal systems, drainfields, and wells.
(vii) The location of access to all affected lots.
(viii) A north arrow and bar scale.
(3) The original legal descriptions of all affected properties, together with new
separate legal descriptions for each parcel resulting from the adjustment.
(4) All drawings and legal descriptions are required to be prepared, stamped
and dated by a licensed land surveyor as set forth in BMC 20.12.070. The surveyor shall confirm
the following:
4
Title 20 BMC Updates – BLA & Lot Size Averaging
(i) That the BLA does not violate any covenants, conditions and
restrictions (CCRs), deed restrictions, common spaces, easements, or development agreements
pertaining to the affected properties; and
(ii) All persons with interest in the properties are represented in the
request.
(5) A title report prepared not more than 60 calendar days prior to application
submittal and prepared by a title company licensed in the state of Washington, may be required.
(6) If an existing on-site sewage (septic tank) disposal system and/or well will
continue to be used on an affected property after the BLA, and/or if a new on-site sewage
disposal system or well is proposed for an affected property where City code does not require
connection to the City’s municipal sewer and/or water system, the applicant shall provide written
verification from the Kitsap Public Health District that the proposed lot is adequate to
accommodate an on-site sewage disposal system and/or well.
(d) Decision criteria. The following criteria shall be used to review and approve
BLAs:
(1) The BLA shall not result in the creation of any additional lot, tract, parcel,
site, or division.
(2) The BLA shall not be approved if it avoids public improvement
requirements, such as utility or right-of-way improvements, that would be associated with a land
division approval.
(3) The lots or parcels resulting after the BLA shall meet all dimensional
requirements specified for the applicable zone as set forth in Title 20, and other applicable
regulations.
(4) No lot, use, or structure is made nonconforming or more nonconforming
than that which existed at the time of application and are subject to the provisions of BMC
Chapter 20.54.
(5) Will not diminish or impair existing or future drainage, water supply,
sanitary sewage disposal (including on-site sewage disposal) or legal access.
(6) Shall not be reconfigured or adjusted which would render access for
vehicles, utilities, fire protection, or existing easements impractical to serve their purpose or to
allow maintenance/access.
(7) Shall not violate or be inconsistent with any conditions of approval for a
previously filed land use action, subdivision, short plat, or binding site plan deemed relevant by
the Director.
(8) Shall not result in a lot having more than one land use designation and/or
zoning; or result in being bisected by any special overlay.
(9) Shall not result in a lot, or lots, not wholly located within the City limits.
(10) Shall not involve lots that do not have a common boundary
(11) Shall not result in a lot which would be so constrained by topography,
critical areas or buffers, unusual shape, or other site conditions that a reasonable building site
cannot be obtained except through a variance, reasonable use exemption from a critical areas
permit, or other special exemption from the City’s zoning, land use or critical area regulations.
(12) Shall not affect the boundaries of any lot, tract, parcel or division that is
the subject of a current, unresolved City code enforcement action, code violation notice, or stop
work notice; except as provided under circumstances where the Director, Hearing Examiner or
judge deems a BLA provides an appropriate resolution.
5
Title 20 BMC Updates – BLA & Lot Size Averaging
(13) Any adjustment of boundary lines must be approved by the department
prior to the transfer of property ownership between adjacent legal lots;
(14) When an adjustment of boundary lines requires a modification of access,
those modifications shall be approved by the City Engineer though a separate permit. Any
adjusted lot shall contain no more than six separate lot lines, which are straight lines except when
an irregular line is caused by an existing right of way or existing lot line.
(e) Final Approval and Recording.
(1) Prior to recording, the applicant shall submit BLA drawing(s) for approval
by the City. The City will provide a decision in writing, to be provided to the Kitsap County
Auditor’s office.
(2) Prior to final approval, documentation authorizing the transfer of property
ownership shall be placed on the original boundary line map along with the legal descriptions of
those portions of land being transferred when lots are under separate ownership. Lot lines within
lots under the same ownership will be adjusted upon the recording of the BLA.
(3) A BLA does not become effective until all documents are recorded with
the Kitsap County Auditor. The BLA shall be recorded within one hundred eighty days of the
notice of decision date or be null and void. The applicant shall be responsible for submitting all
final documents for recording. The applicant shall provide the City the Auditor File Number
within 7-days of recording, and a copy of the recorded BLA within 30-days of recording.
SECTION 4. Chapter 20.60 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Low
Density Residential (R-10)” zone is hereby amended by revising Section 20.60.065 entitled
“Allowable Density and Lot Area” to read as follows:
20.60.065 ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND LOT AREA.
The purpose of this section is to establish compatible levels of density within existing
neighborhoods. The intent is to allow infill residential development. The following density and
lot area standards are applicable to development within the zone:
(a) Minimum Density. The minimum required density is six (6) dwellings per acre.
(b) Maximum Density. The maximum allowed density is ten (10) dwellings per acre.
(c) Maximum Lot Area. The maximum lot area is seven thousand two hundred sixty
(7,260) square feet, with the following exceptions:
(1) The lot area may be modified through the approval of a residential cluster
development pursuant to BMC 20.58.060;
(2) One (1) lot within a proposal for a division of land may exceed seven
thousand two hundred sixty (7,260) square feet, provided the remaining lots do not exceed the
seven thousand two hundred sixty (7,260) square foot maximum lot size; and
(3) A flag lot that complies with the requirements in BMC 20.44.100 may
exceed seven thousand two hundred sixty (7,260) square feet, provided the total area of the flag
lot does not exceed ten thousand eight hundred ninety (10,890) square feet.
(d) Minimum Lot Area. The minimum allowed lot area is four thousand three
hundred (4,300) square feet.
(e) Exception to Minimum Lot Areas.
(1) The minimum lot area may be modified through the approval of a
residential cluster development pursuant to BMC 20.58.060, provided the development complies
with the maximum density requirement set forth in subsection (b) of this section.
6
Title 20 BMC Updates – BLA & Lot Size Averaging
(2) When a new subdivision is proposed, the size of lots in land division may
be reduced below the minimum lot size provided all the following are met:
(i) The overall average of the proposed lots do not exceed the
permissible maximum density.
(ii) All lots that are smaller than the minimum lot size shall
demonstrate that they are developable by showing code compliance with such items as required
parking, lot coverage, setbacks, stormwater compliance, etc.
(iii) The platting documents shall include documentation of allowed
uses and language that ensures maximum density is not exceeded.
(iv) If the land division is submitted in phases of development, each
phase submitted for approval shall meet these provisions.
SECTION 5. Chapter 20.78 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Medium
Density Residential (R-18)” zone is hereby amended by revising Section 20.60.065 entitled
“Allowable Density and Lot Area” to read as follows:
20.78.065 ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND LOT AREA.
The purpose of this section is to establish compatible levels of density within existing
neighborhoods. The intent is to allow infill residential development. The following density and
lot area standards are applicable to development within the zone:
(a) Minimum Density. The minimum required density is six (6) dwellings per acre.
(b) Maximum Density. The maximum allowed density is eighteen (18) dwellings per
acre.
(c) Maximum Lot Area. The maximum lot area is seven thousand two hundred sixty
(7,260) square feet, with the following exceptions:
(1) The lot area may be modified through the approval of a residential cluster
development pursuant to BMC 20.58.060;
(2) One (1) lot within a proposal for a division of land may exceed seven
thousand two hundred sixty (7,260) square feet, provided the remaining lots do not exceed the
seven thousand two hundred sixty (7,260) square foot maximum lot size; and
(3) A flag lot that complies with the requirements in BMC 20.44.100 may
exceed seven thousand two hundred sixty (7,260) square feet, provided the total area of the flag
lot does not exceed ten thousand eight hundred ninety (10,890) square feet.
(d) Minimum Lot Area. The minimum allowed lot area is two thousand five hundred
(2,500) square feet.
(e) Exception to Minimum Lot Areas.
(1) The minimum lot area may be modified through the approval of a
residential cluster development pursuant to BMC 20.58.060, provided the development complies
with the maximum density requirement set forth in subsection (b) of this section.
(2) When a new subdivision is proposed, the size of lots in land division may
be reduced below the minimum lot size provided all the following are met:
(i) The overall average of the proposed lots do not exceed the
permissible maximum density.
(ii) All lots that are smaller than the minimum lot size shall
demonstrate that they are developable by showing code compliance with such items as required
parking, lot coverage, setbacks, stormwater compliance, etc.
7
Title 20 BMC Updates – BLA & Lot Size Averaging
(iii) The platting documents shall include documentation of allowed
uses and language that ensures maximum density is not exceeded.
(iv) If the land division is submitted in phases of development, each
phase submitted for approval shall meet these provisions.
SECTION 6. 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 7. 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 8. 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 ____________________, 2021.
_________________________________
KEVIN GORMAN, Council President
Approved this ________ day of _____________________, 2021.
_________________________________
GREGORY WHEELER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ ________________________________
ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 2021.
EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 2021.
ORDINANCE NO. ____________
1
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
Summary:
The proposed amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) to develop a City process for
Boundary Line Adjustments by creating a new section: BMC 20.12.175
I.FINDINGS OF FACT
1.Project Description:
The proposed Zoning Code amendments would allow for City departments to review Boundary
Line Adjustments within the City of Bremerton.
This proposal does not impact, nor change, the regulations for Land Division as identified in
current code.
2.Procedural History:
2.1 Planning Commission Workshop: July 8, 2020
2.2 Washington State Department of Commerce Notice: March 22, 2021
2.3 SEPA Threshold Determination DNS: March 24, 2021
2.4 Notice of Public Hearing: March 25, 2021
2.5 Planning Commission Public Hearing: April 19, 2021
3.Public and Agency Comment:
3.1 None provided at the Workshop
3.2 At the Planning Commission Public Hearing on April 19, 2021, the following testimony
was provided: None
4.SEPA Determination:
A Determination of Non-Significance was issued on March 24, 2021, no comments or appeals
were filed.
5.Consistency:
Text amendments to Title 20 shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.18.020(d). The
Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with
modifications, an amendment to Title 20 if the criteria outlined below are met.
(1)It is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan;
Analysis: The proposed amendments continue to uphold the objectives and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, and implement the following policies:
o Goal LU1. Plan for Bremerton’s population and employment growth.
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 City Services Goal CS1: Provide municipal services that enhance the quality of life in
Bremerton.
o Policy CS1(B): Educate the citizenry about City services and citizen responsibilities.
o Goal CS4: Provide safe and reliable utility service to citizens, while balancing economic,
aesthetics and environmental factors.
Exhibit A
2
(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 related to Land Division 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, Executive Secretary Nick Wofford, Planning Commission Chair
Exhibit A
1
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
Summary:
The proposed amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) to allow Lot Size Averaging in the
Low- and Medium-Density Residential Zones.
I.FINDINGS OF FACT
1.Project Description:
The proposed Zoning Code amendments would allow lot size averaging within the City’s BMC
to the two zones that identity minimum lot sizes: Low- and Medium Density Residential Zones
(BMC 20.60 and BMC 20.78). This code would allow future development to have some flexibility
in their proposed minimum lot sizes when subdividing or a boundary line change, when the
overall project continues to meet the underlying zoning density.
This proposal does not impact, nor change, the existing underlying zoning density as identify in
current code.
2.Procedural History:
2.1 Planning Commission Workshop: January 22, 2021
2.2 Washington State Department of Commerce Notice: March 11, 2021
2.3 SEPA Threshold Determination DNS: March 16, 2021
2.4 Notice of Public Hearing: April 9, 2021
2.5 Planning Commission Public Hearing: April 19, 2021
3.Public and Agency Comment:
3.1 None provided at the Workshop
3.2 At the Planning Commission Public Hearing on April 19, 2021, the following testimony
was provided: none
4.SEPA Determination:
A Determination of Non-Significance was issued on March 16, 2021, no comments or appeals
were filed.
5.Consistency:
Text amendments to Title 20 shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.18.020(d). The
Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with
modifications, an amendment to Title 20 if the criteria outlined below are met.
(1)It is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan;
Analysis: The proposed amendments continue to uphold the objectives and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, and implement the following policies:
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 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.
Exhibit B
2
o Policy H2(C): Supporting infill development and increased densities.
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.
(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. To ensure
the City continues having a balance of housing and employment opportunities as identified
within the Comprehensive Plan, an annual status report on commercial growth/development will
be presented to the Planning Commission to monitor if this exception is still needed.
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 related to Lot Size Averaging, 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, Executive Secretary Nick Wofford, Planning Commission Chair
Exhibit B
Attachment 2
To: City Council
From: Kelli Lambert
Date: May 17, 2021
Subject: Amendments to the Zoning Code related to BLA and Lot Size Averaging
SUMMARY
City Council will be holding a public hearing on an Ordinance that amends the Bremerton
Municipal Code (BMC) related to Boundary Line Adjustments (BLAs) and Lot Size Averaging.
The revisions are to add a process and decision criteria for BLAs and to allow Lot Size
Averaging within the Low- and Medium-Density Residential zones.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 2.1 - Planning Commission’s Minutes:
o July 20, 2020 Workshop on Boundary Line Adjustment
o January 22, 2021 Workshop on Lot Size Averaging
o April 19, 2021 Public Hearings on both topics
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission unanimously recommended the proposed amendments at two Public
Hearings held on April 19, 2021 (one public hearing per topic). Minutes from this meeting as well
as the workshops held on July 2020 and January 2021, are attached to this report at
Attachment 2.1.
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS
The amendments in the proposed Ordinance is to adopt revisions to the Land Division code to
allow for City review of Boundary Line Adjustments (BLAs). A BLA is a process for changing the
lot lines between legal lots. A BLA does not create any lots or parcels - it merely changes the
boundaries. BLAs are commonly done to resolve conflicts between adjacent property owners, or
to bring a property into conformance with zoning code requirements. Currently, as the City does
not have a process for reviewing BLAs, property owners record them directly with the Kitsap
County Auditor, and the City misses the chance to identify potential problems sometimes
created by a BLA.
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
Memo to BLA & Lot Size Averaging Ordinance
Page 2
If adopted, the Code WOULD:
• Allow the City to review proposed Boundary Line Adjustments, to identify potential
conflicts or nonconformities before the document is recorded.
• Protect property values by providing a process for owners to confirm that their revised
lot(s) will be recognized by the City at the time of future development.
If adopted, the Code WOULD NOT:
• Change any of the current land division regulations.
• Create any new criteria of approval.
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS (BLAs)
The following sections will explain the background and purpose of BLAs and outline potential
additions being considered by the City to the Bremerton Municipal code Title 20, also known as
the Zoning Code, related to land division. The picture below shows two examples of a Boundary
Line Adjustment. The picture on the left shows the lot line between two houses being adjusted a
few feet to the right (this adjustment would allow the house-that-is-close-to-the-property-line to
more easily remodel (less fire/building code requirements) and have access to maintain their
house). The picture on the left shows a boundary line adjustment to move a vertical property
line to a horizontal property line (this adjustment would improve the lot as both lots would have
direct access to the street).
Memo to BLA & Lot Size Averaging Ordinance
Page 3
What is a Boundary Line Adjustment?
o A BLA is a process for changing the lot lines between legal lots. A BLA does not create any
lots or parcels- it merely changes the boundaries.
Three common usages for BLAs would be:
1. To resolve controversy regarding the boundary between neighbors;
Example: a landowner builds a fence on what she believes is her property. A survey
reveals the fence is on the neighbor’s property. She may perform a BLA with her
neighbor to transfer possession of the land under the fence to her, possibly in
exchange for compensation.
2. To bring a property into conformance with zoning code;
Example: a structure was built within the side yard setbacks. In order to bring it into
conformance, the landowner and her neighbor agree to perform a BLA to move the lot
line.
3. To allow additional development that complies with zoning code.
Example: the maximum development coverage of a lot is reached. The landowner
and her neighbor may agree to perform a BLA to move the lot line, netting the
landowner additional lot space.
Regulations for BLAs
o A BLA cannot:
1. create a lot;
2. reduce the size of a lot so that it contains insufficient area and dimension to meet
minimum zoning code;
3. reduce building setbacks below standards;
4. increase an existing nonconformity;
5. diminish current or future water supply, drainage, or sewer disposal;
6. create a lot without vehicular access
7. be inconsistent with the conditions or restrictions on a recorded plat;
8. create a lot that straddles multiple zones, and jurisdictions;
9. create a lot that is so constrained or encompassed by topography, critical areas,
buffers, or shape, that it would require a variance or exemption in order for a building
site to be allowed; and
10. be for a lot that is currently under a current stop-work order or code enforcement
action.
o BLAs are a right granted to homeowners in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The
City of Bremerton currently has no regulations in place to review BLAs. In Bremerton, BLAs
are processed through the Kitsap County Assessor. Kitsap County’s code relating to BLAs
contains a provision that BLAs “Must meet local regulations”, yet Bremerton has no formal
process for BLAs to meet that standard and currently there is no guarantee that the BLA is
appropriate.
o Several of our local cities, including Bainbridge Island (BIMC 2.16.090), Poulsbo (PMC
17.30), and Port Orchard (POMC 20.84), have BLA provisions and permit processes.
Memo to BLA & Lot Size Averaging Ordinance
Page 4
Typical Process:
BLAs would be processed as Type 1 permits, the same as are used for typical building permits.
The following is a breakdown of the steps, from application to completion:
Step 1: The applicant will submit the application materials, which will include:
• Application form;
• Legible drawings prepared, stamped, and dated by a licensed land surveyor, that show
the parcels and their surroundings as they currently are, and as they will be once
changed;
• A copy of any covenants, conditions, and restrictions, deed restrictions, and other
development agreements pertaining to the properties;
• A recent title report;
• Any other information that the City deems necessary to help determine if a decision can
be rendered.
• The applicant would pay a fee. Until the City’s Rate and Fees ordinance is updated on its
annual cycle, an hourly rate will be charged for the time the City spends on review.
Step 2: The City will conduct its review of the BLA permit. If the information is incomplete, the
City will request
Step 3: The City will issue its decision.
• In the event of a permit decision that the applicant does not agree with and wishes to
appeal, the applicant may apply at this time to have the appeal heard in front of the
Hearing Examiner.
Step 4: If approved, the applicant then has 180-days to submit the documents for recording to
the Kitsap County Assessor’s office.
Submit
Application &
Pay Fees
Technical Staff
Review Decision
Appeal to
Hearing
Examiner
Submit
Documents
for Recording
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Memo to BLA & Lot Size Averaging Ordinance
Page 5
Why Regulate BLAs?
BLAs are allowed by State Law, and to regulate BLAs is a tool that the City has the option to
adopt, that majority of other urban cities have already done. Out of the four cities in Kitsap
(Bremerton, Bainbridge Island, Poulsbo, and Port Orchard), Bremerton is the only City that does
not have a codified process to review when someone wants to move a property line.
The City has a strong interest in ensuring that new development and land division complies with
the goals of our Comprehensive Plan, zoning code, and the standards of our Public Works
department. Under the current arrangement, BLAs are not required to be reviewed by the City at
all, and could result in nonconformities in the zoning code, strain on or incompatibility with public
utilities, or parcel shapes or sizes that are inconsistent with the goals of our Comprehensive
Plan. In the rare instances where BLAs are shown to the City prior to their finalization with
Kitsap County, any review the City does is pro-bono, and any recommendations that we issue
are non-binding.
Implementing a tailored-to-Bremerton strategy to review BLAs not only allows us to hold them to
standards specific to Bremerton’s needs, it also updates our municipality’s land division policy to
be in line with that of our other Kitsap cities of Poulsbo, Port Orchard, and Bainbridge Island.
Under current code, a property owner can record a BLA directly with the Kitsap County Auditor’s
office, without review from City departments. Potential issues around private utilities, access,
and critical areas can be missed, which can affect the property owner’s ability to develop the
lot(s).
Under the proposed code, the City would review proposed BLAs, and therefore identify any
potential issues that may be created by the BLA before the document is recorded.
LOT SIZE AVERAGING
The proposal is to adopt a code that allows Lot Size Averaging when subdividing. Lot size
averaging allows the size of individual lots within a development to vary from the minimum lot
size that is identified in the zone, provided that the average lot size in the development as a
whole meets the underlying zoning maximum density. Housing can then be developed on lots
smaller than otherwise permitted in a zone, while ensuring that the overall density is met for the
project. This allows more diverse housing and more flexibility when dividing land.
If adopted, the Code WOULD:
• Add flexibility to code when subdividing. The proposed code would allow some lots to be
below the minimum required lot size, provided the overall project meets the underlying
density.
• Only impact future subdivisions and lots that desire to change their lot line boundary.
• Act as an important infill tool where there is an existing house or structure on a property,
or other existing site conditions, that make it difficult, or impossible to subdivide.
Memo to BLA & Lot Size Averaging Ordinance
Page 6
If adopted, the Code WOULD NOT:
• Change the density of the underlying zone. The underlying density of the zone still must
be met for a project as a whole, even if individual lots were of varying minimum sizes.
• Impact any existing parcels or homes. This revision would only be relevant in the process
of subdivision or changes to their lot line boundary.
LOT SIZE AVERAGING: EXAMPLE
The Low Density Residential (R-10) zone has a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre.
For a 0.5-acre lot, the maximum number of lots possible in a subdivision would be 5 with each
lot at the minimum size of 4,300 square feet (sqft).
4,880 sqft
6,300 sqft
6,300 sqft
4,300 sqft
4,300 sqft
4,300 sqft
4,880 sqft 4,000 sqft 4,300 sqft 21,780 square feet
(0.5 acres)
Current Site
0.5 acres property in R-10 zone with
two homes on site.
If they subdivide, minimum lot size
is 4,300 square feet.
R-10 Density (when subdividing) =
Minimum 6 du/acre
Maximum 10 du/acre
Current Density = 4 du/acre
Proposed Subdivision #2
Proposal is to divide into 4 lots.
City could approve this
subdivision as it meets minimum
lot size.
Proposed Density = 8 du/acre
City could approve with existing
code
Proposed Subdivision #1
Proposal is to divide into 5 lots.
Lot #1 is proposed to be
4,000 sqft which does not meet
the minimum lot size of
4,000 sqft.
Proposed Density = 10 du/acre
City could not approve,
unless the proposed
amendments are passed
Memo to BLA & Lot Size Averaging Ordinance
Page 7
Under current code, when subdividing in the R-10 zone, all lots must be no smaller than 4,300
square feet. Because of the existing two homes in the example on the pervious page, in the
Proposed Subdivision #1, the property owner has requested a 4,000 square foot lot (a 40’ by
100’ lot) for the proposed Lot #1 which will be able to accommodate other code requirements
(setback, lot coverage, parking, etc.) and still meet the underlying zoning density (of 10 dwelling
units per acre).
Under current code requirements, the City would reject Proposed Subdivision #1 as current
code requires that all lots must be larger 4,300 square feet; Lot #1 is shown at 4,000 square
feet.
As shown in Proposed Subdivision #2, if Lot #1 were to be expanded, it would reduce Lot #3’s
size below 4,300 square feet. Thus, Lot #3 would be too small to meet the minimum lot size
requirement. By necessity, this proposal would become 4 lots instead of 5 lots on 0.5-acre. This
would result in the subdivision having an achieved density of 8 dwelling units per acre, when the
maximum density of the zone is 10 dwelling units per acre (which could be achieved if it could
subdivide to 5 lots).
Thus, under today’s current codes the City could approve Proposed Subdivision #2 and would
reject Proposed Subdivision #1.
If the Amendments in the proposed Ordinance where adopted, the Proposed Subdivision
#2 (a 5-lot subdivision) could be approved, which these amendments allow more opportunity
and flexibility to the property owner.
To summarize the proposed amendments, flexibility would be permitted when subdividing to
allow lots to be smaller than minimum lot size if ALL the following were met:
1. The lot size averaging of the land division does not exceed the permissible maximum
density of the underlying zoning.
• In other words, if the lot is within the R-10 zone and they would like to subdivide,
their proposed lot sizes could vary provided the project does not exceed a density
of more than 10 dwelling unit per acre.
• Please note that there are still some standards that are not proposed to change
such as minimum lot width would still be required (30’ minimum lot width).
2. The lots utilizing the reduced minimum lot size must demonstrate that the lots are able to
accommodate all the development regulations including, but not limited to, required
parking, not exceeding the allowable lot coverage, setbacks, stormwater compliance, etc.
3. If the land division is submitted in phases of development, each phase submitted for
approval shall meet all provision for this section.
Though it seems like a minor change, to allow Lot Size Averaging flexibility will have an impact
as it is incrementally implemented throughout the City through infill subdivisions.
Memo to BLA & Lot Size Averaging Ordinance
Page 8
Lot Size Averaging and Logical Lot Lines
In addition, if the proposed amendments are adopted, this would allow flexibility for a subdivision
to propose logical lot lines instead of focusing on specific square footage. The following is a real
example that developed an illogical lot line, that could be eliminate if the proposed amendments
were adopted:
The picture to the left is a
real 2-lot subdivision that
the City approved in 2007
at the corner of Dora
Avenue and Marine Drive.
Lot A is highlighted in
Blue, and Lot B is
highlighted in Green. Lot B
has a single-family home
and 2-car garage. Lot A
was and is still
undeveloped.
This subdivision is two lots
on 0.3 acres and has a
density ~7 dwelling units
per acre. That meets the
R-10 density of 6 and 10
dwelling units per acre.
As previously described,
because of current code
when subdividing in the R-10 zone, the minimum lot size any lot can be is 4,300 square feet (no
lot is proposed to be smaller than 4,300 square feet). For Lot A to meet the minimum lot size, it
had to provide a 10’ by 60’ panhandle extension onto its lot (there is a red arrow each of the
pictures to illustrate the panhandle on Lot A). The pictures below are of the subdivided lot and
the arrow showing the panhandle.
Memo to BLA & Lot Size Averaging Ordinance
Page 9
It would have made more logical sense to allow the panhandle on Lot A to be part of Lot B but
the current code wouldn’t allow is as Lot A would be too small. If the proposed amendments
were adopted, this would have allowed the panhandle in Lot A to be part of Lot B as the density
of the underlying zoning will still be met (it would still be a ~7 dwelling units per acre proposal)
and there is now the flexibility in the code.
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Through this process, the Planning Commission held two workshops and two public hearings.
Minutes from those meetings are attached to this Memorandum as Attachment 2.1. Staff also
conducted typical outreach for Citywide Zoning Code Amendments with State and local agency
outreach and comment period. In addition, Staff has announced and made special outreaches
to the Kitsap Building Association and the Kitsap Realtor Group to inform them of these
updates. No formal comments were provided about the amendments.
APPROVED
CITY OF BREMERTON
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF VIRTUAL MEETING
July 20, 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 Rich
Commissioners Excused
Commissioner Pedersen
Quorum Certified
Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development
Allison Satter, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development
Kelli Lambert, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development
Isaac Gloor, Planner, Department of Community Development
Sarah Lynam, DCD Project Assistant, Department of Community Development
Others Present
Lisa Grueter, Berk Consulting, Inc.
Radhika Nair, Berk Consulting, Inc.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 15, 2020. COMMISSIONER
COUGHLIN 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: Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) for the Eastside Employment Center
Ms. Satter reviewed that this a public hearing on proposed changes to the Bremerton Eastside Employment Center, also called
the Harrison Hospital District. For those calling into the virtual meeting, she advised that the PowerPoint Presentation was
available on the City’s website at www.bremertonwa.gov/eastsidecenter.com. The subject of the hearing is the draft Subarea
Plan and draft Planned Action Ordinance (PAO), and the presentation will focus on the changes that have been made since the
APPROVED
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
July 27, 2020 ~ Page 2 of 7
last study session based on input received from the Planning Commission and the public. The purpose of this meeting is for
the Commission to conduct a public hearing, consider the public testimony, and provide a recommendation to the City Council.
Ms. Satter recalled that at the study session, there was significant discussion about renaming the district to keep the legacy of
Angie and Benjamin Harrison alive. The Commission recommended that the name be changed to Harrison Village. Since that
time, the Mayor and Parks Director have expressed concern about losing the name of Sheridan Park, which is also special to
the area. As a compromise, staff is suggesting that the area could be renamed Harrison Village at Sheridan Park. Once the
Commission has recommended a name, all of the associated documents will be revised as appropriate.
Ms. Satter briefly reviewed that, in addition to the Planning Commission’s public hearing and recommendation, the City
Council will also conduct a public hearing before making a final decision. Staff’s goal is to present the proposed subarea plan
and PAO to the City Council, along with the Commission’s recommendation, in September or early October. Final adoption
by the City Council should occur shortly after.
Ms. Satter reviewed that the Planning Commission received the first draft of the subarea plan on March 6th, outlining the three
alternatives that were evaluated in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). At that time, the Commission provided
direction on a preferred land use concept. The draft subarea plan was updated per the Commission’s direction and presented
for a public hearing on June 15th. Following that hearing, the Planning Commission provided more direction and the subarea
plan was further revised in preparation for the current public hearing.
Radhika Nair, Berk Consulting, Inc. recalled that, at the conclusion of the June 15th public hearing, the Commission indicated
general support for the vision and guidance framework. They also indicated support for the proposed regulatory framework
(i.e. overlay district, block frontage and street typologies, dimensional and development standards, parking requirements, open
space standards, and incentive program). She said her presentation would focus on the changes made since the last hearing and
information regarding the rational for realigning Wheaton Way. She specifically noted the following:
• Overlay Districts – The earlier draft identified a higher Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax Exemption to encourage
small businesses within the entrepreneurial overlay in the multi-use zone. However, the Licensing Division voiced
concern that the program would be difficult to administer and have only limited benefits. The current draft eliminates
the program, but it still promotes the City’s existing small businesses in the multi-use zone.
• Block Frontage and Street Typologies. The earlier draft indicated further refinement of Callahan Drive to align
with the SR-303 Project’s preferred alternative. The current draft notes that, while the section shown might work for
the short-term, the long-term option would likely include a different cross section with a non-motorized, 13-foot path
on the northern side of the street.
• Dimensional and Development Standards. The current draft increases the height limit in the Center Residential
High Zone (Harrison Hospital site) to 75 feet for sites over 1 acre. In addition, the amount of commercial area allowed
was increased from 20,000 to 40,000 square feet. This is based on feedback from the Commission about the need to
retain the flexibility that exists with the current zoning.
• Wheaton Way Realignment: Currently, lower Wheaton Way curves and creates a 5-point intersection at SR-303.
The subarea plan envisions a more direct connection that links up with Spruce Avenue. From an economic standpoint,
the realignment would create two sites with good visibility and development potential. From a traffic standpoint, it
would correct an inefficient link in the City’s system. Because right turns are not allowed from Wheaton Way onto
Sheridan Road, a lot of traffic ends up on Cherry Avenue, which is a much smaller street. The proposed alignment
would allow both left and right turns, making the system more efficient.
• Floor Area Ratio (FAR). FAR is a way to regulate bulk that offers flexibility of floor arrangement under controls
that limit gross floor area. As long as developers stay within the maximum density allowed, the number of floors and
how much area each floor occupies can vary. The subarea plan identifies a maximum FAR of 3, which is a typical
limit used for high-density residential and mixed-use settings outside of downtowns. She shared photographs of
existing development in the City to illustrate how the concept might play out in Bremerton. She noted that, typically,
APPROVED
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
July 27, 2020 ~ Page 3 of 7
parking space is not counted in the FAR. They were unable to find an existing building with a FAR of 3, but that is
the maximum FAR and they don’t expect that all development would reach that level.
Ms. Nair said that, once the subarea plan is adopted by the City Council, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Code will be needed to ensure consistency. For example, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map will need to be amended to
replace the current Employment Center designation with a new designation called Subarea Plan. In addition, the goals and
policies in the Land Use Element will need to be amended to refer to the subarea plan goals and policies.
Ms. Grueter reviewed that the PAO was updated to finalize the Preferred Alternative Growth Estimates to reflect the changes
to height and commercial space limits in the Center Residential High zone. They also need to complete the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) mitigation for transportation, refine procedures based on input from the Public Works Department, and
integrate the new name for the subarea. She reminded them that the purpose of the PAO is to facilitate growth that is consistent
with the subarea plan. As discussed at the previous hearing, the thresholds by which development is reviewed under SEPA
need to be amended so that the mitigation measures can be properly applied.
Ms. Grueter shared a bar chart to illustrate the anticipated growth in population, dwellings and jobs that is associated with
each of the alternatives. With the Preferred Alternative, housing would be similar to the Residential Focus Alternative, and
jobs would be similar to the existing situation. She noted that, since the last hearing, the number of residential units increased
and the number of jobs changed as a result of changes to the formula. A consistency edit is needed on Page 56 of the subarea
plan, which shows the numbers before accounting for the additional commercial floor area and height proposed for the Center
Residential High zone. She also shared a graph showing estimated PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips for each of the alternatives.
The Preferred Alternative would be similar to the Employment Focus Alternative in terms of traffic trips.
Ms. Grueter advised that the final growth numbers are in, which means the mitigation fee can be finalized. The PAO identifies
a number of multimodal transportation improvements for the subarea (See Map). The proposed per trip fee is based on the
share of trips that will come from the new growth. The fee can be lowered based on a developer making frontage improvements
on the major roadways.
Ms. Grueter summarized that, following the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the final EIS will be completed and
the draft Subarea Plan and PAO, along with Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code changes, will be presented to the City
Council.
Chair Wofford opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Brianna Sellick, Bremerton, asked for clarification about the area where the height limit was increased, and Ms. Satter
responded that the height limit was increased for the area around Harrison Hospital, which has been proposed for Center
Residential High zoning. Ms. Nair added that the height limit was only increased for sites larger than one acre.
Ms. Sellick said her property was included in the Center Residential High zone, but the height increase would not apply because
it is only 1/3 acre. She asked if the height increase would apply to the property where the water tower is currently located. Ms.
Grueter shared a map to illustrate the location of the Harrison Hospital site and the Madrona Forest, which is outside of the
study area. She noted that the proposed height increase is actually consistent with the height that is currently allowed for larger
master-planned sites. Ms. Sellick asked if the intent is to encourage apartment development. Ms. Grueter said the current
zoning allows both commercial and residential development, which means the uses can be mixed or developed separately.
Attached residential units are already allowed, and the overlay identifies the area where residential attached development is
particularly promoted. A specific amount of commercial development would also be allowed in this area. Ms. Sellick
summarized that the majority of the anticipated apartment development will occur in the Multi-Use zone. She asked what the
height limit would be in the Multi-Use zone. She noted that most of her property value is related to the view, which would be
lost if a development greater than three stories was allowed next to her property. Ms. Grueter said development in the Multi-
Use zone could be either residential or commercial. Ms. Satter added that the base height limit would be 35 feet, and the
maximum height limit would be 65 feet. Currently, the maximum height allowed is 80 feet for residential and 50 feet for non-
commercial uses. She said the property where the water reservoir is located is at the top of the Madrona Forest property, and
the zoning would remain unchanged.
APPROVED
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
July 27, 2020 ~ Page 4 of 7
Ms. Sellick asked if the City has any idea what will be developed on the Harrison Hospital property in the future. She asked
that the height limit be reduced for the properties adjacent to her. If not, she said she may be interested in purchasing the lot
adjacent to her. Ms. Satter said the Planning Commission could recommend a height reduction, but the subarea plan doesn’t
deal with property ownership or specific development plans. She noted that the maximum height limit would be 35 feet for
the small area between Ash Place and Cherry Avenue, which would be zoned Residential Center Low. The Residential Center
High zone would have a height limit of 75 feet for properties larger than 1 acre. Smaller properties would be limited to 65 feet
in height, which equates to about 6 stories.
Ms. Sellick requested that the property directly adjacent to hers be identified as Center Residential Low rather than Multi-Use.
Ms. Satter observed that the adjacent property is currently developed with an existing building and a parking lot. She voiced
concern about changing the property to Center Residential Low. She noted that the Center Residential High zone is for strictly
residential uses, and the Multi-Use zone allows for commercial, mixed-use, or residential development. As proposed, the
existing building on the adjacent property could remain as is.
Sally Hass said she owns commercial property at 3231 Hemlock and residential property that borders Wheaton Way. She
asked if the City knows anything about future plans for the Harrison Hospital site. Chair Wofford said the Planning
Commission raised this question at the last hearing, and the future of the site is currently unknown. Director Spencer said the
only thing they know for certain is that Harrison Hospital will vacate the site at some point. There have been discussions
between the Mayor and hospital officials about leaving Bremerton in a place that is good for the community. There have been
discussions about demolishing the building so the district can be renovated, but there have been no public commitments.
Ms. Hass voiced concern that she didn’t receive a notice for the public hearing. She asked how she could make sure she
receives notifications of future meetings. Ms. Satter provided her contact information
(allison.satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us.com).
Wade Moberg, Bremerton, asked if any consideration was given for making Wheaton Way a dead end at the parcel owned
by Harrison Hospital. Ms. Satter agreed that the 5-point intersection is not the best situation, and it is not good to have an
intersection within 50 feet of the existing interchange. The City recognizes that some changes are needed, and there have been
a variety of discussions on the topic, including making Wheaton Way a dead end. However, this current study focused only
on the realignment between Callahan Drive and Sheridan Road.
Chair Wofford closed the public hearing
Commissioner Coughlin asked about the area on the northeast corner of the intersection at Callahan Drive and Wheaton Way
that is identified as Multi-Use, with a residential overlay. Ms. Satter said the property is currently developed with a commercial
building. Ms. Nair said the thought was that allowing mixed-use development would ensure that development happens in a
coordinated way. It is also important to allow some commercial components so that existing development does not become
nonconforming.
Commissioner Coughlin said he was under the impression that the maximum FAR would be 3, but the table in Exhibit 13
identifies a FAR of 1.5. He recalled that the Commission’s discussion at the last meeting was about increasing the FAR to 3.
Ms. Nair suggested there is a typographical error because the maximum FAR should be 1.5. Because the sites are small and
the height limits are fairly low, it is unlikely the FAR would reach a maximum of 3. Commissioner Coughlin asked the
downside of raising the FAR to 3. Ms. Nair said there would be no downside to raising or even eliminating the maximum
FAR because the height, setback and lot coverage requirements would naturally limit the FAR. Ms. Satter added that
development in downtown Bremerton has a range of between 1.5 and 3 FAR. She said it is important for the properties to
develop at the maximum footprint, but she agreed that height and setbacks will become the limiting factor. She expressed her
belief that a 1.5 FAR would be appropriate for this subarea. Ms. Nair said it is more important to have a minimum FAR, and
the maximum FAR could be eliminated. Commissioner Coughlin voiced concern that setting the maximum FAR too low
might limit opportunities for affordable housing. Ms. Satter said that is staff’s concern, as well. They want the area to
redevelop to its full potential, and staff feels comfortable with the current proposal. However, they will monitor the situation
and recommend a change if necessary.
APPROVED
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
July 27, 2020 ~ Page 5 of 7
Chair Wofford commented that the recommended name of Harrison Village at Sheridan Park is too long. Commissioner
Coughlin suggested they consider a hyphenated form, Harrison-Sheridan Village. Director Spencer said the Mayor was
concerned about losing the Sheridan Park identity. She suggested that the Commission could direct staff to come up with
additional options for the City Council to consider. Commissioner Rich said she is comfortable with staff taking the newly-
flagged Sheridan consideration coupled with the Harrison Village vision and presenting suitable suggestions to the City
Council. Both Chair Wofford and Vice Chair Tift commented that if a longer name is chosen, the public will likely shorten
the name depending on how they typically think of the area. The Commissioners agreed to leave it up to staff to propose
options for the City Council’s consideration that capture the area’s history.
COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT THE CENTER SUBAREA PLAN, AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT I, AND ASSOCIATED PLANNED
ACTION ORDINANCE, AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT II, BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN
ATTACHMENT III, PROVIDED LAND USE ESTIMATES IN ATTACHMENT I MATCH THOSE IN
ATTACHMENT II. COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Chair Wofford closed the public hearing.
Director Spencer thanked the Commissioners for their unanimous vote. She also thanked the consultants, Ms. Grueter and
Ms. Nair, for their hard work helping staff develop the plan. Ms. Satter did a great job with project management, as well. It
was a lot of work, and everyone did a phenomenal job.
Public Workshop: Zoning Code Amendments Adopting Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) Ordinance
Ms. Lambert presented the proposed Boundary Line Adjustment Ordinance, which would establish a new section in the Zoning
Code. She explained that a BLA is a legal method to make minor adjustments to property lines between two legal lots. You
can also aggregate lots into one parcel with a BLA, but a BLA can never create new lots or parcels. She shared diagrams to
illustrate the types of BLAs.
Ms. Lambert explained that BLAs are commonly used to:
• Resolve boundary controversy between neighbors.
• Consolidate lots into a single parcel.
• Bring a lot into conformance with the zoning code.
• Allow additional development that complies with the zoning code.
Ms. Lambert further explained that BLAs cannot:
• Create a new lot.
• Create a new lot a lot without vehicular access
• Create a lot that is so constrained or encompassed by topography, critical areas, buffers, or shape that it would require
a variance or exemption in order for a building site to be allowed.
• Create a lot that straddles multiple zones, multiple jurisdictions, or multiple overlay areas or subareas.
• Reduce the size of a lot so that it contains insufficient area and dimension to meet minimum zoning code.
• Reduce the building setbacks below standard.
• Increase an existing nonconformity.
• Impact current or future water supply, drainage or sewer disposal.
• Be inconsistent with the conditions or restrictions on a recorded plat.
Ms. Lambert said the state allows BLAs, and neighboring cities in Kitsap County (Port Orchard, Poulsbo, and Bainbridge
Island) all have BLA ordinances. Kitsap County and Bremerton do not have BLA ordinances, and the City is looking to adopt
an ordinance similar to those of the neighboring cities. At this time, a property owner in Bremerton can simply have the BLA
recorded at the county auditor’s office, and no City approval is required.
APPROVED
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
July 27, 2020 ~ Page 6 of 7
Ms. Lambert said that, as proposed, BLAs would be a Type I Permit, which is the same type as a Building Permit
(administrative decision with no public notice). In most cases, the applications will be straightforward and quick to review.
An applicant would submit an application and pay the fees, and staff would review and provide a decision similar to a Building
Permit decision. The permit would be conditioned that the documents must be recorded within one year.
Ms. Lambert commented that, because BLAs are not formally reviewed by the City at this time, they can result in
nonconforming situations that property owners are unaware of, Problems with utilities can also come up, as well as violations
of a Comprehensive Plan goal. Having a code in place will provide a framework for staff to review BLA applications
consistently and ensure that future development meets the zoning and public works requirements.
Ms. Lambert invited the Commissioners to consider any public testimony and then provide direction to staff as they work to
develop a draft BLA code and conduct public outreach. A draft amendment will be presented to the Commission for a public
hearing and recommendation later in the year.
Vice Chair Tift expressed his belief that the City should have an ordinance in place to govern BLAs. He asked if it would be
possible for a BLA to make an existing structure nonconforming. Ms. Lambert said staff would review each application to
make sure that the resulting lots do not create any nonconforming situations.
Commissioner Coughlin asked if BLAs would require the consent of all affected property owners. Ms. Lambert answered
that notarized signatures would be required from all affected property owners. Commissioner Coughlin said he also supports
having a BLA ordinance in place.
Chair Tift commented that it is possible that the two parcels are owned by the same person, in which case, the line could be
moved to the advantage of one property over another. Ms. Lambert agreed that is possible, but staff would make sure that
both resulting lots are still buildable and that no nonconforming situations result from the final lot layout.
Chair Wofford said he also supports having a BLA ordinance in place. He said he anticipates a proposed amendment will
come before the Commissioners for a public hearing and recommendation to the City Council before the end of the year. Ms.
Satter said staff has reached out to the Kitsap Building Association to make sure that developers know of the proposed change.
They have also reached out to the realtor group but haven’t received a reply. She announced that staff will present amendments
to the Shoreline Master Plan to the Commission in September, so the BLA ordinance will not likely come before the
Commission until October or November.
BUSINESS MEETING
Chair Report
Chair Wofford reminded the Commissioners that their next meeting will be September 21st, and it will likely be held virtually.
The August 17th meeting has been cancelled.
Director Report
Director Spencer said the City is working hard to increase public outreach, and all Planning Commission meetings will be
live on Bremerton Kitsap Access Television (BKAT) from this point forward. She was pleased that they had up to 12 attendees
at this meeting. They heard last month that there is interest in continuing the virtual meeting option even when the Commission
starts meeting again in person. Staff is currently considering options to continue the Zoom opportunity.
Director Spencer said the department is having another record-breaking year for permits, which is amazing given the pandemic
and economic downturn. Staff is doing a great job working remotely to process all of the permits.
Chair Wofford said he appreciates that BKAT allows citizens to participate in local government. Commissioner Mosiman
agreed with the City’s desire to increase the public’s ability to participate. However, having meetings in person should be a
priority. When meeting virtually, it is sometimes difficult to replicate the informal comments that can occur in person. Director
APPROVED
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
July 27, 2020 ~ Page 7 of 7
Spencer said the idea is that the Planning Commission would eventually meet in person again, but also offer a Zoom and
BKAT option for people to participate from home if they want to.
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
APPROVED
CITY OF BREMERTON
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF VIRTUAL MEETING
November 16, 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 Rich
Commissioner Flemister
Commissioners Absent
Commissioner Pedersen
Quorum Certified
Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development
Allison Satter, Planning Manager, Department of Community Development
Garrett Jackson, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development
Justin Rowland, Planner, Department of Community Development
Sarah Lynam, DCD Project Assistant, Department of Community Development
Others Present
Dan Nickel, The Watershed Company
Alex Capron, The Watershed Company
Maria Sandercock, Department of Ecology
ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2021
COMMISSIONER TIFT MOVED TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER WOFFORD TO SERVE AS CHAIR OF THE
COMMISSION IN 2021. COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN MOVED TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER TIFT TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR OF
THE COMMISSION IN 2021. COMMISSIONER WOFFORD SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
CHAIR CALL FOR MODIFICATIONS TO AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19, 2020, AS SUBMITTED.
VICE CHAIR TIFT SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVED
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
November 16, 2020 ~ Page 2 of 6
PUBLIC MEETING
Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda)
Chair Wofford invited comments from citizens. There were none, and the public portion of the meeting was closed
Public Hearing: Amendments for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Periodic Update
Mr. Jackson advised that this is a joint public hearing with the Department of Ecology on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
Update. The hearing was preceded by public workshops held in September and October. He introduced Dan Nic kel and Alex
Capron, from The Watershed Company, consultants who helped staff through the process. He also introduced Maria
Sandercock from the Department of Ecology.
Maria Sandercock, Department of Ecology, explained that the SMP is a cooperative program between the City and the State.
Previously, when cities made amendments to their SMPs, the Department of Ecology (DOE) has held its own state comment
period, but there is a new process that allows the state and cities to join the comment periods together. She advised that,
following the joint comment period, which ends on November 23 rd, the City will submit the proposed amendments to the DOE
for an Initial Determination of Consistency with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The DOE will then provide the City
with a memorandum, and if applicable, any changes that may be necessary to ensur e the amendments are consistent with the
SMA. The City will have time to review the memorandum and the proposed changes and submit the amendment s one more
time to the DOE for final approval.
Mr. Jackson explained that, following the hearing, the Commission will be asked to make a recommendation to the City
Council for the amendments to both the SMP and the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). He noted that a more complete list of
potential outcomes was provided in the Staff Report. He advised that an updat ed packet was sent out just prior to the meeting
that included two changes to the version the Commissioners previously received. The first change was an updated version of
Attachment A, which includes maps for the proposed mapping changes. The second is a public comment matrix, which includes
all comments received thus far during the public comment period (October 23 rd through November 23rd). He reported that, to
date, the only comments have come from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. He reminded them that this
is not a major update of the SMP, and the proposed amendments are intended to both add flexibility and provide clarity.
Mr. Jackson reviewed that the public outreach process started in April, when an informational postcard was sent to every
Shoreline property owner. The postcard provided the SMP update web address and requested comments from the public.
Notices were also published on the City’s E-news webpage, the City’s Facebook page, Twitter, and The Kitsap Sun. In addition,
notices and regular updates were also sent to interested parties and effected agencies. The public outreach effort also incl uded
an education online tool that was developed by the consultant, Enviro Issues, in partnership with The Watershed Company.
The tool provides background information for the SMP update process, breaks down specific amendments into more
manageable sentences for people to consume, and lets people know when the official public comment period started. To date,
145 people have used the online tool; 27% were from the City of Seattle and 27% were from the City of Bremerton.
Mr. Jackson reported that the City received preliminary comments from the DOE . Primarily, these were points of clarification
for stronger language, and the comments have been incorporated into the updated SMP that is before the Commission for
review.
Mr. Jackson advised that the only formal comments received to date came from the Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife (Attachment D). They requested that the City coordinate with Kitsap County to align the SMP with the Gorst Subarea
Plan. As currently proposed, there would be a menu of options a property owner can use to get a reduced shoreline buffer, an d
they requested that over-water structures be removed as an additional shoreline buffer option. Lastly, they requested that they
add “avoidance and minimization from aquatic vegetation, forage fish and shellfish beds as something that should be considered
when reviewing utility outfall impacts.
Mr. Jackson explained that the Gap Analysis, created by The Watershed Company, provided an analysis of changes that were
needed to ensure the SMP and CAO are compatible with State Legislative amendments, changes to local plans and Best
Available Science (BSA). The analysis is available online via a link in the Staff Report.
APPROVED
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
November 16, 2020 ~ Page 3 of 6
Mr. Jackson reviewed the proposed amendments to the CAO and SMP.
Proposed Amendments to the CAO
Mr. Jackson explained that the proposed amendments to the CAO are intended to clarify the existing wetland buffer
requirements consistent with the most recent guidance from the DOE. They include:
• Re-categorizing the habitat scores to result in reduced buffers. The Wetland Rating Form includes a habitat score,
and the higher the habitat score the larger the buffer that is required. The re-categorization is in line with the DOE’s
guidance for buffer reductions.
• Requiring minimization measures when reduced buffers are considered. Minimization measures include such things
as pointing lights and placing noisy operations as far from the wetland as possible, as well as revegetating wetland
buffers.
• Applying the habitat corridor requirement to higher-functioning wetlands only. In some instances, the DOE will
require projects to provide a habitat corridor. The proposed language would make it clear that this requirement is only
for higher-functioning wetlands. Lower-functioning wetlands won’t be required to provide a habitat corridor.
• Encouraging coniferous over deciduous plantings in Wildlife Habitat Areas. The consultant has determined that
coniferous trees have higher environmental impact values than deciduous trees. Therefore, the coniferous trees could
be spaced out further than the current code allows and still get the same impact to the environment. As amended, the
total number of trees planted would be less, but you would get the same amount of habitat value.
• Allowing a one-time exemption from the Habitat Management Plan requirement for single-family homes that have an
impact of 500 square feet or less. Mitigation would still be required. A Habitat Management Plan is a more aggressive
tool than may be necessary for a 500-square-foot structure, especially if mitigation is required.
• Allowing departures from the required buffer standards with approval from State and Federal agencies. Sometimes,
it isn’t possible for a property to meet all of the buffer requirements. Flexibility would be allowed if the City, State
and Federal agencies all agree that the departure would be in the best interest of environmental factors and the property.
Proposed Map Amendments
Mr. Jackson reviewed the maps that were prepared to illustrate the proposed mapping changes that were previously presented
to the Commission. They include:
• Map A. An Urban Conservancy designation would be added to an existing island located in Oyster Bay. The island
doesn’t currently have a shoreline designation. This is an isolated instance, and Urban Conservancy is proposed
because it is located in a very environmentally-sensitive area.
• Map B. At 1917 Wheaton Way, just past Sea Glass Village going north, there are some commercial building s. Staff
is recommending moving the Commercial designation over by one property to capture an existing commercial
building.
• Map D. There is an existing apartment building on Shore Drive, and staff is recommending extending the Commercial
designation to capture this property, as well.
• Map E. Staff is proposing to add an Isolated designation at Evergreen Park. This designation is for properties that
are separated from the shoreline by some large physical barrier. In this case, a public road (Sheldon Boulevard)
separates the park from the landward properties, and it doesn’t seem appropriate to require the landward properties to
meet the shoreline code.
Proposed Amendments to the SMP
Mr. Jackson advised that the proposed amendments to the SMP include:
• Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) Allowances. A VMP is required for all new development or redevelopment,
and is essentially a landscaping plan. It is prepared by a biologist and is meant to mitigate for any new development
or redevelopment. Staff is proposing the following amendments :
APPROVED
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
November 16, 2020 ~ Page 4 of 6
o Enhancement would not be triggered when buffer impacts are avoided. Currently, the code requires
mitigation even for development outside of the shoreline buffer. Based on comments from the DOE and
examples from other jurisdictions, staff is proposing that no mitigation be required for development outside
of the shoreline buffer.
o Document shoreline vegetation with Notice to Title. A VMP is required to be a notice to title in all instances.
The proposed amendment would make it clear that a VNP is required even if developing outside of the buffer.
However, if you are developing outside of the buffer, the VMP would be limited to documenting existing
conditions.
o Waive small-dollar bonding requirements for single-family development. Currently, the code requires
bonding even for smaller projects. It is an onerous step for property owners to secu re a bond for a few
thousand dollars of vegetation and irrigation. Property owners have complained that banks don’t want to
provide bonds for such low numbers.
• Shoreline Buffer Reduction Options.
o Buffer Averaging – Evaluate structures on neighboring lots. Currently, the buffer averaging system is based
off of neighboring properties in a numbered block. If someone feels a buffer is too large compared to a
neighbor, he/she can provide the department with an analysis that shows the distances from structures to
shoreline for other single-family homes on the same numbered block. Staff has found this to be more
cumbersome than necessary, and sometimes an adjacent property is on a different numbered blo ck. Staff is
proposing that the buffer averaging system be based off the properties that are directly adjacent. The
amendment is not intended to get homes either further or closer to the water. In the end, it is likely that the
two processes will result in winners and losers in both cases, but the proposed system will be easier for
property owners to manage.
o Buffer Reduction Menu. A menu of options was added to the SMP. A property owner requesting a buffer
reduction would be required to pick something from the menu of options to offset the reduced buffer. The
options include removing over-water structures or bulkheads, stepping back a bulkhead, etc. The idea is that,
if a buffer is reduced, it won’t provide as much of an environmental benefit.
• Interrupted Buffer. Currently, the code has a designation of “Isolated” that covers both mapping, as well as instances
of an interrupted buffer. In both cases, there is a physical barrier that separates a property from the shoreline. The
only difference is that the Isolated designation would be drawn out on a map and Interrupted Buffer is a term the City
will use to describe on-the-ground circumstances.
• Nonconforming Structures. As proposed, the amendment would allow nonconforming structures to be repaire d and/or
restored. It would also allow for limited expansion, but it would not apply to floating homes. There are a number of
older structures along the shoreline now, and many property owners would like to make improvements. However,
they are currently only allowed to make changes based on a percentage of the structure’s market value without bringing
the entire structure up to code. That would mean potentially moving the building further away from the water in order
to meet the SMP. Staff is proposing that property owners should be allowed to repair buildings, even up to replacing
them in the existing footprint, rather than having homes become substandard.
• Eastside Village Subarea Plan. Currently, the maximum height in the SMP is different than the maximum height in
the zoning code. This is because properties on the shoreline are required to provide some sort of allowance for view
impacts to ensure that the citizens of the State of Washington can continue to enjoy views of the shoreline. Staff is
proposing height increases to meet the zoning allowance in the Eastside Village Subarea Plan and other multifamily
commercial properties if a property owner can demonstrate that view impacts would be mitigated.
• Climate Resiliency. New language was added to consider sea level rise impacts with new development and
redevelopment.
Mr. Jackson provided an overview of the timeline for the amendments. He reviewed that the Commission held workshops in
September and October, and the online tool was launched on October 1 st. The joint public comment period is currently in
APPROVED
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
November 16, 2020 ~ Page 5 of 6
progress and will conclude on November 23 rd. Following this joint hearing, the Planning Commission will be asked to make
a recommendation to the City Council. The documents will be submitted to the DOE in December for an Initial Determination
of Consistency. Any substantive comments from the DOE will be presented to the Planning Com mission for more feedback
before the document is presented to the City Council in the spring of 2021 for final adoption.
Mr. Jackson provided his contact information and invited members of the Commission and the public to forward their
comments to him before the public comment period ends on November 23rd.
Chair Wofford opened the hearing for public comments. There were none. The chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Vice Chair Tift asked staff to explain what happens if a piece of shoreline is identified as Single -Family Residential but the
zoning is later changed. Dan Nickle, The Watershed Company, responded that while the periodic update happens every
eight years, the City can also make amendments to the SMP at other times. Consistency is important. Vice Chair Tift referred
to Map E and noted that there is a large parcel to the left of the Warren Avenue Bridge that is designated Single-Family
Residential. The Olympic College property is also located to the left of the bridge. He expressed his belief that it is unlikely
these large pieces of land will remain as single-family residential. He is concerned about how hard it would be to change a
shoreline designation once it has been declared. Mr. Nickle said no designation change has been proposed for this area. If the
underlying land use is changed, it would have to be consistent with the underlying zoning, as well. The SMP environmental
designations are intended to be consistent with the underlying zoning, but that isn’t always the case. He emphasized that the
shoreline designation only applies to the first 200 feet of property from the water’s edge. Mr. Jackson added that, if the college
indicates an interest in updating the plan, the City would entertain a proposal for change. Vice Chair Tift pointed out that
there are likely a number of other parcels in the City that could fall into a similar situation.
COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT THE SMP AND CAO AMENDMENTS AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENTS A AND B, AND BASED UPON
THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT C.
COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0, WITH
COMMISSIONER FLEMISTER ABSTAINING.
BUSINESS MEETING
Chair Report
Chair Wofford didn’t have any items to report.
Director Report
Director Spencer welcomed Commissioner Flemister as a new member of the Planning Commission.
Director Spencer announced that the Commission’s December meeting was cancelled. Their next meeting will be a special
meeting on January 25th. The Commission’s regular meeting falls on January 18th, which is Martin Luther King Day. When
meetings fall on a holiday, they shift to the next Monday.
Old Business
There was no old business.
New Business
Chair Wofford referred to the two changes that have been proposed for the Commission Bylaws. Director Spencer explained
that there are two changes. One amendment would allow the Chair or his/her designee to represent to the Commission’s
position before the City Council. The other would simply rename the title of the section outlining the Director’s duties and
responsibilities. She said the changes would be presented as Old Business at the January 25 th special meeting.
APPROVED
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
November 16, 2020 ~ Page 6 of 6
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:18 p.m.
Respectively Submitted by:
______________________________ ______________________________
Andrea L Spencer, AICP Nick Wofford, Chair
Executive Secretary Planning Commission
DRAFT
Subject June 21, 2021 Approval
CITY OF BREMERTON
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF VIRTUAL MEETING
April 19, 2021
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 Flemister
Commissioner Coughlin
Commissioner Mosiman
Commissioner Pedersen
Commissioners Excused
Commissioner Rich
Quorum Certified
Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development
Allison Satter, Planning Manager, Department of Community Development
Kelli Lambert, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development
Sarah Lynam, Project Assistant, Department of Community Development
CHAIR CALL FOR MODIFICATIONS TO AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
VICE CHAIR TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 2021, AS SUBMITTED.
COMMISSIONER FLEMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC MEETING
Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda)
Chair Wofford invited comments from citizens. There were no public comments.
Public Hearing: Zoning Code Amendments Related to Lot Size Averaging (LSA)
Ms. Satter advised that the purpose of this hearing is for the Commission to receive public testimony and provide a
recommendation to the City Council, who will make the final decision. She explained that the current code requires
minimum lot sizes to ensure that the minimum density is met. For example, 10 dwelling units per acre are allowed in the R-
10 zone, and the minimum lot size required is .1 acres or 4,300 square feet. The proposed amendment would allow a
DRAFT
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 2021 ~ Page 2 of 6
subdivision to use the Lot Size Averaging (LSA) tool when subdividing in the low and medium-density zones (R-10 and R-
18). As proposed, LSA would allow some lots to be below the minimum size provided the overall average of the proposed
subdivision does not exceed the permissible maximum density allowed by the zone. She emphasized that the amendment
would not change the overall density allowed in the R-10 and R-18 zones, and all of the lots would have to be code compliant
(parking, setbacks, lot coverage and access).
Ms. Satter shared an example to illustrate how the current code would be applied to a 0.5-acre lot in the R-10 zone with two
existing dwelling units. Although the density allows up to 5 lots, only four lots could be created because each lot must be a
minimum of 4,300 square feet. The end result would be a maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre, which is less than the
allowable density of the R-10 zone. If the proposed amendment is adopted, allowing a reduced lot size, the applicant could
subdivide the property into five lots or 10 dwelling units per acre.
Again, Ms. Satter emphasized that the proposed amendment is not a way to undermine the density, as the underlying density
of a subdivision overall must not exceed the zone’s density. The overall goal is to allow small infill lots on existing lots
without increasing the density. The amendment would allow unique and undeveloped properties to have more flexibility
when subdividing and more opportunity for infill housing.
Ms. Satter shared an example of a 2-lot short plat on Marine Drive that was approved by the City in 2007. She noted the
panhandle that was created as part of Lot A in order to meet the minimum lot size requirement. Staff discussed with the
developer how the illogical boundary would make it hard for the property owner to provide maintenance, fencing, etc. on this
10-foot-wide strip of land. Due to setback requirements, nothing can be built within the panhandle, either. The proposed
code revision would allow the subdivision to occur without the panhandle extension. Lot A would be 3,900 square feet,
which is the minimum allowed per code.
Ms. Satter briefly reviewed that the proposed amendment would allow a reduction in the minimum lot size when
subdividing, provided that the average of the proposed lots do not exceed the permissible underlying density of the zone, that
all lots smaller than the minimum size must demonstrate that they are developable by showing code compliance, and that
platting documents include documentation of allowed uses and language that ensures maximum density is not exceeded in
the future. She summarized that the proposed amendment would allow more lots to be created and for property owners to
better utilize their existing properties. It would also help avoid the creation of illogical boundaries that may be proposed in
order to meet the minimum lot size requirement.
Ms. Satter advised that in the original draft amendment that was discussed at the Commission workshop, only 20% of the
lots in a subdivision could utilize the lot size reduction, which means the provision would only be applicable to subdivisions
of 5 or more lots. The original proposal also limited the amount of reduction to 10% of the minimum lot size. The
Commission indicated support for eliminating these limitations, as long as the subdivided lots could still meet the code. The
proposal before the Commission incorporates this latest direction.
Chair Wofford opened the hearing for public comments, but there were none. He closed the public portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Mosiman asked if BMC 20.60.065(e)(2)(iv) could be interpreted to mean that each phase of land division
would be treated uniquely, without regard to what happened in the prior phases. Ms. Satter said it means that, as part of the
subdivision process, the applicant would be required to acknowledge that the property, as a whole, would not ever be allowed
to exceed the density per the current zoning.
Vice Chair Tift referred to the LSA examples provided by Ms. Satter and asked if lots could be combined at some point in
the future. Ms. Satter answered affirmatively. Ms. Lambert added that property aggregation was not included in the
proposed Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) amendments that will be considered in the subsequent hearing. Vice Chair Tift
asked if the smaller lots would still have to meet all of the code requirements for a developable lot, such as parking and
setbacks. Ms. Satter answered affirmatively. Director Spencer referred to BMC 20.60.065(e)(2)(ii), which states that, “All
lots that are smaller than the minimum lot size shall demonstrate that they are developable by showing code compliance.”
Vice Chair Tift asked if the smaller lots would become nonconforming in the event they are sold at some point in the future.
Director Spencer answered that, once approved, the lot would be considered conforming. She noted there are a number of
DRAFT
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 2021 ~ Page 3 of 6
lots in the City that do not meet the minimum lot size standards. The new code provision would make them sellable,
conforming lots.
Vice Chair Tift commented that, although there were no public comments regarding the proposed amendments, the City has
received some criticism in the local newspapers for some of its decisions associated with making lots smaller and allowing
more options for infill development.
Commissioner Mosiman requested additional clarification about redevelopment on the smaller lots. Director Spencer
explained that the way the LSA provision is currently written, some lots would be allowed to be smaller than the rest of the
lots if the overall density of the subdivision would remain less than the density permitted per acre by the zoning code. Once
subdivided, the smaller lots would be legal, conforming lots and could be developed and/or redeveloped at any point in the
future.
COMMISSIONER PEDERSEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT TEXT
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 OF THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) AS DETAILED IN
ATTACHMENT 1, BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED
IN ATTACHMENT 2. COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Public Hearing: Zoning Code Amendments Related to Boundary Line Adjustments (BLA)
Ms. Lambert explained that a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) is a process for modifying the lot lines of existing parcels.
No new lots are created with a BLA; that can only be done through the subdivision process. She shared examples of
situations where a BLA might be used. She reviewed that the Planning Commission discussed the BLA concept at a
workshop last July, and the Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance for their consideration. Staff conducted
environmental review on the draft code in March, and it was also sent to the Kitsap Building Association, Kitsap County
Association of Realtor’s and other agencies for feedback. It is now being presented to the Commission for a public hearing
and recommendation to the City Council.
Ms. Lambert advised that State law allows for BLA, as long as no additional lots are created and as long as it doesn’t create
a condition where a lot is undevelopable. She explained that common reasons for BLAs include: to resolve boundary
controversy between neighbors, to bring a lot into conformance with the zoning code, and to allow additional development
that complies with the zoning code. She shared an example where a property owner turned in plans to construct a house but
found that there wasn’t enough space. The property owner ended up purchasing a sliver of land from the neighbor to make
the lot conforming so he didn’t have to redo his building plans.
Ms. Lambert emphasized that a BLA cannot create a new lot; a lot without vehicular access; a lot that is so constrained or
encompassed by topography, critical areas, buffers, or shape, that it would require a variance or exemption in order for a
building site to be allowed; or a lot that straddles multiple zones, multiple jurisdictions, or multiple overlay areas or subareas.
In addition, BLAs cannot impact utilities.
Ms. Lambert explained that Kitsap County doesn’t have a BLA ordinance, but it tends to become more important in
developed, denser environments, and that is why all of the other cities in the County have BLA regulations. Currently, City
staff requests an opportunity to review BLAs, but the reviews are done pro bono without any good process, and many are
recorded with the County Assessor without City review. Staff is recommending that Bremerton adopt a BLA code that is
similar to the other cities in Kitsap County.
Ms. Lambert said that, sometimes, BLAs that are recorded by the County Assessor create nonconforming situations or
utility issues. Creating a BLA code will create a framework for the City to review and process all BLAs to ensure future
development meets all zoning and public works requirements. It will also protect property values from the unintended
consequences of a BLA that does not meet City codes.
DRAFT
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 2021 ~ Page 4 of 6
Ms. Lambert advised that, as proposed, a property owner would submit a Type I application and pay the required fees and
staff would conduct a technical review and issue a decision. The applicant would then be required to submit documents for
recording within 180 days.
Chair Wofford opened the hearing for public comments, but there were none. He closed the public portion of the hearing.
COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT TEXT
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 OF THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) AS DETAILED IN
ATTACHMENT 1, BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED
IN ATTACHMENT 2. COMMISSIONER PEDERSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Re-Affirmation of the Zoning Code Amendment Related to Manufactured Homes (MFH) Regulations
Ms. Satter reviewed that, following a workshop discussion and public hearing in March and April of 2019, the Planning
Commission forwarded a unanimous recommendation to the City Council on proposed amendments related to Manufactured
Home (MFH) Regulations. However, the City Council did not take the recommendation to a public hearing. Staff is seeking
reaffirmation from the Planning Commission as to whether its recommendation remains the same or if it should be modified
and/or changed.
Ms. Satter explained that the current MHR regulations (BMC 20.46.040) allow one manufactured home per lot and they
must be located on permanent foundations. The existing code has specific size requirements that would be changed by the
proposed amendment. State Law indicates that manufactured housing cannot be regulated differently than a single-family
home except they must have a 3:12 roof pitch or greater and they must use the same siding materials as a single-family home.
Ms. Satter reviewed that the current code only allows manufactured homes that are double wide, and each component must
be at least 12’ x 36’. While there is no proposal to change the length requirement, the proposed code would revise the
allowed width from 24 feet to 19 feet. For a doublewide MFH, each section would have to be 9.5’ instead of 12’ feet. She
pointed out that a typical residential lot in Bremerton has a minimum width of 30 feet. Taking into account the 5-foot side
setbacks, the buildable area is just 20-feet wide so it isn’t possible to place a 24-foot MFH on most 30-foot-wide lots in the
City.
Ms. Satter explained that prefabricated homes are dwellings that are manufactured off-site, which includes both
manufactured and modular homes. However, the proposed amendments would only apply to manufactured homes (MFHs),
which typically come on a non-movable chassis. Manufactured homes are regulated by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development and other federal regulations, and must be attached to a permanent foundation that meets City code.
Modular homes must comply with the final location’s code, and for the City of Bremerton, that is the Washington State and
International Building Codes. The City’s current code doesn’t allow mobile homes to be placed except in mobile home
parks.
Ms. Satter summarized that the proposed amendment would reduce the width requirement for double-wide MFHs from 12
feet to 9.5 feet. No other changes to the existing MFH regulations are proposed.
Chair Wofford opened the hearing for public comments, but there were none. He closed the public portion of the hearing.
Ms. Satter advised that one written comment was received, as noted in the Findings and Conclusions, from Mr. Rob Larsen.
He supports the proposal, as he believes there are a lot of properties within the City where MFHs cannot be located based on
the current code. Mr. Larsen provided illustrations of MFHs that are 19.5 feet wide.
Commissioner Flemister questioned why the City requires that MFHs be double wide rather than single wide. Ms. Satter
said that is what the City’s current code requires, and it is similar to codes adopted by many other cities. Commissioner
Flemister asked if MFHs have to be connected to the City’s sewer system. Ms. Satter answered yes, if they are located
within the City limits and sewer service is available in the area. If sewer system is not available, a septic system is required.
DRAFT
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 2021 ~ Page 5 of 6
Commissioner Pedersen said he plans to support the proposed amendment, but he would be willing to consider allowing
single-wide MFHs. He supports anything that increases the amount of safe and affordable housing in the City. He suggested
that allowing single-wide MFHs could create options for safe places for someone to live, where the current proposal does not.
Ms. Satter responded that she isn’t sure if it is a state requirement or not, but she agreed to research and report back to the
Commission.
Director Spencer noted that the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review that the City Conducted only described the
amendment to reduce the width requirement for the two halves of a double wide. The Commission could recommend
approval of the proposed amendment as presented, but with a request that additional research be done to perhaps eliminate
the size requirement altogether, which would require a separate process. This would allow the City to make immediate code
revisions for the width and potentially do more work later to allow more manufactured housing options.
Chair Wofford asked staff to expand upon the design criteria that requires a MFH to have the same siding material as a
single-family home. Ms. Satter said this is part of the model ordinance provided by the state, and she assumes it would
exclude plastic and flammable materials.
Chair Wofford commented that it isn’t likely that companies that do pre-manufactured homes would make single-wide
units. Most of them are designed to be double wide. He asked if the City’s current code allows single-wide mobile homes on
foundations to be located on single-family lots. Ms. Satter answered no, and explained that the current code only allows
new MFHs. Vice Chair Tift pointed out that there are also road-worthy requirements that limit the size of single-wide
homes. As far as siding, he noted that some of the older mobile homes have metal siding like you would see on a shed.
Commissioner Coughlin asked if a MFH would meet the sizes requirements and be allowed as an Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU). Ms. Satter answered that the current code allows MFHs as an ADU option, but it doesn’t allow an exception to the
size requirement. Commissioner Mosiman commented that if a MFH can be used as an ADU, it would seem that a single-
wide would suffice under certain circumstances. He supports the earlier suggestion that the City consider amending the code
further to eliminate the width requirement altogether. Ms. Satter clarified that, as per the ADU regulations, MFHs are
allowed as ADUs, provided they comply with the design criteria of ADUs, excluding the size and roof pitch requirements.
Vice Chair Tift voiced opposition to directing staff to work on amendments to allow MFHs more broadly as a housing type
by eliminating size requirements. He felt it would make the amendment more complicated and require more staff time.
VICE CHAIR TIFT MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT TEXT AMENDMENTS TO
BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) 20.46.040 AS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT A, BASED UPON THE
STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT B.
COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COMMISSIONER PEDERSEN MOVED TO REQUEST THAT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF
WORK ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MANUFACTURED HOME REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW THEM MORE
BROADLY AS A HOUSING TYPE BY ELIMINATING THE SIZE REQUIREMENTS. COMMISSIONER
COUGHLIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Commissioner Coughlin agreed with Commissioner Pedersen and said he would like to see the origin of why single-wide
MFHs are not allowed per the City code. He agreed that single-wide MFHs could be a good solution to provide affordable,
quality housing in the City. Director Spencer suggested staff could do some quick research of the model code and State law
and provide more history about why the provision was included in the City’s current code. She didn’t think it would require
a significant amount of staff time. If State law requires that MFHs must be double wide, then no further work would be
needed.
THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1, WITH VICE CHAIR TIFT VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
BUSINESS MEETING
DRAFT
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 2021 ~ Page 6 of 6
Chair Report
Chair Wofford did not have any items to report.
Director Report
Director Spencer announced that the City Council approved an additional building inspector/plans examiner for the
Department of Community Development, as well as two additional staff people in the Development Engineering Group. She
provided the following highlights from a presentation staff made to the City Council regarding the current activity level in the
Department of Community Development:
• Permits have been on the upswing for years, and 2020 was a record-breaking year with about $20 million over 2019.
Through the first quarter of 2021, permit activity has reached about $37 million. This is a big number, as more
permits typically come in later in the year. They are already $5 million ahead compared to the same time last year.
• Total permits for 2021 equaled $143 million, and projects totaling $153 million have already been submitted in the
queue, and they anticipate more permits throughout the year.
• Between 2016 and 2020, the City permitted about 270,000 square feet of commercial activity, and there is
approximately 350,000 square feet of construction in progress at this time.
• For the past five years, residential construction averaged about 225 units per year, and there are approximately 800
units currently under construction and 2,700 units in the pipeline over the next several years. This indicates that the
City will continue to see an upward trend in development activity.
• The City’s growth target is more than 500 units per year, so the City is and will continue to make up for lost time. It
will be important for the Planning Commission to continue with its hard work of ensuring there are opportunities for
more housing in Bremerton. All people deserve to have quality, affordable housing.
Ms. Satter reviewed that the Planning Commission recommended and the City Council recently approved amendments to
the City’s ADU provisions. She reported that, over the past 11 years, only about 10 ADUs were approved. Since the new
provisions were adopted in December, the City has received applications for six more ADUs. Of the six proposals, at least
five will be owner-occupied.
Chair Wofford asked if there is adequate water and sewer capacity to accommodate the anticipated new development, and
Director Spencer answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Tift asked if there is adequate capacity on the existing roadways and
if road improvements will be required as part of development. Director Spencer answered that developers are often required
to pay SEPA mitigation fees for transportation impacts, and they are also required to put transportation improvements in as
part of a project. The SEPA mitigation fees are used to do improvements to address impacts associated with development.
Old Business
There was no old business.
New Business
There was no new business.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:43 p.m.
Respectively Submitted by:
______________________________ ______________________________
Andrea L Spencer, AICP Nick Wofford, Chair
Executive Secretary Planning Commission
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Study Session Date: May 26, 2021
Proposed Public Hearing on Ordinance to
amend Section 20.46.040 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code related to Manufactured
Homes
COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 2, 2021
Department: DCD
Presenter: Kelli Lambert, Sr. Planner
Phone: (360) 473-5245
SUMMARY: The action before Council is to conduct a Public Hearing and adopt an Ordinance
amending Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20 to amend the minimum size allowed for
manufactured homes (BMC 20.46.040(a)(2)). The BMC requires a minimum width of 24’ of a
manufactured home (two 12’ sections), the ordinance would allow the placement of manufactured
homes that are 19’ wide (two 9.5 sections) or greater.
The Council has previously held a Study Session on this topic on May 22, 2019 but was pulled prior
to public hearing as there was discussion about a potential amending motion that Staff was unsure
was allowed by State Law. The request was to amend the code to require all manufactured homes
have front door access facing the street. Per Washington State Law, the City cannot create code for
all manufactured homes that is not also required for site-built housing. The City does not require any
design standards for single-family residences to have front doors oriented to the street, this cannot
be required for all manufactured homes.
This potential code amendment has been included in the City of Bremerton Infill Toolkit as another
small code change that could assist with the creation of more housing in the City. The Planning
Commission previously unanimously recommended this code amendment be adopted on April 22,
2019, and they re-affirmed their recommendation following an additional Public Hearing on April 19,
2021.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment #1 Proposed Ordinance
Exhibit A: Planning Commission Findings and Conclusion for Manufactured Homes
Attachment #2 Staff Memo
Attachment 2.1: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: Workshop on March 18, 2019 and
Public Hearings on April 22, 2019 and April 19, 2021 (Draft)
Attachment 2.2: Summary of Comment received
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 Ordinance No.______ to amending the BMC 20.46.040
entitled Manufactured Homes.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
A7
1
Zoning Code - BMC Updates to MFH
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending the Bremerton Municipal Code
related to “Manufactured Homes” minimum width.
WHEREAS, through practical use and application of the Zoning Code the need
for modification has been identified; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has established a procedure for amending the
Zoning Code in Title 20.18.020(d) of the Bremerton Municipal Code (“BMC”), which requires
amendments to the Zoning Code to be both consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and to be consistent with other applicable rules and regulations; and
WHEREAS, these amendments are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan, County Wide Planning Policies, the State Growth Management Act, and other applicable
regulations and ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the amendments comply with Washington State Law, RCW
35.21.684, which regulates minimum standards for Manufactured Homes in cities; and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a public
workshop on the Zoning Code amendments related to Manufactured Homes; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2019, the Department of Commerce received the
proposed amendments related to the Manufactured Homes pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 for the
State’s procedural requirements for agency review; and
WHEREAS, on March 29, 2019, the proposed Zoning Code amendments related
to Manufactured Homes were circulated to the State Agencies for the requisite review and
comment period; and
WHEREAS, on March 29, 2019, a State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”)
Determination of Nonsignificance (“DNS”) was issued for the proposed action related to
amendments to the Manufactured Homes and no appeals were filed; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2019, 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 April 22, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the Zoning Code amendments related to manufactured homes, and formulated a
unanimous recommendation that the amendments be adopted by Council; and
2
Zoning Code - BMC Updates to MFH
WHEREAS, the amendments had yet to be considered a City Council Public
Hearing, and thus on April 19, 2021 the Planning Commission conducted an additional public
hearing on the Zoning Code amendments related to manufactured homes to re-affirm their
recommendation that the amendment be adopted by Council. The Planning Commission
formulated a unanimous re-affirmation on the recommendation; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2021, the public was notified by a legal advertisement in
the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in the public hearing by the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2021, the City Council conducted a public hearing on
these code chanes, 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. The findings and recitals set forth above are
hereby adopted and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. Planning Commission Findings. The finding and conclusions
adopted by the Planning Commission attached hereto as Exhibit A related to Manufactured
Homes, and Exhibit B related to Group Residential Facilities, are adopted and incorporated as
set forth herein in full.
SECTION 3. Section 20.46.040 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled
“Manufactured Homes” is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.46.040 MANUFACTURED HOMES.
(a) Manufactured homes are permitted on one (1) individual parcel, lot, or tract in
residential zones; provided, that the home is:
(1) Approved by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries or
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the appropriate certification
insignia is affixed to the unit, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 43.22 RCW;
(2) Comprised of at least two (2) fully enclosed parallel sections each of not less
than twelve (12) nine-and-a-half (9.5) feet wide by thirty-six (36) feet long;
(3) Set upon a permanent foundation, as specified by the manufacturer, and that
the space from the bottom of the home to the ground be enclosed by concrete or an approved
concrete product which can be either load-bearing or decorative;
(4) Compliant with all local design standards applicable to all other homes
within the neighborhood in which the manufactured home is to be located;
(5) Thermally equivalent to the State Energy Code;
(6) Originally constructed with and now has a composition or wood shake or
shingle, coated metal, or similar roof of nominal three to twelve (3:12) pitch or greater;
(7) Sided with exterior siding similar in appearance to materials commonly used
on conventional site-built International Building Code single-family residences; and
(8) A new manufactured home as defined in RCW 35.63.160(2).
3
Zoning Code - BMC Updates to MFH
(b) A manufactured home which was legally placed and maintained prior to the date of
adoption of this chapter, and does not meet the requirements of this chapter, shall be deemed to
be a nonconforming structure. If a legal nonconforming manufactured home is partially or
wholly destroyed, replaced, or altered, it shall be required to meet the relevant requirements set
forth in the nonconforming provisions of this title.
(c) The Building Official or designee shall inspect the installation of manufactured
homes prior to occupancy and issue certificates of occupancy for manufactured homes. If all
requirements are met, a certificate of occupancy shall be issued. No manufactured home shall be
occupied until after the City issues a valid certificate of occupancy.
(d) If a manufactured home is replaced by another manufactured home, a new
certificate of occupancy shall be required for the installation of a manufactured home after the
date of adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter.
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 ____________________, 2021.
_________________________________
KEVIN GORMAN, Council President
Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2021.
_________________________________
GREG WHEELER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ ________________________________
ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
4
Zoning Code - BMC Updates to MFH
PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 2021.
EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 2021.
ORDINANCE NO. ____________
1
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
Summary:
A proposed amendment to Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20 Land Use Chapter amending
BMC 20.46.040 entitled Manufactured Homes related to the minimum size of a manufactured home.
I.FINDINGS OF FACT
1.Project Description:
The proposed amendment package includes revisions to Title 20, specifically BMC 20.46.040
Manufactured Homes to revise the minimum size a manufactured home must be to be placed
within the City which is provided in subsection 20.46.040(a)(2).
2.Procedural History:
2.1 Notice of Public Hearing: April 12, 2019
2.2 Department of Commerce: March 26. 2019
2.3 SEPA Threshold Determination DNS: March 29, 2019
2.4 Planning Commission Public Hearing: April 22, 2019
2.5 Notice of Public Hearing for reaffirmation: April 9, 2021
2.6 Planning Commission Public Hearing for reaffirmation: April 19, 2021
3.Public and Agency Comment:
3.1 _Rob Larsen commented on at public hearing on April 22, 2019__
4.SEPA Determination:
A Determination of Non-Significance was issued on March 29, 2019, to date no comments or
appeals have been filed.
5.Consistency:
Text amendments to Title 20 shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.18.020(d). The
Planning Commission may recommend a decision, and the City Council may adopt or adopt
with modifications, amendments to Title 20 if the following criteria are met.
(1)The amendments are 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:
H2(E): Support efforts to provide a variety of housing options:
•Provide for integration of special needs housing within the community by allowing
for government-assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured
housing, group homes, and foster care facilities.
ED5(A): Evaluate and work towards efficiency and effectiveness of all permit process
and codes to ensure requirements and timelines are predictable.
(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.
Exhibit A
2
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 the
amendment to Title 20.
Respectfully submitted by: Approved by:
_____________________________________ ________________________________
Andrea L. Spencer, Executive Secretary Nick Wofford, Chair
Exhibit A
Attachment 2
To: City Council
From: Kelli Lambert, Senior Planner
Date: May 17, 2021
Subject: Amendments to the Zoning Code related to Manufactured Homes
SUMMARY
City Council will be holding a public hearing on an Ordinance that amends the Bremerton
Municipal Code (BMC) regarding manufactured homes and their minimum size when placed in
the City of Bremerton.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 2.1 - Planning Commission’s Minutes:
o March 18, 2019 Workshop
o April 22, 2019 Public Hearing
o April 19, 2021 Public Hearings to re-affirm the 2019 decision
• Attachment 2.2 – Comment Received
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission unanimously recommended the proposed amendments both the 2019
and 2021’s public hearing. Minutes from the public hearing, as well as the workshop held in
March 2019 are attached to this report at Attachment 2.1.
Why?
As identified in the City’s Infill Toolkit, the proposed amendment would allow manufactured
homes to be placed on smaller lots within the City, thus allowing more infill housing options. The
proposed Ordinance would amend the City’s manufactured home’s code (BMC 20.46.040) to
allow slightly smaller double-wide then the current code allows:
• Today’s code allows two sections of 12’ wide (for a total width of 24’)
• Proposed code would allow two sections of 9.5’ wide (for a total width of 19’)
The proposal is for a Zoning Code amendment to revise the City’s regulations for size
requirements for new manufactured homes. The proposed amendments will improve the Zoning
Code and allow property owners more opportunities to locate manufactured homes within the
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
Memo to BLA & Lot Size Averaging Ordinance
Page 2
City limits by changing the size requirement that a manufactured home must be. This Staff
Report will also address the differences between modular homes, prefab homes and
manufactured homes.
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT: Manufacture Homes
Within the City of Bremerton Zoning Code, manufactured homes are allowed as residential
units, provided development and design criteria are met pursuant to Bremerton Municipal Code
20.46.040.
The specific provision requested to be amended is the size that a manufactured home must be
to be placed on a lot. It currently requires that a manufactured home must be “comprised of at
least two (2) fully enclosed parallel sections each of not less than twelve (12) feet wide by thirty-
six (36) feet long.” Staff is suggesting, and the Planning Commission previously recommended,
that the City allow 9.5’ wide instead of 12’ for double-wide manufactured homes (to allow a 19’
wide manufactured home instead of a 24’ wide home). The following is the code proposal
shown in legislative markup (only the portion of the code that is being amended is shown
below):
BMC 20.46.040
Manufactured homes are permitted on one (1) individual parcel, lot, or tract in residential
zones; provided, that the home is:
(2) Comprised of at least two (2) fully enclosed parallel sections each of not less
than twelve (12) nine-and-a-half (9.5) feet wide by thirty-six (36) feet long;
Memo to BLA & Lot Size Averaging Ordinance
Page 3
The primary justification for this is that the
City requires all new lots to have a minimum
30’ wide lot. This standard is typical for a
city/urban lot of 0.1 acres and many of West
Bremerton’s lots are about 30’. With a
minimum 5’ side-yard setback required on
each side property line, this only allows
room for a 20’ wide home. However, if you
wanted to place a manufactured home on
this property, the lot would have to be at
least 34’ wide (two 5’ side-yard setbacks
(10’) + two 12’ wide parts of the
manufactured home (24’) = 34’ wide lot). To
allow a 19’ wide manufactured home, this
would fit on a typical 30’ wide lot and
setbacks and allow room for siding and
eaves.
CAN THE CITY ADD REGULATIONS ABOUT DESIGN?
Per RCW 35.21.684, the City may not require design requirements for all manufactured homes
except as follows: “The manufactured home comply with all local design standards applicable to
all other homes within the neighborhood in which the manufactured home is to be located.” If
the City does not regulate design of other single-family home construction, then it cannot
regulate the design of the manufactured housing. Please note that this is only applicable to
double-wide manufactured homes, which is all the City currently allows.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PREFAB, MODULAR, AND MANUFACTURED HOMES
Determining whether a home is classified as a mobile, manufactured or modular is often
confusing. Visually, manufactured and modular homes don’t appear that different, and both are
often mistaken as site-built homes. However, prefabricated homes differ depending on the
codes they must follow.
A prefabricated home, or prefab home, is a term used to describe any building or dwelling that is
manufactured off-site, in a home building facility, and then transported to the home or building
site to be set on a foundation. A prefabricated home includes modular and manufactured homes
that are built off-site and transported to the final destination.
Mobile Home and Manufactured Homes
The terms “mobile home” and “manufactured home” are often used by the general public to
describe the same type of home. Mobile homes and manufactured homes were finally
distinguished from each other in 1976 when the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety
Act became effective. This act, generally known as ‘the HUD Code,’ sets standards for design
Image of a standard residential lot with the
building envelope (where the building may be
located) shown in the purple dashed lines.
Street
Memo to BLA & Lot Size Averaging Ordinance
Page 4
and construction, body and frame requirements, thermal protection, plumbing and electrical, fire
safety, energy efficiency, and other aspects of manufactured homes.
The intent of the HUD Code is to improve the durability and quality of manufactured homes,
and it is the only federally-regulated national building code.
To summarize manufactured homes are the following:
• Manufactured houses are built in a factory.
• They conform to a Federal building code, called the HUD code, rather than to building
codes at their destinations.
• Manufactured homes are built on a non-removable steel chassis.
• Sections can and are transported to the building site on their own wheels.
• Multi-part manufactured units are joined at their destination.
• Building inspectors check the work done locally (electric hook up, etc.) but are not
required to approve the structure.
• Manufactured housing is generally less expensive than site built and modular homes.
Modular Homes: Like a manufactured home or a mobile home, the sections of a modular home
are built in a climate-controlled home building facility. Modular homes are built to conform to all
state, local and/or regional codes that are necessary for the final location of the home—just like
site-built homes. Modular homes are typically built in two sections, however, depending on the
size of the home, it could be built in up to five sections.
To summarize, modular homes are the following:
• Modular homes are built in sections at a factory.
• Modular homes are built to conform to all state, local or regional building codes at their
destinations.
• Sections are transported to the building site on truck beds, then joined together by local
contractors.
• Local building inspectors check to make sure a modular home's structure meets
requirements and that all finish work is done properly.
• Modular homes are sometimes less expensive per square foot than site-built houses.
• A well-built modular home should have the same longevity as its site-built counterpart.
As a modular home is constructed to local standards, there is no proposed zoning code
amendments needed to address the construction of modular homes. A modular home would
include a shipping container being converted to a living unit that meets the building code
standards for Bremerton. They are outrightly allowed to be placed in Bremerton provided they
meet the local codes and standards.
Memo to BLA & Lot Size Averaging Ordinance
Page 5
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Through this process, the Planning Commission held a workshop and two public hearings.
Minutes from those meetings are attached to this Memorandum as Attachment 2.1. The one
comment was received and that was from the April 22, 2019 Planning Commission’s Public
Hearing. The one public comment is Attachment 2.2. The one commenter was in support of the
proposed amendment and provided floor plans and renderings of manufactured homes that
could be placed if this code was adopted (but in today’s code is not allowed).
DRAFT
Subject June 21, 2021 Approval
CITY OF BREMERTON
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF VIRTUAL MEETING
April 19, 2021
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 Flemister
Commissioner Coughlin
Commissioner Mosiman
Commissioner Pedersen
Commissioners Excused
Commissioner Rich
Quorum Certified
Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development
Allison Satter, Planning Manager, Department of Community Development
Kelli Lambert, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development
Sarah Lynam, Project Assistant, Department of Community Development
CHAIR CALL FOR MODIFICATIONS TO AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
VICE CHAIR TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 2021, AS SUBMITTED.
COMMISSIONER FLEMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC MEETING
Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda)
Chair Wofford invited comments from citizens. There were no public comments.
Public Hearing: Zoning Code Amendments Related to Lot Size Averaging (LSA)
Ms. Satter advised that the purpose of this hearing is for the Commission to receive public testimony and provide a
recommendation to the City Council, who will make the final decision. She explained that the current code requires
minimum lot sizes to ensure that the minimum density is met. For example, 10 dwelling units per acre are allowed in the R-
10 zone, and the minimum lot size required is .1 acres or 4,300 square feet. The proposed amendment would allow a
DRAFT
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 2021 ~ Page 2 of 6
subdivision to use the Lot Size Averaging (LSA) tool when subdividing in the low and medium-density zones (R-10 and R-
18). As proposed, LSA would allow some lots to be below the minimum size provided the overall average of the proposed
subdivision does not exceed the permissible maximum density allowed by the zone. She emphasized that the amendment
would not change the overall density allowed in the R-10 and R-18 zones, and all of the lots would have to be code compliant
(parking, setbacks, lot coverage and access).
Ms. Satter shared an example to illustrate how the current code would be applied to a 0.5-acre lot in the R-10 zone with two
existing dwelling units. Although the density allows up to 5 lots, only four lots could be created because each lot must be a
minimum of 4,300 square feet. The end result would be a maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre, which is less than the
allowable density of the R-10 zone. If the proposed amendment is adopted, allowing a reduced lot size, the applicant could
subdivide the property into five lots or 10 dwelling units per acre.
Again, Ms. Satter emphasized that the proposed amendment is not a way to undermine the density, as the underlying density
of a subdivision overall must not exceed the zone’s density. The overall goal is to allow small infill lots on existing lots
without increasing the density. The amendment would allow unique and undeveloped properties to have more flexibility
when subdividing and more opportunity for infill housing.
Ms. Satter shared an example of a 2-lot short plat on Marine Drive that was approved by the City in 2007. She noted the
panhandle that was created as part of Lot A in order to meet the minimum lot size requirement. Staff discussed with the
developer how the illogical boundary would make it hard for the property owner to provide maintenance, fencing, etc. on this
10-foot-wide strip of land. Due to setback requirements, nothing can be built within the panhandle, either. The proposed
code revision would allow the subdivision to occur without the panhandle extension. Lot A would be 3,900 square feet,
which is the minimum allowed per code.
Ms. Satter briefly reviewed that the proposed amendment would allow a reduction in the minimum lot size when
subdividing, provided that the average of the proposed lots do not exceed the permissible underlying density of the zone, that
all lots smaller than the minimum size must demonstrate that they are developable by showing code compliance, and that
platting documents include documentation of allowed uses and language that ensures maximum density is not exceeded in
the future. She summarized that the proposed amendment would allow more lots to be created and for property owners to
better utilize their existing properties. It would also help avoid the creation of illogical boundaries that may be proposed in
order to meet the minimum lot size requirement.
Ms. Satter advised that in the original draft amendment that was discussed at the Commission workshop, only 20% of the
lots in a subdivision could utilize the lot size reduction, which means the provision would only be applicable to subdivisions
of 5 or more lots. The original proposal also limited the amount of reduction to 10% of the minimum lot size. The
Commission indicated support for eliminating these limitations, as long as the subdivided lots could still meet the code. The
proposal before the Commission incorporates this latest direction.
Chair Wofford opened the hearing for public comments, but there were none. He closed the public portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Mosiman asked if BMC 20.60.065(e)(2)(iv) could be interpreted to mean that each phase of land division
would be treated uniquely, without regard to what happened in the prior phases. Ms. Satter said it means that, as part of the
subdivision process, the applicant would be required to acknowledge that the property, as a whole, would not ever be allowed
to exceed the density per the current zoning.
Vice Chair Tift referred to the LSA examples provided by Ms. Satter and asked if lots could be combined at some point in
the future. Ms. Satter answered affirmatively. Ms. Lambert added that property aggregation was not included in the
proposed Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) amendments that will be considered in the subsequent hearing. Vice Chair Tift
asked if the smaller lots would still have to meet all of the code requirements for a developable lot, such as parking and
setbacks. Ms. Satter answered affirmatively. Director Spencer referred to BMC 20.60.065(e)(2)(ii), which states that, “All
lots that are smaller than the minimum lot size shall demonstrate that they are developable by showing code compliance.”
Vice Chair Tift asked if the smaller lots would become nonconforming in the event they are sold at some point in the future.
Director Spencer answered that, once approved, the lot would be considered conforming. She noted there are a number of
DRAFT
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 2021 ~ Page 3 of 6
lots in the City that do not meet the minimum lot size standards. The new code provision would make them sellable,
conforming lots.
Vice Chair Tift commented that, although there were no public comments regarding the proposed amendments, the City has
received some criticism in the local newspapers for some of its decisions associated with making lots smaller and allowing
more options for infill development.
Commissioner Mosiman requested additional clarification about redevelopment on the smaller lots. Director Spencer
explained that the way the LSA provision is currently written, some lots would be allowed to be smaller than the rest of the
lots if the overall density of the subdivision would remain less than the density permitted per acre by the zoning code. Once
subdivided, the smaller lots would be legal, conforming lots and could be developed and/or redeveloped at any point in the
future.
COMMISSIONER PEDERSEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT TEXT
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 OF THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) AS DETAILED IN
ATTACHMENT 1, BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED
IN ATTACHMENT 2. COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Public Hearing: Zoning Code Amendments Related to Boundary Line Adjustments (BLA)
Ms. Lambert explained that a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) is a process for modifying the lot lines of existing parcels.
No new lots are created with a BLA; that can only be done through the subdivision process. She shared examples of
situations where a BLA might be used. She reviewed that the Planning Commission discussed the BLA concept at a
workshop last July, and the Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance for their consideration. Staff conducted
environmental review on the draft code in March, and it was also sent to the Kitsap Building Association, Kitsap County
Association of Realtor’s and other agencies for feedback. It is now being presented to the Commission for a public hearing
and recommendation to the City Council.
Ms. Lambert advised that State law allows for BLA, as long as no additional lots are created and as long as it doesn’t create
a condition where a lot is undevelopable. She explained that common reasons for BLAs include: to resolve boundary
controversy between neighbors, to bring a lot into conformance with the zoning code, and to allow additional development
that complies with the zoning code. She shared an example where a property owner turned in plans to construct a house but
found that there wasn’t enough space. The property owner ended up purchasing a sliver of land from the neighbor to make
the lot conforming so he didn’t have to redo his building plans.
Ms. Lambert emphasized that a BLA cannot create a new lot; a lot without vehicular access; a lot that is so constrained or
encompassed by topography, critical areas, buffers, or shape, that it would require a variance or exemption in order for a
building site to be allowed; or a lot that straddles multiple zones, multiple jurisdictions, or multiple overlay areas or subareas.
In addition, BLAs cannot impact utilities.
Ms. Lambert explained that Kitsap County doesn’t have a BLA ordinance, but it tends to become more important in
developed, denser environments, and that is why all of the other cities in the County have BLA regulations. Currently, City
staff requests an opportunity to review BLAs, but the reviews are done pro bono without any good process, and many are
recorded with the County Assessor without City review. Staff is recommending that Bremerton adopt a BLA code that is
similar to the other cities in Kitsap County.
Ms. Lambert said that, sometimes, BLAs that are recorded by the County Assessor create nonconforming situations or
utility issues. Creating a BLA code will create a framework for the City to review and process all BLAs to ensure future
development meets all zoning and public works requirements. It will also protect property values from the unintended
consequences of a BLA that does not meet City codes.
DRAFT
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 2021 ~ Page 4 of 6
Ms. Lambert advised that, as proposed, a property owner would submit a Type I application and pay the required fees and
staff would conduct a technical review and issue a decision. The applicant would then be required to submit documents for
recording within 180 days.
Chair Wofford opened the hearing for public comments, but there were none. He closed the public portion of the hearing.
COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT TEXT
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 OF THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) AS DETAILED IN
ATTACHMENT 1, BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED
IN ATTACHMENT 2. COMMISSIONER PEDERSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Re-Affirmation of the Zoning Code Amendment Related to Manufactured Homes (MFH) Regulations
Ms. Satter reviewed that, following a workshop discussion and public hearing in March and April of 2019, the Planning
Commission forwarded a unanimous recommendation to the City Council on proposed amendments related to Manufactured
Home (MFH) Regulations. However, the City Council did not take the recommendation to a public hearing. Staff is seeking
reaffirmation from the Planning Commission as to whether its recommendation remains the same or if it should be modified
and/or changed.
Ms. Satter explained that the current MHR regulations (BMC 20.46.040) allow one manufactured home per lot and they
must be located on permanent foundations. The existing code has specific size requirements that would be changed by the
proposed amendment. State Law indicates that manufactured housing cannot be regulated differently than a single-family
home except they must have a 3:12 roof pitch or greater and they must use the same siding materials as a single-family home.
Ms. Satter reviewed that the current code only allows manufactured homes that are double wide, and each component must
be at least 12’ x 36’. While there is no proposal to change the length requirement, the proposed code would revise the
allowed width from 24 feet to 19 feet. For a doublewide MFH, each section would have to be 9.5’ instead of 12’ feet. She
pointed out that a typical residential lot in Bremerton has a minimum width of 30 feet. Taking into account the 5-foot side
setbacks, the buildable area is just 20-feet wide so it isn’t possible to place a 24-foot MFH on most 30-foot-wide lots in the
City.
Ms. Satter explained that prefabricated homes are dwellings that are manufactured off-site, which includes both
manufactured and modular homes. However, the proposed amendments would only apply to manufactured homes (MFHs),
which typically come on a non-movable chassis. Manufactured homes are regulated by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development and other federal regulations, and must be attached to a permanent foundation that meets City code.
Modular homes must comply with the final location’s code, and for the City of Bremerton, that is the Washington State and
International Building Codes. The City’s current code doesn’t allow mobile homes to be placed except in mobile home
parks.
Ms. Satter summarized that the proposed amendment would reduce the width requirement for double-wide MFHs from 12
feet to 9.5 feet. No other changes to the existing MFH regulations are proposed.
Chair Wofford opened the hearing for public comments, but there were none. He closed the public portion of the hearing.
Ms. Satter advised that one written comment was received, as noted in the Findings and Conclusions, from Mr. Rob Larsen.
He supports the proposal, as he believes there are a lot of properties within the City where MFHs cannot be located based on
the current code. Mr. Larsen provided illustrations of MFHs that are 19.5 feet wide.
Commissioner Flemister questioned why the City requires that MFHs be double wide rather than single wide. Ms. Satter
said that is what the City’s current code requires, and it is similar to codes adopted by many other cities. Commissioner
Flemister asked if MFHs have to be connected to the City’s sewer system. Ms. Satter answered yes, if they are located
within the City limits and sewer service is available in the area. If sewer system is not available, a septic system is required.
DRAFT
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 2021 ~ Page 5 of 6
Commissioner Pedersen said he plans to support the proposed amendment, but he would be willing to consider allowing
single-wide MFHs. He supports anything that increases the amount of safe and affordable housing in the City. He suggested
that allowing single-wide MFHs could create options for safe places for someone to live, where the current proposal does not.
Ms. Satter responded that she isn’t sure if it is a state requirement or not, but she agreed to research and report back to the
Commission.
Director Spencer noted that the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review that the City Conducted only described the
amendment to reduce the width requirement for the two halves of a double wide. The Commission could recommend
approval of the proposed amendment as presented, but with a request that additional research be done to perhaps eliminate
the size requirement altogether, which would require a separate process. This would allow the City to make immediate code
revisions for the width and potentially do more work later to allow more manufactured housing options.
Chair Wofford asked staff to expand upon the design criteria that requires a MFH to have the same siding material as a
single-family home. Ms. Satter said this is part of the model ordinance provided by the state, and she assumes it would
exclude plastic and flammable materials.
Chair Wofford commented that it isn’t likely that companies that do pre-manufactured homes would make single-wide
units. Most of them are designed to be double wide. He asked if the City’s current code allows single-wide mobile homes on
foundations to be located on single-family lots. Ms. Satter answered no, and explained that the current code only allows
new MFHs. Vice Chair Tift pointed out that there are also road-worthy requirements that limit the size of single-wide
homes. As far as siding, he noted that some of the older mobile homes have metal siding like you would see on a shed.
Commissioner Coughlin asked if a MFH would meet the sizes requirements and be allowed as an Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU). Ms. Satter answered that the current code allows MFHs as an ADU option, but it doesn’t allow an exception to the
size requirement. Commissioner Mosiman commented that if a MFH can be used as an ADU, it would seem that a single-
wide would suffice under certain circumstances. He supports the earlier suggestion that the City consider amending the code
further to eliminate the width requirement altogether. Ms. Satter clarified that, as per the ADU regulations, MFHs are
allowed as ADUs, provided they comply with the design criteria of ADUs, excluding the size and roof pitch requirements.
Vice Chair Tift voiced opposition to directing staff to work on amendments to allow MFHs more broadly as a housing type
by eliminating size requirements. He felt it would make the amendment more complicated and require more staff time.
VICE CHAIR TIFT MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT TEXT AMENDMENTS TO
BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) 20.46.040 AS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT A, BASED UPON THE
STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT B.
COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COMMISSIONER PEDERSEN MOVED TO REQUEST THAT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF
WORK ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MANUFACTURED HOME REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW THEM MORE
BROADLY AS A HOUSING TYPE BY ELIMINATING THE SIZE REQUIREMENTS. COMMISSIONER
COUGHLIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Commissioner Coughlin agreed with Commissioner Pedersen and said he would like to see the origin of why single-wide
MFHs are not allowed per the City code. He agreed that single-wide MFHs could be a good solution to provide affordable,
quality housing in the City. Director Spencer suggested staff could do some quick research of the model code and State law
and provide more history about why the provision was included in the City’s current code. She didn’t think it would require
a significant amount of staff time. If State law requires that MFHs must be double wide, then no further work would be
needed.
THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1, WITH VICE CHAIR TIFT VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
BUSINESS MEETING
DRAFT
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 2021 ~ Page 6 of 6
Chair Report
Chair Wofford did not have any items to report.
Director Report
Director Spencer announced that the City Council approved an additional building inspector/plans examiner for the
Department of Community Development, as well as two additional staff people in the Development Engineering Group. She
provided the following highlights from a presentation staff made to the City Council regarding the current activity level in the
Department of Community Development:
• Permits have been on the upswing for years, and 2020 was a record-breaking year with about $20 million over 2019.
Through the first quarter of 2021, permit activity has reached about $37 million. This is a big number, as more
permits typically come in later in the year. They are already $5 million ahead compared to the same time last year.
• Total permits for 2021 equaled $143 million, and projects totaling $153 million have already been submitted in the
queue, and they anticipate more permits throughout the year.
• Between 2016 and 2020, the City permitted about 270,000 square feet of commercial activity, and there is
approximately 350,000 square feet of construction in progress at this time.
• For the past five years, residential construction averaged about 225 units per year, and there are approximately 800
units currently under construction and 2,700 units in the pipeline over the next several years. This indicates that the
City will continue to see an upward trend in development activity.
• The City’s growth target is more than 500 units per year, so the City is and will continue to make up for lost time. It
will be important for the Planning Commission to continue with its hard work of ensuring there are opportunities for
more housing in Bremerton. All people deserve to have quality, affordable housing.
Ms. Satter reviewed that the Planning Commission recommended and the City Council recently approved amendments to
the City’s ADU provisions. She reported that, over the past 11 years, only about 10 ADUs were approved. Since the new
provisions were adopted in December, the City has received applications for six more ADUs. Of the six proposals, at least
five will be owner-occupied.
Chair Wofford asked if there is adequate water and sewer capacity to accommodate the anticipated new development, and
Director Spencer answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Tift asked if there is adequate capacity on the existing roadways and
if road improvements will be required as part of development. Director Spencer answered that developers are often required
to pay SEPA mitigation fees for transportation impacts, and they are also required to put transportation improvements in as
part of a project. The SEPA mitigation fees are used to do improvements to address impacts associated with development.
Old Business
There was no old business.
New Business
There was no new business.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:43 p.m.
Respectively Submitted by:
______________________________ ______________________________
Andrea L Spencer, AICP Nick Wofford, Chair
Executive Secretary Planning Commission
Attachment 2.2
Comment for
Zoning Code Amendment for
Manufactured Homes
The following was a comment provided by Rob Larsen at
the Planning Commission Public Hearing on April 22,
2019. The commenter was in support of the proposed
code change and provided this documentation to show
examples of manufactured homes that could be placed
on site if this code was adopted (and which are
prohibited now in City code).
Attachment 2.2
Attachment 2.2
Attachment 2.2
Attachment 2.2
Attachment 2.2
MANUFACTURED
HOMES
Zoning Code Amendments -BMC 20.46.040
City Council Study Session
Presenter: Kelli Lambert
May 26, 2021
BMC 20.46.040
MANUFACTURED HOMES
•One manufactured home per lot
•Size requirements (proposed to change)
•Permanent Foundation
•Design criteria:
•Cannot regulate different than single-family home except:
•Roof pitch
•Exterior siding materials
•Must be a NEW manufactured home
2
HOUSING INFILL TOOLKIT3
https://www.bremertonwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/
7035/Infill-Toolkit-PDF
PREVIOUS PROCESS
•Planning Commission process:
•Workshop in March 2019
•Public Hearing #1 in April 2019
•Unanimous recommendation from the Commission
•City Council did not take this to Public Hearing; requested
additional design standards
•Staff research: Mfr homes cannot be regulated differently from
other SFRs, except for:
•Roof Pitch
•Siding Materials
•Planning Commission held a Public Hearing in April 2021,
reaffirmed approval.
4
CURRENT CODE
•BMC 20.46.040:
only allows new
manufactured homes that are
a double wide AND at least
12’ by 36’
•Minimum 24’ by 36’ home
5
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
Revise the allowed size for manufactured homes from
24’ to 19’
For doublewide MFH, each section could be 9.5’ instead of 12’
6
WHY?
•Typical residential lots = 30’ minimum width
•With 5’ side yard setback
•20’ is width of building area
•Makes placing a 24’ home impossible
Minimum lot
width = 30’
5’ side yard
setback
Typical Residential lot and Building Envelope 7
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
•Amendments to BMC 20.46.040 –Manufactured Homes
•Reduce the size from 12’ to 9.5’ for minimum size of section of a
double wide manufactured home
•No other changes to existing Manufactured Home regulations
•Staff is available for questions
8