HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/12/98 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
239 4TH STREET
BREMERTON, WA 98337
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
AUGUST 12, 1998
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M.
A. General Council Business
CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M.
A. Pledge Of Allegiance
B. Invocation
A. Minutes -August 5, 1998
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed below have been distributed to Council members in advance for study
and will be enacted by one motion, if separate discussion is desired on an item, it
may be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda at
the request of a Council member.
#AB98-177
/
5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
6. MAYOR'S REPORT
7. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes)
NEW BUSINESS
A. Bid Award To Ace Paving Company Inc., For Bun/cell
Street Improvements From Montgomery Avenue'to
Pacific Avenue
PUBLIC HEARING -6:00 P.M. OR LATER
A. Resolution #2664, Regarding Recovery Of Fees For The
Abatement Of The Property Located At 1745 N. Cambrian Ave.
B. Resolution ¢2665, Regarding Recovery Of Fees For The
Abatement Of The Property Located At 2304/2306 1
Street
Ordinance (First Reading) Amending Ordinance #-4365
Proposal: Shoreline Master Program Amendment;
Location: Oyster Bay Channel
¢AB98-178
¢AB98-179 /~,~
¢AB98-180 ¢~, O
¢AB98-181 ~.~
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
!. SUBJ-ECT': MINUTES - AUGUST 5, 1998
FOR AGENDA OF:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ORIGINATOR:
DATE SUBMITTED:
August 12_ lqq8
City Qounci]
David Farr. PremJd~nt
Ahgust 6, 1998
2. ~I~: (co~ment on back
if necessary)
ENDoRsKMENT
MAYOR
INFOR_WLATION__
SUBMITTAL:
4. $~Y STATEMENT AND REOUiREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
8. RECOMNENDATION:
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFOR~ OFFICIAL:
.EXPIRATION DATE:
REVYEW DATE:
PU/,LED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTIC$ OF ACTION
APPROVED .DISAPPROVED__
..DATE:
2. ~CLEARANcE COM]~ENT$ :.
5..'~_.I~L~_A~ON NON-PASSAGE:
BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EOU!PMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
TaPE #1559 UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 5, 1998
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to
order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4m Street, Bremerton, Washington,
Wednesday August 5, 1998, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President David Farr
presiding. Council members present were Jim Reed, Carlos Montgomery, Carol
^rends, Lon Overson, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen.
Councilmen Mike Shepherd was absent. Also present were City attorney Glenna
Malanca and Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Fart
and invocation given by Pastor Jeff Chandler of Central KJtsap Presbyterian
Church.
President Farr made the following announcement:
(1) The City Council held a Study Session prior to the Council meeting to
discuss general Council business.
(2)
The City Council held a 20-minute Executive Session to discuss a
personnel issue.
(3)
Immediately following the City Council meeting, the Council would hold a
Study Session on "Sinclair Landing Update," and a 15-minute Executive
Session to discuss "contract negotiations."
(4)
The City Council will hold a Retreat and 20 minute Executive Session
on August 10, 1998, starting at 5:00 P.M., at the Gold Mountain Golf
Course Banquet Room. The following topics will be discussed:
(1) Group Photograph; (2) 20-Minute Executive Session to discuss "Labor
Negotiations; (3) What Council Can Do to Become More Pro Active; (4)
Presentation by Mayor Lynn Horton On Her Goals And Objectives For the
City; and Broad Overview Of The 1999 Budget; (5) City Council's
Discussion Relating To The 1999 budget
President Farr thanked the members of the TV crew: Production Director
Bob Neal, Josh Doehne, George Smith, Mike Peebles, and Jan
Greenwood.
President Farr announced Agenda Items 8A and 8C had been pulled off
the Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
TAPE #1559
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 5, 1998
Page 2 of 6
A. Minutes - July 22, 1998
#AB98-171
B. Minutes - July 29, 1998
#AB98-172
C. Contract Award to Fire One, Inc. for Monitoring #AB98-173
and Maintenance of Dire Suppression Systems
#0100 MISICIU(McConnelllMontgomery) Motion to approve the Consent Agenda
as presented.
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW
42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by
RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available
to the Council.
#0131 M/SlClU(MontgomerylArends) On August 5, 1998, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows:
222325 through 222507 in the amount of $524,361.40; and Regular Payroll for
the period ending July 31, 1998, in the amount of $944,763.03.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr, McConnell reminded everyone of the next Concert on the Boardwalk on
Friday evening, August 7, 1998, 6:00 - 8:00 P.M.
Mr. Law announced on September 6, 1998, 1:00 - 3:00 P.M., the Manette
Community Church and he will co-sponsor a Candidate Form. Today he
attended the commissioning of the USS Bridge, which was held in Seattle, and
the City of Bremerton was well represented at that event. He noted the Reunion
of crewmembers on the first USS Bridge was held in Bremerton. Roy Miller, a
member of that crew chaired the Reunion event and they participated in the
commissioning ceremony. He encouraged everyone to welcome the USS Bridge
crewmembers and their families.
Mr. Overson extended a "welcome' to the USS Bridge crew. He announced a
new business would soon open in Bremerton - Your Cup Of Tea.
Mrs. Arends reminded everyone that even though it is summertime the
Bremerton School Board continues to hold School Board Meetings and their next
meeting is August 6, 1998, 5:30 P.M., in the Bremerton School Distdct Office
located on Marion Avenue. The School District has announced the first day of
school is September 2, 1998.
TAPE #1559
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 5, 1998
Page 3 of 6
Mr. Montqomery reported he and Mayor Horton attended the Westpark
"National Night Out" celebration. The Bremerton Fire Department, Bremerton
Police Department, and K-9 unit also participated in that event, which was well
attended. He noted the good rapport the Bremerton Police Office assigned to
Westpark has with their residents, particularly the children.
MAYOR'S REPORT -
Mayor Lynn Horton reported over the past two weeks she took a few days of
vacation that were wedged in between two components of business, the first part
was a visit to Chattanooga, Tennessee where she rode on electric buses that are
prototypes of those ordered by Kitsap Transit that will be used as Shuttle Buses
within the City of Bremerton. She was extremely impressed by the quality of the
buses and how they were operated within the downtown corridor. She had a
firsthand look at how the batteries are removed, recharged, and then reinstalled
in a way that keeps the fleet of buses moving. Since eady 1990, the city of
Chattanooga has undergone a metamorphous and many of the issues that they
dealt with are similar to what Bremerton is dealing with, i.e., how to redevelop the
community, what kind of components need to be included, etc. In her
discussions with several community members and those involved with the
redevelopment efforts, they emphasized the fact that the electric bus shuttle
system has enabled and enhanced their redevelopment efforts. That community
embraced the electric buses and would be very vocal if someone were to
suggest that they be taken away. In that same City, they experienced a theatre
renovation project and the construction of an aquarium. It was encouraging to
her to see how well redevelopment efforts can improve the livability within a City.
At the other end of her trip she attended a Transit Conference in Ottawa,
Canada, where the participants had the opportunity to compare their transit
systems to similar systems in other parts of the country.
Mayor Horton reported she attended the USS Bridge Commissioning Ceremony,
which was very impressive. Approximately 4,000 people attended that event and
the post and pre-functions were very nice. She believes the USS Bridge will be a
welcome addition to our community and she hopes they feel welcome too.
President Farr reported in her absence the Kitsap Regional Coordinating
Council held a retreat where 11 issues were identified that would result in various
committees being formed and she may find that she was volunteered for such an
assignment.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Brian Stallcup, Editor The Sun, expressed his concern over documentation
relating to the Sinclair Landing Project being considered "confidential" by the
City, the Commercial Group and the Sinclair Landing Association, at the
Council's Executive Session immediately following the Study Session that was
_5
TAPE #1559
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 5, 1998
Page 4 of 6
scheduled following the City Council meeting. He disagreed with the citing of
RCW Chapter 42.30.110(d) Contract Negotiations as used by the City in its
Public Meeting Notice. The only reference to the law in the City's denial to The
Sun was to an "lntra-agency memorandum in which opinions are expressed. He
challenged that it was not an intra-agency document and that the Opens Record
Act makes specific reference to reports by consultants under RCW Chapter
42.17.260(e). The other points of denial were irrelevant because they did not cite
specific law. The other issue is the announced 15-minute Executive Session,
which was cited as RCW 42.30.110(d) Contract Negotiations. He reminded the
Council that the only reasons for an Executive Session are personnel issues,
labor negotiations, lawsuits, or sale or purchase of real property. He asked that
the Executive Session be recorded and all documents reviewed in that session
set aside so that a Judge of the Court could review that activity to determine if
the City violated the Open Meetings law.
Glenna Malanca, City Attorney, stated the first issue relating to the intra-agency
memorandum is a conjunctive provision, i.e., it is communications where
opinions are expressed. Just pdor to "intra-agencies memorandums, is the word
"and," and she believes that it does apply. In regard to the Executive Session, it
was her understanding that it would involve negotiations relating to the
performance of a publicly bid contract and the items intended to be discussed are
appropriate for an Executive Session and do not violate the Open Meeting law.
she was not aware that the Executive Session would involve any documents.
President Farr asked Ms. Malanca to comment on Mr. Stallcup's request to tape
record the Executive Session. Ms. Malanca stated the City is not required to do
so and recommended against it. President Farr stated he was aware of the
controversy surrounding this issue and he, Mayor Horton and the City Attorney
have taken steps to minimize the amount of material that would be presented
and discussed in the Executive Session. It was only after counsel with City legal
staff that Council will go into Executive Session. He personally is conscious of
the public's need to see everything and have everything conducted in the open
and in this particular case it is somewhat unique. He emphasized the Council is
relying on its legal advice. Ms. Malanca stated the denial of the public
documents was conditioned upon a promise on the City's part to contact the
affected parties regarding the review of financial feasibility and see if they would
be interested or in a position to voluntarily allow the release of that feasibility
study. She emphasized it was not a blanket denial. She referenced the cities of
Seattle and Spokane had both experienced the same kinds of problems on
public/private partnership projects. The City is trying to balance its obligations
verses public disclosure requirements. President Farr asked Ms. Malanca to
research the issue of recording an Executive Session prior to commencement of
the Executive Session.
TAPE #1559
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 5, 1998
Page 5 of 6
Susan Brown acknowledged the receipt of a letter from Judy Johnson, Building
Official, which explained how the City tracks notification to property owners to
stop building on City property. Ms. Johnson's response explained that for the
past three years that information has been tracked electronically. Regarding the
Ethics Commission, she received telephone calls in response to questions that
she had raised to Mayor Horton and Ms. Malanca and thanked them for their
responding to her personally.
Rob Schneidler, KPS Health Plan, referenced a newspaper article where it
described a policeman being trapped in an uncomfortable situation. He felt it
was unfortunate that the news media felt that situation had to be made a joke.
He commended the Police and Fire Departments in their responding to
community needs and emergency situations.
8B -APPOINTMENT OF SHAWLEE LEE TO THE BREMERTON HOUSING
AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, #AB98-175
There is a vacancy on the Bremerton Housing Authority
Commissioners. It is recommended that ShawLee Lee fill the vacancy.
Board of
Mayor Lynn Horton explained she was introduced to Ms. Lee through Reverend
Cleveland Williams of the Ebenezer A.M.E. Church. She briefly reviewed Ms.
Lee's employment history, community involvement that included outreach
ministries at places like Ridgemont Terrace Convalescent Center; and the fact
she has a good grasp and understanding of the housing needs of Iow income
individuals. Mayor Horton was also impressed with her organizational skills
exhibits in her various activities. She believes that she will be an excellent
addition to the Housing Authority Board-and urged Council to confirm her
appointment. Ms. Lee was not able to be present at the Council meeting.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Mont.qomery asked Bremerton Housing Authority Commissioner Art Morken
Jr., to give a brief description of the duties of a Commissioner. Art Morken Jr.
stated the Commissioners set policy and coordinate development of facilities,
such as the new projects that are being worked on in conjunction with Mayor
Horton. They handle training of individuals for "right to work." He emphasized
the fact that they hold several meetings per month and individually work on
various projects. The Commissioners are given extensive training as to how they
should work as a Commissioner. Mr. Montgomery stated he attends the
Housing Authority meetings and was impressed with the expertise exhibited by
the Commissioners. He believes it is important that the individual taking on that
responsibility have some background in that particular field.
TAPE #1559
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 5, 1998
Page 6 of 6
#0953 MISIC(ArendsiOverson) Motion to confirm the appointment of ShawLee
Lee to the Bremerton Housing Authority Board of Commissioners.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor: Reed, Arends, Farr, Overson, Law, McConnell,
Olsen
Abstain: Montgomery
With no further business meeting adjourned at 6:08 P.M.
PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk
DAVID FARR, City Council President
City of Bremerton
P J/DF/me
C: Normal Distribution
FileNault
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT:
BURWELL STREET IMPROVEMENTS
FROM MONTGOMERY AVENUE TO
TO PACIFIC AVENUE - BID AWARD
f
2. CLEARA~C~S:/(Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
Direc~Qr~/tilitiesto~ 1. Location Map
?
1Jurc'~asin~g,~p ervis or
FOR AGENDA OF: August 12, 1998
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & Utils
ORIGINATOR:
Witt, City Eng.~~ q~
R.
DATE SUBMITTED: August 3, 1998 xx
(To Committee on August 11, 1998)
Council Fiscal & Budget Committee
Council Operations Committee
(To Committee on August 12, 1998)
ENDORSEMENt[ INFORMATION
[, APPROVED BY COU~,~IL P~S{I, DEq~OR SUBMITTAL:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Bids were opened for the Burwell Street Improvements Project on August 3, 1998. This is the first phase of
construction on the SR304 Transportation Improvement Project. One bid for this project was received. Ace Paving
Co., Inc., was the lowest (only) responsive bidder with a bid of $1,194,509.90. The engineer's estimate for this project
was $1,234,999.92. These street improvements will include an asphalt overlay, ornamental street lighting, concrete
curbing, sidewalk and handicap ramps, signal modifications, intersection bulbouts and landscaping. The action before
the City Council is approval of a contract with Ace Paving Co., Inc. for the Burwell Street Improvements Project.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council approve award of the Base Bid for $1,194,509.90 with Ace Paving Co., Inc., for the Burwell Street
Improvements Project, and authorize the Mayor to execute the same.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED Il TABLED [l APPROVED [1 DISAPPROVED Il AMENDED 11
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
hBqB-178
(OVER) 11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
3. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
Funding by the State and Federal agencies used for the design of this project will have to be returned. The project will
not be built and existing traffic capacity safety issues will remain.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES. EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES:
Staffing:
1500 staff hours for construction administration, inspection, and surveying.
Budget:
This project is included in the 1998 budget as part of the 1998 Arterial Street fund and sufficient
funds exists to do this work with the additional funding the City will receive fi.om other funding
sources. The City will be receiving funding fi.om the Federal Highway Administration and the
State Transportation Improvement Board.
Facilities/Equipment: No impact.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
PROJECT
LOCATION
LOCATION ~AP
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing
Resolution #~/,,~ z-/' , regarding recovery of fees for
the abatement of the property located at 1745 N.
Cambrian Avenue.
FOR AGENDA OF: August 12, 1998
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Building Dept.
ORIGINATOR: Judy Johnson ',~,
DATE SUBMITTED: ·) '
2. CLEARANCES: .(Comment on back if 3.
necessary)
Comm. Dev. Dir.: f(/'~
City Clerk: ~
City Attorney!~.~/~/tL-~_s~t<~,,.~
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution # ,~
2. Clerk Report
3. Photos
ENDORSEMENT~ INFORMATION __APPROVED BY COUNCIL PR~'SIDENT/F~i~SU~MITTAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: '
On 5/5/98, the City removed garbage and debris from the property located at 1745 N. Cambrian
Avenue, after the owner, Dixie L. Grace, failed to do so as ordered by the building official. The cost
charged to the revolving abatement fund for this action totaled $1,314.30. Council must now decide if the
fees are just and reasonable and how they should be collected.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council, by Resolution # ~(/~(_~_~, order that the fees incurred for the
abatement of garbage and debris located at 1745 N. Cambrian Avenue be collected as reasonable
abatement costs and become a lien against the property.
9: RESPONSIBLE OFHCIAL: Judy Johnson
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Judy Johnson
EXPIRATION DATE: N/A
REVIEW DATE: N/A
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED
DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO.: 9 ~" [ 7 ~
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
J
IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The City would forfeit the costs incurred for this action.
IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS, FACll,ITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES,
The City's revolving abatement fund would suffer the deficit of not collecting these funds.
e
RESEARCH SOURCES:
N/A
RESOLUTION//
A RESOLUTION reviewing charges for the abatement of the property at
1745 N. Cambrian and determining means of collection.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton incurred costs for removal of garbage and debris from the property
located at 1745 N. Cambrian Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Municipal Code allows the City to recoup these costs either by personal
judgment against the property owner or as a lien against the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is charged with determining whether the fees are just, and how they
should be collected; and has considered the report of charges filed by the Building Official and any protests or
objection filed; and
WIIEREAS, the Building Official of the City of Bremerton recommends the fees be collected as a lien
against the property located at 1745 N. Cambrian Avenue, now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton:
1. That the abatement charges included in the report of the Building Official in the amount of $1,314.30
for the property located at 1745 N. Cambrian Avenue, Bremerton, attached hereto, are just and reasonable.
2. That the City of Bremerton will exercise its right to recapture abatement fees by filing a lien against
the property.
19
PASSED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
day of
DAVID FARR
Council President
CITY OF B~N · 239 4th Street
· Bremerton, WA 98337
Memorandum
DATE: July 24, 1998
TO:
Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk
FROM: Janet Luncefard, BDS 11
RE:
Public Hearing, 1745 N. Cambrian Avenue
CC: Judy Johnson
On 5/5/98, the Street Departmem removed garbage and debris from the property located
at 1745 N. Cambrian Avenue after the owner, Dixie L. Grace, failed to do so as ordered.
The cost of the work, including $806.50 in administrative fees, totaled $1,314.30. I have
enclosed a copy of the interfund transfer and have scheduled a public hearing for the
August 12, 1998 city council meeting.
· Celebrating 50 Years of Freedom
CITY OF BREMERTON
INTERFUND TRANSFER
CITY D£PARTMENTS ONLY
DATE 6/4/98 TRANSFEI:L# 5792
TO
COMPLETE TH/S FORA/[ IN DUPLICATE AND RETURN TO ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Building Department
PWO-STREET DIVISION FROM Abatements
(1LEVENUE DEPARTMENT) (EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT)
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
Charges per attached summai'y for: May 1998
LABOR
EQUIPMENT
MATERIALS
SALES TAX
TOTAL
BLAB
$892.88
$544.50
$300.35
$0.00
$1,737.73
ACCOUNT AMOUNT ACCOUNT
42-349.3900 $1,737.73 -~,~ ~-- (.a
AMOUNT
(Sign Here).
EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR
· Work Order History
6/4/98 2:2I:21 PM
CITY OF BREM]EP. TON
PWO-STREET DMSION
Work Order #: 8D980069
Project #: N4014280
Customer:. BLAB
Work Type: AO
Supervisor:. 0524
Lead Employee: 0051
Priority: 1
Location ID: 1
History #: 1
· Title: BLAB Clean up Trash 1745 N Cambrian
Ancillary Operations
Building Department
ANCILLARY OPERATIONS
Colen Corey
Scott Corey
Unspecified Location
Unspecified Equipment
Abatements
Status: S Labor Hours Estimate: 0
Materials Estimate: $0
Equipment Estimate: $0
Date Entered: 5/1/98
Date Updated: 6/4/98 8:29:53 AM
Date Targeted: 7/4/98
Date Azsigued: 5/I/98
Date Started: 5/5/98
Date Finished: 5/5/98
Work Description
Must schedule wrecker to move white cadalac, remove all debris in back yard and on porch, must have Janet there and also Police
officer. Require 10 yard and back hoe. Take before and after pictures.
N~oms~ BLAB Clean up Trash 1745 N Cambrian
No BLAB
0524' Colen Corey 4.00 hr $120.00
0512 Robert E. Tulp 3.00 hr $90.00
0051 Scott Corey 3.00 hr $90.00
3091 Int'l 12yd. Dump Truck 4.00 hr $104.00
DUMPIN Dump Fees - Oly. View Sanitary Landfill 10.00 yd $103.80
10.00 hr 0.00 hr $507.80
SUMMARY FOR WORKORDER:
Labor: $300.00
Benefits: $0.00
Equipment: $104.00
Materials: $103.80
Sales Tax: $0.00
Total: $507.80
SD980069
Total.Regular Labor Hours:
Total Overtime Labor Hours:
Total Labor Hours:
Total Regular Equipment Hours:
Total Overtime Equipment Hours:
Total Equipment Hours:
10.00
0.00
10.00
4.00
0.00
4.00
/7
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing
Resolution #~ ~,5 , regarding recovery of fees for
the abatement of the property located at 2304/2306 -
15th Street.
FOR AGENDA OF: A. u~,ust 12. 1998
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Buiidin~ Dept.
ORIGINATOR: Judy Johnson b~,
DATE SUBMITTED: ~
2. CLEARANCES: .(Comment on back ff 3.
necessarYc)omm. Dev. Dir.:.
City Clerk: ~,~~
ca ty Atto rne~~/_f~./~ /
ENDORSEMENT/~ INFORMATIONw APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT F~R ~UBMITTAL:
EXHIBITS:
I. Resolution #
2. Clerk Report
3. Photos
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
On 5/28/98, the City removed garbage, debris, furniture, appliances and auto parts from the
property located at 2304/2306 - 15m Street, after the owner, Darrell Hatta, failed to do so as ordered by
the building official. The cost charged to the revolving abatement fund for this action totaled $970.93.
Council must now decide if the fees are just and reasonable and how they should be collected.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council, by Resolution # o~ ~x~-, order that the fees incurred for the
abatement of garbage, debris, furniture, appliances and auto parts located at 2304/2306 - 15~ Street be
collected as reasonable abatement costs and become a lien against the property.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Judy Johnson
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Judy Johnson
EXPIRATION DATE: NJA
REVIEW DATE: N/A
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED
DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO.: 9~ '-/~ &
2. CI,EARANCE COMMENTS:
IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The City would forfeit the costs incurred for this action.
IMPACT ON STAFFING BUDGETS FACILITIES E U[PMENT OR OTHER RESOU_RCES:
The City's revolving' abatement fund would suffer the deficit of not collecting these funds.
RESEARCH SOURCES:
N/A
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION reviewing charges for the abatement of the property at
2304/2306- 15th Street and determining means of collection.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton incurred costs for removal of garbage, debris, furniture, appliances
and auto parts from the property located at 2304/2306 - 15th Street; and
WltEREAS, the Uniform Code for the Abatemem of Dangerous Buildings, as adopted by the
Bremerton Municipal Code, allows the City to recoup these costs either by personal judgment against the
property owner or as a lien against the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is charged with determining whether the fees are just, and how they
should be collected; and has considered the report of charges filed by the Building Official and any protests or
objection filed; and
WHEREAS, the Building Official of the City of Bremerton recommends the fees be collected as a lien
against the property located at 2304/2306 - 15th Street, now, therefore,
~rthe
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton:
I. That the abatemem charges included in the report of the Building Official in the amoum of $970.93
property located at 2304/2306 - 15th Street, Bremerton, attached hereto, are just and reasonable.
2. That the City of Bremerton will exercise its fight to recapture abatement fees by filing a lien against
the property.
PASSED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
19
day of
DAVID FARR
Council President
CITY OF BREMEgI'ON
· 239 4th Street ·
Bremerton, WA 98337
Memorandum
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CC:
July 24, 1998
Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk
Janet Lunceford, BDS II
Public Hearing, 2304~2306 - 15"~ Street
Judy Johnson
On 5/28/98, the SWeet Departmem removed garbage and debris from the property located
at 2304 and 2306 - 15m Street after the owner, Darrell Hatta, failed to do so as ordered.
The cost of the work totaled $970.93, per the attached interfund transfer and I have
scheduled a public hearing for the August 12, 1998 city council meeting.
· Celebrating 50 Years of Freedom ·
CITY OF BREMERTON
INTERFUND TRANSFER
CITY DEPARTMENTS ONLY
DATE 5/t/98 TRANSFER~ 5792
TO
COlV[PLETE THIS FORM IN DUPLICATE AND RETURN TO ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Building Department
PWO-STREET DIVISION FROM Abatements
(REVENUE DEPARTME~ (EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT)
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
Charges per attached summary for: May 1998
BLAB
LABOR $892.88
EQUIPMENT $544.50
MATERIALS $300.35
SALES TAX $0.00
TOTAL $1,737.73
ACCOUNT AMOUNT ACCOUNT AMOUNT
42-349.3900 $1,737.73 ,~-~c>~ ~/'. (.a 0 bq - ~ ~ [ I 9
17 7.72
(Sign Here ~--,'-
REV ' UE~_~ARTMENT SSI. JP PERV~SOR (Sign Here)
¥ (ERV~S EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR
Work Order History
6/4/98 2:22:40 PM
CITY OF BREMEKTON
PWO-STREET DMSION
Work Order #: SD980080
Project #: N4014280
Customer:. BLAB
Work Type: AO
Supervisor:. 0524
Lead Employee: 0051
Priority: 1
Location ID: 1
History #: 1
Ancillary Operations
Building Department
ANCII.!~ARY OPERATIONS
Colen Corey
Scott Corey
Title: BLAB 2304 & 2306 15 th street clean up
Abatements
Unspecified Location
Unspecified Equipment
Work Description
Status: S Labor Hour~ Estimate: 0
Materials Estimate: $0
Equipment Estimate: $0
Date Entered: 5/27/98
Date Updated: 6/4/98 8:29:53 AM
Date Targeted: 7/4/98
Date As~igued: 5/27/98
Date Started: 5/28/98
Date Finished: 5/28/98
Clean up all debris in yard, beard up house, Janet will be there at 9:00 AM with police officer, do not perform any work until she is
on site.Futher instructions will be given at job site.
~'17/98
$~81417
s~om~o BLAB-2304 & 2306 15th street clean up
No BLAB
1595 Aaron Corey 3.50 hr $34.13
3025 '93 GMC 1-TON DUMP 3.50 hr $28.00
0524 Colen Corey 4.00 hr $120.00
3013 '92 GMC 1-TONP/U 1.00 hr $9.00
1712 John CoreyIV 5.00 hr $150.00
3069 '90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK 5.00 hr $130.00
3039 '94 JD410BACKHOE 5.00 hr $160.00
1957 Adam Rogers 3.00 hr $29.25
3077 '95 3/4T FORD P/U 3.00 hr $24.00
DUMPIN Dump Fees - Oly. View Sanitary Landfill 10.00 yd $103.80
DUMPAP Dump appliances at Oly. View San. Landfill 1.00 in $15.00
16126 Kitsap Lumber - 1/2" CDX 4x8 1.00 in $77.75
0512 Robert E. Tulp 3.00 hr $90.00
18.50 hr 0.00 hr $970.93
SUMMARY FOR WORKORDER:
Labor: $423.38
Benefits: $0.00
Equipment: $351.00
Materials: $196.55
Sales Tax: $0.00
Total: $970.93
SD980080
Total Regular Labor Hours:
Total Overtime Labor Hours:
Total Labor Hours:
Total Regular Equipment Hours:
Total Overtime Equipment Hours:
Total Equipment Hours:
18.50
0.00
18.50
17.50
0.00
17.50
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING /
AMENDING ORDINANCE ~t365
Proposal: Shoreline Master Program
Amendment
Location: Oyster Bay Channel
FOR AGENDA OF: August 12, 1998
DEPT. OF ORIGIN: Economic & Comm. Dev.
ORIGINATOR: Judy Johnson ~'~ ~
DATE SUBMITTED: August 6,1998
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment..~n back if 3..EXHIBITS:
necessary) ~'~/~ ~, I - Proposed Ordinance
DECD Dire~~/ ., II - Staff Report (with Attachments)
City Atto r n e~,/. ,,/~/~.,~,~.~/~-c~.-~_~_,,-L__~
ENDORSEMENT X INFORMATION __ APPROVED BY COUNCI~--~PRESID~N'E. FOR SUBMITTAL:
4, SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is developed under the authority of the
Shoreline Management Act. The City develops the SMP, the Department of Ecology reviews
and approves/denies the SMP, the State adopts the SMP as law, and both the City and State
enforce it. The SMP goes into effect once the State adopts it.
SUMMARY STATEMENT CONTINUED ON PAGE 2.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Pass Ordinance No.
on first/second reading.
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Phil Berry
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
Phil Berry
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDI
DATE:
8. AGENDA BILL NO.:
SUMMARY STATEMENT (CONTINUED):
In August 1997, the City Council found serious concems with the issue of permitting
docks/piers within the channel between Ostrich and Oyster Bays. Therefore the Council
passed Resolution No. 2621 instituting a moratorium on any dock/pier construction in the
channel pending a review of the Shoreline Master Program. In May 1998 the Council passed
Resolution No. 2650 extending the moratorium.
The Planning Commission has completed its review of the pertinent portions of the SMP and
has recommended that docks and piers be prohibited within the channel. This
recommendation has been forwarded to the City Council. The Council must approve any
requests for amendments to the SMP before it can be approved by the State.
CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10.
IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
Docks and piers will continue to be allowed on Oyster Bay Channel on a case-by-case basis.
11.
IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
This project is an unfunded effort, which displaces work on other funded projects.
12.
RESEARCH SOURCES:
A. Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173-26 WAC.
B. Washington State Department of Ecology - Shorelands Division
Alice Schisel, Regional Representative (425-699-4309)
C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Permit Review and Enforcement Sections
Christina Tong
EXHIBIT I
ORDINANCE No.
AN ORDINANCE amending the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program, adopted
by Ordinance 4365, to restrict docks and piers in the channel between Oyster Bay and
Ostrich B ay.
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May
19, 1998 to consider amending regulation of docks and piers within the channel between Ostrich
and Oyster Bay as directed in Bremerton Resolution No. 2650; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission has forwarded Resolution No. 98-01
recommending that the Shoreline Master Program be amended to prohibit docks and piers in the
channel between Oyster and Ostrich Bays; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council, after taking public testimony on the
recommended changes to the Shoreline Master Program pursuant to SMP Chapter 7 G, concurs
with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to prohibit docks and piers in the channel
between Oyster and Ostrich Bays.
THE CITY OF BRENIERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
Section 1. Amendment. The Bremerton Shoreline Master Program, Table 3-1
Shoreline Use/Activity Matrix, is amended to include a footnote to the Piers and Docks
Shoreline Use/Activity for the Residential Environment Designation to read as follows as
depicted in Exhibit A:
Piers and docks are prohibited in the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster
Bay as depicted in Figure 3-5.
Section 2. Amendment. The Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Chapter 3 F is
amended to include a new subsection to read as follows as depicted in Exhibit A:
Oyster Bay Channel
Piers and docks shall be prohibited in the channel between Ostrich Bay and
Oyster Bay as depicted in Figure 3-5.
Section 3. Amendment. The Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Chapter 3 is
amended to include a new Figure as follows as depicted in Exhibit A:
Figure 3-5 Docks & Piers Prohibited (Map of Channel)
Legend: PARCELS SUBJECT TO WATER ACCESS AND MOORAGE REGULATION 10
PROHIBrrlNG DOCKS AND PIERS IN THE CHANNEL BETWEEN OSTRICH
BAY AND OYSTER BAY.
Section 4. Amendment. SIMP SHORF, I,INE USE POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS, WATER. ACCESS AND MOORAGE, REGULATIONS, 10 is amended to
read as follows, as depicted in Exhibit A:
Piers and Docks
10. Prohibited: Piers and floating docks shall be prohibited where navigation
may be impaired significantly at entrances to bays, channels, or coves.
Piers and floating docks are prohibited in the channel between Ostrich Bay
and Oyster Bay, as depicted in Figure 3-5.
Section 4.
the State Departmem of Ecology in accordance with RCW 90.58.120.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
, 1998.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
, 1998.
Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon final approval by
day of
day of
APPROVED this
DAVID D. FARR, Council President
day of ,1998
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
Departmem of Ecology Approval,
Effective Date:
SMP Am.nd Ordinance
2
EXHIBIT A
TABLE 3-1 SHORELINE USE/ACTIVITY MATRIX (Page 2 of 3)
ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION
CN RS CM ID DU DM KL K'W ~ TM
SHORELINE USE/ACTIVITY t
ROADS. RAILWAYS AND f
BRIDGES CU CU P P P P CU CU CU
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL X X X X X X X X i X
UTILITIES CU P P P P P CU CU CU
WATER ACCESS AND
MOORAGE:
- Boat Launch Ramps CU CU P P P P CU X CU
- Madne Railways CU CU CU P P P CU X CU
-Moodng Buoys P P P P NA P P NA P
- Piers & Docks CU P~ P P P P CU CU CU
- Recreational Floats CU P P P NA P CU NA P
SHORE MODIFICATION
BEACH ENHANCEMENT CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU
BREAKWATERS. JETTIES,
ROCK WEIRS, GROINS CU CU CU CU NA CU X NA X
BULKHEADS, SEAWALLS CU P P P P P CU X CU
CLEARING CU P P P P NA NA CU NA
DREDGING CU~ CU CU CU NA P . CU X CU
GRADING & DRAINAGE P P P P P NA NA CU CU
FLOOD MANAGEMENT S S S S S S S S S
LANDFILL:
- Landward of OHWM CU P P P P NA NA X NA
- Waterward of OHWM X CU3 CU3 CU3 NA CU3 CU3 X X
REVETMENTS CU P P P P P CU CU CU
P = PERMITTED · X= PROHIBITED · A=ASAPPLICABLE ' NA= NOT APPLICABLE
CUP = PERMITTED SUBJECT TO OBTAINING SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)
SMP ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS & REQUIREMENTS 3 -21
KEY REQUIREMENT
P Use/Activity is permitted in the Environment, subject to regulatory controls in appropriate Use/Activity
section.
CU Use/Activity is permitted in the Environment, subject to obtaining a Shorelines Conditional Use
Permit (CUP).
X Use/Activity is prohibited in the Environment
A As applicable.
NA Use/Activity is not applicable to the Environment
1 See Commercial Development Policies and Regulations for list of specific commemial uses permitted
(Chapter 4).
2 Permitted for "public" purposes only.
3 Permitted for water-dependent and public uses only.
4 Permitted for water-dependent and water-related uses only.
5 Permitted for water-dependent uses only.
6 Does not include residential uses in marinas.
7 See Environment-Specif~= Regulations (Chapter 3).
8 See General Requirements (Chapter 4).
_9 Piers and docks are prohibited in the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay es depicted in
FiRure 3-5.
3_3
SMP ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS & REQUIREMENTS 3- 22
Oyster Bay Channel
Piers and docks are prohibited in the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster
Bay as depicted in Figure 3-5.
Development Standards
The matdx and illustrations which follow outline Master Program development
standards for vadous Environment and Natural System designations. These figures are
intended to supplement the Use/Activity requirements in subsequent chapters.
Table 3-2 Site Development Standards
The Site Development Standards matrix (Table 3-2) summarizes development
standards for structures located within each environment designation. The
intent of these requirements is to provide limited view protection for nearby public
and pdvate areas and to help protect the shoreline environment. (See also: View
Protection requirements, Chapter 4.)
Figure 3-3 View Corridor Examples
Figure 3-3 shows a "bird's eye" view of the Figure 3-3 View Corridor requirements
as applied to lots that are 40 - 90 feet wide.
Figure 3-4 View Corridor/Height Requirements
Figure 3-4 gives a cross-section example of the Figure 3-3 View Corddor and
Height requirements as applied to lots varying from 40 to 90 feet in width. (The
maximum heights correspond with Bremerton Zoning Ordinance height limits for
structures in the SF-I, SF-2 and SF-3 zones.)
SMP ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS & REQUIREMENTS 3 - 25
FIGURE 3-5 DOCKS & PIERS PROHIBITED
OSTRICH
BAY
0 YS TER
BAY
PARCELS SUBJECT TO WATER ACCESS AND MOORAGE
REGULATION 10 PROHIBITING DOCKS AND PIERS IN THE
CHANNEL BETWEEN OSTRICH BAY AND OYSTER BAY.
SCALE: 1'= 500'
SMP ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS & REQUIREMENTS 3- 31
Pre-existing Residential Lots: For residential lots existing at the time this program is
adopted (2/2/92): No more than one (1) pdvate, noncommercial single-use dock is
permitted per platted shoreline lot or unplatted shoreline tract owned for residential or
recreational purposes.
Multifamily/Commercial Developments: Multi-family residences, hotels, motels, and
other commercial developments proposing to provide moorage facilities shall construct a
single, joint-use moorage facility: PROVIDED, that the City may authorize more than
one joint use moorage facility if a single facility would be inappropriate or undesirable
given the specific conditions of the site.
Commercial/Industrial Developments: Permits for docks or piers serving single
commercial or industrial enterprises shall not be granted unless it is determined that
adjacent commercial and/or industrial enterprises are not willing to cooperatively develop
a joint-use facility.
Maintenance: Proposals for joint-use community piers and docks shall demonstrate and
document that adequate maintenance of the structure and the associated upland area
will be provided by identified responsible parties.
Piers and Docks
10.
Prohibited: Piers and floating docks shall be prohibited where navigation may be
impaired significantly at entrances to bays, channels, or coves. Piers and docks are
prohibited in the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay, as depicted in Fi,qure 3-
5.
11.
Location: Piers and docks shall project the minimum distance necessary to service the
appurtenant vessels and shall not create a hazard to navigation.
12.
Inside Harbor Areas: When State harbor lines have been designated, piers and docks
shall be located shoreward of the outer harbor line.
13.
Outside Harbor Areas: Where State harbor lines do not apply, piers and docks shall
project the minimum distance necessary to service the appurtenant vessels and shall not
create a hazard to navigation.
14. Size:
ao
Length: Maximum length of a residential pier or dock shall be the minimum
necessary to accomplish moorage for the intendedboating uses, and shall be
only so long as to obtain a depth of five (5) feet of water as measured at Mean
Low Water (MLW) in marine shorelines or as measured at Ordinary High Water
(OHWM) in fresh water shorelines.
bo
Height: Dock shall not exceed three (3) feet in height above OHWM on the
landward side, and shall extend above the water surface no more than two (2)
feet at all other locations.
SMP SHORELINE USE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS 5 - 31
EXHIBIT II
CITY OF BREMERTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
PREPARED BY: Kay Wilson, Senior Planner
A. Applicant:
B. Application:
C. Location:
D. Attachments:
I. SUMMARY
City of Bremerton
Department of Economic and Community Development
286 Fourth Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Shoreline Master Program Amendment - To revise specific
sections of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program to prohibit
docks and piers in the channel between Ostdch and Oyster Bays.
Channel between Oyster and Ostrich Bays
A -- Planning Commission Resolution #98-01(5/27/98)
B - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (5/19/98)
C - Planning Commission Special Study Session Minutes
(5/12/98)
D -- SEPA DNS
E - SEPA Environmental Checklist
F -- Moratorium Resolution #2621 (1) and #2650 (2)
G -- Aedal Photograph of Channel
H -- Channel Dimensions/Depths
I -- Correspondence from Depar~ments/AgenciesFFribes (4)
J - Public Correspondence (2)
I1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Project Description'
Four specific amendments are proposed to prohibit docks and piers in the channel
between Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay (also referred to herein as '1he channel"):
SL98-0003 Page I of 8
CITY OF BREMERTON -*
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
· Revise Table 3-1 (SMP pp. 3-21 - 3-22): Add new footnote #"9" -
"Piers and docks are prohibited in the entrance channel to Oyster Bay as
depicted in Figure 3-5."
Revise Chapter 3, Section F. Environment-Specific Requlations (SMP pg. 3-25):
Add new section: "Oyster Bay Channel" -
"Piers and docks are prohibited in the entrance channel to Oyster Bay as
depicted in Figure 3-5."
Add new Fi.qure 3-5 (SMP pg. 3-31): Map depicting -
"Parcels subject to Resolution No. 98-01 regarding the development of docks
and piers within the channel between Ostdch Bay and Oyster Bay."
Revise "Water Access and Mooraqe / Piers and Docks", Regulation #10 (SMP pg.
5-31): Add new sentence 2 (underlined for emphasis) -
"Prohibited: Piers and floating docks shall be prohibited where navigation may
be impaired significantly at entrances to bays, channels, or coves. No piers or
floatinq docks will be permitted in the channel between Ostrich and Oyster
Bays.
The effect of these amendments will be to prohibit all docks and piers within the
channel, regardless of cost.~
B. Existing Conditions:
There currently is one pier, approximately 38 feet long, within the channel. This pier
was previously determined to be exempt from the Substantial Development Permit
requirements, because the value was less than $2,500.00. (WAC 173-14-040) There is
one other pier in the channel, which has been there for quite some time. It is not known
when this pier was installed. There are other minor projections extending waterward
from the high water mark, including rails, concrete, and vadous wood projections.
C. Project History:
Over the last few years, there have been three applications for piers/docks in the
channel between Oyster and Ostdch Bays.
Hoitz: Application was approved in March 1996 by then Director Pratt. This
decision was appealed and subsequently overturned in June 1996 by the Planning
~ Under the Shoreline Management Act, certain types of "development' are categorically excluded from
being considered "substantial developments" and therefore these activities are referred to as being
'exempt" from the substantial development permit requirements. An 'exemption" from the substantial
development provisions of the SMA means that an activity must still be carded out in compliance with
the Act and the local master program; it is exempt only from the substantial development permit review
requirements. The construction of a dock in salt waters is not considered "substantial development' if the
fair market value of the dock does not exceed $2,500, but it is still considered "development" that must
comply with the master program. Therefore, even a dock valued below $2,500 will be prohibited in the
channel if the amendment is approved. (WAC 173-27-030 (7))
SL98-0003 Page 2 of 8
CITY OF BREMERTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Eo
Fo
Commission, and in September 1996 by the City Council. The project was never
built.
Targett: Application was denied in February 1998 by then Acting Director Johnson.
This decision was appealed to the State Shorelines Headngs Board, which
remanded it back to await a headng on SEPA appeals filed. The application was
subsequently withdrawn. Therefore, pending SEPA appeals became moot, and no
headngs were scheduled.
· Reed: Application was withdrawn, and applicant was issued a full refund.
There have been a number of complaints and appeals filed on every action taken in the
channel. The reason for requesting specific changes to the Shoreline Master Program
is to eliminate any confusion regarding the development of piers and docks in the
channel.
Comprehensive Plan Map Designation (Surrounding Uplands:
· Low Density Residential (LDR): 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre
Zoning Map Designation (Surrounding Uplands):
· Single Family Residential, 1-3 DU/acre (SF-1)
· Single Family Residential, 3-8 DU/acre (SF-3)
Shoreline Master Program (SMP):
Environment Designation Map: The shoreline along the channel between Oyster
Bay and Ostrich Bay is designated: Urban Residential Environment R-2 - Ost#ch
Bay-West / Oyster Bay-West
Shoreline Use/Activity Matrix (Table 3-1):
Piers and Docks are a permitted use/activity within the Urban Residential
environment designation.
Regulations:
Piers and docks are regulated by the Water Access and Moorage section of
Chapter 5 (Pp. 5-31 - 32). Regulation #10 states:
Piers and floating docks shall be prohibited where navigation may be impaired
significantly at entrances to bays, channels, or coves."
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Review:
Two Environmental Checklists were prepared, one for the original 1997 proposal, and
one for the revised 1998 proposal:
· For 1997 Proposal - SEP97-0033 Environmental Checklist:
-Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) issued 12/11/97.
- DNS was appealed and subsequently withdrawn by one of the appellants.
· For 1998 Revised Proposal - SEP98-0019 Environmental Checklist:
- DNS issued: 5/07/98.
.7?
SL98-0003 Page 3 of 8
-- CITY OF BREMERTON -
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
- Comment pedod ended/DNS final: 5/22/98
Public Notice:
Public Notice for shoreline master program amendments must comply with
requirements of the Bremerton Municipal Code2, the Bremerton Shoreline Master
Program3, and the Washington State Administrative Code.4
· Determination of Completeness issued: N/A
· Notice of 9/16/97 Planning Commission Public Meeting published: 9/05/97
Notice of Application published: 11/05/97
· Comment Period ended: 11/14/97
· Notice of 10/21/97 Planning Commission Public Headng published: 10/11/97
· Notice of 12/23/97 City Council Public Headng published: 12/17/97 & 12/24/97
· Notice of 5/12/98 Planning Commission Study Session published: 5/02/98
· Notice of 5/19/98 Planning Commission Public Hearing published: 5/09198
· Notice of 8/12/98 City Council Public Headng published: 7/30/98; mailed: 7/28/98
Comments Received:
The proposal was circulated to agencies with jurisdiction for review. The following
comments were received (See Attachment "1" for complete letters):
Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
(06/18/1998): The proposed amendment to prohibit piers and docks in the entrance
channel to Oyster Bay does not appear to be inconsistent with your adopted
comprehensive land use plan. It also does not appear inconsistent with the goals
and requirements of the Growth Management Act. Therefore, we have no concerns
with the proposed amendment.
Suquamish Tdbe (06/29/1998): The channel between Ostrich and Oyster Bays is
within the usual and accustomed fishing area of the Suquamish Tdbe. The Tdbe
concurs with prohibiting docks and piers in this channel. Structures extending into
the channel would significantly restrict access to treaty-reserved resources in
Oyster Bay as well as adversely impact aquatic resources in shallow water habitats.
Washington Department of Ecoloqy (07/16/1998): I've reviewed the proposed
amendment to the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program and believe it
appropriately accommodates the intended prohibition. However, for the sake of
consistency, you might consi~ler changing the new sentence on page 3-6 to read as
follows: "Piers and docks are prohibited in the channel between Ostrich and Oyster
Bays as depicted in Figure 3-5". This would be more consistent with the language
used in Regulation 10 on page 5-31. You might also add "as depicted in Figure 3-5"
to the end of Regulation 10.
BMC 21.02.895 Notice & BMC 21.04 Shoreline Development.
SMP Chapter 7, Section C.3. Public Notice, page 7-5.
WAC 173-2%110 Notice Required.
SL98-0003 Page 4 of 8
CITY OF BREMERTON -
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
II1. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
An amendment of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program must comply with requirements of
the State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program, and
the Bremerton Municipal Code.
Shoreline Management Act (SMA):
The SMA requirements for amending shoreline master programs are included in WAC
173-26, Part II. Shoreline master Program Approval/Amendment- Draft Review:
WAC 173-26-100 Local process for approving/amending shoreline master
programs. Prior to submittal of a master program to the Department of Ecology (DOE),
local government must solicit public and agency comment during the drafting of the
proposal. The degree of public and agency involvement should be gauged according to
the level of complexity, anticipated controversy, and range of issues covered in the draft
proposal.
Findinq: Complies. Before the proposal was developed, the Planning Commission
held a fact-finding public meeting in September 1997 to solicit comments on the issues
before developing the proposed amendment. Notices were sent to lists of interested
persons and agencies developed dudng eadier controversies over docks and piers in
the channel.
Early and continuous consultation with DOE is encouraged during the drafting of new or
amended master programs.
Findinq: Complies. City staff consulted periodically with DOE on how to procede and
what options should be considered. DOE responded by providing background matedal
for consideration.
For local governments planning under chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act),
local citizen involvement strategies should be implemented that insure early and
continuous public participation consistent with WAC 365-195-600.
Findin,q: Complies. A citizen involvement strategy was designed that included the
summer 1997 Planning Commission fact-finding meeting and Planning Commission
and City Council public hearings to comply with the intent of the GMA.
At a minimum, local government shall:
1. Conduct at least one public hearing to consider the draft proposal.
Findinq: Complies. One Planning Commission and one City Council public
headng were conducted in late 1997. After some procedural errors were
discovered with the 1997 process, the proposal was again scheduled for public
headng before the Planning Commission in May 1998, and the City Council in
August 1998.
SL98-0003 Page 5 of 8
CITY OF BREMERTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Publish notice of the hearing in one or more newspapers of general circulation in
the area in which the hearing is to be held. The notice shall include: (a) Reference
to the authority(s) under which the action(s) is proposed; (b) A statement or
summary of the proposed changes to the master program; (c) The date, time, and
location of the hearing, and the manner in which interested persons may present
their views; and (d) Reference to the availability of the draft proposal for public
inspection at the local government office or upon request.
Finding: Complies. A Notice of Public Headng was published prior to each of
the four public hearings on the proposal. The notice for the final City Council
public headng contained all information required by this WAC.
Consult with and solicit the comments of any persons, groups, federal, state,
regional, or local agency, and tribes, having interests or responsibilities relating
to the subject shorelines or any special expertise with respect to any
environmental impact. The consultation process should include adjacent local
governments with jurisdiction over common shorelines of the state.
Finding: Complies. Meeting notices and notices of public headng were sent
to a large "persons of interest" mailing list which included agencies with
jurisdiction and the Suquamish Tdbe. No adjacent local government has
common jurisdiction over the channel.
Where amendments are proposed to a county or regional master program which
has been adopted by cities or towns, the county shall coordinate with those
jurisdictions and verify concurrence with or denial of the proposal.
Finding: Not applicable to cities.
Solicit comments on the draft proposal from the department prior to local
approval. For local governments planning under the Growth Management Act
(GMA), the local government shall notify both the department (DOE) and the
department of community, trade, and economic development (CTED) of its intent
to adopt shoreline policies or regulations, at least sixty days prior to final local
approval, pursuant to RCW 36.70A. 106.
Finding: Complies. City staff consulted periodically with the Department of
Ecology dudng the development of the proposal. Three copies of the proposal
were sent to the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development
(CTED) more than 60 days pdor to final approval. CTED forwarded one copy to
the Department of Ecology shortly thereafter.$ Per GMA rules, copies were sent
to: Department of Natural Resources (DNR); and Puget Sound Water Quality
Action Team (PSWQA). Copies were also offered to the following state
departments, who chose not to review them: Health (DOH); Fish and Wildlife
(DFW); Social and Health Services (SHS); Transportation (WSDO'I'); and
Superintendent of Public InstrUction (OSPI).
5 Under RCW 36.70A.106, the 60-day review requirement applies only to the Department of
Community, Trade, and Economic Development, but not to the Department of Ecology or any other
agency. There is no authority in the Shoreline Management Act to impose a 60-day notice provision pdor
to adoption or amendment of a' shoreline master program.
SL98-0003
Page 6 of 8
- CITY OF: BREMERTON -
DEPARTMENT OF: ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6. Comply with chapter 43.21C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Finding: Complies. Environmental Checklist # SEP98-0019was reviewed,
and a DNS issued May 7, 1998. The comment pedod ended and the DNS
became final on 5/22/98.
7. Approve the proposal.
Findinq: Will comply upon approval of an adopting ordinance by the City
Council.
Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP):
The requirements for amending the SMP are listed in SMP Chapter 7, Section G.
Updating Shoreline Master Program (Pp. 7-11 - 7-12). The SMP may be amended using
the following process:
The Planning Commission shall make recommendation to the City Council after
holding at least one (1) public hearing on the proposed amendment(s).
Findin.q: Complies. The Planning Commission held public headngs on the
proposal in September 1997 and May 1998. They forwarded their
recommendation to the City Council in Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-
01 (05/12/98).
The City Council shall take action on the proposed amendment(s) after holding at
least one (1) public hearing.
Finding: Complies. The City Council held a public headng in December 1997,
and is scheduled to take action on the proposed amendments after holding a
second public headng on August 12, 1998.
Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC):
The Bremerton Municipal Code contains certain requirements for amending the
Shoreline Master Program (BMC 21.02):
Development Regulation Amendment I Criteria for Approval (OMC 21.02.925):
The City Council may approve an amendment if the following questions can be
answered "YES":
1, Is the proposed change consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan?
Finding: YES. Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Environmental Management
Element Section 2 "Critical lands and Shorelines" contains goals and policies
which are to be considered in revisions to the Shoreline Master Program.
Relevant policies include:
· F-5. Restrict or prohibit development that would interfere with the shoreline
ecology or irretrievably damage shoreline resources.
SL98-0003 Page 7 of 8
CITY OF BREMERTON -
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
· F-6. Use the policies contained in the City's Shorefine master Program to
protect Shorelines of Statewide Significance.
In addition, all goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program are now
considered an element of the Comprehensive Plan under amendments to the
Growth Management Act. (RCW36. 70A.480)
Will the proposed change be consistent with all other provisions of the affected
code and avoid conflicts with other codes?
Findinq: YES. The proposal cladfies existing Water Access and Moorage
Regulation 12 as it applies to the channel.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The proposed shoreline master program amendment complies with the requirements of
the State Shoreline Management Act, the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program, the
Bremerton Municipal Code and the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed amendment is necessary to cladfy Shoreline Master Program
requirements regarding piers and docks in the channel between Oyster and Ostdch
Bays.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Ordinance No. ~ (attached to
Agenda Bill), approving the amendments as recommended by the Planning
Commission with one change:
Revise the wording to be internally consistent as recommended by the
Department of Ecology.
Filename: SMP Amendments Piers & Docks
SL98-0003 Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION # 98-ol
A Planning Commission RESOLUTION amending certain sections of the
Shoreline Management Progam, specific to the development of piers and
docks within the channel between Oyster and Ostrich Bay'.
WHEREAS, the City. of Bremerton has previously passed a Moratorium and an ex-tension
of that moratorium: and,
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has reviewed language in the Shoreline Master
Progam and found a need to clarify language pertaining to this particular area:
and.
WHEREAS, the Bremenon Plamfing Conmfissio~k as directed, conducted a public
meeting on May 19, 1998, during which it received oral and written comments
pertaining to the areas subject to the moratorium; and,
WHEREAS, carefi.d and deliberate consideration of all presented and available
information relating to the moratorium issues of (1) navigational hazards, (2)
Aesthetic Impacts, and (3) Environmental and Public Trust issues, has led to the
conclusion that, these changes are just and necessary; and,
WHEREAS, the unique topogaphic and sin=m.dar nature of the waterfront environment
witkin the Oyster / Ostrich Bay Channel would benefit from these amendments.
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BREMERTON CITY
PL,ANN h~G COM311SSION:
Section 1. That Table 3-1, page 3-2 and 3-3 of the Shoreline Master Pro,am
(SM:P), under the RS column, be corrected and amended w/th footnote 9 reading "piers
and docks are prohibited in the entrance channel to Oyster Bay as depicted in Figure 3-5."
Section 2. That a clarififing statement be added to item #10 under piers and
docks, "No piers or floating docks will be permitted in the channel between Oyster and
Ostrich Bays". Page 5-31
Section 3.
this resolution.
Bill Robinson, Chairman
Addition of Table 3-5 designating the affected parcels subject to
etary
TABLE 3-1 SHORELINE USE/ACTIVITY MATRIX (Page 2 of 3)
ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION
CN RS CM ID DU DM KL KW TB
SHORELINE USE/ACTIVITY
ROADS, RAILWAYS AND
BRIDGES CU CU P P P P CU CU CU
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL X X X X X X X X X
UTILITIES CU P P P P P CU CU CU
WATER ACCESS AND
MOORAGE:
- Boat Launch Ramps CU CU P P P P CU X CU
- Marine Railways CU CU CU P P P CU X CU
- Mooring Buoys P P P P NA P P NA P
- Piers & Docks CU pA P P P P CU CU CU
- Recreational Floats CU P P P NA P CU NA P
SHORE MODIFICATION
BEACH ENHANCEMENT CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU
BREAKWATERS, JE'I-I'IES,
ROCK WEIRS, GROINS CU CU CU CU NA CU X NA X
BULKHEADS, SEAWALLS CU P P P P P CU X CU
CLEARING CU P P P P NA NA CU NA
DREDGING CU2 CU CU CU NA P CU X CU
GRADING & DRAINAGE P P P P P NA NA CU CU
FLOOD MANAGEMENT S S S S S S S S S
LANDFILL:
- Landward of OHWM CU P P P P NA NA X NA
- Waterward of OHWM X CU3 CU3 CU'~ NA CU~ CU~ X X
REVETMENTS CU P P P P P CU CU CU
P = PERMITTED · X= PROHIBITED · A=AS APPLICABLE · NA= NOT APPLICABLE
CUP = PERMITTED SUBJECT TO OBTAINING SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)
SMP ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS & REQUIREMENTS 3 - 2
Pre-existing Residential Lots: For residential lots existing at the time this
program is adopted (2/2/92): No more than one (1) pdvate, noncommercial
single-use dock is permitted per platted shoreline lot or unplatted shoreline tract
owned for residential or recreational purposes.
Multifamily/Commercial Developments: Multi-family residences, hotels, motels,
and other commercial developments proposing to provide moorage facilities
shall construct a single, joint-use moorage facility: PROVIDED, that the City
may authorize more than one joint use moorage facility if a single facility would
be inappropriate or undesirable given the specific conditions of the site.
Commercial/Industrial Developments: Permits for docks or piers serving single
commercial or industrial enterprises shall not be granted unless it is determined
that adjacent commercial and/or industrial enterprises are not willing to
cooperatively develop a joint-use facility.
Maintenance: Proposals for joint-use community piers and docks shall
demonstrate and document that adequate maintenance of the structure and
the associated upland area will be provided by identified responsible parties.
Piers and Docks
10.
Prohibited: Piers and floating docks shall be prohibited where navigation may
be impaired significantly at entrances to bays, channels, or coves. No piers or
floatinq docks will be permitted in the channel between Ostdch and Oyster
11.
12.
13.
14.
Bays.
Location: Piers and docks shall project the minimum distance necessary to
service the appurtenant vessels and shall not create a hazard to navigation.
Inside Harbor Areas: When State harbor lines have been designated, piers and
docks shall be located shoreward of the outer harbor line.
Outside Harbor Areas: Where State harbor lines do not apply, piers and docks
shall project the minimum distance necessary to service the appurtenant
vessels and shall not create a hazard to navigation.
Size:
ao
Length: Maximum length of a residential pier or dock shall be the
minimum necessary to accomplish moorage for the intended boating
uses, and shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of five (5) feet of
water as measured at Mean Low Water (MLVV) in madne shorelines or
as measured at Ordinary High Water (OHWM) in fresh water shorelines.
Height: Dock shall not exceed three (3) feet in height above OHWM on
the landward side, and shall extend above the water surface no more
than two (2) feet at all other locations.
SMP SHORELINE USE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS 5- 31
TABLE 3-1 SHORELINE USE/ACTIVITY MATRIX (Page 3 of 3)
KEY i REQUIREMENT
P Use/Activity is permitted in the Environment, subject to regulatory controls in appropriate
Use/Activity section.
CU Use./Activff7 is permitted in the Environment, subject to obtaining a Shorelines Conditional
Use Permit (CUP).
X Use/Activity is prohibited in the Environment.
A As applicable,
NA Use/Activity is not applicable to the Environment.
1 See Commercial Development Policies and Regulations for list of specific commercial uses
permitted (Chapter 4).
2 Permitted for "public" purposes only.
3 Permitted for water-dependent and public uses only.
4 Permitted for water-dependent and water-related uses only.
5 Permitted for water-dependent uses only.
6 Does not include residential uses in madnas.
7 See Environment-Specific Regulations (Chapter 3).
8 See General Requirements (Chapter 4).
_9 Piers and docks are prohibited in the entrance channel to Oyster Bay as depicted in Fiqure 3-5.
SMP ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS & REQUIREMENTS
3-3
F. ENVIRONMENT-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS
Oyster Bay Channel
Piers and docks are prohibited in the entrance channel to
Ovster Bay as
depicted in Fiqure 3-5.
Development Standards
The matdx and illustrations which follow outline Master Program development
standards for vadous Environment and Natural System designations. These figures
are intended to supplement the Use/Activity requirements in subsequent chapters.
Table 3-2 Site Development Standards
The Site Development Standards matrix (Table 3-2) summarizes development
standards for structures located within each environment designation. The
intent of these requirements is to provide limited view protection for nearby
public and pdvate areas and to help protect the shoreline environment. (See
also: View Protection requirements, Chapter 4.)
Figure 3-3 View Corridor Examples
Figure 3-3 shows a "bird's eye" view of the Figure 3-3 View Corridor requirements as
applied to lots that are 40 - 90 feet wide.
Figure 3-4 View Corridor/Height Requirements
Figure 3-4 gives a cross-section example of the Figure 3-3 View Corridor and
Height requirements as applied to lots varying from 40 to 90 feet in width. (The
maximum heights correspond with Bremerton Zoning Ordinance height limits for
structures in the SF-1, SF-2 and SF-3 zones.)
SMP ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS & REQUIREMENTS 3- 6
ATTACHMENT B
"_~'rnft .~ [inutex tot, t ~crm,at
Planning Commission ~lee.ting
May 19, 1998
/. ('all to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robinson at 6:00
/L Roll Call
Those present were Chairman Robinson, Commissioners Adams, Stone, Dingfield,
Boyd and Wolfe. A. I1 were present and quorum certified.
III. Approval of the Agenda
Motion was made by Commissioner Stone to approve the agenda as presented.
Seconded by Commissioner Din~eld. Question called: Adams, yes; Stone, yes;
Dingfield, yes; Boyd, yes; Wolfe, yes; Robinson, yes. Agenda approved.
Public Hearing
Proposed changes to the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) to prohibit docks and piers in
the Oyster Bay Channel.
Staff Report was given by Ms. Judy Johnson, Acting Director of Community
Development. This proposal is to change language in the Shoreline Master Plan to
prohibit piers and docks in the Oyster Bay/Ostrich Bay channel. A brief history was given
regarding the moratorium (#2620) which was enacted last .-Xugqast to prohibit piers and
docks in the oyster bay channel. Staff processed a SEPA checklist and the city council
acted on the proposal to change the SNIP before the SEPA comment period was over.
Hence, in February, staffrepealed the ordinance changing the SNIP to prohibit piers and
docks. Staff is now undertaking the process to change the SNiP for the second time.
A couple of overhead pictures were shown, outlining the te~ changes in the Shoreline
Master Plan and the parcels which would be affected by this change.
Interpretation regarding what the entrance to the channel was discussed, and the figure
depicting the parcels affected was presented to clarif, j which areas would be affected and
would fall under the prohibition of piers and docks. There has been several discussions
regarding the verbiage of what constitutes a hazard to navigation. Several phone calls to
various departments had been made, with no clear definition ora hazard to navigation. It
is staffs opinion that building docks and piers in the channel would pose a hazard to
navigation, due to the cumulative affect that could occur. Additional information has been
Planning Commission .[[eeting, .Way 19, 1998 Page l o fl ]
51
received recently (Exhibit 1: Memo from Suquamish), (Exhibit
14/olfe from l-{elen ~[iller), ?Exhibit 3: Memo to the Plamting Cornmissio~ers frorn
Miller; and has been entered into the record. Sra.t-t'is not changing the environmenta/
designation. The changes are only the text changes for clarification purposes in the
Shoreline Master Ptan.
Commissioner Wolfe wanted dar/fication as to the f~.ct that there is no clear rule ,,*hat a
hazard to navigation is, and that staffhas made the interpretation that docks and piers
would cause a hazard to navigation.
>Is. Johnson indicated that hazards can be a number ot'thinus.
hazard.
It' it is a hazard it is a
Commissioner Wolfe wanted to know if any person contacted from the Coast Guard,
.Army Corps of Engineers has suggested that piers and docks could be a hazard ro
navigation?
Ms. Johnson indicated yes. They have indicated that it could be a hazard, but if there
aren't any boats in the water it may not be a hazard.
Commissioner Dingfield wanted to know if Fire Chief Duke still felt that piers and
docks were hazards.
Ms. Johnson indicated yes.
Commissioner Wolfe commented on the Suquamish Tribe letter which referenced that
salmonoids and other species would be impacted. He ,,,,'anted to know if this was just an
opinion of the tribe or if there was scientific evidence which supported this position.
Ms. Johnson indicated that there was additional in.formation available which indicated
that there could be damage to salmonoids and other species from D.O.E., and that
information would be available.
Commissioner Wolfe wanted to reiterate that there was additional scientific information
available which justifies what the Suquamish Tribe is saying regarding the adverse impact
to salmonoids.
Ms. Johnson indicated that not comparing it to the Suquamish Tribe, there is information
available which indicates an adverse impact to surface smelt and other marine organisms in
the environment.
Public Comments For Approval of the Changes Proposed to the Shoreline Master Plan
Planning Commission .[[eeting, ,L/ay 19. 1998 Page 2 oJ'l I
Mr. Field Ryan, 2727 Marine Drive. Commented on that there is a hazard to navigation
for people walking on the beach, kavakers, and boat sr~eed. The atheistics should be
considered also, something docks and piers would impair.
Suzanne Holland read a prepared statement, regarding the history of the dock and r~ier
issue, and the uniqueness of the channel due to its narrow travei way. The no wake buo,,'s
suggested by some is not a viable alternative, and corfimefited on public fights ,,'erstls
private fights to develop proper~y. Property ,,'flues and visual impacts were touched on.
Gert Perrett passed out photos to the commissioners to ctearlv show the cumulative
effect of'silting which would be accelerated due to construction of piers and docks in the
channel. (The photos were returned upon conclusion of the public hearing)
(See Exhibit 4)
Skip Duke, resident of Rocky Point. Commented he is a frequent user of the channel.
which he feels is unique. He is concerned Mth the precedent which will be set if docks
and piers are allowed. If docks and piers are allowed, conceivably each property owner
could build a dock or pier. He is concerned with the aesthetic impacts, saI~ety concerns.
and environmental impacts.
Paul Scheyer, 2111 Madrona Pt. Drive is in favor of the prohibition. He commented on
the Chetan Case, and that recreational navigation should be defined. He touched on the
exemption that Mr. Reed had from the Substantial Development Perm/t, but he is not
exempt from the federal rules. It needs to be clarified that these types of permi'rs are still
required, and he needed a building permit. He commented that Gig Harbor would be a
good example of a cumulative effect that could happen to the channel should docks be
allowed (i.e.: marina affect).
Mrs. Helen Miller submitted a letter into the record (F_,xhibit .5) and hopes that the
commission hasn't changed it's mind regarding the ban on piers and docks.
Judy Duke wanted to present a letter into the record. (Exhibit 6).
Public Comments Against the Changes Proposed to the Shoreline Master Plan
Eric Samble, 2003 Madrona Pt. Dr, is concerned that by restricting in the channel and not
allowing those property owners to build, who is to say that it will end there? Will the ban
extend to other property? It ,,vas commented that docks are expensive and in reality most
people will not be able to afford to construct one. He noted that Coast Guard regulations
regulate the speed in that channel, and that docks will not go out any further than the
floats. And commented that the channel was not as narrow' as it is being represented.
Connie Tweedy, 1900 Madrona Pt Drive. Wanted to note that there are approximately
40 homeowners along the channel and it isn't any more unique than any other channel in
the area. Studies should be done. There is a problem with speed in the channel, and
Planning Commixxion .[.(¢eting. ,!,,ra.v 19. 1998 Page 3 oJ'l l
perhaps docks and piers would reduce the speed of boats in the channei. She also noted
that not everyone can afford to build a dock, perhaps oniv 1 out of every 4 homes would
have a dock. Perhaps limiting prohibiting docks in the narrowest portions at'.'.he channe!
and allowing them in the wider parts would be a better altemati,,'e.
Public Testimony Closed.
Judy Johnson spoke in regards to Connie Tweedy's recommendation for a compromise
but stated that it was staffs opinion that the SM_P needed to be amended to prohibit docks
and piers. She noted that overheads depicting the width of the channel at high and low
tides were available for viewing, shouid the commissioners deem them necessa~'
information for deliberation. She informed the commissioners that a draft: ordinance has
been drawn up for their consideration.
Commissioner Dingfield questioned if Doug Fortner, Assistant City. Attorney had any
knowledge of the Chelan case that Mr. Paul Scheyer spoke to during the public
testimony section of the meeting. He responded by indicating he had a broad knowledge
of the case, but would need to review it before responding to any questions.
Commissioner Wolfe indicated that he had done some research into the 1969 Chelan
Case which states that certain activities along shorelines were contras, to the public
interest and thusly comprehensive plans were developed. Is this issue contrary, to public
interest?
Commissioner Adams wanted to know if the Oyster Bay Channel was the narrow'est
channel in Washin~on?
Judy Johnson indicated that we believe it is one of the narrowest, but we don't have
exact documentation to prove that is was the narrowest.
Commissioner Wolfe wanted to rectarify that other agencies have given documentation
indicating that there could be a negative adverse impact to wildlife and marine life.
Judy Johnson indicated that DOE agents have indicated that conversations concerning
like situations have been discussed, with professional opinions given, but a study to the
channel in particular has not been conducted. And, in their professional opinion docks
and piers would cause problems.
Chairman Robinson wanted to state for the record that aiker deliberations, the commission
will be making a defini'tive recommendation for city council action. The city council will
be the final decision maker on this issue.
Judy Johnson wanted to clarify that the city council's decision does not become final until
the Department of Ecology accepts their decision..
Planning Commisxion ~1 leering, ~\4a.v 19, 1998 Page 4 of I 1 5~-
Chairman Robinson asked Doug Fortner if the commission had indeed followed all
applicabte procedures correctly regarding the meeting.
3Ir. Fortner did not find any ,Aotations. but asked that all documents which were in the
planning commission packets and those which '.,,'ere distributed at the meeting, be iisred
into the record.
Commissioner Wolfe inquired as if there was an.~hing else to do to make sure that all
legal procedures were followed.
Mr. Fortner reiterated that he did not find any violations, but wanted all documents listed
into the record, which were received at the meeting.
Judy Johnson read into the record the documents presented to the Planning Commission:
l. Letter from George Miller dated May 19th, 2 pages (Exhibit 5)
2. Letter from Skip and Judy Duke, (Exhibit 6)
3. Color Photos (returned to Geri Perrett), (Exhibit 4)
4. Letter from Nh-. & Mrs. Miller, May 15th, (E:chibit 3)
5. Letter from M,r. & Nh-s Miller, May 14th, (Exhibit 2)
6. Letter from Suquamish Tribe, May 18th, (Exh/bit I)
Attachments to staff report:
A. Map of affected area
B. Copies of moratorium 2621 & 2650
C. Planning Commission resolution from October, t997
D. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting, Ocr. 1997.
E. SEPA Checklist (SEP98-0019)
F. DNS for SEP98-0019
G. Minutes from City Council Meeting
H. Historical Data
I. Letter from Fire Chief Duke
J. Aerial Photos
K. Proposed Changes to SM2P
L. Timeline for Process
Closed Deliberations
Commissioner Wolfe commented that he was disappointed about the amount of time
which has been consumed by this process. Was disappointed about the fact there was no
clear answer about a navigational hazard. Commissioner Wolfe stated that he prefers to
err on the side of public safety and protection.
Commissioner Stone stated that he felt the clarification was necessary, and the root of
the problems lies in the unique nature of the channel itself and the channel should remain
undisturbed.
Planning Commisxion .¥[eeting, ,~/av 19. 1998 Page 5 of l I
,55
Commissioner Boyd wanted to comment on the doctrine of public trust, the doctrine
which allows the free use of all navigational waters to the public. Neighbors must be flee
to walk the beach and children must be free to piny there. Speeding boaters in the channei
were mentioned as well.
Commissioner Dingfieid commented that the unique-ness' of the channel should be~
consideration and was particularly' interested in the navigational hazard discussion. I: has
been frustrating for all involved to go through these hoops but this is a matter of
sigTfificance to all to look at the public interest, and it is good to have had the amount o£
discussion we have had on this matter.
Commissioner Adams noted that she will be voting to amend the SMP to eliminate piers
and docks in the future. Safety is a real issue and environmental impacts should be
pointed out. Navigation in the dark is a concern, these docks aren't illuminated.
Chairman Robinson wanted to thank the people who at-tended and commented on :his
issue.
A motion was made by Commissioner Stone to approve the Shoreline blaster Plan
amendments as outlined on page 4 of the staff report. Seconded by Commissioner
Dingfield.
The motion was further clarified by Commissioner Stone that the recommendation v,,'as
to modify table 3-1 to add footnote 9 to the RS column of the environmental desig.nation
to add the wording, "No piers or floating docks will be permitted in the channel between
Oyster and Ostrich Bay" to item 10 on page 531 of the SNIP of the City of Bremerton.
And to add footnote 9 to table 3-1 on page 3-1 of the SMP and to add figure 3-5 which is
a map of the affected properties in the channel.
Question Called: Adams, yes; Stone, yes; Dingfield, yes; Boyd, yes;; Wolfe, yes;
Robinson, yes. Motion passes.
The resolution regarding the amendment to the Shoreline Master Plan was passed out to
the commissioners for their review.
It was commented by Assistant City Attorney, Doug Fortner, that a motion should be
made to approve the resolution and any changes that needed to be made should be done.
Commissioner Dingfield expressed concern about the fact that the public had lePt.
Mr. Fortner indicated that there shouldn't be a problem. But, that this resolution should
be approved, which is the paper body of the motion which was just unanimously passed.
Planning Commission ;~Ieeting, :Wa.v 19. 1998 Page 6 of l l
Commissioner Boyd had a question regarding section 2 of the resolution. She would like
a clariS'lng statement added because the sentence was confusion.
*Is. Johnson indicated that she would clarify the sentence to add quotation marks around
"piers and docks".
Commissioner Dingfield wanted to note that under skcti6n I of the resolution, it isn't
exactly what was said. She wanted to know if we should c!ari~' specifically the RS
column.
Ms..Johnson indicated that she would add RS to the language to ctari~' specifically the
residential column.
Commissioner Dingfield expressed concern about making all these modifications to the
resolution, and felt more corntbrtable dispensing with the idea of passing a motion to
approve a resolution.
bls. Johnson pointed out Exhibit C of the staff report, the resolution which was
forwarded to the city council previously on this matter, which the Planning Commission
passed on October 21, 1998.
A motion was made by Commissioner Din~eld to modify the proposed resolution to
accurately reflect the changes to the Shoreline Master Plan as reflected on page 4 of
the staff report. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfe. Question called: Adams, yes;
Stone, yes; Dingfield, yes; Body, yes; Wolfe, yes; Robinson, yes. Motion passes.
A motion was made by Commissioner Din~eld to authorize Chairman Robinson to
sign the modified resolution. Seconded by Commissioner Stone. Question called:
Adams, yes; Stone, yes; Dingfield, yes; Boyd, yes; Wolfe, yes; Robinson, yes.
Approval of the 3dinutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Stone to approve the minutes as presented.
Seconded by Commissioner Dingfield. Question called: Adams, yes; Stone, yes;
Dingfield, yes; Boyd, yes; Wolfe, yes; Robinson, yes. Motion passes.
~'7. Pubfic Comment
None given.
1,7I. Director's Report
bis. Judy Johnson reported that Philip Berry was appointed the new director of
Community Development and will be starting June lst., 1998. Ron Hough will be leaving
the department, and will be missed.a lot, having contributed 11 years to the city. DUe to
Planning Commission .~ Jceting, .[ fav 19. 1998 Page 7 of l I 57
The minutes r'rom r. he Ploa~nin~ Commission .\lee~nnS o~-.~[~v ~9. 1998 were ~pproved ~s
presented ar thc June ~'~
_o . 1998 meenn~.
Rcs?cctfuil!' .<ubm~rtcd:
Tnsh Du?~mr. Recording .<ccrcr.~r~,·
ATTACHMENT C
Minutes from Planning Commission Special Study Session
May 12, 1998
Subject: Docks and Piers on the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay
Judy Johnson spoke regarding the pier and dock issue which has been going on for a
number of years. The current issue is to amend the Shoreline Master Plan and to re
institute the resolution and ordinance which was passed bv the Planning Commission and
City Council.
It is a revisit ora process which is being redone due to procedural errors. A new SEPA
and DNS has been applied for and issued. (SEP98-0019)
The May 19th meeting is for new and more public input and response.
Commissioner Stone inquired as to the information presented to the council, new or
historical data?
Judy Johnson responded that the information was an accumulation of prior documents
with a few new things. The packets are for the May 19th meeting, and the information
will be gone through then.
There are no new applications for piers and docks in the channel as of today. The last
application has been withdrawn, so there aren't any active permits either.
Commissioner Wolfe wanted to clarify,: there was a ban on docks and it was rescinded.
Then there was a moratorium and a proposed ban. And now we are back to amending the
shoreline master plan?
Ms. Johnson responded no, there was an action in the past. Then there were a number of
tkings which happened between a number of persons in the channel. The Planning
Commission gave a recommendation to the City Council that proposed a moratorium for
construction so that we could study the issue. That led to the moratorium that happened
in Aug. 1997 until May 6th, 1998. Last month, there was a 6 month extension granted.
After the moratorium we rushed through the changes to the SIMP banning piers and docks.
This process was done too quickly and a number of issues weren't completed. The
ordinance was repealed on February 1 l th, 1998 and the process is being undertaken again.
Commissioner Wolfe wanted clarification that there were outstanding SEPA issues and
that is why we are going through this process again?
Judy Johnson clarified that there were outstanding SEPA issues on the original piers and
docks ban, and there was an appeal to the moratorium that was never heard before the last
action was taken. The city had taken action, and the SEPA was not completed.
Page 1 of 4 5~
Judy Johnson wanted to clarify that we are going througAa this exercise to ensure that
every step is covered so that when we pass on the recommendation for changes to the
DOE and other state agencies, every step has been followed.
Commissioner Din~eld wanted to note that the Planning Commission was unanimous
its recommendation to prohibit piers and docks.
Commissioner Stone noted that the ordinance was pushed through at a time when both
the legal department and the department of community development were in a state of
turmoil. Thusly, things were done hastily and without a great deal of thought.
Ms. Johnson did agree that things were proceeded with too quickly. As far as piers and
docks, and who said what when. Questions regarding the issue were solicited from the
Planning Commissioners.
Chairman Robinson questioned if Victor Targert had withdrawn his application for a
dock.
Ms. Johnson indicated that Victor Targert had withdrawn his application.
Chairman Robinson commented that if this process goes according to correct
procedures and policies, when will we see the final resolution to this issue?
Ms. Johnson indicated around September of this year (1998), (if all goes well). But, to
announce any time is inaccurate because of unanticipated appeals which need to be
scheduled before any action is taken. September if no appeals are filed, otherwise it will
go through when all processes have been completed.
Chairman Robinson commented that it was because of the appeals that this issue has
been taking so long, and questioned whether the appeal period was 30 or 60 days.
Ms. Johnson responded that the appeal must be heard within 60 days.
Commissioner Stone inquired that assuming the commission is still unanimous or under
the same thinking, cannot see a large number of appeals being filed. Aren't the number of
appeals limited under 1724? And wanted to know if they could appeal the environmental
impact of preserving it as it is?
Ms. Johnson indicated yes. And as far as the appeals, it is not known which issues will be
appealed. The appeal process is open for anyone to appeal any issue, pro or con.
Exhibit K,in the Planning Commissions Packets, outlining the changes to the SNIP was
briefly looked at. Table 3-1 was changed adding footnote #9, which prohibits piers and
docks in the Oyster/Ostrich Bay channel. The text changes to the SM? page 5-31 was
Page 2 of 4
briefly looked at, regarding the specifics of the ban of piers and docks. It was noted that
these modifications to the SMP aren't changes but a clarification to the e.,dsting plan.
Chairman Robinson noted that piers and docks have always been prohibited at entrances
to channels.
Ms. Johnson indicated that the reason that it wasn't seen as an entrance in the middle of
the channel may have been because of the narrow focus of just the mouth at the very end
of the channel. The entire area (as outlined on the map in Exhibit K) is seen as an
entrance.
Commissioner Stone indicated that the nautical definition of a channel is a navigable
passage to two bodies of water and where the entrance stops, does the coast guard have a
definition of an entrance in lateral feet?
Ms. Johnson indicated no, but it also isn't "to" a channel. The preposition isn't there in
the SNIP it is just entrances to bays, channels. It has always been believed that it has
always prohibited piers and docks in this particular channel.
Commissioner Wolfe inouired if the exercise next week is a clarification exercise not an
amendment exercise?
Ms. Johnson indicated yes.
Commissioner Dingfield indicated that an amendment must happen.
Mr. Ron Hough spoke regarding item #10 under piers and docks in the SNIP which
states that piers and docks are prohibited where navigation may be impaired significantly
at entrances to bays, channels, or coves. Impaired significantly is an important issue here.
Will the dock impair navigation? To add the phrase no piers or docks will be allowed in
this area would be a change not just a clarification.
Commissioner Stone indicated that there was a great deal of discussion regarding what
constitutes a navigational hazard. And it is an area of vast differences of opinion.
Mr. Hough indicated that it is a matter of opinion as to what constitutes a navigational
hazard.
Chairman Robinson indicated that matter was discussed and it was unanimously agreed
that there were navigational problems in the channel.
Ms. Johnson indicated that piers and docks are allowed elsewhere, and that it was
perceived that this was just a clarification to the Oyster Bay/Ostrich Bay channel.
Page 3 of 4 &/
Commissioner Stone asked of the Assistant City Attorney, Doug Fortner, if the changes
to the SMP affected any grandfathered docks and piers?
Mr. Fortner did not view these changes as requiring anyone who had a dock to take it
out, it would just be a ban on new docks. This would not be a retroactive action.
Commissioner Stone inquired as to the property right issue. Have any of the property
fights of an owner been established in a order of priority, as to which has a greater value
than another?
Mr. Fortner indicated no. There isn't a hierarchy of which rights are more important than
others. This regulation does not regulate development of property. Use of the beach is
still available.
The balance of aesthetic rights vs. properly rights were discussed briefly.
Commissioner Wolfe wanted'to know for clarification ifKitsap County had indeed
passed a shoreline management act.
Mr. Fortner indicated yes. Each jurisdiction with shorelines has to have a SMP in effect.
Commissioner Wolfe questioned if the changes we are proposing would be consistent
with the Kitsap County SMP?
Mr. Fortner indicated that the Kitsap County SIMP only deals with the unincorporated
areas of the county. Because this area deals with the incorporated areas there isn't any
jurisdiction for the Kitsap County SMP.
Commissioner Stone commented that the Kitsap County Commissioners were debating a
moratorium on docks, due to problems they are running into.
Chairman Robinson commented that staff would be presenting a recommendation for
the Planning Commission to act on. Does the Planning Commission need to redo the
August resolution which was passed on to the City Council?
Judy Johnson indicated yes. There were a few errors in the first resolution. This
resolution will be written very clearly.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Trish Martin, Recording Secretary
Approved by:
Bill Robinson, Chairman
Page4 of 4 ~)D
- ATTACHMENT D
Department of Community Development
286 Four[h Street
Bremerton. WA 98337
Description of Proposal: Changes to clarify a special section of the Shoreline Master
Program (SMP) as it relates to piers & docks in the
Oyster/Ostrich Bay Channel.
Proponent: City of Bremerton Project Number: SEP98-0019
Location of Proposal:
Channel between Ostrich and Oyster Bay in the
Southernmost Portion of Dyes Inlet in Kitsap County, WA
Lead A.qency: City of Bremerton, Department of Community Development
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it will not have a probable significant
adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (ELS) is not required
under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed
environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is
available to the public on request.
This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on
this proposal for at least 14 days from the date of issuance.
Comments must be submitted by: May 22, 1998
Responsible Official: Judy Johnson
PositionFFitle: Acting Director of Community Development
Address: 286 Fourth Street, Bremerton WA 98337
You may appeal this determination to:
Bremerton City Council
(Be prepared to make specific factual objections.)
Contact: James Coombes, Department of Community Development for procedures for
SEPA appeal. (360) 478-5275
City. of Bremerron
Permit Center
ATTACHMENT E
The checklist questions apply to all par~s o~'vour proposal, even if you plan to do them over a
period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional irg'ormation that ,,,,'ill help
describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The City may ask you to explain your
aris:vets or provide additional information reasonabiy re!ated to dete,,Tnining ir'there ma:' be
sigsdficant adverse impact.
USE OF CHECKLIST FOR A NON-CONSTRUCTION PROPOSAJ_:
Complete tliis checklist for non-construction proposals, even though questions ma.,,' be answered
"does not apply." l~n addition, complete the SL:TPLE: iENTAL SHEET FOR NON-
CONSTRUCTION ACTIONS (Part D).
For non-conswuction actions, the references in the checklist to the words pro.lec, , "applicant"
and "property or site" should be read as "proposal", "proposer," and "affected geogaphic area,"
respectively.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
2. Nme of applicant:
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
(,'~ :,o'50'VS- ~' Z-V¥
4. Date checklist prepared:
2
Agency requesting checklist:
Proposed timing or schedule (inctuding phasing, if applicable):
Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further actMty related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
M ol~,ta &
Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
~ C ~./-,4.,,-,.,~ e"~
I0.
List any government approvals or perm/ts that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
11.
Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you
to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on
this page.
12.
Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section,
townstfip, and range, if known. Ifa proposal would occur over a range of area, provide
the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map,
and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required
by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any
permit applications related to this checklist.
ENWIRON~[ENTAL ELEMENTS
TO BE CON[PLETED Bt' APPLIC.~N'T
EARTH
General description of the site (circle one): Flat. rolling, hilly', s_teep
slopes, mountainous, other
What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay,
sand, gavel,' peat, muck)? If you know the classification of
agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
Are there surface indications or history of unstable softs in the
immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
E. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling
or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
~ No construction proposed.
[] Subject to miti.c~ting ordinances: BMC 17.04 City
Bt~ildinq Code
COMMENTS: FOR DCD [.'SE ONL'
5
Rev date 10 22 97
COMMENTS: FOR DCD USE ONL
Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or usc~
so, ~enerally describe.
No construction proposed.
If
Subject to miti~atinc ordinances: BMC 17.04 City
BuildLnq Code/BMC 15.04 Stot~'t~mter Ordinance
G. About what percent of the site w~il be covered with impervious
surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings?)
U Subject to mitigating ordinance: BMC 15.04 Stormw'ater
Control, and 5f4.C 21.02 Zoning
H. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to
the earth, if any:
c~ Subject to mitigating ordinance.
)dR
A. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal
(i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during
construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally
describe and ~ve approximate quantities if known.
No construction
proposed.
B. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect
your proposal? If so, generally describe.
A/O
Rex' date 10~22.97
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to
air, if any:
C Subjec-~ to mitica~inc r_-=c~ulations of ~ne ?xce~ Scur, d
~ Qua!ltv Authority.
A--
3. WATER
SU'R.FACE:
Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the
site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)'?. If yes, describe type and provide names. If
appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200
feet) the described water? If yes, please describe and attach available
plans.
~ No construction prooosed.
3. Estimate the amount offdl and dredge material that would be placed
in or removed from surf'ace water or wetlands and indicate the area of
the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
~ No construction proposed.
[] Subject to mitiqatinc ordinance: 5MC 21.04-Shoreline
Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions'?.
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if
known.
COM,XLENTS: FOR [}CD L'SE ONL'
Rev dat~ I0,.~_ 97
Does the proposal lie within a t00-year floodptmn? If so. note
location on the site plan.
Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials To
surface waters.'? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of' discharge.
construction proposed.
GROL:~[D
Will ground water be withdrawn, or u,511 water be discharged to
ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate
quantities if known.
No construction prooosed.
2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from
septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.).
Describe the general seize of the system, the number of such systems,
the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of
animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
No construction proposed.
Subject to mitiqatinq ordinances: Bremerton Kitsap
Health Department Requlation/BMC 15.03 Wastewater
Ordinance.
COMMENTS: FOR DCD ['SE ONL
WATER RL~'OFF (IN'CLUT)ING STOP,.MWATER):
Describe the source of runoff'(inctuding storrnwatert and method of
collection and disposal, if any (including quantities, if known). Where
wil[ this water flow'? Will this water flow into other waters'7 If so,
describe.
Subject ~o mitigating ~rdinacne: EMC 15.04-S~rmwarer
Control
2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface w'arers? If so,
~enerallv describe.
~ ~ubjec[ to mitiqating or'~dir, ance: BMC 15.04-Storrrmrater
Contro 1
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, pound, and runoff
water impacts, if any:
Subject to mitigating ordipmnce: BMC 15.04-Stormwater
Contro !
4. PLANTS
A. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
/ evergreen tree:l, fi, y,~ ~_~...gr4 i(p~ other
," shrubs
v'" grass
__ pasture
__ crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, ~, bulrush, sk~e,~
other
__ other types of vegetation [,4~o5c~r~ v~-a...~,,.-}.,
COMMEN'TS: FOR DCD ['SE ONL
9 7/
Rev date 10~22. 97
B. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
'~No cop_~truc-~ion ,~rc~osed.
2 SubJecu to miuicra~inc ordinances: BMC !5.O4-$tcrmwazer
Con~ro!/EMC 21.02-ZcnLnc Ordi,~ance,/~MC i7.04-Ci~v
Building Ccde/EMC 2!.22-Criticai Lands
C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site
Subject to mitigating ordinances: E~.C!.22 Critical
D. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
~ No construction pro_mcsed.
Subject to miticfatin~ ordinances:
Ccde
BMC 2!. 02-Zanin~
A. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the
site or are known to be on or near the site:
Birds:(~(~~ ~, other: ~u ~ 't-
Mammals'~, b~, el~ beaver, other: 0~
Fish: bas~ he=g. ~ other:
B. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the
site.
Subject
to mitigating ordinance: 5MC 21.22 Critical
5 t.,, 8d
C. Is the site part of' a migration route? If so, explain.
~ subject to mit±cyatin9 ordinance: l~C 23..22 Cr±t±caZ
Lands
COMAIE.N'TS: FOR DCD L'SE OXt
lo
Re'.' dale 10 22 97
D. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, ifa. nv:
Nc canst~ac:icn ~r=~csed.
,2 St~Sect to mitic~tir, c o_r~nance: 5MC 2!.22-Crillca!
Lands
E>fERGY .&ND NATUI:L&L RESOL~CES
A. What kinds o£enerD' (electric, natural gas. oil. wood stove, solar)
will be used to meet the completed project's ener_ow needs'? Describe
whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
~QNc cons~action ~ro~osed.
B. Would your project affect the potential use of solar ener~ by'
adjacent properties? If so, generally describe.
No construction
pro~sed.
C. What kinds of energ-y conservation features are included in the plans
of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control
energy impacts, if any.
No construction oroDosed.
Subject to mitic~atin~ ordinances: BMC 17.04-City
Building Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to
toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste,
that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
No construction prouosed.
COMMEN'TS: FOR DCD ['SE ONL
Rev date t0,~."'~ 97
COMMENTS: FOR [X.'D [.;SE ONL
I. Describe special emergency services that might be required.
2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health
hazards, if any:
Subject to mi:icatinc ordinance: ~!C 18.02-City Fire
Ccde/~4C 17.04-Ci5v B ,u/!dLnc Code
NO[SE
I. What types of noise exist in the area which may aYfect your
project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)?
[] Subject to miti?ating ordinance: ~4C 6.32-Noise
2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated
with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example;
traffic, construction, operatiork other)? Indicate what hours noise
would come from the site.
No construction oroDosed.
Ordinance
3. Proposed measuresto reduce orcontrolnoiseimpacts, ifany?
Subject to mitigating ordinance: BMC 6.32-Noise
_Ordinance.
LAND AND SHOKELINE USE
A. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
t2
Rev date 10/22 97
COMMENTS. FOR DCD I,'SE ONL'.
B Has the site been used tbr agricuiture? If so. describe
Describe any structures on the site.
D. Wilt any structures be demolished? If so, what?
F/ow 6 ?,e.~ ?a~ca-~
What is the current zoning classification of the site?
! ,
what is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Lo oo D 6~ 5 / 7-/ ,~ 6-$ /
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program
designation of the site?
Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally
sensitive" area? If so, specify.
¢.c,o [u-ho-,,
,4P-, I s, /
Iff '~ O l l" T - ot) T
75'
Re'.' d~t¢ 10,22,97
CO.".IMENTS: FOR DCD USE ONL
Approximately how many people would reside or work in the
completed project'?
Nc const-~Ic'cior~. ~rcDose~.
J. Appro.'dmate~y how many people would the completed project
displace'?
No construction orooosed.
K. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any?
L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with e,,dsling
and projected land uses and plans, if any:
to miti~a~in~ ordinances: ~MC 2!.02-Zoning
Sub jet
Code/SMC 21.04-Shore!Lne Master Program
HOUSING
A. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate
whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
No
construction promosed.
B. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated. Indicate
whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
No construction proposed.
14 70
'Rev date 10:22 97
10.
11.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, ifa~v~
AESTHETICS
A. What is the tallest hei~mht of any proposed structure{s), not includino_
antennas; what is the principal e~erior building material(s) proposed7
Z .Yo construction pro~osed.
Subjec~ to '~5 ~-~
mz~_?a .... g ordinances: fMC __.'Pi 02-Zcninc
Ccde/~MC 21.04-Shoreline Ymster Procram
B. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed7
No
construction oroaosed.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Subject to miti?ating ordinances: _~MC 21.02-Zoning
Code/~MC 2t.04-gnore!ine M~ster Program.
LIGHT A_NI) GLARE
A. What type of light or ~are will the proposal produce? What time of
day would it mainly occur'?
No
construction DroDosed.
[] Subject to miticatinc ordLnance: ~4C 21.02-Zoninc
Ccde
B. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or
interfere with view?
No
construction proposed.
Subject to mitiqatinq ordinance: 5MC 21.02-Zoninq
Code
,, 77
COXk\IENTS: FOR DCD I'SE ONL
Rev date 10,~..9 t
12.
What existing off-site sources of light or gate may affect your
proposal?
D. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, ir'
any:
~ Subject to mitigatLng ordinance: BNU 21.02-Zoning
Code
RECREATION
Ao
What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the
immediate vicinity?
·
B. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses?
If so, describe.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,
including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or
applicant, if any:
No
construction proposed.
COMMENTS: FOR DCD USE ONL'
//oT ,, ff e-cTe.¢P
Rev date 10~22.'97
13.
14.
FffST0~C ,A~N'D CU'LTUR:-~L PRESERVATION
.Are there an.,,' places or objec:s listed on. or proposed for. national.
state, or local preserwation registers known to be on or nex'r to the
site'? It' so, generally describe.
Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,
archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or
next to the site.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
~Q Nc construction prc_ccsed.
TRAxNSPORTATION
A. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. Shown on site plans, if
any.
B. Is site currently serviced by public transit? If not, what is the
approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
COM.NtE.N-F$: FOR EK.'D USE ONL':
Rev date 10 22 97
15.
C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have?
many would the project eliminate°
Ncccns:?ac~ion prc.ncsed.
How
Subject tc miticauLnc ordinance: 5MC
Cede
D. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements
to existing roads or streets, not including driveways~' If' so, generally
describe (indicate whether public or private).
,N'c const~ction prcposed.
~ S~tbjecZ to mitica:inc ordiu~nce: BMC i!.20-Streezs
and Side~a!ks
E. Wilt the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinky of~fwater~ rail,
or air transportation? If so, generally describe.
F. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the
completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would
occur.
eNoconstruction Dromosed.
G. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if
arlVi
~No' Dro ject.
Q Subject to miti~at±nq ordin~nqe: l~C 21.02-
Comorehensive Plant Concurrency
PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in an increased need for public services (fo~:
example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools,
other)? If so, generally describe.
COMMENTS: FOR DCD ['SE ONL
Rev date 10,__.97
16.
17.
Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public
sersices, if' a_nv
UTILITIES
,4.. Circle utilities currently' available at the site: ~. n~,t~ral ~
SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
I understand that the City is relying on them to make its decision.
Date Submitted:
COMMEN'TS: FOR ,2)CD (;SE ONL\
19
Rex' date 1 O; ._. 97
SL'-PPLEM-EN-I'AL SH]EET FOR NON-CONSTRUCTION
ACTIONS
(Do not use this sheet for construction actions)
Because these questions are very, general, it may be help~l to read
them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be a;vare of the extent the proposal.
or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would
affect the item at a ~eater intensity or at a faster rate than if the
proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general
terms,
1. How would the proposal be liken to increase discharge to water;
emissions to air, production, storage, or release oftox/c or
hazardous substances; or production of noise'?
Proposed measuresto avoid orreduce suchincreases are:
Subject to m±t±gat~n? ord±,p~nces curren~Zy
adooted bv the City of Bremerton
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or
marine life?
20
COMMEN"TS: FOR DCD ['SE ONL'
Re,,' date 10,22.95'
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish or
marine tile are:
Subjec: to mi=iga:ing :rdinance , =-~-- .....
by the City cf Breme~sn
3. How would the proposal be Iiketv to deplete energy' or natural
reso utc es'?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural
resources are:
Subject to mitigating ordinance carren~ly adopted
b~; the City of Bre~3e~ccn
How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally
sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for
governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, Mid and scenic
rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural
sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce
impacts are:
Subject to mitigating ordir~nces and state regulations
currently adopted.
COMMENTS: FOR 2)CD USE ONL':
Rev date ~0,2!97
How would the proposal be liken to alS'oct land and shoreline use.
including whether it would alloy,' or encourage land or shore!ine uses
incompatible with ex.isting ptans'7
"Subject to mitigating local ordinances and state regulations.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts
are:
[] Subject to mitigating local ordinance and state regulations.
How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation or public se~'ices and utilities7
Proposed measures 'to reduce or respond 'to such demand(s) are:
Identify., if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local,
state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the
environment.
COMMENTS: FOR DCD ('SE ONL'
Rev date 10/._ 97
ATTACHMENT F
RE~OLUTtON NO. ¢2 (~ ~1
,* Resolution Settina a Moratorium on
Development of Decks and Piers Within the
Channel be~veen Ostrich Say and Oyster Bay
Council to adcct a Ereme~cn ~hcre~ine ,%taszer Frccram which
reviews and aCCC[S a~ pa~ cf the Washington ACminJs;radve Cede:
WHE,=,E-' ~. . t,he Ereme:":cn Cir/Ccuncli finds the: t,he .__, ...., "'~'~.,~ Ereme~cn
Shoreiine Mas~er,~rccram_ da, es net acff ~,--, ,=:=iv__.~ ..... ; actress '~'~,:,~ ~cliow~nc'
issues in,.,'~',=- Oyster F.a'/Channei'
~. The level cf F,o~ential na'vigaticnal haz.~rds c:ea~e~ by decks aha
Fie~ requiring su~szan:iai shoreline Ce','e!o,emen~ ~e.,,-nniz~ if~ the Channe!
be~,veen Ost~ch Ear and Gvs~r Bay;
a The aes~.hetic cuaiirz' of torte docks and pie~ in the
bet'.~veen Ostrich ~a'/ and G'fs;er Bay;
C. The envircnm, en:al and gublic t~us; issues (g(.,~lic waters
unde~ying lands are a ouhlic resource cwned ~v and available to all
cldzer;,s ecuzilv for naviga:io~, fishin_c, recrea;icn and similar uses) relax, ed
to dock= and piers which res~ d~r=~;l,/ on ~;,= teach at low w~tar:
WHEREAS the Council understands that the Ci'~v aT Ereme~on public use
of shoreline may sufferirrepara~le damage if development is not
pro'nlbl,=~' "-,~ while regulatlons' are chanc~ed' and.
WHEREAS the Breme.qon City Council believes that a study pehod is
necessary to process ~he change locally (estimated a~2.5 months for
developmental weds, public nodce, Planning Commission hearing and Ci~
Council hearing); and,
WHEREAS the S,~a~e Department of Ecology is allowed 5 months to review
and implement changes to the Administrative Code amending the
Bremerton Shoreline Master Program; and,
and well as
NOW THEREFOAE EE IT RE~CLVE'2 BY THE EaE.ME.~TON C;T'F COUNCIL
1. That a devetecment m~tofium prchibidng ~he ~evetcpment ~f
decks and pie~ and i~uance cf su~s~ndai shc~tine Ceve~ccmen~
pe~i~ for all Decks and Fie~ ~in the ccnfines cf Cvszer any Channei
as defined on ~hibit A is he~y a~opted;
2. Tha~ this mc~tcdum snail ~ake effec: ~mmediate!v ann shoulc
~e~inate 9 mcnt~s from :he da~e cf this mcratc~um or until an amendment
to ~he areme~on Shcretine Master Pro,ram can ~e a~crovea by the State
Oepa~men~cf Ecotcgy, whichever shAJ] cccur fi~:.
C~r'/Cauncii President
ATTACHMENT F
RESOLUTION #2650
A RESOLUTION extending the Moratorium on the development of docks and piers
within the channel between Oyster and Ostrich Bay.
WHEREAS. the City' of Bremerton has previously passed a Moratorium: and.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has intention to review specific language in the
Shoreline Master Program pertaining to this particular area: and
WHEREAS, the Department of Ecology is allowed 5 months to review and implement
changes to the Administrative Code amending the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program: and.
WHEREAS, the ordinance which was repealed (#4619) because of procedural errors,
needs to go back through the proper process for change and adoption;
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton:
1. That the development moratorium prohibiting the issuance of substantial shoreline
development permits for all docks and piers within the confines of Oyster Bay Channel as defined
on attached Exhibit A is hereby continued;
2. That this extension shall take effect immediately on May 6, 1998 and shall terminate 6
months from the date of this or until an amendment to the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program
can be approved by the state Department of Ecology, whichever shall occur first.
PASSED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
,19
day of
DAVID FARR
Council President
~ Z-llllll~
' ·
l
Z
A. TTACHMENT !
ALLISON DUKE III. Fire Chief
$17 Pacific A¥¢nu¢ · Bmmcrton. WA98337 · {360)478-5381 · FAX (360~ 478-5397
Thursday, October 02, 1997
TO:
Dock Sub-Committee
FROM:
Allison Duke III, Fire Chief ~:~
Bremerton Fire Department
SUBJECT: Docks located in Oyster Bay channel
As Fire Chief for the City of Bremerton, t do have a concern over docks that will be located in
Oyster Bay. The main concern is width of the channel entering into Oyster Bay. The area is
located between Madrona Point Road on the west and Marine/South Marine Drive to the east.
During the time of high tide there appears to be sufficient room for passage of vessels, but I
also have noticed that there were many buoys located 25-50 feet off shore for vessels to
anchor. At high tide there are numerous areas that had very sallow spots, this leads me to
believe that at Iow tide the water is considerably further from the shore line. The concern than
would be if docks are allow without any length restrictions. Docks could be 150-200 feet long to
enable boat owners adequate water under their vessel to keep the vessel afloat. Potentially,
you could have areas where docks could reach each other.
Oyster Bay is used quite extensively during the summer months for a number of skiing events.
There are numerous vessels that use this channel to access Oyster Bay. My concern would be
the number of vessels entering at one time with docks as obstacles. The second concern is
when exiting in the evening, striking one of the docks due to darkness. The Department has
had incidences where two vessels collided into each other due to darkness, one resulted in a
fatality.
The last concern is the access to the area. The Fire Department's boat is located at the First
Street Marina. For our vessel to respond to that location would take from 10~15 minutes,
depending on weather conditions, once the vessel is under way.
I might also suggest that we solicit information from the Coast Guard concerning channels
and/or channel markings. If there are any questions, or comments, please feel free to contact
me.
· Serving the Citizens of Bremerton since 1901 ·
STAT[ OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONO/VllC DEVELOPMENT
906 Columbia St. SW · PO Box 48300 · Olympia, Washington 98S04-8300 · (360) 753-2200
June 18, 1998
The Honorable Lynn Horton, Mayor
City of Bremerton
239 - 4t" Street
Bremerton, Washington 98310
MAYOR'S OFFICE
Dear Mayor Horton:
Thank you for sending us your draft amendment to the Shoreline Master Program for the
channel between Oyster and Ostrich Bay. As you know, the goals and policies of your
Shoreline Master Program are now considered an element of your comprehensive land use
plan, and shoreline use regulations are now considered a part of your development
regulations pursuant to RCW 36.70A.480. Development regulations must be consistent
with and implement your comprehensive plan. Accordingly, the proposed amendment to
the use of docks and piers must be consistent with your comprehensive plan.
The proposed amendment to prohibit piers and docks in the entrance channel to Oyster
Bay does not appear to be inconsistent with your adopted comprehensive land use plan.
also does not appear inconsistent with the goals and requirements of the Growth
Management Act. Therefore, we have no concerns with the proposed amendment.
It
If you have any questions or concerns about our comments or any other Growth Management
issues, please call me at (360) 664-2364. We look forward to receiving copies of your adopted
amendments and extend our continued support to the City of Bremerton in achieving the goals of
Growth Management.
Sincerely,
Heather Ballash
Growth Management Planner
Growth Management Division
HB:ns
cc: Judy Johnson, Bremerton Department of Community Development
,'~orthwest Regional Office, 3790 -
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
160fh Ave 5. E, · Bellevue, Washington 98008-J452 ·
J U L ]- ? 1998
BREMERTON
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
JuN 16.1998
Ms. Judy Johnson
Ms. Kay Wilson
Citv of Bremerton Department of Community Development
286 Fourth Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Dear Judy and Kay,
I've reviewed the proposed amendment to the City. of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program and
believe it appropriately accommodates the intended prohibkion. However, for the sake of
consistency, you might consider changing the new sentence on page 3-6 to read as follows:
"Piers and docks are prohibited in the channel between Ostrich and Oyster Bays as depicted in
Figure 3-5". This would be more consistent with the language used in Regulation 10 on page 5-
31. You might also add "as depicted in Figure 3-5" to the end of Regulation 10.
Ecology looks forward to expediting the state review process once the amendmem has been
approved by the City.
Sincerely,
Alice Schisel
Shoreline Planner
cc: Raymond Hellwig, Ecology
r~,Ti,.,I,SHERI ES DEPARTMENT
- ~'~~L~ / Area Code (360)
!~! 598-3311
Fax 598-4666
' . MISH TRIBE
P.O. Box 498
Suquamish, Wasamgton 98392
July 29, 1998
Judy Johnson
Department of Commumty Development
City of Bremerton
286 Fourth Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Re:
Amend the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program -- Prohibit Piers and Docks in
the Channel between Ostrich and Oyster Bays
Dear Ms. Johnson:
The channel between Ostrich and Oyster Bays is within the usual and accustomed fishing
area of the Suquamish Tribe. The Tribe concurs with prohibiting docks and piers in tiffs
channel. Structures emending into the channel would significantly restrict access to
treaty-reserved resources in Oyster Bay as well as adversely impact aquatic resources in
shallow water habitats.
The channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay is a narrow waterway, and during low
tidal elevations, piers and docks would significantly impede navigation. The second
policy under Water Access and Moorage Facilities in Bremerton's Shoreline Master
Program states: "piers, docks, and recreational floats should be constructed so as to
minimize obstruction of navigable waters and not significantly reduce use of the water
surface." The second regulation under the same section further restricts this type of
proposal: "Piers and floating docks shall be prohibited where navigation may be
impaired sign/ficantly at entrances to bays, channels, or coves." Piers and docks in
Oyster Bay channel conflict with these policies of the City's Shoreline Master Program.
The Tribe anticipates that contamination in the waters and sediments of Dyes Inlet will
eventually abate. These waters have been extremely important to the Suquamish Tribe
for thousands of years. Since decertification for shellfish harvesting in the early 1960s,
part of Dyes Inlet was recently recertified for commercial harvest. With continued
improvements in sewage and stormwater conveyance and treatment, natural resource
conditions will also improve. Piers and docks should not be permitted to interfere with
the Tribe's ex/sting fights to access and harvest treaty-reserved resources within this
portion of its usual and accustomed fishing area.
Madrona Point is a known surf smelt spawning area. One goal of the Bremerton
Shoreline Master Program Element Goals is "to preserve shoreline natural systems and
areas having unique aesthetic or environmental qualities." Adverse impacts to smelt,
juvenile salmonid, and prey species would conflict with this goal as well as the policies
referenced earlier in this letter, and would adversely impact treat'-reserved resources of
the Suquamish Tribe.
To ensure future access to Oyster Bay and protection of aquatic species, the Suquamish
Tribe supports amending the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program to prohibit piers and
docks in Oyster Bay Channel.
Sincerely,
Christine Stevenson
Biolo~st, Fisheries Environmental Program
cc~
Randy Hatch, Fisheries Director
' -' ATTACHMENT J
"RECEIVED CiTY COUNCIL OFFICE"
To the City. Council for the 12 August I998 Meeting: [~AT~ -7- 3/- ~' --~.~C.
~ [t~ ]S~8 July 31, 1998
They used to say that there were only three kinds of liars:
BRF..MERTON Liars, Damn Liars, and Statisticians.
It would appear that there are in fact four kind of liars-you can add Manipulators, or perhaps
Politicians to the list; your choice. Now, whenever I think about piers or floating docks in the Oyster Bay
Channel - I automatically call up a picture of an early application for one of those constructions ........ Of
course, I'm not the brightest person - but I did get unusually confused when I read the published Public
Notices about those Pier/Dock Permit Application.
One application in particular - describing what was wanted to be built was apparently taken in by DCD, who
then published a Public Notice using the same wording as they received from the applicant - w/thout
question, without checking, and not thinking about how poor a picture of reality, the Notice would convey to
dummies like me. To show what I mean.
I read about a 70 foot floating concrete dock. Ain't science wonderful - making Concrete float like that ?
But I can understand about the size - it's about twice the length of my house. And I can imagine something
that big sticking out into the water. BUT .....
then I read on and found that there is a 5 foot by 20 foot section tacked on to the end - and that 70 feet is
now 75 feet. O.K. - I can still handle pictur/ng something stick/ng out into the water that far.
But I soon found out that those 75 feet won't be sticking our from the shore - but will be at the end of a 38
foot pier that's about 8 feet high at the end. (I wonder about why anyone would build something like that
and call it a pier? A 3 meter mud-diving platform perhaps - but a Pier ?) (and then my neighbor tells me that
the fat 38 footer started off as a plan for a skinny 25 footer - but somehow along the line it just s-t-r-e-t-c-h-
e-d out to be 300% larger overall than originally specified - and nobody in DCD even blinked an eye.) Well
anyway, that made it a little more complicated - 75 plus 38 comes out to be about I 13 feet. That's three
times the lenZh of my house, plus 11 feet. That is definitely difficult for me to imagine - something that
size sticking out into the channel.
But there were more surprises to come, you see that 75 feet of stuff wasn't really to be placed right at the end
of that 38 foot pier - seems that there had to be a ramp of sorts to get from the high 38 foot piece to the
low 75 foot piece - and so that meant that the near end of the 75 foot piece had to be placed about 12 feet
from the 38 foot piece ........... making the whole damned thing stretch something like 125 feet overall.
Now arithmetic told me that that's about five times as long as my house is high; or 10 of my ~boat' tied nose
to tail. Got to admit that I really had to struggle to imagine something that size stic 'king out into the water.
Don't even like to think about it really - If I had something that big sticking out into the channel from my
place - that would eat up a considerable part of the channel width - so much so that water sMing would most
probably be illegal due to their not being able to stay the legal l$O feet away from the shore and
obstruction. Now that wouldn't really be neighborly would it? After all, folks have been water s 'kiing up
?7
and down this channel ever since I moved here in 73. And then I think of those clever folks who actually, on
purpose, drive one of those sail boats - all they need is a few more obstacles to get around; and k/ds and
grandparents would have to climb over or under those damned piers/docks just to walk down the beach to
admire the view and the critters. So much trouble from a supposed 70 foot dock.
So you see -you really can't believe what you read in the newspaperNotices about things like Pier projects.
AII the facts just aren't therefor you to build up a good mind picture of what these people are really
proposing to do. Guess that's why they get awcn,, with so much - nobody really understands what they're up
to to begin with, or keeps a close eye on them after thc? get started
That's why I'm glad to see that we will again/~rve a shot at having ALL piers and docks banned from this
channel. The way things went in the past - with all the truth stretching and tack of supervision or follow-up
by the ci~, - I'm afraid that any future application for a 2$ foot dock would end up as a smaller version of
the Hood Canal bridge, connecting Madrona Point up to Marine Drive. Probably with an espresso stand
plonked in the middle- right n~n:t to the toll collector.
[ ~vas for the Moratoriums, both of them: I was for the first mero'-go-round that gave us Ordinance 4619.
and l'm certainlv for this effort to get it back. I'm against any Pier/Docks on the channel here because I
feel like I"ve been lied to about them in the past: and because the city wasn't keeping an eye on our
interests.
George J. Miller P.O. Box 788 Bremerton, WA 98337
2
Bremerton City. Council
239 Fourth Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
BREMERTON August 3, 1998
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Comments on:
The proposed Amendment of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program
to prohibit piers and docks on the channel between Ostrich and Oyster Bays.
Please estabhsh an Ordinance to prohibit all piers and docks from the channel to Oyster Bay.
NAVIGATIONAL HAZARDS
PRESENT: (No Piers / Docks) Maximum Float sizes are presently specified, along with the requirement
for obstruction warning reflectors on each float. Neither Float nor Anchor Buoy moorage positions, nor
method are currently specified. This positioning specification should be considered for incorporation into
any future revision of the SMP, as well as mooring methods - to prevent the floats from swinging at anchor
into the deeper waters - all in order to preserve an unobstructed access path down the navigable Channel.
Presently most buoys and many floats are anchored between the Zero and the minus 4 foot tide
lines. These floats and buoys actually assist in navigating the channel by defining the unobstructed
path - and would be of ~eater value if confidence was established in their location relative to a
known tidal contour, and visibility. Enforcement of Size and Marking requirements for existing
floats is sorely lacking.
WITH DOCKS / PIERS: These Structures, to be of practical value would of necessity extend to a point
which would offer 5 feet of water under the keel at low (Zero) tide, for any vessel tied up to that structure
(parallel to the tidal flow). This translates to the structures extending out to the minus 5 foot tide level,
PLUS the beam of any vessel moored there.
With such structures allowed on both sides of the Channel - then, depending upon the width and
gradient of the channel floor at that location - there would be a marginal separation between the
combined intrusions of structures (together with their moored vessels) from either side of the
channel. Worst case is estimated to be less than 20 feet separation.
RESULTS: Considering that the proposed structures are impermeable to any water transport, less
well endowed than an Icebreaker, all of the normal channel traffic would of necessity be funneled
into this marginal clear channel space - which, it should be noted is the location of the greatest
tidal current flows and roughest water during high wind conditions.
Such a confluence of traffic, of mixed speed, size, and purpose would present hazard to all, and
preclude normal utilization of the waterway by many. The navigation of this constricted safe
waterway would, for example - require very tight limits of navigation and steerage by the Christmas
Boats in a waterway shared with unlighted and unmarked piers and docks, within scant feet of the
parading boats. Water skiing would be impossible. Passage of sailboats under sail would then be
history.. Swimming and floating would be likewise curtailed.
Shorter piers or docks would present the same adverse effects - only to a lesser deffee. Piers and
docks which are shortened to an unusable / impractical length are but Vanity Structures, and should
receive no consideration for acceptance on this channel.
Pedestrian access of the shorelines would be severely restricted by piers / docks of gross or
minor proportions; efforts by tots and physically challenged adults attempting to clamber over the
obstacles presented by barnacle encrusted - seaweed trailing dock sections would be daunting.
AESTHETIC EFFECTS OF DOCKS IN THE CHANNEL
IT WOULDN'T BE PRETTY
OOPS:
With private vessels tied up for long periods of time at private piers and docks - providing no
sarfitary disposal facilities such as are available in established Marinas - the possibilities for
'accidental' discharges of holding tanks or 'direct' heads would be increased. This could rival
Bremerton's own sewer discharge problems.
ADDED:
Pilings - Boats - Dock Sections - Pier Sections - all are intrusive into the presently 'clean?
view up and down the channel. Boats with displacement hulls, travelling at even the
proponents suggested 7 knot speeds - will lead to relatively more wake effects.
SUBTRACTED:
The normal flow and bustle of water craft and people enjoying the waters of the
channel. Disruptions of the present traffic by the added obstacles and constrictions
will result in: ELIMINATION of- the Water SPa'ers - the Kayaks - the inner
tube and air mattress drifters - pa'ds fishing from small boats - Hobbi Cats under
sail - walking the beach - kids exploring the beach - New Years day
boating enthusiasts - Christmas Boats - Boats travelling on the 'plane'. And
probably edible shellfisla
PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE ISSUES
In addition to the more recent ruling and interpretation of Public Access to Shorelines referred to below,
which by the way appears to extend the State's application of Public Trust from Ocean Shorelines to inter/or
waters and codifies the State's intent to precluding the erosion of public recreational opportunities associated
with these waters; the following general comments are offered, applying in this case mostly to the Tidelands
of properties on Madrona Point Drive and Marine Drive.
Public right to use these tideland areas is of course substantiated by the doctrines of Public Trust,
Prescription and - most probably, considering the gentleness of the old neighbors along the channel, thru the
Doctrine of Custom.
As is commonly known, the Shoreline Management Act rooted in RCW 90.58, seeks to preserve our
shorelines in their natural state; lending due consideration to the continuing enjoyment of the physical and
aesthetic qualities of that natural shoreline. Bremerton's SIMP in reflecting, applying, and supplementing
the State program should, to the greatest extent possible, codi~ and endorse these objectives.
To bring the concept of "Personal Rights" vs "Public Trust" into a new age perspective - Consider -
Your right to swing your arm E.~'DS in the near vicinity of my nose
The rights to Property are similarly reduced from 'Absolute' to 'Reasonable' by the interfaces of those
rights with the laws, regulations, and co-existing rights of neighbors the State, and society in general.
The opinion is widely held that the establishment of docks of the length, configuration and size presently
envisioned by the various petitioners - in the physically limited body of water that is the Channel -
constitutes a substantial interference with the significant private and public right of navigation.
right of navigation involves not only commercia! transportation upon navigat>le waters, but
incidental rights .... of fishing, boating, swimming, waterskiing, and ,):~c,' related :...a~,,m,~" ''" ' !;~:,'--
This right was recognized for Washington State as being a fundamental right. It applies to the area over
which water flows, even though intermittently. It is rec%m~ized that in situations of naturally yawing water
level, the respective rights of the public and the owners of the property periodically submerged by water, are
dependent upon the level of the water. As the level increases, the rights of the public to use the water
increase, since the area of water increases proportionately. The rights of the landowners decrease, since they
cannot use their property in such manner as to interfere with the expanded public rights.
Even presuming that a pier applicant actually owns the Tidelands in from of his property, it is recognized
that the law is quite clear that where the level of a navigable body of water fluctuates due to natural
causes so that the riparian owners property is submerged part of the time; the public has the right to
use all of the waters, whether it be at the high water line, at the low water line, or in between.
In the event that your 'Case Law' is a little rusty.: you are directed to Wilbour v. Gallagher found in
Washington Supreme Court Reports.
It is taken that any project which interferes with this basic public right of navigation is an interference
with a very substantial public right which can not be considered non-significang
CONSIDER ALSO: Bremerton City, with a population of some 38,000 souls - is being placed in the
position of controlling (i.e. restricting) the use of a Public Waterway which serves the established
recreational needs of over 100,000 people in Kitsap County alone. Estimating that 20% of these people
are active users of the waterways - and not counting users from neighboring counties and 'foreign'
visitors. Bremerton is being placed in the position of having to arbitrate the established use patterns of
over 20,000 people - in your consideration of the desires of a few. Make the smart decision.
Sincerely submitted for your consideration
3
I01
ATTACHMENT J
'RECEIVED rfP( COUNCIL OFFICE"
To the City. Council for the 12 August 1998 Meeting:
AUG fl 3 July 998
They used to say that there were onlv three kinds of liars:
BEEMERTON Liars, Damn Liars, and Statisticians.
It would appear that there are in fact four kind of liars- you can add Manipulators, or perhaps
Politicians to the list; your choice. Now, whenever I think about piers or floating docks in the Oyster Bay
Channel - I automatically call up a picture of an early application for one of those constructions ........ Of
course, I'm not the brightest person - but I did get unusually confused when I read the published Public
Notices about those Pier/Dock Permit Application.
One application in particular - describing what was w'anted to be built was apparently taken in by DCD, who
then published a Public Notice using the same wording as they received from the applicant - w/thout
question, without checking, and not thinking about how poor a picture of reality, the Notice would convey to
dummies like me. To show what I mean.
[ read about a 70 foot floating concrete dock. Aifft science wonderful - making Concrete float like that ?
But I can understand about the size - it's about twice the length of my house. And I can imag/ne something
that big sticking out into the water. BUT .....
then I read on and found that there is a 5 foot by 20 foot section tacked on to the end - and that 70 feet is
now 75 feet. O.K. - I can still handle pictur/ng something sticking out into the water that far.
But I soon found out that those 75 feet won't be sticking our from the shore - but will be at the end ora 38
foot pier that's about 8 feet high at the end. (I wonder about why anyone would build something like that
and call it a pier? A 3 meter mud-diving platform perhaps - but a Pier ?) (and then my neighbor tells me that
the fat 38 footer started off as a plan for a skinny 25 footer - but somehow along the line it just s-t-r-e-t-c-h-
e-d out to be 300% larger overall than or/~nally specified - and nobody in DCD even blinked an eye.) Well
anyway, that made it a little more complicated - 75 plus 38 comes out to be about 113 feet. Thafs three
times the lenZh of my house, plus 11 feet. That is definitely difficult for me to imagine - something that
size sticking out into the channel.
But there were more surprises to come, you see that 75 feet of stuff wasn't really to be placed right at the end
of that 38 foot pier - seems that there had to be a ramp of sorts to get from the high 38 foot piece to the
low 75 foot piece - and so that meant that the near end of the 75 foot piece had to be placed about 12 feet
from the 38 foot piece ........... making the whole damned thing stretch something like 125 feet overall.
Now ar/thmetic told me that that's about five times as long as my house is high; or 10 of my q>oat' tied nose
to tail. Got to admit that I really had to struggle to ima~ne something that size stic 'king out into the water.
Don't even like to think about it really - IfI had something that big sticking out into the channel from my
place - that would eat up a considerable part of the channel width - so much so that water skiing would most
probably be illegal due to their not being able to stay the legal 150feet away from the shore and
obstruction. Now that wouldn't really be neighborly would it? After all, folks have been water skiing up
and down this channel ever since I moved here in 73. And then I think of those clever folks who actually, on
purpose, drive one of those sail boats - all they need is a few more obstacles to get around; and k/ds and
~andparents would have to climb over or under those damned piers/docks just to walk down the beach to
admire the view and the critters. So much trouble from a supposed 70 foot dock.
So you see -you really can't believe what you read in the newspaperNotices about thing; like Pier projects.
All the Jbcts jm't aren't therefor you to build up a good mind picture of what these people are really
proposing to do. Guess that's why they get away. with so much - nobody really understands what they're up
to to begin with, or keeps a close eye on them after th~. get started.
That's why I'm glad to see that we will again have a shot at having ALL piers and doc/ct banned from this
channel. The way. things went in the past - with all the truth stretching and tack of supervision or fi)llow-up
by the ciq - I~rn afraid that any future application for a 2$ foot dock would end up as a smaller version of
the Hood Canal bridge, connecting ,~ladrona Point up to ~14arine Driv~ Probably with an espresso stand
plonked in the middle - right n~ct to the toll collector.
[ was for the Morator/ums, both of'them: 1 ~vas for the first merry-go-round that gave us Ordinance 46 t9.
and l'm certainly for this effort to get it back. I'm against any' Pier/Docks on the channel here because l
feel like I"ve been lied to about them in the past; and because the c/tv wasn't keeping an eye on our
interests.
George J. Miller P.O. Box 788 Bremerton, WA 98337
2
Bremerton City, Council
239 Fourth Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
dElVED C ITY COUNCIL OFFICE"
~.UG 0 3.-...~qa,q,.,
-?8
~,-
BREMERTON August 3, 1998
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Comments on:
The proposed Amendment of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program
to prohibit piers and docks on the channel between Ostrich and Oyster Bays.
Please establish an Ordinance to prohibit all piers and docks from the channe! to Oyster Bay.
NAVIGATIONAL HAZARDS
PRESENT: (No Piers / Docks) Maximum Float sizes are presently specified, along w/th the requirement
for obstruction warning reflectors on each float. Neither Float nor Anchor Buoy moorage positions, nor
method are currently specified. This positioning specification should be considered for incorporation into
any future revision of the SMP, as well as mooring methods - to prevent the floats from swinging at anchor
into the deeper waters - all in order to preserve an unobstructed access path down the navigable Channel.
Presently most buoys and many floats are anchored between the Zero and the minus 4 foot tide
lines. These floats and buoys actually assist in navigating the channel by defining the unobstructed
path - and would be of ~eater value if confidence was established in their location relative to a
known tidal contour, and visibility,. Enforcement of Size and Marking requirements for existing
floats is sorely lacking.
WITH DOCKS / PIERS: These Structures, to be of practical value would of necessity extend to a point
which would offer 5 feet of water under the keel at low (Zero) tide, for any vessel tied up to that structure
(parallel to the tidal flow). This translates to the structures extending out to the minus 5 foot tide level,
PLU...S the beam of any vessel moored there.
With such structures allowed on both sides of the Channel - then, depending upon the width and
gradient of the channel floor at that location - there would be a marginal separation between the
combined intrusions of structures (together with their moored vessels) from either side of the
channel. Worst case is estimated to be less than 20 feet separation.
RESULTS: Considering that the proposed structures are impermeable to any water transport, less
well endowed than an Icebreaker, all of the normal channel traffic would of necessity be funneled
into this marginal clear channel space - which, it should be noted is the location of the greatest
tidal current flows and roughest water during high wind conditions.
Such a confluence of traffic, of mixed speed, size, and purpose would present hazard to all, and
preclude normal utilization of the waterway by many. The navigation of this constricted safe
waterway would, for example - require very tight limits of navigation and steerage by the Christmas
Boats in a waterway shared with unlighted and unmarked piers and docks, w/thin scant feet of the
parading boats. Water skiing would be impossible. Passage of sailboats under sail would then be
history.. Swimming and floating would be likewise curtailed.
Shorter piers or docks would present the same adverse effects - only to a lesser de~ee. Piers and
docks which are shortened to an unusable / impractical length are but Vanity. Structures. and should
receive no consideration for acceptance on this channel.
Pedestrian access of the shorelines would be severely restricted by piers / docks of gross or
minor proportions; efforts by tots and physically challenged adults attempting to clam her over the
obstacles presented by barnacle encrusted - seaweed trailing dock sections would be daunting.
AESTHETIC EFFECTS OF DOCKS IN THE CHANNEL
IT WOULDN'T BE PRETTY
OOPS:
With private vessels tied up for long periods of time at private piers and docks - providing no
sanitary disposal facilities such as are available in established Marinas - the possibilities ~'or
'accidental' discharges of holding tanks or 'direct' heads would be increased. This could rival
Bremerton's own sewer discharge problems.
ADDED:
Pilings - Boats - Dock Sections - Pier Sections - all are intrusive into the presently 'clean'
view up and down the channel. Boats with displacement hulls, travelling at even the
proponents suggested 7 knot speeds - will lead to relatively more wake effects.
SUBTRACTED:
The normal flow and bustle of water craft and people enjoying the waters of the
channel. Disruptions of the present traffic by the added obstacles and constrictions
will result in: ELIMINATION of- the Water SPa'ers - the Kayaks - the inner
tube and air mattress drifters - Pitts fishing from small boats - Hobbi Cats under
sail - walking the beach la'dx exploring the beach - New Years day
boating enthusiasts - Christmas Boats - Boats travelling on the 'plane'. And
probably edible shellfish.
PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE ISSIfES
In addition to the more recent ruling and interpretation of Public Access to Shorelines referred to below,
which by the way appears to extend the State's application of Public Trust from Ocean Shorelines to interior
waters and codifies the State's intent to precluding the erosion of public recreational oppormn/ties associated
with these waters; the following general comments are offered, applying in this case mostly to the Tidelands
of properties on Madrona Point Drive and Marine Drive.
Public fight to use these tideland areas is of course substantiated by the doctrines of Public Trust,
Prescription and - most probably, considering the gentleness of the old neighbors along the channel, thru the
Doctrine of Custom.
As is commonly known, the Shoreline Management Act rooted in RCW 90.58, seeks to preserve our
shorelines in their natural state; lending due consideration to the continuing enjoyment of the physical and
aesthetic qualities of that natural shoreline. Bremerton's SMP in reflecting, appl.ving, and supplementing
the State program should, to the greatest extent possible, codi~ and endorse these objectives.
To bring the concept of "Personal Rights" vs "Public Trust" into a new age perspective - Consider -
~bur right to swing your arrn ENDS in the near vicini~, oj'~r nose.
The rights to Property are similarly reduced from 'Absolute' to 'Reasonable' by the interfaces of those
rights with the laws, regulations, and co-existing rights of neighbors the State, and society in general.
The opinion is widely held that the establishment of docks of the length, configuration and size presently
envisioned by the various petitioners - in the physically limited body of water that is the Channel -
constitutes a substantial interference with the significant private and public right of navigation. The
right of navigation involves not only commercial transportation upon navigable waters, but also
incidental rights of fishing, boating, swimming, waterskiing, and other related recreational purposes.
This right was recognized for Washington State as being a fundamental right. It applies to the area over
which water flows, even though intermittently. It is recognized that in situations of naturally vaLying water
level, the respective rights of the public and the owners of the property periodically submerged by water, are
dependent upon the level of the water. As the level increases, the rights of the public to use the water
increase, since the area of water increases proportionately. The rights of the landowners decrease, since they
cannot use their property in suet manner as to interfere with the expanded public rights.
Even presuming that a pier applicant actually owns the Tidelands in from of his property., it is recognized
that the law is quite clear that where the level of a navigable body of water fluctuates due to natural
causes so that the riparian owners property is submerged part of the time; the public has the right to
use all of the waters, whether it be at the high water line, at the low water line, or in between.
In the event that your 'Case Law' is a little rusty: you are directed to Wilbour v. Gallagher found in
Washington Supreme Court Reports.
It is taken that any project which interferes with this basic public right of,navigation is an interference
with a very, substantial public right which can not be considered non-significan~
CONSIDER ALSO: Bremerton City, with a population of some 38,000 souls - is being placed in the
position of controlling (i.e. restricting) the use of a Public Waterway which serves the established
recreational needs of over 100,000 people in Kitsap County alone. Estimating that 20% of these people
are active users of the waterways - and not counting users from neighboring counties and 'foreign'
visitors. Bremerton is being placed in the position of having to arbitrate the established use patterns of
over 20,000 people - in your consideration of the desires ora few. Make the smart decision.
Sincerely submitted for your consideration
3
/Ob