Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/98 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 239 4TH STREET BREMERTON, WA 98337 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AUGUST 19, 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 CONSENT AGENDA Items listed below have been distributed to Council members in advance for study and will be enacted by one motion. If separate discussion is desired on an item, it may be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda at the request of a Council member. NONE CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PUBLIC RECOGNITION - (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) NEW BUSINESS A. Labor Agreement By And Between The City of Bremerton And The Bremerton Police Officers' Guild B. Budget Adjustment To Support Senior Center Improvements C. Bid Award - SR304 Transportation Project/Asbestos Removal No. 1 To New Environment Contractors Do Bid Award - 1998 Reservoir Rehabilitation Reservoir #6 To Coating Applicators, Inc. (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE) #AB98-182 { #AB98-183 2~1 #AB98-184 5.~ E. Budget Adjustment/Position Reclassification And Staffing Change ORDINANCES A. Ordinance ¢f-4634 (Second Reading) Amending Ordinance #-4365 Proposal: Shoreline Master Program Amendment; Location: Oyster Bay Channel #AB98-186 40 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Labor Agreement by and between the City of Bremer~on and the Bremerton Police Officer's Guild FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: August 19, 1998 Human R. ejources Jim Meit~t~,~ August ~/3, 1998 i:~ '7~"~/~~-'~'( ' .~ ~'-''2' CLEARANCES~ :.f (Commentq on back if necessary).., , t 3. EXHIBITS:\ LabOrsummaryAgreementof Arbitration Award "~-~I~y A~rORNEY CITY TREASURER ENDORSEMENT'~ INFORMATIO/~ [ ] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: MAYOR ~Q~c..~-~' xD. ~L COUNCIL PRESIDENT 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Pursuant to RCW 41.56, negotiations have concluded between representatives of the City and the Bremerton Police Officer's Guild. Those items the parties reached impasse on were submitted to arbitration. The findings of the arbitrator are final and binding on both parties. This process has resulted in the attached Labor Agreement. The new Labor Agreement's term is January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1999. Council approval is required to implement the new agreement. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Labor Agreement by and between the City of Bremerton and the Bremerton Police Officer's Guild for the term of January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1999. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jim Meith ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Jim Meith EXPIRATION DATE: December 31, 1999 REVIEW DATE: PULLED [] TABLED [] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION: APPROVED [ ] DISAPPROVED[ ] AMENDED [ ] DATE: 11. (owm) AGENDA BILL NO.: 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: Not implementing the agreement would put the City in non-compliance with state law. would result in legal action by the Guild. Further, in all probability, it 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: The cost of the implementation for the bargaining unit is ($258,000) two hundred fifBy-eight thousand. Funds have been set aside in the budget. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: LABOR AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF BREMERTON AND BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD JANUARY t, 1997 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS TO THE LABOR AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF BREMERTON AND BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD JANUARY 1, 1997 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1999 ARTICLE TITLE PAGE ARTICLE 1 ARTICLE 2 ARTICLE 3 ARTICLE 4 ARTICLE 5 ARTICLE 6 ARTICLE 7 ARTICLE 8 ARTICLE 9 ARTICLE 10 ARTICLE 11 ARTICLE 12 ARTICLE 13 ARTICLE 14 ARTICLE 15 ARTICLE 16 ARTICLE 17 ARTICLE 18 ARTICLE 19 ARTICLE 20 ARTICLE 21 ARTICLE 22 ARTICLE 23 ARTICLE 24 ARTICLE 25 ARTICLE 26 PREAMBLE ........................................................................ 1 DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS ..................................... 1 RECOGNITION .................................................... 1 GUILD DUES ...................................................... 1 GUILD ACTIVITY ................................................... 2 WAGES .......................................................... 3 HOURS OF WORK ................................................. 4 OVERTIME ....................................................... 5 VACATION LEAVE ................................................. 6 HOLIDAYS ........................................................ 8 SICK LEAVE ...................................................... 9 INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY ........................................... 11 OTHER PAID LEAVE .............................................. 11 RETIREMENT BENEFITS ........................................... 11 INSURANCE BENEFITS ........................................... 12 CLOTHING AND UNIFORM CLEANING ALLOWANCE .................... 13 PERSONNEL PRACTICES .......................................... 13 MANAGEMENT RIGHTS ............................................ 16 PERFORMANCE OF DUTY/NO STRIKE ............................... 16 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ......................................... 16 SEVERABILITY ................................................... 18 ENTIRE AGREEMENT ............................................. 18 CONFLICTING PROVISIONS ........................................ 19 LABOR MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ................................. 19 PREMIUM PAY ................................................... 19 DEFERRED COMPENSATION ....................................... 19 TERM ........................................................... 19 APPENDIX A ...................................................................... 21 APPENDIX B ...................................................................... 22 LABOR AGREEMENT BY AND BETVVEEN THE CITY OF BREMERT©N and BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD JANUARY 1, 1997 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1999 PREAMBLE This Agreement is made and entered into pursuant to the provisions of RCW Chapter 41.56 by and between the City of Bremerton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter known as the "City", and the Bremerton Police Officers Guild hereinafter known as the "Guild" for the purpose of setting forth the wages, hours and working conditions which shall be in effect during the term of this Agreement for employees included in the bargaining unit described in Article 2 below. ARTICLE I ................. DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS 1.1 An employee who believes that he or she has been the subject of unlawful discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, age, sex, marital status, race, creed, color, religion, national origin or activity protected by RCW 41.56 shall seek relief through the appropriate local, state or federal agency charged with investigating such matters and shall not process such complaints through the Grievance Procedure of this Agreement. ARTICLE 2 ................. RECOGNITION 2.1 The City recognizes the Guild as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative for the purpose of negotiations concerning wages, hours and working conditions for the bargaining unit described in the State of Washington Public Relations Commission Decision No. 2371-PECB dated the 10th day of January, 1986 as: "All full-time and regular part-time uniformed employees holding the rank of sergeant or below in the Bremerton Police Department; excluding all confidential or supervisory and other employees of the employer." ARTICLE 3 ................. GUILD DUES 3.1 DUES DEDUCTIONS: The City will deduct monthly Guild dues and initiation fees uniformly required of membership from the pay of those employees who provide written authorization to the City to make such deductions. The City will transmit the total amount of deductions to the Treasurer of the Guild. 3.2 MAINTENANCE OF MEMBERSHIP: An employee who is a member of the Guild upon the date of the signing of this Agreement and an employee who joins the Guild subsequent to the date of the signing of this Agreement shall maintain membership in good standing with the Guild through the payment of periodic dues assessed by the Guild during the term of this Agreement. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 PAGE 1 An employee who was not a member of the Guild prior to September 3, 1986 snail not be subject to this Article. 3.3 SERVICE FEE OPTION: New employee within thirty (30) calendar days of hire and all other employees shall elect whether that employee wishes to (1)join the Guild and pay Guild dues and fees or (2) decline to join the Guild and pay a service fee equivalent to regular Guild initiation fees and dues to the extent permitted by law. 3.4 EQUIVALENT DUES PAYMENT: In accordance with RCW 41.56, objections to joining the Guild which are based on bona fide religious tenets or teachings of a church or religious body as may be determined by the Public Employment Relations Commission will be observed. Any such employee shall pay an amount of money equivalent to regular Guild dues to a nonreligious charity mutually agreed upon by the employee affected and the Guild. 3.5 FAILURETO COMPLY: An employee who fails to comply with this Article shall be terminated upon notice of such fact in writing from the Guild to the City. Termination of such an employee shall become effective within thirty calendar (30) days from the date the City received the notice, unless the employee has remedied the delinquency within said thirty calendar (30) day period provided that the habitual failure to timely pay dues, service fees or charitable contributions shall, upon the request of the Guild, result in the discharge of the offending employee. 3.6 HOLD HARMLESS: The Guild shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all liability to third parties resulting from the administration of the provisions of this Article. ARTICLE 4 ................. GUILD ACTIVITY 4,1 CONDUCT OF GUILD BUSINESS: Guild business, such as handling grievances and other legitimate routine matters, may be conducted on Police Department premises provided that such business does not interfere with Police Department operations and is authorized by the Police Chief or designee. Scheduled Guild meetings may be held in Police Department facilities provided that such meetings do not interfere with Police Department operations and are approved in advance by the Police Chief or designee. 4.2 GUILD REPRESENTATIVES: The Guild shall provide written notice to the Mayor, the Director of Human Resources and the Police Chief of the names of the officials authorized to represent the Guild immediately upon their election or appointment. The City will provide reasonable access to City premises to such authorized representatives for the purpose of handling grievances and other legitimate Guild business provided that such access does not interfere with the work and duties of Guild employee representatives or of other on-duty employees. The Police Chief or designee shall grant an employee who is also an Guild Representative reasonable release time while on duty for the purpose of handling grievances and other legitimate Guild business, provided that such release time does not unreasonably interfere with the work and duties of the employees or of other on-duty employees. 4.3 USE OF CITY PROPERTY: Use of City property is authorized as provided below. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON - BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 ! PAGE 2 4.3.1 USE OF EQUIPMENT: The following Police Department equipment is authorized for use by authorized Guild representatives for Guild business: 4,3.1.1 TYPEWRITERS: when needed for short work. 4.3.1.2 COPY MACHINES: up to five (5) copies for members of the Guild's board. If more are needed, the Guild shall reimburse the Police Department for costs subsequent to receipt of an itemized billing. 4.3.1.3 TELEPHONE: Local calls are approved. Costs of long distance calls and FAX use shall be reimbursed by the Guild to the Police Department subsequent to receipt of an itemized billing. 4.3.2 BULLETIN BOARDS: The Police Department shall permit the reasonable and lawful use of bulletin boards by the Guild for the posting of notices relating to official Guild business. ARTICLE 5 ................. WAGES 5.1 HOURLY WAGE F~TES: Hourly wage rates shall be paid as set forth in Appendix A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 5.1.1 Advancement through the hourly wage rates from the first rate through the final rate of the longevity scale will occur upon completion of the prescribed number of full year(s) of continuous employment since the employee's last wage placement. In the event an employee is on approved leave of absence without pay, the employee's next wage rate advancement date will be extended by the actual number of days the employee was absent on such leave. No such step increase shall be denied employees who have met acceptable performance standards. Step increases may be withheld for a maximum of six (6) months. The denial of a step increase is subject to the grievance procedure. 5.1.2 A new employee's wage rate shall be set at the first year rate, except that a new employee who has prior paid work experience as a full time Patrol Officer in a police service which operates a full time service using paid employees, may have his or her wage rate set at the second year or third year rate based upon relevant years and type of prior experience. Placement at second or third year rates shall be determined by the City. 5.2 LONGEVITY PAY: Longevity pay, which is a rate of pay based on the length of completed continuous service with the City, shall be calculated on the individual employee's hourly wage rate and shall be paid as follows: Length of Continuous Service Rat.e Per Hour 0 through 5 years continuous employment Commencing 6 through 10 years continuous employment Commencing 11 through 15 years continuous employment Commencing 16 through 20 years continuous employment Commencing 21 through 25 years continuous employment 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 7 PAGE 3 Commencing 26 years and over continuous employment 5%~ 5.3 ON CALL PAY: When the Employer places an employee on "on-call status," the employee shall be compensated at a rate of one-third (1/3) the regular hourly rate of pay for time spent on call. The following time spent on call is compensable: When an employee is required to remain at any particular place dudng the on-call time, and the employee must be prepared to respond. This provision shall not apply to employees who normally carry pagers, and such employees' time off shall not be restricted. 5.4 OFFICER IN CHARGE: When a patrol officer is assigned substantially the full duties of Sergeant, the officer will be paid at a rate as if promoted to Sergeant for the duration of the assignment. ARTICLE 6 ................. HOURS OF WORK 6.1 NORMAL HOURS OF WORK: The normal hours of work shall be forty (40) hours per week. 6.2 SHIFTS: Employees shall be assigned to one of three (3) standard shifts as follows: Day 6 a.m. - 2 p.m. Swing 2 p.m. - 10 p.m. Grave 10 p.m. - 6 a.m. Days off will be assigned by supervisors as currently practiced. Other shifts may be worked, provided they do not exceed forty (40) hours per week and are mutually agreed to by the Employer and employee. 6.2.1 Shift assignments within the Patrol and Traffic Divisions shall be bid by seniority at least twice annually, on March 1st and September 1st, provided that no more than thirty-three percent (33%) of the positions within the Patrol and Traffic Division shall be exempt from the bidding process and assigned as is provided below. For the purposes of this section, seniority shall be defined as all paid regular time worked as a commissioned officer with the City of Bremerton Police Department. Special events and emphasis patrol for the traffic division shall be excluded from Article 6. 6.2.2 Exempt positions may be assigned at the sole discretion of the Chief of Police, provided that no officer past his or her one-year probationary pedod may be reassigned to another shift more often than once every six months. 6.2.3 Notwithstanding 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, the Chief of Police may reassign any non-probationary employee for just cause twice each year and probationary employees may be reassigned to shifts at the discretion of the Chief of Police. 6.2.4 Sergeants shall be allowed to bid for shifts on the basis of time since promotion to Sergeant, provided Section 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 above shall not apply to Sergeants, and provided further, the 26 year step effective January 1, 1999. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON - BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 PAGE 4 6.3 6.4 6.5 ARTICLE 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Chief of Police may assign a Sergeant to a particular shift without regard to seniority when such assignment is reasonably necessary to the efficient provision of police services. SHIFT EXCHANGES: Employees may exchange full or partial shifts when the change does not interfere with the duties and responsibilities of the employees in their positions and provided that the immediate supervisors of such employees find that no interference will occur as the result of a mutually agreeable shift exchange. The Police Chief or the Chief's designee may overrule such a finding by the immediate supervisor in the event that the Department's service or training needs require specific employees to be on duty dudng their assigned shifts. SHIFT CHANGEOVER COORDINATION: An employee who has been transferred from one shift to another shall normally be scheduled to begin the newly assigned shift upon a day or at a time which results in the employee receiving at least eight (8) hours of rest between work shifts. In the event that the transfer from one shift to another results in an employee receiving less than eight (8) hours of rest between work shifts, the employee shall be paid overtime for time worked during the eight (8) hour period between work shifts. An employee who receives a minimum of eight (8) hours of off-duty time between work shifts shall not be eligible for overtime compensation for shift changeover coordination time. ASSIGNMENT TRANSFER REVIEW REQUEST: Assignment transfers will be made at the discretion of the Police Chief or designee. Except in emergencies, at the employee's request, the Police Chief will provide his/her reason for the assignment transfer pdor to the transfer. The employee may submit information as to why the assignment transfer should not take place. The Police Chief will review the information and inform the employee of his/her decision. This review process is not subject to the grievance procedure. ................. OVERTIME OVERTIME DEFINED: Overtime is all required and authorized work performed in excess of an employee's normal work schedule. OVERTIME COMPENSATION: Overtime work shall be compensated at the rate of one-and-one- half (1%) times an employee's hourly rate in cash or in one-and-one-half (1%) times the overtime hours worked in compensatory time. Overtime compensation in compensatory time may be granted upon the request of the employee and with the approval of the Police Chief or designee. LIMITATION ON COMPENSATORY TIME: Accrued Compensatory time must be taken within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days from the date earned and at a time mutually agreeable to the employee and the Chief of Police or designee. If not used, it will be paid at the straight time rate. CALL BACK OVERTIME: An employee who has left the workplace and who is called back to duty with less than twenty-four (24) hour notice for a period of time which is less than three (3) hours, shall receive a minimum of three (3) hours of overtime compensation. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 PAGE 5 7.5 COURT AND/OR SUBPOENAED APPEARANCES: An employee who appears in Court arising out of his/her employment with the City or who responds to a subpoena on behalf of the City on off- duty time shall receive a minimum of two (2) hours of overtime compensation for such appearance. An employee who has been subpoenaed to appear in Court shall call the Court on the moming of the date of the scheduled appearance to confirm that the subpoena is still active. If the subpoena remains active after the telephone call, the employee shall then qualify to receive a minimum of two (2) hours of overtime compensation for responding to the subpoena. If the subpoena is no longer active after the employee calls in, no compensation shall be due the employee. 7.6 For civil subpoenas, payment for off-duty subpoena appearance is based on matters resulting from the employee performing police duties for the City. Off-duty officers will De compensated for total time in Court at the overtime rate of pay or a minimum of two (2) hours whichever is greater. Witness fees received by the officer from the plaintiff or defendant shall be assigned to the City. This Agreement does not include other subpoenaed appearances, such as Civil Service or arbitration subpoena, or compensation for telephone calls. The employee shall notify the Chief or designee as soon as the subpoena is served. ARTICLE 8 ................. VACATION LEAVE 8.1 VACATION ACCRUAL: Employees shall accrue vacation time with pay for all regularly scheduled work time including paid holiday, sick leave, vacation and other leave time and excluding time for which workers' compensation time loss benefits are paid pursuant to the following schedule: Period of Continuous Full Time Employment Annual Accrual Date of Hire through 5 years 104 hours 6th year 120 hours 7th year 128 hours 8th year 136 hours 9th year 144 hours 10th year 152 hours 11th year 160 hours 12th year 168 hours 13th year 176 hours 14th year 184 hours 15th year 192 hours 16th year 200 hours 17th year and thereafter 208 hours 8.2 VACATION ELIGIBILITY: An employee becomes eligible to take accrued vacation time upon completion of six (6) full months of employment; provided, however, the Chief Police may grant an exception to the six-month rule. Vacation time must be taken in segments of one-half (%) hour or more. Vacation time must be fully accrued prior to the time an employee takes any vacation time off. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON - BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 /c/ PAGE 6 8.3 8.4 8.4.1 8.5 8.6 8.6.1 8.6.2 VACATION SCHEDULING: Annual vacation leave shall be authorized by the Police Chief or designee. Personnel shall schedule vacation leave by mutual agreement of the employee and the Police Chief or designee. MAXIMUM VACATION ACCRUAL: The maximum number of vacation accrual hours that any employee shall be allowed to carry forward from one calendar year to the next is as follows: Years of Continuous Employment Maximum Balance 0 through Five (5) years More than Five (5) years 160 hours 240 hours In the event an employee has been prohibited from taking sufficient vacation time to reduce his or her vacation balance to the maximum allowable carryover at the end of a calendar year, the excess hours shall be paid out in cash at the employee's straight time hourly rate unless the City Council approves an extension of the time period beyond the end of the calendar year dudng which the employee must take all vacation hours which exceed the maximum allowable carryover. An employee who fails to request scheduled vacation time during the year and whose accrued vacation hours exceed the maximum carryover balance at the end of the calendar year shall forfeit such excess vacation hours. VACATION PAY-OUT; Upon the retirement, resignation, or termination of an employee or upon the date of an employee's disability retirement, the accrued vacation hours of such an employee will be paid to the employee in a cash lump sum payment. Shared Vacation Leave - Shared leave permits employees, at no additional cost to the City other than the costs of administering the program, to aid a fellow employee who is suffedng from an extraordinary or severe illness, injury, impairment, physical or mental condition which has caused or is likely to cause the employee to take leave without pay or to terminate his or her employment pdor to a determination that the affected employee is not expected to recover to an extent that will enable the employee to resume his or her normal duties or the duties of another position with the City or another employer. Eligibility -An employee who (1) is suffedng from an illness or injury causing his or her extended absence from work, and (2) who has depleted or will shortly deplete his or her total available accrued compensatory time and paid vacation, sick and floating holiday leave, may request shared vacation leave donations. Criteria for Approval - A request for shared vacation leave donations is to be submitted to the requesting employee's Department Head accompanied with medical documentation verifying the medical condition requiring the need for leave and the time pedod dudng which the employee can reasonably be expected to be absent from work due to the condition. Upon verifying that the requesting employee meets all of the eligibility requirements above and upon determining that the medical documentation COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON - BREMERTON POUCE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 PAGE 7 received provides appropriate verification of the medical condition and time period involved, the Department Head will recommend the employee's request for shared vacation leave donations be approved by the Mayor. The Mayor will review the request to assure that all of the requirements set forth in this subsection have been met and, if so, will approve the employee's request for vacation leave donations. 8.6.3 Conditions of Donation - An employee who desires to donate accrued vacation leave to a donee employee will do so voluntarily. Donations will be made in one hour increments. The employee who donates vacation leave will fill out the form relinquishing his or her vested right to the donated leave as prescribed by the City and submit the form to his or her Department Head. Upon approval of his or her Department Head, the donated vacation leave will be transferred to the donee employee's vacation leave balance with the next payroll report. Once so transferred, the donated vacation leave becomes a vested right of the employee to whom it was donated and will not revert back to the donor employee under any circumstances. 8.6.4 Use of Donated Leave -- An employee who has received donated shared vacation leave will be able to use the leave in the same manner as if he or she had personally accrued the leave provided that the use of or payment for the leave is in conformance with the provisions of this Article. ARTICLE 9 ................. HOLIDAYS 9.1 HOLIDAYS OBSERVED: The following holidays shall be observed by the City: New Year's Day Martin Luther King's Birthday President's Day Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Veteran's Day Thanksgiving Day Day after Thanksgiving Christmas 9.1.1 In addition, any other holiday legally proclaimed by the Federal or State government, provided that the City takes official action to have such holiday also observed by the City. 9.2 FLOATING HOLIDAY: Each employee shall be allowed one (1) additional holiday to be observed by the employee on a day mutually agreeable to the employee and the Police Chief or designee. 9.3 HOLIDAY COMPENSATION: Employees shall receive an additional eleven (11) days vacation leave per year in lieu of holidays, except as enumerated in the premium holiday compensation section. The accrual and payment of such additional compensation shall be in accordance with the Employer's established practice in this regard. 9.4 PREMIUM HOLIDAY COMPENSATION: In the event an employee is required to work during the term of this Agreement on Labor Day, New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day, such employee shall be compensated at the rate of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON - BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GU,LD AUGUST 12, 1998 .~.,~ PAGE 8 one-and-one-half (1¼) times the employee's hourly rate of pay. It is recognized that non- uniformed officers are not scheduled to work on the holidays enumerated in this section. ARTICLE 10 ................ SICK LEAVE 10.1 SICK LEAVE ACCRUAL: Employees shall accrue sick leave time with pay at the rate of .046154 hours for all normal hours of work including holiday, sick leave, vacation and other paid leave time excluding time for which workers' compensation time toss benefits are paid. The maximum annual accrual is ninety six (96) hours. 10.2 MAXIMUM SICK LEAVE ACCRUAL: Employees shall be able to accrue sick leave to a maximum of twelve hundred (1,200) hours. 10.3 SICK LEAVE INCENTIVE: An employee who takes thirty-two (32) hours or less of sick leave in any furl calendar year shall have eight (8) hours added to his or her vacation leave balance at the beginning of the following calendar year. 10.4 SICK LEAVE RETIREMENT OR DEATH PAYMENT: An employee who retires from City service on a service retirement or an employee who dies shall be provided a Sick Leave Retirement Payment at thirty-five percent (35%) of the employee's accrued and unused sick leave hours to a maximum of 35% of 960 hours (a maximum total of 336 hours). The payment will be made to the employee or the employee's estate at the employee's regular hourly wage rate in effect at the time of retirement or death. 10.5 SICK LEAVE USE: Sick leave must be accrued in the pay period pdor to use by an employee. Sick leave shall be made available to each employee up to the amount of each employee's accrued sick leave balance and shall be used in increments of no tess than one-half (%) hour to cover an employee's absence from his or her regularly scheduled work hours due to: 10.5.1 The temporary disability of an employee resulting from his or her personal illness or injury. 10.5.2 Providing care for an employee's children under the age of 18 when they have a health condition that requires supervision or treatment, as currently defined by the Washington State industrial welfare law, RCW 49.12.270 and as may be amended by the Washington State Legislature. 10.5.3 Attending medical, dental and/or oculist appointments as needed for preventive or rehabilitative health care of the employee or the employee's children when such care requires parental presence to supervise or authorize treatment. 10.5.4 Upon the birth or adoption of a child, a father may use up to three (3) days of accrued sick leave. 10.5.5 Providing for an employee's immediate family member when the family member has a health condition that requires the assistance of an adult caretaker until such time as other care can be arranged. No more than five (5) days of sick leave can be used for this purpose per calendar year, unless as otherwise provided in this section or by law. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON - BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 PAGE 9 10.6 NOTIFICATION OF SICK LEAVE USE: An employee who is absent or expects to be absent from work due to causes specified in Sick Leave Use above, shall provide notification as follows: 10.6.1 ROUTINE APPOINTMENTS: The employee shall give prior notice of the date and time of the appointment to his or her immediate supervisor. An employee's immediate supervisor may request that the employee reschedule routine appointments when the scheduled absence of the employee would unduly interfere with the operations of the Department. An immediate supervisor shall not unreasonably deny an employee sick leave with pay for routine medical, dental or oculist appointments. 10.6.2 UNANTICIPATED ABSENCE: An employee who is absent from work or who will be unable to report to work as scheduled due to personal illness or injury, or for other causes specified in Sick Leave Use above, shall promptly notify the Department by telephone or otherwise as soon as practicable and will make every effort to notify the Department within the first one-half (I,~) hour preceding each work day of absence. In the event of a prolonged illness or injury, the Department may exempt an employee from the requirement to daily report absences and may establish an alternative reporting arrangement appropriate to the circumstances. 10.6.3 SICK LEAVE DURING AUTHORIZED PaiD LEAVE: An employee who becomes ill or is injured during the employee's paid vacation or compensatory time off may request the conversion of such paid leave to sick leave with pay by promptly notifying the department at the time of occurrence or as soon thereafter as reasonably feasible of the illness, injury, or incapacity and such conversion shall be granted, providing such information as is required by the Department to verify the appropriateness if such a conversion is provided. 10.7 SICK LEAVE DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVAL: An employee who has been absent on sick leave shall, within thirty-six (36) hours after returning to work, submit such forms and provide such information as are required by the Police Chief or designee to approve the use of sick leave with pay for the absence. The Police Chief of designee may require an employee to provide a professional physician's verification of an employee's, child's or family member's illness or injury as a condition of approving sick leave with pay, if the Police Chief or designee has a reasonable basis to suspect sick leave is not being used in conformance with this Article. In the event the Police Chief or designee intends to require such verification, the employee will be notified of the requirement prior to returning to work. The Chief of Police or designee may require an employee to provide certification by a professional physician that the employee is sufficiently recovered as to be able to return to work and assume his or her normal duties prior to the employee returning to work; or, in the event the employee has appeared at work, prior to resuming work. If the Department does not allow the employee to return to work due to a need for certification, the employee will be allowed to continue the use of sick leave for the period required to obtain required certification. Sick leave must be approved by the Police Chief or designee prior to allowance. The Police Chief or designee shall not unreasonably withhold approval of sick leave with pay from employees. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 / .~.. PAGE 10 ARTICLE 11 ................ INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY 11.1 INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY FOR LEOFF I EMPLOYEES: An employee who qualifies for and is included in the Washington State Retirement System commonly referred to as "LEOFF I", who becomes disabled, and whose disability extends beyond a period of six (6) full months, shall apply for disability retirement benefits provided through LEOFF I. 11.2 INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY LEAVE FOR LEOFF II EMPLOYEES: An employee who qualifies for and is included in the Washington State Retirement System commonly referred to as "LEOFF I1", and who incurs a work-related illness or injury shall be provided with such compensation as is made available through Workers' Compensation time-loss benefits as provided by Washington State law. ARTICLE 12 ................ OTHER PAID LEAVE 12.1 BEREAVEMENT LEAVE: An employee will be granted three (3) days of bereavement leave for attending funerals in the State of Washington and five (5) days of bereavement leave for out of state funerals of members of the employee's immediate family. 12.1.1 Immediate family shall be defined as spouse, child, stepchild, mother, father, mother/father in- law, brother, sister, bother/sister in-law, grandchildren and grandparents of both the employee and the employee's spouse. All time off for bereavement leave shall be charged against an employee's vacation/holiday, sick leave or compensatory time leave balance at the option of the employee. 12.2 JURY DUTY, WITNESS LEAVE: An employee shall be granted leave of absence with pay for the purpose of reporting to or serving jury duty. Any juror fees received by the employee for the performance of such duties shall be assigned to the City. 12.3 MILITARY LEAVE: A leave of absence with pay for a pedod not to exceed 15 working days will be granted to an employee for the purpose of attending training as a member of the organized military reserves of the United States or of the State of Washington. 12.4 EMERGENCY LEAVE: In the event of an unforeseen emergency which requires the absence of an employee such as the illness, injury or death of a member of an employee's immediate family, the employee shall notify his or her immediate supervisor as soon as possible of the required absence. Such emergency leave shall be charged to an employee's unused vacation/holiday or compensatory time leave balance. ARTICLE 13 ................ RETIREMENT BENEFITS 13.1 Each employee shall be enrolled in the Washington State Retirement system for which he or she qualifies. Only for the purposes of federal income taxation, the gross income of each employee shall be reduced by the amount of employee contributions to the respective retirement system which is picked up by the City. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 /..5 PAGE 11 ARTICLE 14 ................ INSURANCE BENEFITS 14.1 MEDICAL INSURANCE: The City shall make medical insurance coverage available to employees and their dependents as follows: Kitsap Physician's Service Plan A for Employees and Dependents Group Health Cooperative for Employees and Dependents Or an other plan of equivalent or better coverage 14.2 INSURANCE PREMIUM PAYMENTS: Payment of insurance premiums shall be made as follows: Employee premium paid in full by the City, Employee contributions toward dependent coverage shall be seven dollars ($7) per month per dependent to a maximum of twenty-one dollars ($21) per month for full family co~/erage. 14.3 DENTAL INSURANCE: The City shall provide the same benefit levels as are contained in the Washington Dental Service Plan A dental insurance coverage for employees and their dependents and provide for full payment of insurance premiums. 14.4 DISABILITY: Employees who are covered by the Washington State Retirement System commonly known as LEOFF II, shall enroll to receive Long Term Disability Insurance coverage through the provisions of policies held by the City with Standard Insurance Company. The City shall pay a maximum of $10 per month per eligible and enrolled employee toward premium costs. The remainder of all premium costs shall be Dome by the enrolled employee and shall be paid to Standard Insurance Company through payroll deductions authorized by each enrolled employee. 14.5 INSURANCE RESERVES, REBATES AND SURPLUSES: The City shall require the KPS medical plan provider to provide a structured accounting to the City at least annually. Such accounting shall include plan utilizations, all reserve accounts maintained for the plan, interest earned on reserves, administration costs and coinsurance (pooling) costs. This accounting shall be made available to the Guild upon request. The City agrees that premium rebates, reserve account rebates or any other monetary returns to the employer from the insurance providers together with subsequent interest earnings thereon shall be used exclusively to defray the costs of premium increases in the plan, and increase benefit levels, or other health related purposes determined appropriate by the Insurance Benefits Committee. Premium increases shall be any increase over the 1994 levels. 14.6 INSURANCE COMMITTEE: The Insurance Benefits Committee shall be comprised of the following members: Mayor or designee, Human Resources Manager, or designee, Administrative Services Director or designee, one employee selected by the non-represented management and professional employees, and one individual selected by each of the recognized unions. The Committee shall elect a chair and any other officers it deems appropriate. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON - BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 /(.~ PAGE 12 14.7 Effective January 1, 1999, should either Kitsap Physician's Service Plan A or Group Health Cooperative, now or in the future, require a co-pay, the co-pay will be paid by the employee. The amount the employee is obligated to pay shall not exceed five dollars ($5.00) per visit. ARTICLE 15 ................ CLOTHING AND UNIFORM CLEANING ALLOWANCE 15.1 PURCHASE OF UNIFORMS: The employer shall establish a Clothing Allowance Fund for the Bremerton Police Department. Each employee shall be fumished uniforms as designated by the Chief of Police or designee. Such uniforms shall be replaced on an as-needed basis from the Clothing Allowance Fund, as determined by the Police Chief or designee. All uniforms purchased by the Employer are to be and remain the property of the Employer. 15.2 CLOTHING ALLOWANCE: An annual allowance effective January 1, 1998, equal to four hundred and fifty dollars ($450) and January 1, 1999 equal to four hundred and seventy-five dollars ($475) per year will be provided to non-uniformed, sworn personnel. Such allowance shall be paid one-half during the month of January and July. In the event an employee is transferred to the Detective Division and is assigned as a Detective, he/she will receive a pro-rata clothing allowance payment. The Employer shall withhold the necessary federal income tax from the cleaning allowance as required by the Federal Tax Code as now written or hereafter amended. 15.3 UNIFORM CLEANING ALLOWANCE: There shall be an annual uniform cleaning allowance of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per month. This applies to all employees. Such allowance shall be payable in the amount of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) during January and July. Should an employee leave the service of the Employer, any portion of the unused cleaning allowance shall be deducted from the employee's severance pay. The Employer shall withhold the necessary federal income tax from the cleaning allowance as required by the Federal Tax Code as now written or hereafter amended. 15.4 CLEANING CONTRACT: In the event the Employer secures a cleaning contract with an independent cleaning company during the term of this Agreement, the uniform cleaning allowance shall become null and void. 15.5 MOTORCYCLE BOOTS: The City shall provide the sum of one hundred dollars ($100.00) to Motorcycle Officers for the purchase of motorcycle boots. After initial issue, replacement moneys will be approved only after the Police Chief or designee authorizes such replacement based on wear/tear of motorcycle boots. 15.6 ALTERNATE CLOTHING & UNIFORM CLEANING ALLOWANCE REIMBURSEMENT METHOD: At the employee's option, he or she may submit appropriate receipts for reimbursement of either or both of these allowances. This method will be in lieu of the provisions of Article 15.2 and 15.3. An employee must inform the Treasurer's Office no later than January I of each year that he or she wishes to utilize this altemative. ARTICLE 16 ................ PERSONNEL PRACTICES 16.1 DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of interpreting the provisions of this Agreement, the following definitions shall apply: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON - BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 17 PAGE 13 16.1.1 16.1.2 16.1.3 16.1.4 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.5.1 PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE: An employee serving a twelve (12) month period commencing upon the initial date of hire as a permanent employee during which the employee may be discharged at the sole discretion of the City, consistent with applicable Civil Service Rules and Regulations and without recourse to the grievance procedure. PROMOTIONAL PROBATION: A twelve (12) month period commencing upon the initial date of a permanent promotional appointment during which a promoted employee who is unable to perform the duties of the higher level position shall be returned to his or her previous classification at the time of appointment at the sole discretion of the City, consistent with applicable Civil Service Rules and Regulations ana without recourse to the grievance procedure. LEOFF I EMPLOYEE: An employee who qualifies for and is a member of the Washington State Retirement System commonly known as "LEOFF I". LEOFF II EMPLOYEE: An employee who qualifies for and is a member of the Washington State Retirement System commonly known as "LEOFF I1". INDEMNIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES: The City shall provide legal defense and will pay all legitimate claims, settlements, judgments, and associated costs for employees and their marital communities named as parties or defendants in claims or lawsuits as a result of acts or omissions made in the good faith performance of the city's business. PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENT: Any employee who is appointed to a position classification by the Chief of Police on a provisional basis shall be paid the established compensation for such position classification. DEPARTMENT POLICY MANUAL AND POLICY CHANGES: The Police Depadment Policy Manual will be distributed to all bargaining unit employees. The employee will acknowledge receipt of and will become knowledgeable of the Manual's or Policy's contents. All revisions to the Manual or Policy will be provided to employees for inclusion in the Manual. Further, the Department will inform the Guild of policy revisions prior to enactment. POLICE OFFICERS INTERVIEW GUIDELINES: The Safety of our community and its citizens, plus the integrity and reputation of the Police Department depends to a great extent on the manner in which the members of the department perform their varied and difficult duties. To ensure that intemal investigations are conducted in a manner conducive to good order and discipline, and also observe and protect the individual dghts of each member of the Department, the following rules are hereby established: The interview of any Department member shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably when the member is on duty and/or during daylight hours, unless the urgency of the investigation dictates otherwise. If such interview occurs during off-duty time of the member being interviewed, the member shall be compensated for his or her off-duty time in accordance with the overtime provisions of this Agreement. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON - BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 PAGE 14 16.5.2 16.5.3 16.5.4 16.5.5 16.5.6 16.5.7 16.5.8 16.5.9 16.5.10 The interview shall take place at a location designated by the investigation officer, preferably at the Police Department. Before any questioning commences, a member of the Police Department shall be advised in writing in the event that person becomes a suspect in an administrative investigation. The member being interviewed shall be informed of the nature of the investigation, and namers) of all complaining parties before the interview commences. The member being interviewed shall be informed of his or her right to and be afforded an opportunity and the necessary facilities to contact an Guild representative prior to commencement of the interview. The member's representative may be present during the interview. Nothing herein shall in any way restrict the rights of the representative with the employee during the process of the interview. The interview shall be conducted in the most expedient manner consistent with the scope and gravity of the subject matter of the interview. The member shall be permitted reasonable periods to attend to personal necessities. The member shall not be subjected to offensive language or intimidation during the process of the interview. No promises or rewards shall be made to the employee as an inducement to answering questions. When the member is being interviewed in a non-criminal matter for violation of departmental rules, regulations or orders, that member shall answer truthfully all questions concerning the investigation posed to him or her by the interviewing officer. When the member refuses to answer such questions, he or she will be informed that his or her refusal to answer may become the subject for disciplinary action. A member shall not be required to take a polygraph test as part of the interview process. Nothing contained in any of the above guidelines shall restrict and/or limit the authority of the Chief of Police or designee in the performance of his or her duties and responsibilities as the Chief Administrator of the Bremerton Police Department, No tape recording will be made of the interview without pdor advisement. There will be no off- the-record questions during a recorded interview, unless the parties mutually agree. If the Department tape records the interview, a taped copy of the complete interview of the employee, noting all recess periods, may be furnished, at the cost of the tape, upon request of the employee. If the interviewed employee is subsequently disciplined and any part of any recording is transcribed by the employer, the employee shall be given a complimentary copy thereof. The Guild may be allowed to tape record the interview. When the member being interviewed is in custody, or is likely to be placed in custody as a result of the interview, that person shall be informed of his or her Constitutional Rights pdor to commencement of the interview. The member may request a postponement of the initial interview to contact an attorney. The interview may not be postponed more than twenty-four (24) hours with allowances being made for weekends and holidays. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF' BREMERTON, WASHINGTON - BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 PAGE 15 ARTICLE 17 ................ MANAGEMENT RIGHTS 17.1 Any and all rights concerned with the management and operation of the Police Department are exclusively that of the City unless otherwise provided by the terms of this Agreement. The City has the right, among other actions, to adopt rules for the operation of the Department and conduct of the employees, to discipline, suspend or discharge employees for just cause, to assign work and determine duties of employees, to determine number of personnel to be assigned duty at any time, to determine and introduce new work methods or facilities to increase productivity for operation of the Department and to perform all of the functions not otherwise expressly limited by this Agreement; provided, nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of collective bargaining rights conferred on the parties by RCW 41.56. 17.2 The Chief of Police may change Crime Scenes/Evidence Technician to civilian positions, provided that the police positions are retained in the Department. ARTICLE 18 ................ PERFORMANCE OF DUTY/NO STRIKE 18.1 The City and the Guild recognize that the public interest requires the efficient and uninterrupted performance of all City services and pledge their best efforts to avoid or eliminate any conduct contrary to this objective. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to grant an employee the right to strike or to refuse to perform his or her duties to the best of his or her abilities. During the term of this Agreement, the Guild and/or membership shall not cause, engage in or sanction any work stoppage, strike, walkout, sit-down, stray-in, slowdown, sick-in, curtailment of work, or interference with City operations at any location whatsoever; provided, that nothing herein shall be interpreted as to prohibit lawful information picketing. Employees who engage in any of the foregoing or similar activities shall be subject to immediate disciplinary action up to and including discharge. The City shall not institute any lockout of employees during the term of this Agreement. ARTICLE 19 ................ GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 19.1 DEFINITIONS: 19.1.1 GRIEVANCE: A grievance is an allegation of a violation of the terms and conditions of this Agreement which is to be resolved through this Grievance Procedure. 19.1.2 CIVIL SERVICE APPEAL: An appeal is an allegation of a violation of the Civil Service Rules that is to be resolved through the Civil Service Appeals procedure and is not resolvable through this Grievance Procedure. 19.1.3 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE: An Unfair Labor Practice charge is an allegation of a violation of the Washington State statutes goveming public employment labor relations which is to be resolved through the Public Employment Relations Commission's rules and regulations and is not resolvable through this Grievance Procedure. 19.2 STEP 1: An employee who believes that the terms and conditions of this Agreement have been violated shall first discuss the matter with the person who took the action giving rise to the COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 ~ PAGE 16 19.3 19.3.1 19.3.2 19.3.3 19.3.4 19.4 19.5 belief with his or her immediate supervisor within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date the action took place or within fourteen (14) days of the date upon which the employee, by due diligence, could reasonably have been expected to know of such action. The person who took the action shall provide the employee with a written response within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date upon which the grievance was discussed with the employee. STEP 2: In the event that the person who took the action does not resolve the issue to the satisfaction of the employee at Step I of this procedure, the employee shall reduce the matter to writing and shall: State whether the employee is selecting a Civil Service Appeal or the Grievance Procedure herein as the dispute resolution method to be used to resolve the issue. In the event the employee selects the Civil Service Appeal method, the employee shall comply with the Civil Service Rules in processing the matter. tn the event the employee selects the Grievance Procedure method, the employee shall reduce the matter to a written grievance and shall state: the section (or sections) of this Agreement which is/are alleged to have been violated; an explanation of the grievance in detail, including dates, actions and such other information necessary to a full investigation of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the grievance; and the remedy sought. The employee shall have the right to be assisted by an authorized Guild representative in reducing his or her grievance to writing. The employee shall present the written grievance to the immediate superior of the person who responded to Step 1 above within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date the employee received a written response at Step 1 of this procedure. In the event the Police Chief responded at Step 1 above, the employee shall proceed to Step 4 of this Grievance Procedure. The immediate superior may meet with the employee and the employee's Guild Representative within fourteen (14) calendar days after receipt of the written grievance for the purpose of considering the matter. The immediate superior shall reduce his or her decision to writing and shall transmit the decision to the employee with a copy to the Guild representative within fourteen (14) calendar days of receiving the written grievance or of meeting with the employee and the Guild Representative. STEP 3: In the event that the immediate superior does not resolve the grievance to the satisfaction of the employee at Step 2 of this procedure, the employee shall transmit a copy of the odginal grievance along with a copy of the written response received at Step 2 to the Police Chief within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of the immediate superior's written response. The Police Chief may convene a meeting with the Guild representative in an attempt to resolve the grievance. The Police Chief shall reduce his or her decision to writing within fourteen (14) calendar days of the Chief's personal receipt of the grievance or, if a meeting was held, within fourteen (14) calendar days after meeting with the Guild Representative and transmit the decision to the Guild. STEP 4: In the event that the Police Chief does not resolve the grievance at Step 3 of this procedure, the Guild may request arbitration of the issue by written notification to the Director of Human Resources within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the Police Chief's decision. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON - BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 PAGE 17 In the event the Guild does not request arbitration of the issue within the thirty (30) calendar day period, the grievance shall be deemed withdrawn. Prior to the selection of an arbitrator and submission of the grievance for hearing by said arbitrator, the Director of Human Resources shall informally review the grievance and determine whether said grievance may be adjusted to the satisfaction of the employee. The Director of Human Resources shall have fourteen (14) calendar days in which to review and seek adjustment of the grievance. 19.6 SELECTION OF ARBITRATOR: A neutral arbitrator shall be selected by mutual agreement or through a mutually agreeable process. In the event the parties cannot agree, either party may petition the Public Employment Relations Commission for a panel of arbitrators. 19.7 POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ARBITRATOR: It shall be the duty of the arbitrator to conduct a headng on the issue or issues submitted by the parties for decision. The hearing shall be kept informal and private. The arbitrator shall interpret the provisions of this Agreement as they apply to the issue or issues submitted for decision and shall not add to, subtract from, nor in any way otherwise alter or recommend the alteration of the terms and conditions of the Agreement in deciding the matter. As soon as is practicable after conducting the headng, the arbitrator shall render a wdtten decision which shall be binding upon the parties. The arbitrator shall conduct the arbitration headng in conformance with the Voluntary Rules for Labor Arbitration of the American Arbitration Guild. 19.8 COSTS OF ARBITRATION: The expenses of the neutral arbitrator shall be borne equally by the parties. Each party shall singly bear all costs related to preparing and presenting its own case before the arbitrator, including costs of witnesses. The party desiring a record of the proceedings shall bear the cost of obtaining such record. 19.9 TIME LIMITS: Time limits established in this procedure shall be strictly adhered to but may be waived by mutual agreement of the Guild and the City. All procedures contained herein shall be complied with as expeditiously as practicable. ARTICLE 20 ................ SEVERABILITY 20.1 In the event that any provision of this Agreement is held invalid by any tribunal of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be held invalid and shall remain in full force and effect. The Guild and the City shall immediately meet and attempt to renegotiate any provision found invalid. ARTICLE 21 ................ ENTIRE AGREEMENT 21.1 The Guild and the City acknowledge that each has had the unlimited right and opportunity to make proposals with respect to any matter deemed a proper subject for collective bargaining. The results of the exercise of that right are set forth in this Agreement. Therefore, the City and the Guild each voluntarily and unqualifiedly agree to waive the right to oblige the other party to bargain with respect to any subject or matter not specifically covered by the Articles of this Agreement during the term of this Agreement, except as mutually agreed upon. The Employer shall not unilaterally change any mandatory subject of bargaining without providing the union with prior notice and the opportunity to bargain. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON- BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 PAGE 18 ARTICLE 22 ................ CONFLICTING PROVISIONS 22.1 In the event that any provision of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with any other Resolution, Ordinance, Policy, Regulation or Rule of the City, the provision of this Agreement shall prevail. ARTICLE 23 ................ LABOR MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 23.1 LABOR MANAGEMENT: The Employer and the Guild agree that a need exists for closer cooperation between labor and management. To accomplish this objective, the Employer and the Guild agree that no more than three (3) duly authorized representatives of the Guild shall function as one-half (%) of a Labor-Management Committee, the other half being no more than three (3) certain representatives of the Employer named for that purpose. The committee shall meet at least once every three (3) months for the purpose of discussing and facilitating the resolution of all problems which may arise between the parties. The Employer shall provide a draft of the minutes of the meeting to the Guild's committee within (2) two weeks of the meeting. At the committee's discretion, additional meetings may be held. The committee shall be chaired by a member elected by the committee. 23.2 Should the Guild and Employer mutually agree to change, add, or delete any provision of this Agreement, policies, rules or other matters, such change shall be set forth in writing. ARTICLE 24 ................ PREMIUM PAY 24.1 MASTER PATROL OFFICER: Effective upon assignment, any employee who meets the requirements for the Master Patrol Officer (MPO) program shall receive a premium of five (5%) of their base monthly rate of pay for all hours worked as an MPO. 24.2 K-9 PREMIUM: Employees assigned to the K-9 division shall receive as compensation for the additional duties required by the position, a straight time hourly rate of twelve dollars and thirty- eight cents ($12.38). For each week the employee is assigned to the K-9 division the employee shall be compensated for three (3) hours at one-and-one-half (1~) times the straight time hourly rate stated herein. ARTICLE 25 ................ DEFERRED COMPENSATION 25.1 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: The Employer shall match the payroll deduction of any written request by an employee covered by this Agreement, in an amount not to exceed two percent (2.0%) of the employee's base monthly wage rate. ARTICLE 26 ................ TERM 26.1 This Agreement shall become effective January 1, 1997 and shall remain in effect through December 31, 1999, and may be extended thereafter by mutual agreement. It is further agreed that the City or the Guild may request reopening of this Agreement any time within six (6) COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 PAGE 19 months of the expiration for the purpose of negotiating changes to be effective following the expiration of this Agreement with such notice to be in writing to the other party. This Agreement is hereby submitted to the Bremerton City Council for approval. Upon the approval of the Council, this Agreement shall become binding upon the City, the Guild and all of the employees in the bargaining unit covered by this Agreement. DATED THIS day of ,1998. CITY OF BREMERTON BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD: Jim Meith, Human Resources Director Paul DuFresne Police Chief Roy AIIoway, President John Bogen, Vice-President Honorable Lynn Horton, Mayor Member, Board of Directors A'I-FEST: Member, Board of Directors Kathleen McCLuskey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ? / Gl~nna'~alanca, City Attomey Member, Board of Directors COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON - BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 PAGE 20 APPENDIX A TO THE AGREEMENT BY AND BETVVEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD JANUARY 1, 1997 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1999 THIS APPENDIX is supplemental to that Agreement by and between the CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON ("Employer") and the BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD ("guild"). A.1 Effective January 1, 1997, the base monthly rates of pay for employees shall be as follows: CLASSIFICATION STEP I STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 POLICE OFFICER SERGEANT 00-12 mo. 13-24 mo. 25-36 mo. 37-48 mo. 49+ mo. Approx. Monthly $3,210.30 $3,330.36 $3,486.96 $3,636.60 $3,955.02 Houdy $18.45 $19.14 $20.04 $20.90 $22.73 Approx. Monthly $4,177.74 $4,269.96 $4,360.44 $4,450.92 $4,544.88 Hourly $24.01 $24.54 $25.06 $25.58 $26.12 A.2 Effective January 1, 1998, the base monthly rates of pay for employees shall be as follows: CLASSIFICATION STEP I STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 POLICE OFFICER SERGEANT 00-12 mo. 13-24 mo. 25-36 mo. 37-48 mo. 49+ mo. Approx. Monthly $3,323.40 $3,446.94 $3,608.76 $3,765.36 $4,094.22 Hourly $19.10 $19.81 $20.74 $21.64 $23.53 Approx. Monthly $4,323.90 $4,419.60 $4,513.56 $4,607.52 $4,703.22 Hourly $24.85 $25.40 $25.94 $26.48 $27.03 A.3 SERGEANT CLASSIFICATION - Any employee who is promoted to the classification of sergeant shall be placed at Step 3 of the sergeant classification, provided, however, an employee hired as a sergeant through a lateral transfer, having not served as a police officer with the City of Bremerton, may be placed into Step 1 of the sergeant classification. A.4 Effective January 1, 1999, the rates of pay set forth in the 1998 wage table shall be increased by a general wage increase of ninety percent (90%) of that percentage increase set forth in the Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers Index (CPI-W) (1982-84=100) for the Seattle-Tacoma area for that period from July 1997 to July 1998 as is supplied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor. The COLA percentage increase shall not be less than three percent (3%) nor shall it exceed six (6%) percent. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON - BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 PAGE 21 APPENDIX B TO THE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD JANUARY 1, 1997 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1999 THIS APPENDIX is supplemental to that Agreement by and between the CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON ("Employer") and the BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD, ("Guild"). Master Police Officer: The Master Police Officer (MPO) program is viewed as an enhanced career development opportunity for the sworn employees of the Bremerton Police Department. The purpose of an MPO program is to allow qualified non-ranking officers with special technical and administrative skill to be elevated to a new level. Qualifications: An employee has served as a top step police' officer for three (3) consecutive years. Employee has completed, in the course of their employment as a law enforcement officer, 400 hours of law enforcement specialty training that does not include the training hours of basic academy; basic equivalency academy; repeated training classes; or refresher training of BAC or first aid. Employee has served at least 12 months on each patrol shift after completing initial probation. Employee has served satisfactorily in a secondary assignment(s) for the Bremerton Police Department for a minimum of 18 months. Secondary assignments are assignments above and beyond duties normally assigned to patrol officers serving in patrol unit. These assignments are detective units, crime scenes, traffic, K-9, crime prevention. DARE, GREAT, School Resources and Range Master. Additional secondary assignments as they may be developed can be added to this list. Employee maintains acceptable work performance standards and has not had a sustained Internal Affairs investigation one year prior to MPO acceptance. The selection panel may consider other types of minor complaints on a case-case basis. Fo MPO's will be assigned as OIC and FTO as needed. Employee will only handle the sergeant's duties when he/she has been assigned as OIC or during limited exceptional circumstances. An employee will not be assigned as OIC while acting in an FTO capacity except during limited exceptional circumstances. The Chief of Police will appoint MPO's in the same order in which they are ranked by the panel. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON -- BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12. 1998 ..., ,_ PAGE 22 Maintaining MPO Status: To maintain MPO status an employee must: Be assigned to the Uniformed Division upon appointment to MPO status for not less than 18 months. If the employee is vacating a non-uniformed position, the employee shall be assigned to the Uniformed Division within a reasonable time period which allows the Department to assign and train a replacement. Bo Maintain satisfactory work performance. Co Not have sustained any major policy rule violations, committed insubordination or be subject to continued citizen complaints. Show a commitment to continuance of law enforcement training while serving as an MPO. If an employee fails to maintain these conditions, he/she will be removed from MPO status by the Chief of Police after review by the selection panel, and must wait eight months before reapplying. An employee shall not be removed from MPO status due to a new assignment in non-uniformed position. MPO Cap The number of MPO's shall not exceed (14) fourteen. Selection Panel: The odginal selection panel will consist of two management personnel and two members of the Board of Representatives of the Guild who do not qualify for selection. Future selection panels will consist of three MPO's and two management personnel. Selection panel will meet as needed to review and select applicants for Master Police Officer appointment and will use the following criteria: 1. Candidates will be listed by seniority, and then given points as follows: #1 candidate - 14 point #2 candidate- 12 points ~,3 candidate - 10 points ~t candidate - 8 points #5 candidate - 6 points #6 candidate - 4 points #7 candidate - 2 points 2. Candidates will be listed by number of Training Hours and given points as follows: #1 candidate - 7 points COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON - BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 C:~7 PAGE 23 #2 candidate- 6 points #3 candidate - 5 points #4 candidate - 4 points #5 candidate - 3 points #6 candidate - 2 points #7 candidate - 1 point (For purposes of this selection process, an Associates Degree in a Police related field will count for 100 hours, and a Bachelors Degree in a Police related field will count for 200 hours.) Candidates will receive one additional point for each additional special assignment of 18 months or longer up to a maximum of three points. Should two or more candidates have equal standing, their points will be added and then divided by two (example: top two candidates have the same seniority so each gets 13 points). Should there be a tie after the points have been totaled, the selection panel will be required to resolve it and provide a single list to the Chief. Candidates will apply for MPO positions by submitting a letter and written summery of years of service, training and education, special assignments and letters of recommendation. The Chief of Police will request the panel convene to review a specific MPO's status. Decisions by the selection panel regarding selection or removal from the MPO program are not subject to the grievance procedure. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON - BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD AUGUST 12, 1998 _ ~ PAGE 24 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECt: Budget adjustment to Support Senior Center improvement. FOR AGENDA OF: 19 August 1998 ORIGINATING DEPT: Parks & Recreation ORIGINATOR: Jim Spencer, tnt~nm Dir~or DATE SUBMITrED: 11 August 1998 2. CLEARANCES: 3. EXltiBITS: (Commc'nt on back if necessary) ~ ~_ ~.~ Parks & Recreation Director: ~ ~ Budget Adjustment Request 98-24 City Treasurer: \, atk~ ( 0 ,~,_.~ 1998 Budget Parks Facilities Fund Fiscal & Budget: ~9~~_ ~ ENDORSEMEN'F X INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESI~'KNT FOR S,]~MITLA. L: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: This adjustment will allow use of residual money ($7,400) previously allocated as Non-Capital for Senior Center improvements, to be combined with a very generous SUMS donation of up to $8,000. This new funding package will be applied to a capital project at the Senior Center that will convert the majority of an existing storage area into much needed classroom space. 8. RECOMMENDATION: That City Council approve Budget Adjustment Request 98-24. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jim Spencer ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Jim Spencer EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL #: CLEARANCE COMMENTS: o IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: The renovation project at the Senior Center will not be possible. SUMS donation will not be realized. Benefits from the generous o IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Possible disruption of some activities at the Center during construction. Administrative support to the project absorbable within current headcount. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: ,3o Requesting Department: Approval Authority Required: r-]Treasurer ~.~ CITY OF BREMERTON _ BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST PARKS Adjustment Number: 98-24 SOURCE OF FUNDS: INCREASE: Donations REDUCE: Supplies & Services [--~Mayor F 8,000 7.400 15,400 Fiscal & Budget r~council USE OF FUNDS: INCREASE: Capital 15,400 NARRATIVE: This adjustment will combine money left over from other Senior Center projects together with donated funds to provide structural improvements to the Senior Center facility. Department Head Signature Treasurer Comments: Date S! ure x~l Recommended r----] Not Recommended { '~-~-~~ -"7/,.~ C,~ Treasurer's Signature ~ D~te Mayor Comments: ~ Recommended [~ Not Recommended r---] Approved F~ Denied ~. ~-~--- '~/~--o//~,~ Mayor's Signature I~ a/te Fiscal & Budget Committee Comments: r~ Approved ~-~ Denied ~;~.~ ~ ~/~/~ v/v Fiscal & Budget Commit~e Signature Date I I CITY OF BREMERTON I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1998 BUDGET PARK FACILITIES FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS: Sheddan Electrical Upgrade Carey Vista Shoreline Manette Field Improvement (Lights) SR 3/Bruen Tennis Court Improvement Pendergast Improvement Mower & Trailer Sign Maker Sheddan Park Improvements ADA Improvements Total Capital Projects NON CAPITAL PROJECTS: Kitsap Lake Master Plan Pendergast Lease Payment Pool Table Replacement & Senior Center Improvement Picnic Tables & Benches Lions Dock Repair Irrigation Improvement Ballfiedl Improvements Jarstad Locker Room Improvement Lions Restroom Upgrade Unidentified/Emergency Repairs Total Non Capital Projects TOTAL FUND BUDGET 15,000 30,000 50,000 10,000 71,500 4O,0OO 3,000 6,150 11,350 237,000 10,000 16,248 10,000 5,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 45,000 136,248 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: SR 304 TRANSPORTATION PROJECT ASBESTOS REMOVAL NO. 1 - BID AWARD ( 2. CL~ES/: ~mment on back if necessary) -l~ire~r of Public ~UtiliXi~s ty_ktL._Treasurer th - Purcl~.~I'~ S~upervisog.~._-----~ . C.o. uncil-F~.~ml & Budj~6t Cornm~tte~o/ ~Op~rrations Committee ENDORSEM~NT~ INFO,libATION MAYOR ~ ¢~, FOR AGENDA OF: August 19. 1998 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & Utils ORIGINATOR: R. Witt, City Eng. DATE SUBMITTED: August 10, 1998 A. Location Map [] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PREI$~ FOR SUBMITTAL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Bids were opened for the SR 304 Transportation Improvement Project, Asbestos Removal No. 1 on August 10, 1998. This is the first phase for the removal and disposal of asbestos in structures located within the SR304 Transportation Improvement Project. This contract will remove and dispose of asbestos from six separate structures occupying public right of way. Three bids for this project were received. New Environment Contractors., was the lowest responsive bidder with a bid of $34,838.44. The engineer's estimate for this project was $61,381. The action before the City Council is approval of a contract with New Environment Contractors. for the Burwell Street Improvements Project. 5. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council approve award of the bid of $34,838.44 with New Environment Contractors for the SR 304 Transportation Improvement Project, Asbestos Removal No. 1, 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 Il APPROVED [1 DISAPPROVED Il AMENDED Il COUNCIL DIRECTIVE; (OVER) 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: ~ ~ ... [ ~ .d~ 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 3. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT 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: 100 staffhours for construction administration, inspection. 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 from other funding sources. The City will be receiving funding from the Federal Highway Administration and the State Transportation Improvement Board. Facilities/Equipment: No impact. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: BID TABULATION TOTALS City of Bremerton SR 304 - Asbestos Removal No. I Au~lust~ 1998 ENGINEER'S NEW ENVIR. CROWN DELTA L(~N~ ESTIMATE CONTRACTORS ENVIRONMENTA SERVICES BID ITEM UNIT EST. AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT QUANT. I Asbestos Removal - 215 First Street L.S. I $36,030.00 $14,995.63 $26,144.00 $22,062.60 2 Asbestos Removal - 103 S. Callow Avenue L.S. I $7,060.00 $6,383.30 $4,830.00 $7,879.50 3 Asbestos Removal - 107 S. Callow Avenue L.S. I $10,720.00 $8,242.62 $11,000.00 $10,701.70 14 Asbestos Removal - 109 S. Callow Avenue L.S. 1 $4,220.00 $2,567.37 $3,459.00 $6,303.60 15 Asbestos Re~noval - 113-1/2 s. Callow A venue L.S. I $250.00 $162.15 $137.00 $20.60 6 Asbestos Re~noval - 215 S. Wycoff Avenue L.S. 1 $2,100.00 $1,486.37 $2,594.00 $1,596.50 7 Sampling and Testing ESTIMATE ESTIMATE $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 8 Credits / Debits Minor Changes CALC. CALC. $ 1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 TOTAL ESTIMATE $61,381.00 $34,838.44 $49,165.00 $49,565.50 Page l 1 st ~ .................. ~,~; ............. :Ii ,.~.._~,,'-' ,.~..,,~' .... ~,~, ~,.~ ~ i ~ ~ ~,_j~, ~ ..,,., ~ , .~. --~ .~, ~ i~ ~~ :" ~, ~ L, ~,~i ~ Coon~z ~~ ~ 5t. ,, x,., /i .' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ I ~ LOCA~ON M~ ~ .... ~- . ~ ~ , ~ E Po~e,r St ~ ~ SCA~ CITY OF BREMERTON Ho~. ~A~E~T O~ ~U.UC WORKS A U~LI~ES ENGINEERING DI~SION PLOT D~WIN~ NO, D~WN BY: DESIGN BY: CHECKED BY: SHE~ DATE DATE DATE O F AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COkkNCIL 1. SUBJECT: 1998 RESERVOIR REHABILITATION RESERVOIR #6 - BID AWARD ORIGINATOR: R. Win. CiT Eng. DATE SUBMITTED: August 11. 1998 2. CLE .~Comment on back if necessary.) 3. EXHIBITS: ~/ ~ / ~ ~ .~5 1. Bid Tabulation Director,q.f Public ~tilities / A ~x~ Treasurer , 50unc~/~7i'scal & Budge¢o~-~ree~ Corurrc~ Operations Committee FOR AGENDA OF: August 19. i998 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public ENDORSEMENT/~( INFORMATION 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Bids were opened for the 1998 Reservoir Rehabilitation - Reservoir #6 Project on August 10, 1998. One bid for this project was received. Coating Applicators, Inc., was the only responsive bidder with a bid of $26,808.80. The engineer's estimate for this project was $27,025.00. This project involves cleaning and recoating Reservoir #6. The action before the City Council is approval of a contract with Coating Applicator's, Inc. for the 1998 Reservoir Rehabilitation - Reservoir #6. 5. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council approve award of the Base Bid for $26,808.80 with Coating Applicators; Inc., for the 1998 Reservoir Rehabilitation - Reservoir #6 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. N TIC FA T N PULLED [] TABLED Il COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [l AMENDED [] 37 (OVER) 11. AGENDABILL NO.: q~"' t ~ 5 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 3. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Weathering will continue to degrade the service life of the reservoir. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES: Staffing: 40 staff hours for construction administration and inspection. Budget: This project is included in the 1998 budget as part of the 1997 Water Utility. Expenditures and sufficient funds exist to do this work. An expenditure from Water Resources Operations of 26,808.80 is necessary to do this work. Facilities/Equipment: No impact. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: CITY OF BREMERTON BID TABULATION BI~ ~ ('~.e'-% ~, ,,-,,/~ i v- <~ ~a.~,.~ OPENED BY DA'rE OPENED: ~ - (C~ - ~<~ TIME OPENED: RECORDED BY BIDOER ~r=c'o ITEM 1 ITEM 2 ITEM 3 ITEM 4 ITEM 5 NET BID TAX TOTAL C~ ~.;~ .... "' ,. SUMM~RY TOTAL BID I.. COMMENTS . L~~ AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Budget Adjustment/ Position Reclassification and Staffing Change FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: August ~;, 1998 Public Works & Utilities P.R. Lucas/Admin Analyst July 2. ~CES: (Comment on bai~i~s~. )~~ 3. EXHIBITS: Director PW&U /~ /~,25,/ /~ ~/~ ' * Classification Study Ci A o=,y ' · City Treasurer f~ ~ ~J * Organization Chart ?.perations Committee & Budget Comm. ENDORSEMENT ~< INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRFAgIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREME~ FOR COUNCIL ACTION- The 1998 Transportation Division Budget was approved for two mechanics and one mechanic's assistant. Since that time, based on qualifications attained by the incumbent mechanic's assistant, his position has been reviewed by the Civil Service Officer and determined to be that of a mechanic (See classification study). The revised staffing and orgaviTational charts show the original 1998 approved staffing and the proposed change. 8. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the change in staffing of the Transportation Division from two mechanic positions to three, deleting the mechanic's assistant position. It is also requested that the incumbent ofthi~q position be authorized pay at the mechanic's level fi-om July 14, 1998, the date the position was approved by the Civil Service 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: Director of Pub Wks/Utilities Administrative Analyst N/A N/A PULI,ED TABI,ED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED DATE: 11. AGENDA BILI~ NO: 4o 2. CI~E&RAN~ COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Transportation Division will not have the benefit of three fully qualified mechanics to maintain the City's motor vehicles and small engines. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS, FACILrrIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTI:I'ER RESOURCES- Difference between hourly wage of mechanic's assistant and mechanic for the remainder of 1998 would be approximately $1675.00, which is available in the currem budget. 7. RESEARClt SOURCES: CITY OF BREMERTON Department of Public Works & Utilities Transportation MAYOR ] DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS & UTILI~S I FLEET MANAGER tOFFICE ASSISTANT[ SENIOR LEAD MECHANIC CITY OF BREMERTON DEPARTMENT: Transportation ffuRD: General 001-45 DEPARTMENT FUNCTION This department is tasked with the maintenance of the vehicle/equipment fleet of the City. This operation was contracted to Ryder-Managed Logistics Systems, Incorporated prior to May 1996 at which 5ime the operaSion was taken over by the City. The capital budget in 1998 will purchase four police cars and shop tools. EXPENDITURESUMMARY 1996 1997 1998 DESCRIPTION ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET Ending Working Capital Personnel Supplies & Services Taxes Capital Outlay Operating Transfers Debt Service TOTAL 172261 285,909 306,082 738,728 601,196 633,288 166, 683 102,900 103,116 1,077,672 990,005 1,042,486 STAFFING AUTHORIZATION POSITION Fleet Manager Office Assistant Sr. Lead Mechanic Mechanic Mechanic Assistant TOTAL STAFFING 1996 1997 1998 ~TUAL BUDGET BUDGET 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.34 2.00 3.00 0.67 1.00 0.00 4.10 6.00 6.00 ORDINANCE f/4 634 SUBJECT:~ AMENDING ORDINANCE ~-4365 Proposal: Shoreline Master Program Amendment Location: Oyster Bay Channel AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL FOR AGENDA OF: August 12, 1998 DEPT. OF ORIGIN: Economic & Comm. Dev. ORIGINATOR: Judy Johnson DATE SUBMI'F]'ED: August 6,'{998 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment..~n back if 3. _EXHIBITS: necessary) /?/~., I - Proposed Ordinance DECD Direc..t~¢"~----~~./.? . II - Staff Report (with Attachments) City At t o r n e~".' ~ _~./~Z~,~.&~--~~ ENDORSEMENT X INFORMATION __ APPROVED BY COUNCI~"PRESIDENT..FO._~.R 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 Departm. ent 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. z//_ .~ o~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 AMi DATE: 8. AGENDA BILL NO.' SUMMARY STATEMENT (CONTINUED): In August 1997, the City Council found serious concerns 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~ ECIUIPMENT 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 '/-5 EXHIBIT I ORDINANCE No. ~/~3~ 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 Bay. WH~REAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission conducted a public heating 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 Cky Council, after taking public testimony on the recommended changes to the Shoreline Master Program pursuant to SiMP Chapter 7 G, concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to prohibk docks and piers in the channel between Oyster and Ostrich Bays. THE CITY OF BREMERTON 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 ChanneO Legend: PARCELS SUBJECT TO WATER ACCESS AND MOORAGE REGULATION 10 PROHIBITING DOCKS AND PIERS IN THE CHANNEL BETWEEN OSTRICH BAY AND OYSTER BAY. Section 4. Amendment. SMP SHORELINE 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 Department 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 day of DAVID D. FARR, Council President , 1998 LYNN HORTON, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk Departmem of Ecology Approval, Effective Date: SMP Amend Ordinance EXHIBIT A TABLE 3-1 SHORELINE USE/ACTWITY MATRIX (Page 2 of 3) ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION CN RS CM SHORELINE USE/ACTIVITY BRIDGES CU CU P P P ~ P CU CU I CU SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL I X X X/ X J X i X X X X UTILITIES CU P P I P P P CU CU i 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 - Moodng Buoys P P P P NA P P NA p - Piers & Docks CU FA 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 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 CUa CU3 NA CU3 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 - 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/Activit7 is prohibited in the Environment A As applicable. NA Use/Activit7 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 residen~al 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 as depicted in Figure 3-5. SMP ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS & REQUIREMENTS 3 - 22 Oyster Bay Channel Piers and docks are prohibited in the channel between Ostdch 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 0'able 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 private 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 ~ 25 0 0 t~ Z -rO ~-~ OO 0 Z LU I-- Z LLI Z 0 Z o 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 Ostdch Bay and Oyster Bay, as depicted in Figure 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: Length: Maximum length of a residential pier or dock shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish moorage for th-e 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 (MLW) 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 CITY OF BREMERTON DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PREPARED BY: Kay Wilson, Senior Planner I. SUMMARY A. Applicant: B. Application: C. Location: D. Attachments: 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 Ostrich 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 Departments/Agencies/Tribes (4) J - Public Correspondence (2) II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project Description: Four specific amendments are proposed to prohibit docks and piers in the channel between Oyster Bay and Ostdch Bay (also referred to herein as "the channel"): SL98-0003 Page 1 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 Fiqure 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 Moorage/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 floating docks will be permitted in the channel between Ostr/ch 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. · Holtz: Application was approved in March 1996 by then Director Pratt. This decision was appealed and subsequently overturned in June 1996 by the Planning 1 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 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. SL98-0003 Page 3 of 8 - CITY OF BREMERTON -- DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Comment pedod ended/DNS final: 5122/98 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 Pedod 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 Headng published: 5/09/98 · 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 "F 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 restdct access to treaty-reserved resources in Oyster Bay as well as adversely impact aquatic resources in shallow water habitats. Washin.qton Department of Ecoloqy (07t16/1998~: 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 Ostdch 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 173-27-110 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. AJ 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. Findin.q: 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 during earlier 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 govemments 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. Findinq: Complies. A citizen involvement strategy was designed that included the summer 1997 Planning Commission fact-finding meeting and Planning Commission and City Council public headngs 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. 57 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. Findinq: Complies. A Notice of Public Headng was published pdor to each of the four public headngs 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 govemments planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA), the local government shall notify both the depart,~ent (DOE) and the depa~uent 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.?0A.106. Findinq: 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,s 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 (DFVV); 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). Findinq: Complies. Environmental Checklist # SEP98-0019 was 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. Finding: 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). Finding: 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. Findinq: 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 / Criteria for Approval (BMC 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? Findin,q: 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 orprohibit 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 Cit]/s Shoreline 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 Ostrich 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 RESOLUT[ON~"' 98-01 A Planning Commission RESOLUTION mending certain sections of the Shoreline Management Pro.am, specific to the development of piers and docks within the channel between Oyster and Ostrich Bay'. WHEREAS, the City of Bremenon has previously passed a Moratorium and an ex-tension of that moratorium: and, WHEREAS, the City ot'Bremerton has reviewed langu~e in the Shoreline Master Pro,am and found a need to clarify, language pertaining to tkis particular area: and, WHEREAS, the Bremenon Plmming Conmfission, 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, careful 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 topo~aphic and singular nature of the waterfront environment within the Oyster / Ostrich Bay Channel would benefit fi-om these amendments. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BRE~LERTON CITY PLA. tN bt l_tN G COM3,11SSION: Section 1. That Table 3-1, page 3-2 and 3-3 of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), under the RS column, be corrected and amended with fbotnote 9 reading "piers and docks are prohibited in the entrance channel to Oyster Bay as depicted in Figure 3-5." Section 2. That a clarifying 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 ,~~ ~J°l~ Secretary TABLE 3-1 SHORELINE USE/ACTIVITY MATRIX (Page 2 of 3) ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION CN RS CM ID CU DM KL i KW TB SHORELINE USE/ACTIVITY ROADS, RAILWAYS AND BRIDGES CU CUI 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 i 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 p2 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 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 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 - 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/Commerciai 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. o 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 Ostrich and Oyster Bays. 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: VVhere 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 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. 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 TABLE 3-1 SHORELJNE USE/ACTIVITY MATRIX (Page 3 of 3) KEY! REQUIREMENT P Use/Activity is permitted in the Environment, subjec~ to regulatory controls in appropriate Use/Activity section. CU Use/Activity is permitted in the Environment, subject to o{3taining 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 channet 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 Oyster Bay deoicted 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 Confidor/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-1, SF-2 and SF-3 zones.) SMP ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS & REQUIREMENTS 3- 6 ATTACHMENT B ?rat) .\ [inutex tot .-t tvor,>val Planning Commission ~lee.ting blay 19, 1998 I. ('cz//to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robinson at 6:00 PS, l. II. Roll Cai/ Those present were Chairman Robinson, Commissioners Adams, Stone, Dingfield. Boyd and Wolfe. Ail were present and quorum certified. Approval of the ,4ge~t&~ 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. StaffReport was given by ,Y/Is. 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 Oy~er Bay/Ostrich Bay channel. A brief history was ~ven regarding the moratorium (#2620) which was enacted last Au=m.tst 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 SM2P before the SEPA comment period was over. Hence, in February, sta/:frepealed the ordinance changing the SNIP to prohibit piers and docks. Staffis now undertaking the process to change the SNIP for the second time. A couple of overhead pictures were shown, outlining the text 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 clarify' 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 of a 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 (07 Planning Commission A[eeting, ;i£av 19, 1998 Page Iofl] received recently (Exhibit ]: ~,[erno from Sttquamish?. f~_2chiDit ' '~,[emo to Commi3'siot~er Wolfe from Hetet~ Mitleri, ('Exhibit 3: :~,[emo to the ?la~mmg Comrni.¥siotters.~om Miller) and has been entered into the record. Sta.ffis not changing the environmenr~ designation. The changes are only the text changes flor clarification purposes in the Shoreline Master Plan. Commissioner Wolfe wanted clarification as to the f~ct that there is no clear rule ,xhat a hazard to navigation is, and that staffhas made the interpretation that docks and piers would cause a hazard to navigation. Ms. Johnson indicated that hazards can be a number ofthinus. hazard. Iflit is a hazard ir is a Commissioner Wolfe wanted to know if any person contacted f¥om the Coast Guard, .Army Corps of Engineers has suggested that piers and docks could be a hazard to 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 Suquarnish Tribe letter which referenced that salmonoids and other species would be impacted. He wanted to know if this was jus~ an opinion of the tribe or if there Was scientific evidence which supported this position. Ms. Johnson indicated that there was additional information 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 ~¥1aster Plan Planning Commission .~ Jeering, =[.Jay l 9, l 998 Page 2 oJ' 11 Mr. Field Ryan, 2727 Marine Drive. Commented on that there is a hazard to navio_ation for people walking on the beach, kayakers, and boat st~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 pier issue, and the uniqueness of the channet due to its narrow travei way. The no wake buoys suggested by some is not a viable alternative, and co'me'ted on punic rights ','ers'as private rights to develop property. Property values and visual impacts were touched on. Geri Perrett passed out photos to the commissioners to ctearN 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 Roctcy Point. Commented he is a frequent user of the channel, which he feels is unique. He is concerned w~ith 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, safety, 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 Permit, but he is not exempt from the federal rules. It needs to be clarified that these types of permits are 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. Eielen Miller submitted a letter into the record (Exhibit 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 Commi.s'sion .l[eeting, 3,£av 19, 1998 Page 3 oJ'l I perhaps docks and piers would reduce the speed of boats in the channet. She also noted that not everyone can afford to build a dock, perhaps onlv 1 out of every 4 homes would have a dock. Perhaas limiting prohibiting docks in the narrowest portions of the channei and allowing them in the ,,5der parts would be a better alternative. 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 SMP needed to be amended to prohibit docks and piers. She noted that overheads depicting the width o£the channel at high and low tides were available for ,riewing, should the commissioners deem them necessary irttbrmation 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 Chetan 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 contrary, 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 narrowest channel in Washington? 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 reclarify 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 ~ven, but a study to the channel in particular has not been conducted. And, in thei(professional opinion docks and piers would cause problems. Chairman Robinson wanted to state for the record that after deliberations, the commission will be making a definitive 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' Ecolo~my accepts their decision.- '7o Planning Commission ~ £eeting, ,[,.{av 19, 1998 Page 4 of I 1 Chairman Robinson asked Doug Fortner if the commission had indeed followed ali applicable procedures correctly regarding the meeting. Mr. Fortner did not find' any v/olations, but asked chat all documents which were in the planning commission packets and those which ,,,,'ere ,Sistributed at the meeting, be lisrec/ into the record. Commissioner Wolfe inquired as if there ;vas anything, else to do to make sure that ail legal procedures were tbllowed. Mr. Fortner reiterated that he did not find any ,,'iolations. but wanted all documents listed into the record, which were received at the meetin=. Judy Johnson read into the record the documents presented to the Planning Commission: 1. 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 Nk. & Mrs. Miller, May 15th, (Exi'fibit 3) 5. Letter from Mx. & Nks Miller, May t4th, (Exhibit 2) 6. Letter from Suquamish Tribe, May 18th, (Exkibit I) Attachments to staff report: A. Map of affected area B. Copies of moratorium 2621 & 2650 C. Planning Commission resolution from October, 1997 D. Nfinutes from Planning Commission meeting, Oct. 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 SMP 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 na,Agational 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 Commission ),leering, 3,£av 19, 1998 Page 5 oj'] l Commissioner Boyd wanted to comment on the docmne of public trust, the doc:vine which allows the free use of all navigational waters to the punic. Neighbors must be to walk the beach and children must be fi-ee to ajay there. Speeding boaters in the channel were mentioned as well. Commissioner Dingfield commented that the unique-ness' of the channei should be-$ consideration and was particularly interested in the navigational hazard discussion, it has been frustrating for all involved to go through these hoops but this is a matter of si_m-fificance to all to look at the public interest, and it is good to have had the amount of 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 ;','ho at-tended and commented on this issue. A motion was made by Commissioner Stone to approve the Shoreline Master 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 was to modify table 3-1 to add footnote 9 to the RS colurrm of the environmental designation to add the wording, "No piers or floating docks will be permitted in the channel between Oyster and Ostrich Bay" to item l0 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; Dingfietd, 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 left. 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 ).[eeeing, Mm; 19, 1998 Page 6 of ll "7 ~ Commissioner Boyd had a question regarding section 2 of the resolution. She would like a ctanfying statement added because the sentence was confusion. .Ms. Johnson indicated that she would clang- the sentence to add quotation marks around "piers and docks". Commissioner Dingfield wanted to note that under s&ti6n i of the resolution, it isn't exactly what was said, She wanted to know if we should clarify specifically the RS column. 3Is. Johnson indicated that she would add RS to the language to clariiS' specifically the residential column. Commissioner Dingfield expressed concern about making all these modifications to the resolution, and felt more comfortable dispensing with the idea of passing a motion to approve a resolution. bis. Johnson pointed out Exhibit C of the staff report, the resolution which was lo,yarded 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; Din~eld, 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; Dingfietd, yes; Boyd, yes; Wolfe, yes; Robinson, yes. [-': Approval of the .?v[inutes 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. Public Comment None given. 1,71. Director's Report bls. 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 Th, e minutes (rom the Pkmn:ng Commission .\leenng oF ~lav 19. 1998 w~re z~pp~oved ~ ~esen~ed ~r thc June ~ ~ ~= _a , 1998 m~enn~. R~'s p~..crr'uilv .<ubm~rrud: 'l.'nsh Dup, mr, Rccc, rding - ATTACHMENT C Minutes from Planning Commission Special Study Session May 12, 1998 Subject: Docks and Piers on the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Ba,~' 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 by 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 pubric input and response. Commissioner Stone inquired as to the information presented to the council, new or l'dstorical 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 clar/~: 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 things 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 SNIP 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 75 Judy Johnson wanted to clarify, that we are going through 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, eve~ step has been followed. Commissioner Dingfield wanted to note that the Planning Commission was unanimous in 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 ~eat deal ofthou~t. 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 Targett 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, k 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 SMP 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 SMP page 5-31 was Page 2 of 4 7~ briefly looked at, regarding the specifics of the ban of piers and docks. It was noted that these modifications to the SM2P aren't changes but a clarification to the existing 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 na,,sgable 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 SMP 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 SMP which states that piers and docks are prohibited where navigation may be impaired significantly at entrances to bays, channels, or coves. Impaired si=mfficantly 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 77 Commissioner Stone asked of the Assistant City Attorney, Doug Fortner, if the changes to the SMP affected any ~andfathered 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 rights 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. property figg~ts 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 SIMP? Mr. Fortner indicated that the Kitsap County SMP 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 SM?. 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 Page 4 of 4 7~ ATTACHMENT D Department of Community Development 286 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 :NiOiNi:S l:G NI: F I:CA N C E I 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 Lea. d 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 Position/Title: 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' Bremerton Permit Center ATTACHMENT The checklist questions apCy to ail parts o['vour propesaL, even if you plan to do them over period or'time or on different parceis oF land. Attach an,,' additional i~orrnation that wiil he[o describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The City ma,,' ask you to expIain ','our answers or provide additional information reasonably re!ated to dete~wnining iF there ma,,' be si~"Uficant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR A NON-CONSTRUCTION PROPOSAL Complete thJ. s checklist for non-construction proposals, even though questions ma,,,' be answered "does not apply." lJn addition, complete the SUPPLt-, DENTAL SHEET FOR NON- CONSTRUCTION ACTIJONS (Part For non-construction actions, the references in the checkiist to the words "project". ~'appiicant' and "property or site" should be read as "proposal", "proposer," and "affected geographic area." respectively. A. BACKGROU~-D I. Name of'proposed projem, if applicable: % ~:eu,s6 7'~ ~/z~-,,,,e-~_-m~ _<'~o,z~,~,~ 2. Name ofapplicant: 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 4. Date checklist prepared: A=ency requesdnB checklist: Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further acti,dty 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. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. 10. 11. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Give a brie~ 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 o£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, township, 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,'M-FNTAL ELEMENTS TO BE COM_PLETED BY APPLIC:kNT E)uRTH A. General description of' the site (circle one); FiaL rolling, hilly. ~steep _slopes. mountainous, other B. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? What general Lvpes of' soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, ~avel,' peat, muck)? I£you know the classification of aD-icultural soils, specify, them and note any prime £asmland. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the iramediate 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 mitigating ordinances: BMC 17.04 City Btuild lng Code COMMENTS: FOR DCD USE ()NL Rex' dare I0 22 97 COMMENTS: FOR DCD USE ONL Could erosion occur as a result o£ctearing, construc:ion, or use? so, oeneratlv describe. .No com~t?zcticn pro,~csed. If Subiect to miti~at~na ordinance-=: EMC 17.04 Cinv B,uild~,nc Code,/EMC 15.04 Sto?,mv~ter Org'--nance G. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings?) C Subject to mitigating ordinance: FxMC !5.04 Stor~water Control, and 5MC 21.02 Zonin~ H. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: ,i Subject to mitiqat~--ng ordinance. 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 pm,nosed. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Rex-date 10,22 97 C, Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: - S~.~b~ec-~ to .~iti~a~inc r~=~-a!a~Lcr, s cf ~ne ?xce~ $:~md Air Q:ali%v Authcri:v. WATER D. SbXFACE: 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. Gwo o~c D7¢~ /~-r ,~ ~,~r ~. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or ad.iacent to (within 200 feet) the described water? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. X ~o construction ~rooosed. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface 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 miticratinq ordinance: EM.C 21.04-Shore!ine Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. COM.~LENTS: .~OR DCD USE ONL ~ tTWa-f-e:,fz- Rev date 10,22. 97 Does the proposal lie within a l O0-year floodplain? If so, note tocafion on the site plan. Does the proposal invoive any discharges of waste materiaJs to surface waters? If'so, describe the ~pe of'waste and anticipated volume oF discharge. construction oroc~sed. GRO L_~rD Will ground water be withdrawn, or v-ill water be ciischarged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. ~o construction orooosed. 2. Describe waste material that w/il 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 mitiqaninq ordinances: Bremerzsn KitsaD Health De_par~nent Requlation/BMC 15.03 Wastewater Ordinance. COMMENTS: FOR DCD USE ONI WATER RU2NOFF (i'NCLUDFNG STOP~¥fVv'ATER}~ Describe the source of runoff(including srormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (including quantities, if known). Where will th/s water rlow'~ Will al'tis water flow into other ,~aers'? If so, describe. Subject to mitigating ~rdinacne: ~ 15.O4-Star~wazer Control 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters'? If so, generally describe.  to crdLnance: ~ !5.~4-Stcrmwa~er Su'oject miziqatLnc Control 3. ?roposedmeasuresto reduce or controlsurface,~ound, andrunoff waterimpacts, ifany:  Subject to mitigatLng ordiu~nce: ~ !$.04-Storm~ater Control 4. PLANTS A. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: evergreen tree:(.fi.3/{.~_gr4,~ other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, ~, bulrush, s~e, other other types of vegetation [,~ o$6,o,~ COMMENTS: FOR DCD ['SE ONL Rev date 10,22.97 What kind and amount of' vegetation will be removed or aitered? Z Subiec-~ ~o ,mi~ica~ing cr~/Lnances: 3F.~ lS.$4-Stcmm~c,er Ccnu~sq_ _,/=MC_ ~ ~ ~. 02-ZcnLnc Ordinance/5MC i7.04-City Buildinc Ccde,/EMC 2!.22-Cri~ic=-i lar~s C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.  Subject to mitigating crdLnances: 5MC1.22 .r",-~--~=~ Lands D. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures ro preserve or enhance vegetation on the site. if an,,': ~ No construction pro.~osed. Subject to mitigating crdLnances: =~MC 2_.~2 Zcn_~ Code A. CircLe any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the sire or are known to be on or near the sire: Birds:(~,(~~ ~, other: Mammals~ be~, e~ beaver, other: Fish: bas~ he=g, ~ other: B. List any threatened or endangered species Lnown to be on or near the site.  Subject to m&ti~ating ordinance: F:~C 21.22 Critical Lands 5u~J~T C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. ~ Subject to rnitigatin9' ordinance: Ii~C 21.22 Orit±ca! Lands COMAiENWS: Ft)R BCD USE ONL Rev date 10 22 97 D. Proposed measures to prese~e or enhance wildlife, if any: Nc c~ns~c~Lon ~rc~esed. '- St~Ject '3 m_~icatinc c_~dLnance: 5MC ~ Lands ENERGY .~ND NATLTLAL RESOL~CES What kinds of' energy (electric, natural gas, oil. wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's ener~' needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Nc construction ProPosed. B. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No construction Dronosed. C. What kinds of ener~mf conservation features are included in the plans of tkis 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 Bui!d %ng 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 proposed. CO.MME.NTS: FOR [9CD ['SE ONL Rex' date 10 97 COMMgNTS: FOR DCD USE 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Subject to miti.~atinc, ordinance: 5MC !8.02-City Fire Code/~MC 17.04-Ci~v Bui!dinc Code NOISE I. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? [] Subject to mitiga%ing ordinance: ~MC 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, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come fi-om the site. No construction orocosed. Ordinance 3. Proposed measuresto reduce orcontrolnoiseimpacts, ifany? [] Subject to mitiga%in9 ordinance: BMC 6.32-Noise Ordinance. LA_tNT) AND SHORELINE USE A. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? COMMENTS: FOR DCD I'SE O,",'L'. B Has the sire been used r'or a~ricukure'~' i5 so. ciesc~be Describe any structures on the site. D. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what'? What is the current zoning classification of the site? l What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? (..o vo De'to ~ / w'-/ ~.6-s / o6-,,./ 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. Rev date 10,22.97 COMMENTS. FOR ,7K~D USE ONL .Approximately how ma_nv ueople would reside or .,or,, in the completed project'? J. Approximately' how many people would the compieted project displace'? No construction ~rsoofied. K. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any? L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with e,'dsting and projected land uses and plans, if any: to mitigate? ordip~nces: BM.C 2!.02-Zoming Sub jet Code/EMC 21.04-Shore!ine .Master Pr_ecr=_m HOUSING A. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. X No construction ~ro~osed. B. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated. Indicate whether big. h, middle, or low-income housing. No construction proposed. Rev date 10,22 97 10. 11. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if an,,': A_ESTHETICS A. What is the tallest height of any proposed structureis), not includinz antennas; what is the principal e,x-tefior building material(s) proposed? C No cons~c~ion ~ro~osed.  Subjec~ %o miti~cauin? ordinances: E~."'K2 9~ Co ?c ' __. ,~-_ Ccde/SMC 21.04-ShcrelLne Yas~er Prccr=_m B. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?  Nc construction proposed. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Subject to mi~i?atin~ ordinances: EMC 2!.02-Zcnin? Ccde/~MC 21.04-Eaore!ine ~aster LIGHT .&ND GLARE A. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?  No construction proposed. [] Subject to miticaninc ordinance: 5MC 21.02-Zoninc Code B. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with view?  No construction proposed. Subject to mitiqatinc ordinance: BMC 21.02-Zoninq Code 1, q3 CO.',LMENT$: FOR DCD i'SE ONL Re'.' date 10.'~ 97 12. '&'hat existing off-sire sources of tight or ~are may affect your proposal? D. Proposed measures ro reduce or control light and .giare impacts, if aI1V~ ~ Subject t,o miticarinq ordinance: aa.~ 21.02-ZcnLng Code RECREATION What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? B. Would the proposed project displace any e,'dsting recreatioaal uses? If so, describe. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be prov/ded by the project or applicant, if any:  No construction proposed. C..,x, IMEN; S. FOR DCD USE ONL' NoT Re',' d~t¢ I 0~22.'97 13. 14. HISTOP, JC ,-UN-D CL'LTL'-R,-kL PRESERVATION Are there an.,,' places or objects listed on. or proposed for. national, state, or focal prese~'ation registers known to be on or next to the site'? If 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: No construction proposed. TRANSPORTATION A. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show'n 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'?. COMMENTS: FOR DCD USE ONL Rev date 10 2297 15. C. How many pm-king spaces would the completed project have? many would the projec: eiiminateV HOW' Z Subject -~ ........ ~-~-~_a=~n~-~~r-_n=nc~ s~ - =-: ~.C ~'~, ..3.2-~cn5xc' ' Code Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets~ not including drivewavsT' if so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). .Ye const~c~icn orcoosed. !olec,_ to minicatinq ordinance: E, NC l!. 20-S%reeus and Sidewalk s Wilt the project use (.or occur in the immediate vici~ o~wa~ef) rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. F. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed pr~ect? If known, indicate when peak volumes would OCCUr. enoconstruction DroDosed. G. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if ~No' Dro ject. O Subqect to miti~atinq ordinance: BMC 21.02- ComPrehensive Plan, Concurrency PUBLIC SERVICES io 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 I0'22'97 16. 17. Proposed measures to reduce or control direc: impacts on pub[ic ser~ces, if ~' UTILITIES A. Circle utilities currently available at the site e~', n~ (,~., r~e, ,~, s~er. se~, other 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 irs decision. COMME.N'T$: .--OR DCD [:SE ONL' Rex' date SLTPPLE~EENT.~L SHEET FOE NON-CONSTRUCTION ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for construction ac:ionsi Because these questions are vex general, it may be he!pHI ro read them in conjunction with the list of' the eiements or' the environment. When answe,,Sng these questions, be aware of the extent the propose!. 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 liketv to increase discharge to water; emissions to air, production, storage, or release of to,dc or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: adoo~ed by tb, e City of Bremerton 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life? COM.",IENTS: FOR DCD USE ONL Re',' date 10,22.97 Proposed measures to protect OF conse,,-ve plants, animals, fish or marine life are: Sub~ecz zo mihiga~ing ordinance ..... :~' ~v 5he Ci~v cf Bremet--_cn 3. How would the proposal be likeb' ro deplete energy or natural resources'? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Subjec~ to mitigating ordinance ~arren~ly adopted bw the City of Bremerton How would the proposal be likely to use or affect en,,dronmentaJly sensitive areas or areas desig-nated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild 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: S. ubject to mitigating ordinances and state regulations currently adopted. COMMENTS: FOR [3CD USE ONL Rev date 10,22.97 How would the proposal be liken to affect land and shoreline use. including whether it would aJlow or encourage [an~i or shoreJine uses incompatible with ex2sting ptansO - Subject to mitigating local ordinances and state regulations. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shore!ine and land use impacts are: Subject to mitigating local ordinance and state regulations. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transpo~ation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Identi~, if'possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. COMMENTS: FOR b--'CD t,'SE 22 Rev ckate I0/72,97 ATTACHMENT F ;RESOLUTION NO. ~ r~ 31 ,* P, eso ution Settina s Moratorium on The Development of Docks ~nd Piers Withir:,, the Ch~nnet be,.'-.cveen Ostrich E.,~'.~ and Oyster Esy .,,~H:=c ,.c .'.he EhcreJine :N~znzce.men{.~c:%-~-cz~ r~cuires ..'.he EEremer":c.'c. Cie,' Council ~.o adcct a Ere,mer-:.cr~ ~hcreiine ,~,tas:er Frccram ,¢micx State reviews and acc.c~s as Ca~ of the Washincton Ac,minJszra.five Cede: ~¢./Hc.=,=Ac ..... r. he Ere.,,%.e~ciq City Ccuncli finds the: the .._rr~.,,-', Shoreline ,Master crc~cra~ ¢__;c.~s no~: adequate!,/~ccress .:he fciicwin~ issues in ,,,e O'/s~er F_.~'/Channei: ~.. The leYe! cf ,co,animal navigational ha_:.~rds c.-ea~ed by docks an~ piers requirinc4 subs;andai shoreiine de','eio~me~ pe,,'-mi;~ i/q ~ne Channe! E. The aesthe*.ic cuaiit'/ of 12_.r~e decks and pie~ in the ~'~--~,,,=nne!' bet.~een Ostrich Ea'/ ~nd Oyster C. The en,,/iranmen~al and public t%,_:s-: issues (public ',.v~ers and unde.,'iying lan~s are a oublic resource owned b,./and available to all cldzens ¢,--,,ailv for navication, fishinc, recreation and simii~'-r u'~e~) to docks ~r,d piers v./h, ich res~ direc;t'/ on the be~ch s( WHEREAS the Council understands tnst the Cit"; of Breme~cn pui3tic use of shoreline may suffer irreparable darns_ce if development is no,'. pro'n~b~,~' "-,~ ,while regulations' are chanced:_ ' and.' ~ "-= ' ~,,~ a study period is /~H~-,,EAS the Breme~on Cit-'/ Council u,e!ieves necess,ary to process tine change toc~tl,/(estimr, ted at 2.5 months for developmental work, public notice, Planning Commission hearing and Ci~' Council hearing); and, WHEREAS the State Department of Ecology is allowed 5 months to review and implement changes to the Administrative Code amending the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program; and, /Of ~HERc~.~ ~uc,h dei~y~ may re~ui~ in ~erm, i~ l:eing filed under curren~ r~:~uiaticn~ wf~ic.h may s~ricu~iy im.~>c~e naviga~cnat ~nd envf~nmen~ ,h~s~; unCe~ir'ec si~uadcn~ ~nvclving ~e ~u~iic ~: cf ~e snc~iine ~nd weil as c~us~ a le~ cf [~ev~te aesthetic ouaiir~- ,~C~W THErEFOrE EE IT ~,ESCLVEC DY THE ~REME,~TCN C;TY CGUNCIL 1. That a development m~tc~um ~rc~ibidn~ the ¢evel~ment af docks and pie~ and i~uance cf su~s~ndai s~c~ine deve~ecmen~ ~e~i~ for att Docks and P~e~ ~in the confines of Oyszer Day C, as defined an ~ibi~ A is he.by aca~teC: 2. Tha~ t~is mc~todum s~ail take effec: [mmeei~telv and shautC resinate S mcnt~ fram the date af thi~ mcratcnum cF untJi an amendment te the areme~an ~hcretine Master DraChm can ~e a~¢roved by the S~ate ~eea~men.~.cf Ecolcgy, whichever shaJl cccur fi~. C~r/Council 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 re,Aew 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 Citv 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 _O0-r °~ 0 II nlllmlmll\ lin, il ATTACHMENT I ALLISON DUKE iii. Fire Chief 8I? Pacitic Avenue · Bremcrton. WA 98337 · ,3601 478-_'~381 · FAX 1360/47§-.¢397 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, I 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 · STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 906 Columbia St. 5W · PO Box 48300 · Olympia., Washington 98504-8300 · (360) 753-2200 June 18, 1998 The Honorable Lynn Horton, Mayor City of Bremerton 239 - 4'" 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 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPART,X, IENT OF ECOLOGY '~orth~e~t Regional O~Tce, 3190 - 160th Ave $.E. · Bellevue, Washington 9800Bo5452 JUL i ? 1998 BREMERTON BUILDING DEPARTMENT Julv 16, 1998 Ms. Judy Johnson Ms. Kay Wilson Ckv 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 prohi~bition. 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 langua~ ge used in Regulation 10 on page 31. You might also add "as depicted in Figure 3-5" to the end of Regulation 10. Ecolo,-D' looks forward to expediting the state review process once the amendment has been approved by the City. Sincerely, Alice Schisel Shoreline Planner cc: Raymond Hellwig, Ecology lid ~ ',~. ~az 598-4666 P.O. Box 498 Su~uam~s,~. Washington 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 Osthch 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 sismificantly 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 significantly 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 existing rights 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 adverselv impact trea¢'-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 Pro,am to prohibit piers and docks in Oyster Bay Channel. Sincerely, · Christine Stevenson Biolo~st, Fisheries Environmental Program CC2 Randy Hatch, Fisheries Director -' __ ATTACHMENT J ;'RECEIVED CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" To the City. Council for the 12 .August 1998 Meeting: ~AT~ 7 - 3/- q'/ ..1~C ~.... ~ ~ ~ ~]. ['~ ..~._ IENTS,.= L~ ON PROHIBITING PIERS & DOCKS IN' THE CHA:NrNEL A[I.~ 0 3 i,~8 July 31, 1998 Ihey used to say that there were only three kinds of liars: i P, EMERTON Liars, Damn Liars, and Statisticians. B~t~NG OEPARllaENT It wouht appear that there are in fact four kind of liars- vou 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 - without question, without checking, and not thinking about how poor a picture of reality, the Notice would convex; 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 len~h 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 picturing something sticUng 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 offas a plan for a skinny 2.5 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/g/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. That's three times the length 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 imagine something that size stic 'k/ng 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 siding would most probably be illegal due to their not being able to stay the legal I SO feet away frorn the shore and obstruction. Now that wouldn't really be neighborly would it? After all, folks have been water skiing up 1 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 kids 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 newspaper:'vk)tices about things like Pier projects. All the factsjua't aren't there for you to build up a good mindpicture 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 eve on them after thc? get started. That's why I'm glad to see that we will again have a shot at hawng 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]&llow-up by the ci~. - I'm afraid that any future application for a 25foot 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 nm't to the toll collector. I was for the Moratoriums, both of them: I was for the first merry-go-round that gave us Ordinance 4619, and I'm certainly for this effort to get it back. i'm against ant Pier/Docks on the channel here because I feel like l"ve been lied to about them in the past; and because the c/tv wasfft keeping an eye on our interests. George J..,~liller P. O. Box 788 Bremerton, WA, 98337 2 Bremerton City. Council 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 CITY COUNCIL OFFEP August 3. 1998 8REMERTON 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 A1 piers and docks from the channel to Oyster Bay. NAVIGATIONAL tL4,ZARDS 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 visibili~. 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, ali 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 ali, 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 1 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 xvould present the same adverse effects - only to a lesser de~ee. Piers and docks which are shortened to an unusable / impractical len~h 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 enerusted - 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 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 resuR in: ELIMINATION of- the Water Skiers - the Kayaks - the inner tube and air mattress drifters - Mds fishing from small boats - Hobbi Cats under sail - walking the beach - Mds m-ploring the beach - New Years day boating enthusiasts Christmas Boats - Boats travelling on the 'plane'. And probably edible shellfish. PUWBLIC TRUST I)OCTRiNE ISSU.'ES 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 opportunities associated with these waters; the follow/ng 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 SMP in reflecting, appl?,ing, and supplementing the State pro,am should, to the greatest extent possibie, 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 arrn E. VDS in the ;tear vicinity q/'rny 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 len~h, 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 c~)mmcrcia! transportation upon na~.igat)le ~aters. but incidental rights of fishing, boating, swimming, ~:aterskiing. and ,:,:hr" ret:l:cd '. ::~t~,3n:~ ,~,,~'~ 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 reco~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 front of his property, it is recobmized that the law is quite clear that where the level ora 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 of a few. Make the smart decision. Sincerely submitted for your consideration 3 ATTACHMENT J - "RECEIVE ' CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" To the City. Council for the 12 August 1998 Meeting: 3ATE 7 - 3/- f:~? -~C A~-$ (~ 3 ]~8 July 31, 1998 Ihey used to say that there were only three kinds of liars: BREMERTON Liars, Damn Liars, and Statisticians. It wouhi appear that there are in fact four kimt of liars - you can add Manipulators, or perhaps Politicians to the list; your choice. Now, whenever [ 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 br/ghtest 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, xvho then published a Public Notice using the same wording as they received from the applicant - without question, without checking, and not thinking about how poor a picture of reali~ 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 ~vonderful - making Concrete float like that ? But I can understand about the size - it's about twice the len~h of my house. And I can imagine someth/ng 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 picturing something sticldng 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 o£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-tor-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. 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 ar/thmetic told me that that's about five times as long as my house is high; or 10 of my "ooat' tied nose to tail. Got to admit that I really had to struggle to ima~ne something that size stic 'k/ng 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 w/dth - 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 kids and g-randparents 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. A Il the facts just aren't there for you to build up a good mindpicture 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 lo to begin with, or keeps a close eye on them after they. get started. That's why I'm glad to see that we will again have a shot at having ALi. piers and docks banned from this channel. The way. things went in the past - with all the truth stretching and lack of supervision or f~)llow-u[9 by the cim. - lfrn 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 - fight n~,,ct to the toll collector. I ~vas for the Morator/ums, both of them; I was t'or the first merry.'-go-round that gave us Ordinance 46t9. and I'm certainly for this effort to get it back. I'm against any Pier/Docks on the channel here because I feel like ["ve been lied to about them in the past; and because the cit',' wasn't keeping an eve on our interests. George J. Miller P.O. Box 788 Bremerton, WA 98337 2 Bremerton City. Council 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 AUG 03 1998 ~;.~ . CiTY COUNCIL OFFE? August 3, 1998 BREMERTON BUILDING DFPARTMENT 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 greater 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. ~VITH 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 ~vidth 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 nav/gation and steerage by the Christmas Boats in a waterway shared with unlighted and unmarked piers and docks, w/thin scant feet of the 1 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 len~h are but Vanity Structures. and should receive no consideration lbr 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 entrusted - 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 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 Slders - the Kayaks - the inner tube and air mattress drifters - La'ds fishing from small boats - Hobbi Cats under sail - walking the beach - Mds exploring the beach - New Years day boating enthusiasts - Christmas Boats - Boats travelling on the 'plane: And probably edible shellfish. 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 interior 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 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, applying, and supplementing the State program should, to the greatest extent possible, codify and endorse these objectives. To bring the concept of "Personal Rights" vs "Public Trust" into a new age perspective - Consider - }'our right to swing your arm E;5'DS in the near vicini~, 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 len~h, 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 xsaters, 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 va ~rying 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 propervy, 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-significanr 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