HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/97 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
239 4TH STREET
BREMERTON, WA 98337
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 17, 1997
lqq~
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.
A. Minutes - August 27, 1997
B. Minutes - September 3, 1997
#AB97-208
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
6. MAYOR'S REPORT
7. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes)
NEW BUSINESS
A. The Appointment Of Two Committees To Write
Statements "For" and "Against" The Emergency
Medical Care And Services Tax Levy
o
ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance (First Reading) Amending Litter
#AB97-211 40
Regulations To Establish A Separate Infraction
For Throwing Cigarettes Or Other Burning Refuse
Reconsideration Of Merit Company Proposal And #AB97-192 ~4
Clarification Of Department Of Transportation's
--/
Concern Relating To Capital Facilities Program;
Ordinances (First Reading)
AGENDA BILL
-BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1997
FOR AGENDA OF:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ORIGINATOR:
DATE SUBMITTED:
9-17-97
City Council
payed Farr~ Prm~idmnr
'9-11-97
2. ~: (comment on back
if necessary)
ENDORS EME~NT I N FORMAT I ON
MAYOR
APPROVED BY COUNCIL ~RE$I~ FOR SUBMITTAL:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT~'+~
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COIrNCIL ActION:
8. R~COM~ENDATION:
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
.EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PU/J,ED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTIC~ OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
AMENDED
2. ~LEARANCE COMMENTS:.
~. ~ACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
-~~CT'~ON .STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES, EOUIPMENT OR OTH]SR RESOURCES:
-~OURCES
T~PE %1487
UN~PPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 27, 1997
#0032
#0055
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton
was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street,
Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, August 27, 1997, at 5:30 P.M.,
with Council President David Farr presiding. Council members
present were Bob Winters, Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees,
Richard Neville, Lon Overson, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and A1
Colvin. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and Deputy
City Clerk Paula Johnston.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President Farr and Invocation given by Deacon Bemis of Our Lady
Star Of The Sea Catholic Church.
President Fart made the following announcement:
(1) The City Council will hold a Study Session immediately
following the Council meeting, in the Council Conference Room.
Topic of discussion will be "Sinclair Landing Update."
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Advertisement - Washington State Lodging & Travel #AB97-193
Guide
M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery)
presented.
to approve the Consent Agenda as
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required
by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified
as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that
had been made available to the Council.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) on August 27, 1997, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: #FT4391, 211988, and 212006 through 212190 in the
amount of $328,774.18; and Retirees' Payroll for the period ending
August 31, 1997, in the amount of $99,035.59.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Law announced the Community Resources Department has
information available about con games and scams, particularly
targeting senior citizens. He encouraged those with elderly
friends or relatives to pick up a copy of the brochure. He will
also have brochures available at his next District #3 meeting.
Mr. Neville reported work has started on the Evergreen Park
TAPE #1487
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 2 of 30
seawall.
Mr. MontgomezTannounced the MOM Committee is sponsoring a Rally on
the boardwalk on September 6, 1997, starting at 10:00 A.M. He
encouraged the public to bring their signs showing their support to
retain the USS Missouri within the continental United States. In
regards to the Missouri, the Navy will hold a session of the 106
process, which is a process they are required to go through when
any historical designated building, site, etc., are to be
transferred. This session will be held at Keyport in the Naval
Underseas Museum. He read a letter received from Mary W. Haines,
whose son died aboard the USS Arizona, in which she expressed her
disappointment that the Navy would consider mooring the Missouri
near the Arizona Memorial and views that as a sacrilege. She
supported keeping the Missouri in Bremerton or Long Beach,
California, but not near the Arizona. Mr. Montgomery noted more
people in the United States are getting on the bandwagon and there
is the possibility a lawsuit may be filed against the Navy.
Mr. Winters stated as Chairman of the Telecommunications Committee,
he wanted to know when City staff and members of the
Telecommunications Committee will be meeting to discuss the
proposed Telecommunications Ordinance. He is looking forward to
the Blackberry Festival this weekend.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Lynn Horton read the following Proclamation:
(1) SEPTEMBER 1-5, 1997, WASHINGTON WATER WEEKS. Don Larson,
President of Washington Scuba alliance, accepted the Proclamation
and displayed a color poster listing Water Weeks events. A Water
Weeks Journal can be obtained by calling the 1-800-824-4EPA. He
announce his group sponsors the annual Sinclair Inlet Clean Up,
which will take place on September 20.
Mayor Horton announced as a springboard into the Blackberry
Festival activities, the USS Nimitz will be honored for their
presence and tenure in the City of Bremerton. She invited everyone
to participate in this event and give the Nimitz a Bremerton kind
of sendoff to their next homeport and thank them for their years of
service within the community. Mayor Horton read a letter from the
city to Captain Issac E. Richardson, III, Commanding Officer of the
USS Nimitz, acknowledging their support of worthwhile community
causes, such as United Way, Navy Relief, Mothers Against drunk
Drivers, American Red Cross, Make-a-Wish Foundation, and Promise
Keepers, as well as their major role in Operation Desert Storm and
Operation Southern Watch in the Arabian Gulf.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
TAPE #1487
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 3 of 30
John Thomas, member of the Council Salary Commission, announced the
Commission will hold a Public Hearing on September 8, 1997, 5:30
P.M., in the City Council Chambers to take input from the public on
a proposed salary increase for the City Council. He asked that the
City conduct a public audit of Westsound Community Access
Television since they were mostly funded through public funds.
Lastly, as of this date, he had not received a response from the
Council to his question about the cost of implementing
fluoridation.
carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, announced
Blackberry Festival hours are August 30, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM, and
August 31, 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM. Darrell Tanner, Car Show Chairman,
stated he anticipates having 200 participants, which will include
Harley- Davidson motorcycles, Honda Motorcycle Club, new cars from
local dealerships, classics cars, custom cars, antiques cars, and
custom low rider bicycles. Mel Journey, chairman of the First
Annual Fly In, announced this new event will be held on August 30,
1997, starting off with a Pancake Breakfast at 9:00 A.M. The Port
of Bremerton and the Bremerton Pilots' and tenants Association are
co-sponsors of this event. Ms. Atkinson briefly listed the
entertainment lineup and announced a another new event this year is
the Golf Tournament at Gold Mountain on August 29. Dave Boynton
described how the Hydroplane Exhibition, a new event, came together
this year, and will take place in Sinclair Inlet west of Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS). The participating hydroplane is the
"PICO." Mr. Winters asked where the public could view the
hydroplane exhibition? Mr. Boynton stated PSNS will be opening
their parking lot near the Missouri gate and there is a small park
to the west of that parking area. However, the best place to view
the event would be from a boat. He cautioned the public to not
park along the Navy Yard Highway since it could create traffic
problems. Ms. Atkinson announced the USS Nimitz Open House will
take place on August 30, 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM. Lastly, she
announced more new blackberry products will be introduced at the
festival.
Del Knauss stated several times he has brought up to Council his
concern about the Council Salary Commission and its conflict with
RCW 35.22.205. He urged Council to request the City Attorney look
at the Washington State Constitution that governs how Council
members are given salary increases. He is aware the Council Salary
Commission is considering that eight Council members receive a 45%
increase and the Council President would receive a 55% increase.
During all of his working career, he has never received that kind
of pay increase. He believes the money used for Council salary
increases would be better spent on a Fireman, Policeman, Planner or
Parks employee. He also believes the Council's current salary is
TAPE #1487
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 4 of 30
comparable to other cities of a similar size. He urged Council to
be the ones to vote on their salary increase. President Farr
stated the City Attorney has already reviewed this issue and made
his determination.
Don Larson, President Kitsap Diving Association, handed out copies
of Washington Water Weeks Journals to the Council members and noted
it is a great way to promote activities in Bremerton. He report
the State Park Commission is making progress on an Underwater Park
program and he still maintains his strong support for Bremerton to
become involved in such a program.
8A - BUDGET ADJUSTMENT - 1997 WASTEWATER FUND 451, ~AB97-19a
A number of project activities have occurred in the Wastewater
utility that necessitate adjustment of the 1997 Wastewater Fund
Budget. The attached budget adjustment request outlines the
adjustments to be made. The adjustments provide for the final
costs on the WWTP Odor Control Project and 1997 property
acquisitions in Oyster Bay, Zone 1. Revenues include Public Work
Trust Fund loans and Centennial Clean Water fund grants not
previously included, and recognize the settlements received from
Agri-Tech, Harbor Insurance and CH2M Hill. This adjustment also
provides for ongoing contribution litigation against Metcalf & Eddy
Services Inc. approval by the Council of the attached budget
adjustment in the amount of $1,275,976 is requested.
Gene Sample¥, Public Works and Utilities Director, stated this
Budget Adjustment is a result of on going litigation, costs
associated with that action, projected costs for the remainder of
1997, and capital projects that were carried over from 1996. It
was anticipated that those projects would have been completed in
1996; however, it was necessary to roll them over into 1997. The
timing to present this Budget Adjustment was determined when it was
felt there was no longer a strong possibility that the City would
receive additional settlement revenues for the settlements that the
City paid out in litigation to the Charleston Beach Association and
other claims~ The source of funding is the Miscellaneous Non-
Revenues receipt side of the Public Works Trust Fund Loans and the
Centennial Clean Water Fund grants as well as the available cash
balance budgeted for the end of the year. The budgeted ending cash
of $1,407,369.00. the projected budgeting ending cash with the
subject revision would be $131,393.00.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Winters questioned if $767,000 was the correct figure for
litigation costs and what was the amount received in settlement?
Mr. Sampley stated the litigation cost figure was correct and the
TAPE #1487
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Aug,/st 27, 1997
Page 5 of 30
#1069
settlement amount was $1,980,000.00.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Winters) The City Council approve attached
Budget Adjustment No. 97-27 to Wastewater Fund 451 in the amount of
$1,275,976 to reflect the correct status of the fund.
9A - RESOLUTION #2620 - ENTRY INTO EMERGENCY SERVICES
FACILITY/MASTER PLAN AGREEMENT REGARDING JOINT TRAININ~ FACILITY,
#1179
~AB97-195
The City of Bremerton Fire Department would like to enter into an
agreement with various other fire Districts and Departments to
establish a joint Fire Training Center on National Guard Property
located at 1299 Union Avenue.
Mick McKinley, Assistant Fire Chief, briefly reviewed the
background for the development of a joint Fire Training facility,
which started in 1989, when the City considered the replacement of
the fire tower at Evergreen park. After evaluating several sites
in the City, Fire Services of Kitsap County banded together and
chose the National Guard Armory site on Union Avenue. This process
has taken over three years to come to this point.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Winters complimented Mr. McKinley for his dedication to this
project, and reiterated his suggestion to name the facility after
Mr. McKinley.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) To Pass Resolution #2620 to establish a
Joint Fire Training Center.
10A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING), ANENDING THE PENALTIES FO~
VIOLATION OF THE CITY BUILDIN~ CODE, #AB97-196
A recent case has found that courts of limited jurisdiction, such
as Municipal court, are only authorized by Court rule to issue
search warrants upon probable cause to believe evidence of a
criminal offense may be found, and not authorized to issue warrants
for evidence of a civil infraction. Many of the model codes
adopted in the City Building Code, BMC Chapter 17.04, contain
specific misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor penalties. However,
other sections declare a violation to be "unlawful," and under the
default penalty of B.M.C. 17.04.110, these would be classified as
civil infractions. Since these construction and fire code
violations often require on-site inspection for successful
prosecution, it is recommended that the default penalty be changed
to a misdemeanor to allow search warrants to be issued.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, briefly reviewed the discrepancies and
TAPE #1487
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 6 of 30
#1325
reasons why this ordinance was necessary to allow a proper
investigation under a search warrant.
Public comment - none.
Mr. M¢Conne11 asked for clarification for the deleting of "and fire
safety," and asked if it was addressed under a different ordinance?
Mr. Sievers stated this particular penalty section was not amended
when the first section of that chapter was amended.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to approve ordinance on first reading,
amending the penalty for violations of the City Building code, and
amending Bremerton Municipal Code 17.04.110.
11A - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 1997 DOCKET OF COMPRE__w~_.NSIVE pLaW
AMENDMENTS, RELATED REZONES, AND TN~ ADOPTING ORDINANCES (FIRST
READING) t ~AB97-192
President Fart stated approximately two-thirds of the items were
reviewed by Council and public comment taken on August 20; however,
no formal action was taken by Council. During this hearing, staff
will complete their presentation, public input will be taken on
each of the remaining items, then a vote will be taken on first
reading of the ordinances.
President Farr asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict of
Interest" question, with all Council members being seated.
Ron Hough, Planning Manager, explained this is a continuation of
August 20, 1997, public hearing. He briefly recapped each of the
seven items discussed at the previous meeting.
President Fart opened the opportunity for public testimony on the
following seven items:
(1) Harbor Heights Apartments: Public comment - none.
(2) Bremerton School District: Public comment - none.
(3) Auto Center Area Industrial: Public comment - none.
(4) Broad Street Residential: Public comment - none.
(5) Merit Company:
Susan Brown, 1333 E. Hope, stated this was a difficult meeting to
be at due to the confusion of the notification process. Those who
attended the Planning Commission meeting were told this public
hearing would be August 27, but residents received letters stating
TAPE #1487
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 7 of 30
the public hearing would be August 20; therefore she requested
action on the rezones be put on "hold" and re-advertised. She
further explained she has watched this property since moving to the
area 28 years ago, and was aware that the property has severe water
problems in recent years. The Merit Company has owned this
property for 30 years and she understands the time is right for
them to maximize their profit, but she does not believe it should
be at the expense of the neighborhood. Existing neighbors bought
their homes years ago assuming there would be houses across the
street. If businesses are intended, she suggested a 100 foot buffer
along the eastern edge, using the 15% open space required for this
rezone to protect the existing neighbors.
(6) South Smith Cove:
(Note: a letter was received from Mr. Paul S. Milnes and included
in the City Council packet on page 110).
Scott Buckingham, 900 block Washington Avenue resident, suggested
the City expand Evergreen park to include the Standard Oil property
in order to maximize the view potential from the park.
Mr. Overson stated in the interest of efficiency, Council should go
forward with the original proposal of Parks and Open Space as
opposed to sending this issue back for further review. His
reasoning is if the owners disagree with what the City proposes,
they should request that it be changed to something else.
Sievers, City Attorney, stated the City received a letter from an
attorney representing one of the property owners (Loftus property),
who is in his own right and proactive objects to the rezone of his
property. In affect, one of the property owners is not willing to
wait to see what happens with the City's property acquisition.
(7) Waterfront Access Plan:
Scott and Pamela Buckingham, 900 block Washington Avenue residents,
stated their major concern over this proposal was the adverse
affect it would have on the residents, particularly having to do
with increased traffic and safety for their children. They were
also concern about the possibility of High School age youth hanging
out in the area, if it that area was developed by the City,
possibly bringing a bad element into their neighborhood.
Amy Burnett, 900 block Washington Avenue resident, pointed the
existing use of the subject site is a short driveway with a garage
and has been used as such for many years. Her bedroom window, as
well as her neighbors, is only 10 feet away from the site and the
two residents on the other side of the "short driveway" are 5-20
feet away. She noted there are four residents on that small
driveway and three of them use it as they exit out of their front
TAPE #1487
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 8 of 30
door. Three to five vehicles are continually parked on the site.
She questioned if the area is kept as a view point, will all
parking of vehicles be prohibited? She emphasized parking is a
critical situation on the section of Washington Avenue north of the
Manette Bridge. She asked that residential parking be allowed to
continue on the site, if the Council decides to keep the subject
area as a view point.
Del Knauss, Bremerton resident, stated when he Chaired the
committee that developed the City's current Comprehensive Plan, not
one person spoke against having the subject area as a low key view
point. The area was designated a low key view point prior to the
adopting of the current Waterfront Access Plan. He sees keeping
the viewpoint designation as a benefit to the neighborhood, not the
general public. He supports retaining parking on the site for
neighboring residents and to keep it as a viewpoint.
David Baldwin, 900 block Washington Avenue resident, stated he has
been a homeowner in the subject area since 1989. During the
Planning commission's discussion of this item, he voiced his
opposition to keeping the subject area as a viewpoint. He doubted
the site could be maintained as a low key viewpoint, if it was
developed. Parking along their portion of Washington Avenue is
extremely difficult and at times people traverse llth Street Place
(posted as one-way) the wrong direction. His neighbor JoAnne
Marez, who was unable to attend this meeting, supports the proposal
to remove the viewpoint designation. Another neighbor, who resides
at 959 Washington Avenue, has a letter on file in support of the
proposal as presented.
~. Emily Mosha¥, Park Avenue resident, stated her opposition to
retaining the subject area as a viewpoint.
Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk, read the following letter into
the record: "I reside at 110 1/2 llth Street Place. I am
concerned about turning our driveway into a view point. My son's
bedroom is only 20 feet from this area. I also have concerns about
parking. There have been times when I come home in the evening and
there is nowhere on the road to park. This forces me to park in
the red zone and receive a ticket for $50.00, so I count on my spot
in the driveway. My final concern is our increasing problem with
crime in our neighborhood. I feel putting a viewpoint in a
residential area would invite more crime and problems with
neighbors and our privacy. I am not thrilled about a viewpoint
being put here, but I hope that if this takes place a compromise
can be reached to accommodate us on Washington Avenue and llth
Street Place," signed Sara Marez.
TAPE #1488
TAPE #1488
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 9 of 29
CAPIT~L FACILITIES ELEMENT: Part 2 of 2 - Capital Facilities
program
Kay Wilson, Senior Planner, explained the Capital Facilities
element is one of five Comprehensive Plan elements required by the
Growth Management Act (GMA). The Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
Capital Facilities element consists of two parts: Capital
Facilities Plan Part 1 of 2 (CF Plan) and capital Facilities
Program Part 2 of 2 (CFP). No amendments are proposed for Part 1.
The GMA requires that the Capital Facilities expenditures of the
city be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. For that reason,
the City updates that element each year. The CF Element must
include an inventory of existing capital facilities, a forecast of
future needs, locations and capacities, and a six-year plan to
finance the capital facilities within projected funding.
In 1996, amendment were made to Sections A - Fire And Emergency
Medical Services; B - Law Enforcement; C - Parks and Recreation; D
-Sanitary Sewer; G - Transportation; H - Water.
Ms. Wilson outlined the relationship among Capital Facilities
Elements Policy Plan, Capital Facilities Program and the City
Budget. The City's projected funding is based on a population
projection, as shown on the CFP-2 Population Forecast Chart. Ms.
Wilson pointed out a correction to the City's 1997 actual
population to reflect 38,600 rather than 36,800. The City Treasurer
looks six years ahead at the projected population for the year 2002
(43,000 people) and bases projected revenues out six years on that
population as well as other considerations.
Under "Future Water Needs," Ms. Wilson pointed out several errors
in the documentation provided to Council and noted those errors
will be corrected in the September 3 City Council Agenda Packet.
She emphasize the Table did show sufficient water for the next six
years and projected growth. The Water Utility has requested the
following language be included in the Plan: "The City has two
additional wells drilled and awaiting water rights. Current
regulatory and legal uncertainty at the State level precludes
processing of water rights applications except under emergency
conditions."
The new MUNICIPAL FACILITIES section is basically constructed to
provide the background for two items that have been included in the
City's Capital Improvement Program and are also included in the
Capital Facilities Element, i.e., a new City Hall and potential
purchase of a parking facility (Sinclair Landing Project). A
statement identifying the need for a new City Hall will be added as
follows: "There is considerable expense .in operating and
maintaining the current obsolete facilities, Communications,
TAPE #1488
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 10 of 29
efficiency and coordination are siqnificantly more expensive in the
existinq facilities. New construction and desiqn techniques would
decrease operations and maintenance costs and imDrove the efficient
provision of City services."
Public comment - none.
Mr. Overson questioned how the City could identify annual costs
savings, if a new City Hall facility is built? Ms. Wilson stated
she could not answer that question. Mr. Overson questioned the
reasoning or projections that a cost savings would be the result of
a new City Hall facility. Mrs. Wilson explained this item was
proposed as an expenditure in the Capital Improvement Program,
which was previously approved by the City Council. Since the two
documents must be consistent, text was added to provide the general
background on such a proposal and the specifics would come with
further study. Don Pratt, Director of community Development,
stated the purpose of including the language was to identify a
potential cost in the future to undertake studies that will provide
the kind of information Mr. Overson requested. He anticipates,
within 2-4 years, there will be a request for funds to look at the
possibility a new City Hall facility.
REMOVAL OF "CEMETERY,, DESIGNATION
Mr. Hough identified the location of existing cemeteries along
Kitsap Way and Naval Avenue. The "C" (Cemetery) designation was
placed on the Plan maps to indicate the locations of existing
cemeteries. It was not intended to guide the development of new or
expanded facilities. Cemeteries are permitted (by Special Use
Permit) in the SF-1, SF-2 and SF-3 low density residential zones.
The "C" designation on the Plan maps causes confusion and may
require a Plan Amendment whenever an existing cemetery expands
within an SF zone. Removing this designation from maps and map
legends will avoid confusion and unnecessary Plan Amendments.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Montgomery questioning the value of even bothering to make this
change considering the exiting cemetery properties would most
likely never be used for another purpose. If the cemeteries wanted
to expand, they could go through the appropriate process. Mr.
Hough explained any change outside their currently boundaries would
require a Comprehensive Plan amendment, which he did not see as
necessary since it is an allowable use under their current zoning.
Mr. Winters questioned if the current cemetery on the west side of
Kitsap Way owned additional land west of their current boundary?
Mr. Hough stated yes, but they cannot develop the site because the
Comprehensive Plan shows it as a different use. Mr. Winters
#0620
TAPE #1488
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 11 of 29
questioned why the City didn't implement a zoning change to the
site that is not currently designated "cemetery" in order to meet
needs that may occur by 2003-2006? Mr. Hough explained the zoning
designation is low density residential (SF-1 or 2), which allows
cemeteries with a Special use Permit and in some cases can be
granted administratively. Because there are cemetery boundaries
shown on the Map, someone could appeal the proposal to expand a
cemetery outside the existing area. Since the City is not planning
for future cemetery needs, staff did not see the need for a
"Cemetery" designation on the long range plan.
LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS
Mr. Hough stated the Land Use Descriptions comprise four pages of
land use designations on the Comprehensive Plan Maps. The Zoning
Ordinance describes "zones" in good detail; however, the
Comprehensive Plan did not describe the Comprehensive Plan
designations, which are similar to the zones, and that situation
presented some confusion to the public. The intent is to insert
the land use descriptions into the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use
Element along with the Land Use Maps.
Public comment - none.
Mr. McConnell questioned, under the MU PUD applied to a residential
project, how many units per acre would be allowed? Mr. Hough
stated the Mixed Use PUD Plan designation does not have a range.
A PUD combines different zones and through that process high
density can be combined with medium density or low density zone
with a non-residential planned use zone. But, if a PUD was
presented that wanted to combine a commercial center or office park
with a medium residential designation, the MF Zone would probably
be applied, which is a medium density zone and would become part of
the PUD design. The zoning would have a limit on the density
within that development. Mr. McConnell questioned if he understood
correctly that a PUD does increase the number of units per acre?
Mr. Hough stated there is a bonus density opportunity; however, it
does not come automatically and comes with additional open space or
other amenities.
Mr. Montgomez7 stated he understood issues such as these were
covered when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted several years ago?
Mr. Hough stated the definitions were covered, but were not written
into the Plan.
President Farr announced Council will vote on the individual action
items under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment ordinance.
1. HARBOR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS AMENDMENT
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) Motion to approve Harbor Heights
#0690
#0715
#0735
TAPE #1488
city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 12 of 29
Apartments redesignation
Residential (MDR)."
from "Utility" to "Medium Density
2. BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT AMENDMENT
M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees/Montgomery) Motion to approve the Bremerton
School District Amendment to "General & Highway Commercial (C-G)."
3. AUTO CENTER AREA INDUBTRIAL AMENDMENT
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) Motion to approve Auto Center Area
Industrial Amendment from "General and Professional Office (C-P)"
to "Industrial Park (IP)."
4. MERIT COMPANY AMENDMENT
M/S/C(Huff-Menees/Montgomery) Motion to deny the designation of
"Medium Density residential (MDR)" to "Mixed Use/PUD(MU)."
Mr. Overson stated the owner of the subject property requested the
amendment and had pursued several unsuccessful attempts to develop
the site. He sensed the owner now believes the best use of the
site would be under the MU designation. He could not support the
motion to deny. He believes the City is duty bound to support use
of real estate that is under private ownership.
Mr. McConnell stated he views this proposal differently. In his
opinion it is vague i.e., there are no plans and previous actions
to have the site rezoned residential was not successful in
developing the site into that use. He was concerned that the MU
designation allowed the owner to put any kind of use on the site
with only the Planning Commission's approval. Before he could
support such a change, he would have to see a plan for that area.
Mr. Colvin stated he believes the surrounding neighborhood deserves
consideration; therefore, he will support the motion for denial.
Mr. Montgomery questioned if he understood correctly that it would
require Council approval to develop the subject property? Mr.
Hough stated that is one of the conditions under the proposed
rezone for this site.
Huff-Menees stated her reason for making the motion for denial was
out of concern for the neighborhood and the fact the City used the
site for residential density to support population figures under
the Growth management Act (GMA). She felt strongly that the City
should stick to that decision and she does not supporting changing
the current designation.
Mr. Law stated he was concerned that the size of the buffer kept
changing. Mr. Hough explained the proposal would allow other
options than Medium Residential. One of the options would be to
#1059
TAPE #1488
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Augllst 27, 1997
Page 13 of 29
expand the existing shopping center to allow existing businesses to
expand and possibly bring in other new businesses. He was not
aware of any proposal submitted to build something specific, but it
does open up the options.
Mr. Colvin stated he was concerned the City would be giving the
property owner a "blank check" to build whatever they wanted. Mr.
~ough explained a site plan review before the city Council is
required, if a proposal is submitted. Thi~ i~ the only site in the
city where the City Council does a site plan review at a public
hearing.
Mr. McConnell asked if it wouldn't be more appropriate to rezone a
portion of the subject site as "Shopping Center" to aCcommodate
future expansion of the existing shopping center rather than having
3/4 of a store in a Shopping Center zone and the remainder in a
different zone? Mr. Hough stated that is a possibility and such a
proposal would have to come before Council for approval.
Mr. Neville stated he supports the motion for denial based on the
need to continue its identity as future density residential to meet
the GMA.
President Fart stated he could not support the denial based on the
fact he has faith in the system that has worked in most cases to
benefit the City and take the concerns of the neighborhood into
consideration when a site plan is approved.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor:
Opposed:
Huff-Menees, Neville, Law, McConnell,
Colvin, Montgomery
Farr, Winters, Overson
5. Broad Street Residential Amendment
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) to approve two small lots on Broad
Street from "CG" to "MDR".
Mr. McConnell pointed out if the proposed change is approved, it
would require the current owner of an adjoining commercially zoned
property to provide a buffer on his property. He could not
support the motion, if it puts an existing property owner to a
further expense and more loss to their business zoned property.
Mr. Houqh stated the General Business zone and most business zones
require 10-foot setbacks from residential zones. In this case that
would be true. He felt the City had sent a precedent with the
property on the north side of Broadmore Village when Broadmore
Village was rezoned from General Business to Multiple Family. At
that time, the affected property owner requested a Special
Exception from that rule and was granted the exception. The
TAPE #1485
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 14 of 29
commercial property owner in the subject area is aware of that
process and could request an exception to the setback requirement.
Mr. McConnell questioned if that exception could be made part of
the motion? Mr. Montgomery stated he agreed with Mr. McConnell's
recommendation to provide the "exception" in his motion, which he
then amended. Mr. Hough reminded Council they were amending the
Comprehensive Plan and following this action Council will be
addressing a set of rezone requests. This issue is more of a
zoning issue than a Comprehensive Plan issue and was more
appropriate to include it when the rezone was considered.
President Fart asked if it was inappropriate to have it included in
the Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Hough stated yes. Mr. McConnell asked
that the issue be address when the rezone of the two lots came up
for consideration.
Vote on motion - unanimous.
6. Waterfront Access Plan Amendment
Mr. Oversonquestioned what is meant by a "low key" viewpoint? Mr.
Hough recalled when the Waterfront Access Plan was being developed
about eight years ago, the intent for a low key viewpoint that
provided a stopping/resting area for people walking along the
sidewalk and system of sidewalks that would link the downtown with
various points along the shoreline, including the Manette Bridge
access, Evergreen Park, Smith Cove, etc. Such an area could be as
simple as a bench and garbage can. Mr. Overson asked if it could
also be a place where local residents park their vehicles and are
able to look over the vehicles at the viewpoint without actually
accessing the area? Mr. Hough stated it would be a visual
viewpoint since there is no physical access to the shoreline.
Parking might be developed on the street side with a pedestrian
area on the water side. Ms. Wilson stated she believes the
Waterfront Access Plan is quite clear about viewpoints in
residential areas and the intent is for walkers and no parking
spaces provided. And, when a viewpoint is in a residential
neighborhood, the City would not plan that viewpoint until a
neighborhood meeting was held with surrounding residents. Thirdly,
the Waterfront Access Plan addresses protecting the adjacent
neighbors from intrusion of noise, etc., through design. There are
several other viewpoints along that route and all of them are in
residential neighborhoods. Mr. Overson questioned how the City
proposed to resolve the owners' concerns where, by default, the
site has become access to residential areas and allowed needed
vehicle parking? Ms. Wilson emphasized the importance of holding
a neighborhood meeting to address those kinds of issues before the
City makes a proposal for the site. Because this site is so
unusual, it might be the City would provide some neighborhood on-
street parking and the viewpoint developed as a path with a bench.
Mr. Overson stated he recognizes the concerns of the residents in
#1428
#1689
#1711
TAPE #1488
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 15 of 29
the subject area that there is need for additional parking;
however, he did not see this action as one of those opportunities.
The Waterfront Access Plan is a long-term plan that sets aside real
estate that can be retained for public purposes and if that use is
changed, it would have to be for a significant reason. He did not
believe that the issue should be presented on the basis it was
presented.
M/S/C(Overson/Colvin) To deny the Waterfront Access Plan change as
presented.
Mr. Montgomery agreed with Mr. Overson's position and the Shoreline
Management Plan states the City must protect viewpoints. HoWever,
if the issue comes back before Council, he would support a motion
to designate residential parking only on that street, but prior to
that kind of action, the existing garage needs to be removed due to
its illegal status.
Mr. MoConnell stated he supports the denial of the proposed change
because he sees the viewpoint as a great asset to the surrounding
neighbors as well the city as a whole.
President Parr questioned if the time frame for developing the
viewpoint would be past the six year time horizon? Mr. Hough
stated he had no idea when the City might develop the area;
however, there is the possibility that the Parks Department might
apply for grant funding that may become available in the future.
President Parr questioned if the viewpoint remains as it is, would
the neighbors be allowed to continue using the site for parking
vehicles? Mr. Hough explained it is a non-conforming situation and
the City could decide to abate the situation.
Mr. Colvin stated if the proposal is denied, does everything remain
the same? Mr. Hough stated no, the garage must be removed.
Vote On Motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor:
Opposed:
Overson, Law, McConnell, Colvin,
Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Neville, Farr
Winters
M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees) Motion to approve Section 7: The text of the
Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to incorporate the annual
update of the Capital Facilities Program portion of the Capital
Facilities Element.
M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) Motion to expand the Park designation
to Sheldon Boulevard and expand the High Density Residential to the
east of Highland Avenue (Section 8).
#1780
#1834
#1867
#1997
#2033
#2064
TAPE #1488
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 16 of 29
M/S/C/U(McConnell/Montgomery) Motion to approve Section 9: The Land
use Plan Maps contained within the Comprehensive Plan are hereby
amended to remove the designation "C" (Cemetery) and designate it
as "Low Density Residential" (Section 9).
Mr. Overson questioned if it was allowable to have a "O" on the
Comprehensive Plan Map if the "Cemetery" designation is removed?
Mr. Houqh explained the underlying zoning is Low Density
Residential. Mr. Overson asked if that should be added to the
motion? Mr. Hough stated yes.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) motion to approve the Land Use
Descriptions as discussed (Section 10).
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) Motion to approve Ordinance, on
first reading, as amended by the previous motions adopting the 1997
amendments to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan.
President Parr announced the Study Session scheduled to following
the Council meeting has been postponed to September 8, 5:30 P.M.,
in the Council Conference Room.
Mr. Hough announced the next action before Council is to approve
the following rezone proposals:
Harbor Heights Apartment - changing the zoning of specific portions
of the proposed Harbor Heights Apartments development site from the
present designations of "FM (Forest Management)," and "SF-3
((Residential Low-density)" to "MF (Residential Medium-density).,,
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) Motion to approve Section 1 of the
ordinance (Harbor Heights Apartments).
Bremerton School District (Section 2) - change the designations of
two lots, located on the east side of Wheaton Way, north of Dibb
Street from "PS (Parks & Schools)" to "GN (General Business)."
Auto Center Area Industrial (Section 3 - change the designation of
four lots, consisting of approximately 22 acres, in the auto Center
area from "PO (Professional OFFICE" to "IP (Industrial Park)," with
conditions as described in Exhibit "C."
M/S/C/U(Law/Montgomery) Motion to approve Sections 2 and 3 as
presented.
Merit Company
M/S/C(Montgomery/Colvin)
Company.
Motion to delete Section 4 - Merit
#2103
#2209
TAPE #1488
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 17 of 29
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor:
Opposed:
Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Winters,
Neville, McConnell, Law, Colvin
Fart, Overson
Broad Street Residential - change the designation of two lots on
the south side of Broad Street, west of Wheaton Way, from "GB
(General Business)" to "MF (Residential Medium-density", and
approving a special Zoning Ordinance Exception for the abutting
commercial lot.
M/S/C/U(McConnell/Montgomery) Motion to approve the rezone as
presented with an exception eliminating the setback requirement for
the abutting commercial lot.
South Smith Cove - to not rezone the expansion area of Evergreen
Park and let it remain zoned as "Business Park (BP).
Mr. Neville asked the City Attorney to state for clarification why
he recommended retaining the current zoning. Mr. Sievers explained
rezoning as opposed to the Comprehensive Plan changing private
property to Parks and Schools is premature at this point. Mr.
Overson raised a point that a threatened challenge is more real
than imaginary. He also felt it could be antagonistic to property
negotiations that are currently underway. He appreciates the fact
the issue went through the Planning commission and possibly a
compromise would be to table the Planning Commission's
recommendation on part of the Business Park 4-6 months when it may
be coming back to Council when the City acquires the property.
M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) Motion to amend southeast of Smith cove
by expanding the "MR (Residential High-density)', zone northward to
include two additional lots on the east side of Highland Avenue.
11B - PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL/DOCK IN OYSTER BAY C~_m~NEL;
APPELLANTS: RICHARD WRIGHT ET.AL; LOCATION: 2000 MADRONA POINT
ROAD, #AB97-197
The City Council has been requested to conduct a public hearing to
decide an appeal of a dock permit application determination of
nonsignificance. The dock would be located behind a single family
residence in the waterway channel between Oyster/Ostrich Bay. The
City Council may agree with the decision or direct that a
determination of significance or a mitigated determination of
nonsignificance be issued.
President Fart asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict of
Interest" question. Mr. Winters read the following statement: "On
or about mid July Mr. Maynard Hoffman invited him to me home to
view the channel and they discussed the channel and its width and
TAPE #1488
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 18 of 29
did not discuss anything else other than someone working for $10.00
per hour pulling weeds out of his yard. Secondly, on or about July
25-26, 1997, he and his wife and son enjoyed dinner at the home of
the Reeds and enjoyed the waterfront, view and dinner. They did
not and he would not allow discussion regarding the dock."
Therefore, he will remain seated.
President Fart asked if any member of the public believes any
Council member should excuse themselves due to a conflict of
interest with the appearance of fairness doctrine? Bernard
Holland, So. Marine Drive resident, stated he had observed Mr.
Winters also at the Reed's place of business; however, he was not
aware of what they might have discussed. He was also unsure as to
what was actually discussed when Mr. Winters was a guest at the
Reed's home. Mr. Winters stated he would be glad to relate what
was discussed. Mr. Holland stated he was objecting because of the
"appearance of fairness"...Mr. Winters could say anything, but he
would not know if it was true or not. Ian Sievers, City Attorney,
stated the appearance of fairness doctrine as ex parte contacts was
amended by statute and does allow that ex parta contacts may take
place as long as they are disclosed on the public record and the
substance of those conversations are disclosed by the Council
member. Therefore, it would not disqualify Mr. Winters. Mr,
Holland stated he was objecting over Mr. Winters being at Mr.
Reed's place of business, which Mr. Winters did not disclose. Mr.
Sievers stated the time frame is important and Mr. Winters may want
to clarify if the second incident was after the item was placed on
the Council agenda or if it was prior to that date. Mr. Holland
stated it occurred within the last month. Mr. Winters stated his
impartiality regarding the document is very clear. Mr. Reed is
running as a candidate for Council District #9 and he is running as
a candidate for Mayor of Bremerton and they discussed those issues.
Although he is not allowed to discuss his candidacy in City Hall,
he is allowed to explain that situation in front of legal counsel.
Mr. Slevers stated all Mr. Winters had to do was to reflect his
recollection if any part of the conversation touched on the subject
application. Mr. Winters stated no. Mr. Holland stated he felt
the two parties sharing a meal was a little to close for an
impartial vote. Jerry Parer stated she drove behind Mr. Winters'
van as he left Mr. Reed's place of business at 8:10 A.M. Jim Reed
stated he was visited by Mr. Winters at his place of business where
they spoke at length about Mr. Winters' Mayoral race and his
interest on issues. Mr. Winters had not been in his office after
the Council Agenda had been prepared on August 22, nor have they
had any telephone conversations except for the morning of August 26
when he talked with him about returning a phone call regarding
someone wanting to support his campaign. Mr. Sievers stated
prejudgment is one of the legs of the appearance of fairness
doctrine and Mr. Winters should reflect whether or not he is too
TAPE #1488
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 19 of 29
close and friendly in his social contacts to make a fair and
impartial decision on the matter with the applicant. Mr. Winters
stated he would not say he and Mr. Reed were that close, but he has
examined the issue and understands Mr. Pratt's recommendations. He
perceives he is being challenged because of an earlier "no" vote.
He owns a rental property near the Reed property and travels in
that area quite often, but over the past five years he and Mr. Reed
have conversed very few times. Mr. Reed stated for clarification
the appellant is not appealing him, but rather the Director of
Community Development's decision and he was at this public hearing
to make public comment on that appeal.
President Farr stated since he has served on the Council, these are
the most serious challenges he has seen to any of the Council
members being seated on a quasi-judicial matter and asked Mr.
Winters to be sure that he could deal with the appearance of
fairness issue, but if he felt there was any doubt he would ask Mr.
Winters to consider stepping down. Mr. Winters stated he had no
doubt and would remain seated.
Don Holtz, Madrona Point Drive resident, asked Councilman Carlos
Montgomery to step down on the grounds that within the past 30 days
he had traveled by boat through the channel with City employees to
address the issue of dock standards, and on Thursday of the past
week spent 1-1/2 hours at an adjacent property supporting his
negativity to docks in the channel and stating incorrect facts that
he felt were pertinent to this case. Mr. Montgomer~ stated he was
on Mr. Green's property, along with a City Official, investigating
an illegal "pulling-in" of a float, not on Mr. Reed's property. He
emphasized the conversation did not include any discussion about
docks; however, they did discuss the float issue and the depth of
the water. As a City Councilman, when issues come up in his
district he usually gets involved to help solve problem issues.
He received numerous call about Mr. Green's float. Judy Johnson,
Department of Community Development, stated on August 21 she and
Mr. Montgomery did visit Mr. Green's property to discuss his float,
but they did not discuss anything about the Reed property or the
proposed dock. Mr. Montqomer¥ stated Mr. Green did mention Mr.
Holt's dock, Mr. Reed's dock, and houses; however, he did not get
involved with any discussion relating to Mr. Green's comments.
Slevers asked Mr. Montgomery if he recalled any conversation about
the Reed dock? Mr. Montqomez7 stated Mr. Green talked about why
they couldn't put a dock at that location, i.e, differences of
various buildings throughout the channel. Mr. Slevers stated,
based on his remarks about the Reed dock, did Mr. Montgomery feel
he made any prejudgment on the application? Mr. Montqomez7 stated
no. Mr. Sievers stated he believed Council could proceed with the
discussion. He noted the judgement is the individual's as to
prejudice and prejudgment and they have stated they have none and
TAPE #1488
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 20 of 29
can make an impartial decision. Mr. Montgomery stated prior to
going to the Green's property he asked the Director of Community
Development, in Ms. Johnson's presence, if visiting the Green
property would have any bearing on any further hearings that may
come up on that channel? Mr. Pratt's response was no, if he was
there for a particular reason. Mr. Winters stated what comes with
this job is a little bit of integrity about responding to
constituents. The press continues to hurl accusations at him, the
public is now throwing accusations at him. He wanted it clearly
understood that when Council members state their position, as
requested by the Council president over their being seated, he
believes their integrity stands for itself. President Fart stated
Council must also respect the Public's concerns as well.
Mr. Sievers stated there were a couple of other appeals scheduled
that were related to Agenda Item llB that are not being heard at
this time. There were two appeals to a Shoreline Master Plan
interpretation by the Community Development Department, which have
been canceled because the interpretation was been withdrawn in
favor of the more deliberate public process of amending the
Shoreline Master Plan under the moratorium recently passed by the
City Council. More important perhaps is the appeal of the denial
of the Substantial Development Permit on the residential dock -
2000 Madrona Point Drive, which has been continued to September 24
for revision of findings and possibly the decision. If the
decision itself is revised, it will be republished and
opportunities for other appeals to be filed, which will also be
heard on September 24.
Mr. Matt Mathes, Land Use Specialist, stated Council is to decide
the action that is the basis of the file for a decision on a
shoreline development permit, not the permit itself. A denial for
the permit was made, and will be heard as a continuation of this
hearing at a later date. If the Council votes "yes" tonight, the
DNS decision would stand, and the denial of the shoreline permit
would remain. The applicant would then be eligible to reapply for
the project no sooner than one year from the date of the denial.
If Council votes "No"__ , there would be two options'. 1) to remand the
DNS decision to staff for minor changes, then staff would reissue
a new DNS; or 2) provide an amendment through a process used to
notify agencies.
TAPE #1489
The site in question is located on Madrona Point Road. He then
passed out supplemental information, Attachments "A" through "F".
He understands that the appellant has the burden of proof to show
there is a basis for the appeal.
TAPE #1489
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 21 of 29
Dick Wright, signatory appellant, stated the waterway issue being
discussed tonight is monumental, and deals with an exclusive,
individual piece of property that is totally unique. He is
rebutting the decision of Non-Significance by the City of
Bremerton, and stated the 3 minute limit would not be adequate for
him to provide Council with all of the necessary information he
would like to present. Mr. F&rr stated in Public Hearings, the
standard procedure has been to limit the time to 3 minutes to
assure uniformity and fairness to both sides, and all speakers.
Mr. McConnell offered that in the past, the appellant has been
given 10-15 minutes, and then anyone wishing to speak after that
would be limited to 3 minutes. Mr. Sievers read from the Rules &
Procedures, which states the Council President designates the
length of argument to afford a fair hearing of the issues, taking
into consideration the size of the audience, and number of those
who wish to speak.
Mr. Wright, referred to the memo on Attachment "C", which showed
the SEPA Action was DNS for all projects listed, with one exempt.
He then questioned if those on the Council were fully aware of SEPA
regulations, and the rules, and asked for a show of hands. He
explained in 1971 the State mandated a state policy that would
promote efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment.
On August 26, he questioned Mr. Mathes how much writing was done in
his development of this DNS? Mr. Mathes responded it was customary
for staff reviewing a checklist to provide margin notes on each
item; however, in the 20+ pages of this checklist there were no
marks in the margins. He had reviewed the files, going back to
1993, and found this was typical of approximately half or more of
the last six DNS issued. Mr. Wright stated this showed a pattern,
then questioned if a detailed statement by the responsible official
on the environmental impact of the proposed action was provided, as
mandated, and if comments from any public agency that had
jurisdiction by law or has special expertise with respect to the
environmental impact, were obtained? Mr. Mathes stated prior to
making the DNS, the State Department of Fishery was consulted in
the field. Mr. Wright submitted the SEPA and the SEPA rules into
the record, and stated due to the importance of this action, he
requested that Council briefly peruse the highlighted sections
prior to making a determination. He then referred to the
Environmental Checklist and SEPA Rules, and went over the
"Instructions for Applicant". He had previously gone through the
document and noted questions he felt were pertinent to the
environmental integrity of SEPA. He addressed #11's comments:
"Install three pilings (waterwards of hiqh water mark) to secure
92' walkway to 8' by 10' landing. For private recreational use,"
and noted no mention was made that concrete bedding pads would be
installed. He directed Council's attention to the section
relating to Environmental Elements, which are questions that do not
TAPE #1489
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Aug,/st 27, 1997
Page 22 of 29
deal with this specific unit, so the answers are not pertinent. In
his view, SEPA is a very generic document that was produced in the
70's to create a system that would cause oversight of everything
from a nuclear reactor, floating docks, livestock along rivers,
et.; therefore, there are lots of areas that would not be pertinent
to this issue. He referenced a section titled "Animals" and noted
no answers were given relating to birds, animals or fish that could
be observed near the site or known to be on or near the site.
Under that same section (5c) there is a "no" answer to the question
"is the site part of a migration route?" Mr. Wright believes that
answer should be yes. He emphasized SEPA mandates that it be
filled out in a manner that is brief, full and complete and the
signature pages states that the information has been appropriately
provided and the person filling it out must then sign the document.
Mr. Wright pointed out in the subject SEPA document there was no
signature page and it went through the Planning Commission review
process in an incomplete state.
Under the section addressing "Environmental Health, all questions
were answered in the negative. Mr. Wright pointed out a sewer line
runs directly underneath the proposed dock area. He questioned how
would the City access that sewer line, if there was a problem?
And, under that same section addressing impact of noise, the answer
of "none" did not take into consideration noise from a pile driver
that would be required to build the dock. SEPA speaks to
uniqueness.., the subject channel is the only one of its kind in
the State of Washington.
Mr. Wright addressed the section having to do with AESTHETICS and
the question "What is the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including antenna? The corresponding answer was
N/A. Mr. Wright stated when the low tide is out there will be 15
foot towers and when it is full the structures will stick out of
the water 3-4 feet. And, under that same section (10b) it
questions what views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or
obstructed? The corresponding answer was "NONE".
Under the section addressing RECREATION, Mr. Wright questioned the
"NONE" answer to the question: "What designated and informal
recreational opportunities are in the immediate area?" He pointed
out the uses of water skiing, swimming, boating, walkers along the
beach, etc. He emphasized the Planning Department personnel gave
the answers no credence.
Mr. Wright referenced Section D(5) - SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET For
NONPROJECT ACTIONS - How would the proposal be likely to affect
land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
Corresponding answer - NOT LIKELY. In Mr. Wright's view that was
TAPE #1489
city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Aug,/st 27, 1997
Page 23 of 29
a false answer because it will have an affect because other
requests for docks will be brought before the Council.
If the City Council finds in any other way other than in opposition
to the abhorrent ruling by the Planning Department, which was done
with total disregard to SEPA, they are not doing their job. He
believes the Council role is to represent the people and to follow
the laws of the State of Washington.
The following individuals spoke in support of Mr. Wright's appeal.
~err~ Peret, Marine Drive resident; Kathy Gallaqher, Marine Drive
resident; Kathleen Wriqht, Poulsbo resident; Bernard Holland, S.
Marine Drive resident; Suzanne Holland, S. Marine Drive resident;
John Sitton, S. Marine Drive resident. ~ar Freymann, Bremerton
resident.
The following comments were made by the above named individuals:
(1) A picture was passed out that was taken in front of Mr. Reed's
home showing the narrowness of the channel at low tide. (3) safety
for boaters and water skiers. (4) Installation of piling could
diverting the current coming through the channel and affect the
siltation process. (5) The channel has a cut throat run, smelt
area next door to the Holt's property and onion jellyfish that come
in and out the bay every third year. (6) The channel is filled
with oyster and clam beds. (7) Variety of bird life inhabit the
channel and bay areas. (8) Sea Otters also inhabit the area. (9)
If approved, Council would be setting a precedent. (10) Per WAC,
if additional information is provided or if there is reason to
believe the DNS was obtained by misrepresentation or lack of
material disclosure, then the lead agency shall withdraw the DNS.
The incompleteness of the Environmental Checklist is obviously lack
of material disclosure and the lead agency is required to withdraw
the DNS. (11) If docks are allows on the channel that are built
across from each other, 50% of the channel will be blocked and
would restrict the waterway, which is public property. (12) If
docks are allowed to be built along channel, it will restrict
access to the City's sewer line. (13) Eighteen foot high pilings
on either side of the channel are significant. (14) Recreational
uses of the channel include: trout fishing, water skiing, sail
boats, which will be impacted significantly if docks are allowed
along the channel. (15) Misleading information as to State agency
approval (Page 263 of the Council Agenda Packet). (16) The City
Council's job is to be good stewards and to represent all the
people, not just one individual. (17) Leave the waterways for the
public's use.
President Farr asked the City attorney if Mrs. Wright's statement
that the lead agency "shall withdraw" leaves an option to remand
the issue? Mr. Sievers stated it is based on the content and this
TAPE #1489
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 24 of 29
is more of holding the applicant responsible or some intentional
act of misrepresentation or materially not providing information.
In those cases, the DNS is withdraw, but a new Checklist is
prepared by either the agency, which would be the City, or paid for
by the applicant. The checklist process is taken over because
there is some intentional misrepresentation or lack of providing
information. The Checklist can also be found to be inadequate or
insufficient and remanded back for further information that can be
provided as a supplement by the agency, which is less accusatory.
Mr. Mathes stated there is only one appellant per appeal and
Richard J. Wright is the appellant in this instance. He quoted the
following statement from the appeal: "The relief sought is reversal
of the DNS to become a "Determination of Significance." He stated
even though there may be many holes in the information and under
the best of circumstances more information could have been
provided, he did not think Council heard the word significance,
probable or likely, which are the three key words that Council
needs to find in order to make a Determination of Significance.
Mr. Wright's appeal references a "75-foot dock", when in actuality
the proposed dock is 120 feet ( 75-foot floating dock would be
attached to a 38 foot fixed pier and connected by a 10-foot gangway
(not included in total length of dock), which would deal with the
18-foot tide change in the subject area. The structure would cover
air space over the water, it does not cover the water surface area.
Someone brought up an issue about a stone bulkhead encroachment;
however, the City does not have any record on file for any
encroachment and he believes the applicant has a statement obtained
that the bulkhead existed in the present location on the Reed
Property and the adjacent property since 1940. That document is
available for Council's review. He pointed out members of the
public had access to the drawings of the dock that showed actual
dimensions. Another issue brought up was the SEPA amendment can be
used to redescribe the project. This was done successfully for the
Targett Dock DNS and for Kitsap Service Center when new information
was available, which is recognized under SEPA rules. On file is a
letter of shared use from Jane Erlandsen dated May 21, giving
permission to the current location of the existing fixed pier that
lies closer than the setback would normally allow. The 7.5 foot
setback does exist from both the lateral and sewer main, which is
the standard the City requires for access for service. The
existing pier is three feet wide, as permitted and is longer than
25 feet that was permitted in 1991. Although the State Department
of Fisheries has acknowledge a larger size pier is not a problem
and that documentation is on file, in 1997 they do not feel it is
significant and they do not provide permits in arrears, but find
no relevance or significance in moving forward and attaching more
dock. There was mention that the pier is illegal or non-
conforming; however, that is not the case in that the applicant has
TAPE #1489
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 25 of 29
also sought what the Shoreline Code provides. The height
requirement is a Shorelines Substantial Development review issue
that should not be addressed during this hearing.
Addressing the issue of removal of notices at property address -
the City's common practice is to post notices on properties, check
them once during the notice period and then remove them at the end
of that period.
Mr. Mathes disagreed with the statement that one dock is misguided
progress. The Shoreline Plan does enable piers and docks to be
permitted within the existing guidelines and regulations. In fact,
the City has provided and considered over six applications for
docks and more than four are currently built. Therefore, he does
not believe there is a basis for a finding of Determination of
Significance; however, he agrees there is room for improving the
level of information. It occurred to him that most of the people,
who have acted to take on this issue, know the information that has
been presented, i.e. representatives from Fisheries, Department of
Ecology, etc.
The following individuals spoke in support of Mr. Mathes'
presentation: Jim Ree4, Madrona Point Drive resident; Don ~oltz,
Madrona Point Drive resident.
The following comments were made by the above named individuals:
(1) Usually, when someone makes an appeal or takes legal action
against one issue or another their standing has to be established.
No one has addressed the fact that Richard and Suzanne Wright are
not residents of the City of Bremerton, but reside in Poulsbo. (2)
Appellant has not provided how the proposed dock would adversely
affect him personally. (3) Mr. Reed presented a signed, notarized
statement that addresses the existence of the bulkhead prior to the
1971 Shoreline Master Program. (4) No information has been
purposely withheld.., the environmental issues on fish runs and
bird habitat have been addressed by the Department of Fisheries in
a 3-page conditional HPA. (5) The ramp dimensions is not known at
this point because the actual design of the dock is not final.
And, the floating part of the dock will extend 75 feet into the
water. (6) The side yard setback has a special exemption clause
in the Shoreline Master Program, if a joint use agreement is
obtained. (7) Access to the City's sewer line has been address by
the setback requirements. (8) The legal term for the channel is
technically the northern exit of Oyster Bay. (9) Because the
City's has a moratorium on dock applications, there will not be a
rush of applications until the Shoreline Master Plan is amended.
(10) Bremerton needs some progress. (11) The Department of
Community Development Director Donald Pratt granted approval for a
150 foot dock in Oyster Bay in May 21, 1996; and a Hydraulic Permit
#1634
TAPE #1489
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 26 of 29
was granted from the Department of Fisheries, which required
extensive work. (12) A professional survey by Parametrix, Inc.,
was presented detailing the channel to be 637 feet wide.
Mr. Montqomez~f asked if he heard Mr. Mathes say that he makes
notations on the right hand column of the Checklist as he makes his
review? Mr. Mathes stated that is the procedure used, if comments
are made. Out of the six DNS that have been issued since 1993,
about one half have had comments on every fifth item and the other
half had no remarks at all. Mr. Montgomer~ questioned the absence
of Page 7 of the checklist? Mr. Mathes stated the appellant has
looked at page 7 and agrees with the original. Mr. Montgomery
stated in order to make a decision he needs complete documents. He
has raised similar concern on other issues, and questioned the
exclusion of a signature page? Mr. Mathes stated he was at fault
for the missing Page 7 and the omission of the signature escaped
his attention due to the applicant presenting other documents
requiring his signature that he was providing honest information to
the best of his ability. The applicant did sign the joint use
application permit to the Department of Fisheries and to the U.S.
Army Corps Of Engineers. Mr. Mathes believes the applicant was
given a packet that was missing Page 7. Mr. Montgomery stated
Council does not expect clerical errors and expects a complete
document prior to making their decision. He would concur with the
appellant that the SEPA is not a good document and understands how
it could be confusing to the public. He was not ready to vote on
this issue until a complete document is presented.
Mr. Winters asked Don Pratt how many years he has served as the
Director of Community Development for the City? Don Pratt,
Director of Community Development stated 14 years. Mr. Winters
asked if at some point in time during those 14 years, he
experienced situations where pages were missing from documents
presented to the City council? Mr. Pratt stated yes, more than
once. Mr. Winters asked Mr. Pratt if his recommendation to affirm
the SEPA DNS decision was 100% recommended by staff within the
Department Of Community Development? Mr. Pratt stated no, they
responded to the argument of the appeal and he deferred any
decision to be made by the City Council. He concurred with Mr.
Mathes's earlier comments that there are problems in the document.
Mr. Overson questioned the kind of project that would warrant a
significant determination? He pointed out the Overwater Park
Project (boardwalk) did not even require an EIS. Mr. Mathes' memo
to file shows a consistent history of proper determination that has
been supported by State agencies and he could not find objective
standard.
M/S/C(Overson/Winters) Motion to affirm the SEPA DNS decision.
TAPE #1489
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Auqust 27, 1997
Page 27 of 29
Mr. McConnell stated his concerns as follows: (1) the document was
more concerned with building buildings on lots than the waterfront.
(2) No birds or animals of any kind were identified as inhabiting
the subject area. Because of that answer, Mr. McConnell suspected
the accuracy of other answers. He also questioned the answer that
there would be no noise associated with the proposed dock project.
He noted the current Shoreline Master Program designation was
listed as "NONE;" however, he assumed the Department of Community
Development would have provided that information to the person
filling out the form. In his opinion, the problem with this issue
was not with the application for a dock, but rather the information
provided by City staff.
Mr. Colvin questioned the accuracy of Mr. Mathes' earlier
statement that no other docks can be built after Mr. Reed's is
built. Mr. Mathes questioned if he made such a statement; however,
if it appeared he did he believed it referenced the moratorium that
is currently in place. Mr. Colvin asked the City Attorney if that
statement was accurate? Mr. Sievers explained several applications
for docks have already been submitted to the Department of
Community Development. During the moratorium no docks will be
built; however, that is a short duration and applications for new
docks will be submitted under new regulations.
Mrs. Huff-Menees stated she shared Mr. McConnell's opinion that the
process involved with the document is an insult to the City
council, Mr. Reed as an applicant and this process is an insult to
the appellant and those who have spoken in support of the appeal.
The regulations having to do with SEPA are very definitive and what
has been presented does not come anywhere close to compliance. It
disturbed her that Mr. Mathes threw off the issue of missing pages
and no signatures and points within the checklist that have not
been addressed. She was not impressed with his presentation and
she was sincerely disappointed that the City has a process as
flawed as this situation.
Mr. Montgomery stated his comments on the SEPA Checklist are not a
reflection on Mr. Mathes; however, the form itself is a poor
example of proper documentation and he favored having the
Department of Community Development take another look at this issue
to get it in accordance with SEPA regulations. He did not see how
he could make a determination when he did not have a good
understanding of the information provided.
Mr. Neville questioned if he understood correctly that the
appellant's appeal was submitted May 16, 1997, and that it is to be
acted upon with 90 days? He asked if there was a reason why the
appeal had not been acted upon within that 90-day period? Mr.
Pratt explained there were negotiations as to when these kinds of
TAPE #1459
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 28 of 29
issues should be heard and decisions made. He recalled there was
concurrence among the parties that going beyond the 90 days was
acceptable. Mr. Neville asked Mr. Pratt to expand his explanation
as to the major issues causing the delay. Mr. Pratt stated he
recalled their trying to figure out how the regulatory reform
requires the SEPA decision to go forward with the decision on the
dock itself, which actually did not happen. Mr. Neville questioned
if the easy way out was a DNS? Mr. Pratt stated he did not think
it reflected on the DNS and the merits of the DNS stand alone. Mr.
~eville stated an earlier comment was made that some items had been
whited out in the Army Corps Of Engineer's document. He asked if
there was a specific reason that should have happened, if it did?
Mr. Pratt stated he did not have an explanation; however, his
understanding of the process is the Army Corps of Engineers
document had no bearing on the SEPA determination and has little
bearing on the City's actual decision on the Shoreline Permit
itself. Mr. Mathes explained the applications go to the City at
the same time they are processed through the State agencies and
that was the reason why there was no identification number, date of
application or date of approval for the three permits listed. It
is not an omission or white-out, just the best information
available at the time.
President Fart asked Mr. Mathes to clarify if a DNS is overturned,
will it automatically invoke the requirement for the applicant to
prepare an EIS? Mr. Mathes stated as he understood SEPA rules,
overturning the decision allows the Council to either find that
there is a Determination of Significance and immediately following
that decision EIS scoping would occur.
TAPE #1490
During that EIS scoping process, the applicant would have the
opportunity to address each impact as it comes up and if it is
possible to mitigate those impacts there could be a finding of
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignifiance (MDNS). The MDNS would
be something between the DNS and DS finding, but is an inner active
process that would happen after Council's decision. The City
Council could make a decision, at this time, to overturn the DNS
and either stipulate exactly what Council wants in replacement of
that DNS or
leave it open for the process under the rules to decide if it would
be a MDNS or EIS
President Fart asked if Mr. Mathes had seen very many requirements
for applicants to prepare an EIS on a 75 foot wooden floating dock?
Mr. Mathes stated no, and his research included looking to other
Puget Sound regional areas. President Fart stated he believes
there are problems with the preparation of this particular form,
and on a broader issue some of the Council feels the form isn't
appropriate to all situations, which is not the issue before
#0101
#0124
TAPE #1490
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 27, 1997
Page 29 of 29
Council. His preference, if Council takes action to make
corrections, is to send the form back to have the blanks filled in
and have a more judicial scruteny.
Mr. Montgomez~ pointed out the proposal is to construct a pier, not
a "little wooden float", which could impact navigation. The
question before Council is whether or not the DSN is correct and he
believes it is not.
Vote on motion:
Motion failed.
In Favor:
opposed:
Winters, Fart, 0verson
Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Neville,
Law, McConnell, Colvin
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) To remand to Department of Community
Development to require complete, sufficient and detailed
information in the SEPA Checklist on those questions that cover the
major environmental issues on this project, to be used for a new
threshold determination.
President Fart thanked the TV camera crew for their services: Bob
Neil and James Nobel, Jr.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk
DAVID FARR, Council President
City of Bremerton
PJ/DF/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT:
MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 3, 1997
FOR AGENDA OF:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ORIGINATOR:
DATE SUBMITTED:
9-17-97
City Council
David Farr, President
2. ~: (comment on back
if necessary)
NOTE: MINUTES WILL BE PROVIDED UNDER
SEPARATE COVER
ENDORSEMENT INFORMATION
MAYOR
_ APPROVED BY COUNCIL ~' ,~x
R SI OR SUBMITTAL:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~ ~_
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND ~EOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
8. RECOMMENDATION:
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFOR~ OFFICIAL:
_EXPIRATION DATE'
P~wV%EW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
.DATE:
NO: qT° 20?
2. ~LEARANCE COM]4ENTS:.
NON-PASSAGE:
~ ~--w.u~C'Tt{~N.STAFFING. BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EOUIPMENT OR fYI"dER RESOURCES:
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
'1. SUBJECT:
The appointment of two committees to
write statements "for" and "against"
the Emergency Medical Care and
Services Tax levy.
FOR AGENDA OF:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Fire
ORIGINATOR: Al Duke
DATE SUBMITTED: 9/11/97
9/17/97
2. CLEARANCES:
Comment of back if necessary)
3. EXHIBITS:
Kitsap County Specifications
for Committee Statements
ENDORSEMENTS
INFORMATION
APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMI'I-FAL:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~ ~
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The Fire Department has solicited at two public hearings members of the community wishing to sit on a
committee for the purpose of writing statements "for" & "against" the Emergency Medical Care & Services
Tax levy. Two individuals have consented to wdte the "for" statements, but no one has presented their
names to write the "against" statements.
The two name that I bring forward to write the "for" statements are Raymond Manglona and Laurence Stone
both City of Bremerton residents.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Bremerton City Council appoint Ray Manglona and Laurence Stone to a committee that will write th
"for" statement for the Emergency Medical Care & Services Tax that will be placed in the Voters Pamphlet.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
AMENI
11. AGENDA BILL NO: C~'~_ ~ [ O
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
If the authority fails to make such appointments, the county auditor shall, in conjunction with the Local
Voters' Pamphlet Advisory Committee, make the appointments.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS, FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Kltsap Co"-ty Local Voters' Pamphlet
Administrative Rules
D. _Specifications for Committee S.iatem.~4s-for Ballot Measures ~ 1997
Deadline for Statements
Wednesday, September 24, 1997
Committees to Write Statements "For" and "Against" Ballot Measures
After the submission ora measure from a jurisdiction that is included in thc Local Voters'
Pamphlet, the legislative authority of that jurisdiction shall:
1. Formally al>point a committee to prepare a statement advocating the voters'
approval of the measure; and
2. Formally appoint a committee to prepare a statement advoealing the voters'
rejection of the measure.
The authority shall appoint persons known to favor the measure to serve on the
committee advocating approval and shall, whenever possible, appoint persons known to
oppose the measure to serve on the committee advocating rejection. If the authori.t~, fails
.lQ make su. eh appointments, the coun. t.¥ aud!to.r, shall, in conjunction with the .Local
Voters' Pamphlet Advisory Committee, make the appoilntm, ent~.
No committee shall have more than 3 members, however, a committee may seek lhe
advise of any person or persons in preparing their statement(s).
The eommitlee shall elect from among their members a chairperson and shall
i~mnediately notify the county auditor of the names, addresses and telepl;one numbers of
the committee members.
_LenRth .of Statements and Rebuttals:
Statements "for" a~d.;iagainst" measures appearing in the Local Voters' Pamphlet shall
]not exceed 150 words, except that the committee may use up to 4 headings to summarize
and identify major arguments or portions of the statement for the convenience of the
reader and such headings shall not be included in the computation of the number of words
in the statement.
Rebuttals tO the slatcmcnts "Ibr" and "against" measures appearing in the Local Voters'
Pamphlet ~hall not exceed 75 words and must address only issues raised in the opposing
statement without injecting issues not previously discussed by either the statement "for"
or "against" that measure. Hearings arc not permitted in connection with rebuttal
statemenk~.
Restrictions on thc SWle of Statements
All statements published in the Local Voters' Pamphlet shall be of substantially similar
format and style. To promote such consistency, the following standards of format have
been established:
Statements shall be typed, double spaced, onwhite, g-I/2" X H-" paper.
The chairperson nmne, address and telephone number,
measure name and whether statement is "for" or "against"
shall appear on the top of each page of the statement.
The statement shall be typed in paragraph style without
tables, lists, graphs or other material requiring multiple
indentation.
Words, phrases and sentences which are italicized,
underlined, capitalized or emphasized in some other
manner will be typeset in bold; it is recommended that
committees avoid such exaggerations as they will reduce
the readability of the statement.
Deadline for Submission of StaLemenls and Rebuttals
Statements "for" or "against" measures appearing in the Local Voters' Pamptflet shall be
submitted to the county auditor by Wednesday, September 24, 1997. The coua~ty auditor
will submit a drat~ copy back to the committee for verification by Friday, September 26,
1997. If the statement 'is rejected by the auditor's office, the committee has until
Monday, September 29, 1997 to appeal the decision.
Rebuttals to the statements "for" and "against" measures appearing in the Local Voters'
Pamphlet shall be submitted to the county auditor by a member of the committee within 3
days following receipt of the opposing statement. If the rebuttal is rejected by the
auditor's office, the committee has until Wednesday, October 1, 1997 to appeal.
Extensions to deadlines may be made as deemed necessary by the county auditor and
shall apply to all jurisdictions equally. Decisions on appeals are final.
F~e8
No l~es shall be charged to committees submitting materials to be included in the Local
Voters' Pamphlet.
The cost of/he Local Voters' Pamphlet shall be considered an election cost to those
jurisdictions included in the pamphlet and shall be prorated in the masmer provided in
RCW 29.13.045.
Conlent
By law, the county auditor is required to reject any statement Which contains any
obscene, vulgar, profane, scandalous, libelous or defan~atory matter, or any language
which in any way cites, counsels, promotes or advocates hatred, abuse, violence, and
hostility toward, or which tends to cause ridicule or shame upon any person or group of
persons by reason of sex, race, color, religion or manner of worship.
Editing of St,stements
In a publication of this magnitude, it is inevitable that the material submitted for
publication may contain some inadverlent errors in spelling, punctuation or syntax which
7
37
could adversely atli:ct readability of the statemont and/or unf ly prejudice the
statement or confuse th~'voters. The county auditor may eorrect~'uch incidental errors as
long as this does not affect the content of the statement.-The Auditor's Office is not
obligated, however, to make such corrections and will assume no responsibility for errors
which result from inaccuracies in the original statement submitted by the committee.
Unacceptable Statements
If m~y portion of the statement is rejected, only that rejected portion may be re-wrirten
and submitted for inclusion in the statement.
Within 3 days of the rejection of any statement, the committee proposing such statement
may appeal the rejection to the county auditor or submit a revised statement. The county
auditor shall render a decision within 2 working days of the appeal, This decision shall
be considered final due to time constraints.
MAILING ADDRESS
SEND OR BRING STATEMENTS TO:
Kitsap County Auditor
Elections Department MS-31
614 Divisio:; Street
Port Orchard, WA 98366
The ofrice hours are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
1997 LOCAL V~TERS' PAMPHLET mENTIFICATION O~' STATEMENT_
.,...)MMITTEES. ]FOR BALLOT. M]EASU _S
Jurisdiction:
Proposition:
Check One:
Committee Members:
Chairperson Name:
Title / Organization ....
Address:
FOR
IAGAINST ]
Telephone Number:
FAX Number:
Title / Organization:
Address:
Telephone Number:
Name:
Title / Organization:
Address:
Telephone Number: __
[ hereby certify that thc above-named individuals have been appointed and have consented to serve as
indicated and the nam,,, titles and organizations should be listed in the official I.ocal Voters' Pamphlet in
thc manner Get forth above.
..... Chairperson of Committee
, Date
9
1. SUBJECT:
Ordinance amending litter regulations
to establish a separate infraction for
throwing cigarettes or other burning refuse
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
FOR AGENDA OF: Sept.~1997
ORIGINATING DEPT: Legal
ORIGINATOR: 1. Sievers, City Attorn~~
DATE SUBMITTED: Sept 10, 1997
2. CLEARANCE.S: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXItIB1TS:
- Proposed Ordinance
Police Chief
/Z,-" g. '~ '~ ~
/
C(~NCIL COMM1TTEfiS
EN D~ RS EM EN'I~INFOR?ATION II
APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQIIIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The 1997 legislature created an infraction for littering by discarding burning cigarettes, This infraction carryies a penalty which is
inconsistent with the municipal code. The proposed ordinance adopts this infraction with state penalties and expands the offense to include
littering with any burning refuse.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Approve proposed ordinance on first reading and pass on second reading.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] DATE:
COUN(~IL DIRE~TrlVE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
q7-211
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR QTHER RESOURCES:
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
"- ORDINANCE ~
AN ORDINANCE creating a separate infraction for disposing of burning material
improperly and amending Chapter 6.28 of the Bremerton Municipal Code.
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
Section 1. Amendment. Section 6.28.050 of the Bremerton Municipal Code shall be
amended to read as follows:
6.28.050 LITTER IN GENERAL.
(a) No person shall throw, drop, deposit, discard or otherwise dispose of litter upon any
public place in the city or upon any private property not owned by him, or in any waters within the
jurisdiction of the City whether from a vehicle or otherwise, except:
(1) When such property is designated by the state or by any of its agencies or the city
for disposal or garbage and refuse, and such person is authorized by the proper public authority to
so use such property; or
(2) Into a litter receptacle or other container in such manner that the litter will be
prevented from being carried away or deposited by the elements upon any part of said
6-9 public place or any private property; or
(3) When such person is the owner or does have control or custody of the property,
or has prior consent of the owner or tenant, and provided said litter will not cause a public nuisance
or be in violation of any other state or local laws, rules or regulations
(b) It is a civil infraction for a person to discard, in violation of this section, .a cigarette, cigar,
or other burning refuse that is capable ofstartin2 a fire. The maximum fine, not includin~ statutory,
assessments, is Five Hundred Dollars (.$500.00).
(..Q Penalty. Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty ora mixdm'nemrvr civil
infraction and in addition to or in lieu of any other penalty, such person may, in the sound discretion
of the court, be directed by the court to pick up and remove from any public place or any private
property, with permission'b'fthe owner or the person in possession ~fthe property upon which it is
established that such person has deposited liner, any and all litter deposited thereon by anyone prior
to the date of the execution of sentence.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect ten (I0) days from passage and
publication.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this __ day of , 1997.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this__ day of , 1997.
DAVID FARR, Council President
APPROVED this __ day of 1997.
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City' Clerk
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
2
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
O~DIN_A_N CE ~'~4606
SUBJECT: - t3RnTWANCW, '~J~607 --
1997 Docket of Comprehensive Plan
Amendments, related Rezones, and the
adopting ordinances.
FOR AGENDA OF:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ORIGINATOR:
DATE SUBMITTED:
/2'
August 20 & 27, 1
DOD/Planning
Ron W. Hough
August 14, 1997"~J;'
2. CLEARANCES:~ if necessary)
City Attorne~
ev.
Operations Comm.
ENDORSEMENT'~ INFgRI~IATION__
3. EXHIBITS:
v' Staff Reports
/ Planning Commission Resolution
v' Comp. Plan Amendment Ordinance
,/ Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance
,"--.-Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR-SUBMITTAL:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~-~
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The Bremerton Comprehensive Plan may be amended only once each year. The process begins with
the April 1 deadline for applications. This year's ten amendment proposals were submitted to state
agencies and other individuals and jurisdictions for review, and were processed by staff and the
Planning Commission before arriving at the City Council for final public hearings. Six proposals, if
approved, will require Rezones to maintain Plan/Zoning consistency. To expedite the process, the
Planning Commission has considered the Rezones at public hearings and staff has scheduled both the
Plan Amendments and their related Rezones for simultaneous action by the City Council. Because of
the number of proposals, and the complexity of some, the public hearing has been divided into two
parts. It will begin on August 20 and continue to August 27 to allow time for questions and discussion.
8. RECOMMENDATION: [for August 27]
(].) City Council passes OP, DINANC~. ,~/4606 on second r&ading, adopting
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan as amended.
(2) Cit- Council Passes_ __L~ea~ ~ORDIN^'~C= ¢~4607,9' RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
On Ysecond reading~'~r~v~fn~¢~he ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
Official Zoning Map Of The City Of EXPIRATION DATE:
Bremerton to 'Maintain Consistency With REVIEW DATE:
1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
10. NOTICE OF ACTION:
PULLED TABLED APPROVED
1997 amendments to the
Donald L. Pratt
DISAPPROVED~ AMEND
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
Most of the proposed amendments are development-related. The applicants are attempting to change
the City's Plan and Zoning in ways that they feel are positive and that will allow new homes,
apartments, commercial and industrial development. They are awaiting the City's decisions.
Non-passage will uphold the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for the affected properties and
the applicants will not be able to carry out their development plans. Denial will not seriously affect most
of the proposals. Exceptions are the annual Capital Facilities Element updates, which are directly
related to the City's CIP and Budget, and the Smith Cove proposals which will affect the expansion of
Evergreen Park and the future use of contaminated former industrial areas.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
Approval of these changes may slightly increase the review and permit processing demands of staff if
new development occurs as a result. This would be considered a positive impact on the City. None of
the proposed amendments or rezones are expected to significantly impact departmental budgets,
staffing, facilities or equipment needs.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Supplement to Agenda Bill
Reconsideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendments
· Merit Company
Request to change the Comprehensive Plan designation on approximately one-half of a twenty-
acre lot south of Riddell Road and west of Almira Drive from "MDR (Medium Density Residential)"
to "MU (Mixed Use/PUD)".
If approved, this change would support a related Rezone from "MF (Residential, Medium-density)"
to "MX (Mixed Use)" on the subject site.
· Capital Facilities Program
To consider a concern of the State Dept. of Transportation regarding the City's Level of Service
on Wheaton Way. See attached clarification.
Background & Action:
On August 27, the City Council concluded its public hearings on ten proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and six related Rezones. It then approved,
on first reading, an ordinance to adopt the Plan Amendments and an ordinance
to adopt the zoning adjustments.
On September 3, the Council agreed to reconsider the Merit Company decision
and the State DOT comments on Sept. 17. Since the Merit Company will not be
submitting a new or amended proposal, there is no need to re-open the public
hearing nor to remand the matter to the Planning Commission. Notices were
mailed to surrounding property owners to inform them of the Merit Company
reconsideration and to let them know that the City Council will allow public
comments prior to taking action.
Actions:
1. Following reconsideration of the Merit Company proposal:
(a) Deny the proposal --- no further action necessary. OR
(b) Approve the proposal as recommended by the Planning
Commission (or as adjusted by the City Council) and approve its "first
reading" as part of Plan Amendment Ordinance 4606.
(c) If the Plan Amendment is approved, approve the recommended
related Rezone as part of Rezone Ordinance 4607.
2. Following reconsideration of the DOT comments:
(a) Approve the (amended) Capital Facilities Program for "first reading"
as part of Plan Amendment Ordinance 4606.
Capital Facilities Program
DOT Comments on Wheaton/Warren Corridor LOS
Background
On September 3, after the August 26 deadline for State agency comments, the City received
late comments on the Transportation section of the Capital Facilities Program (CFP) from the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDO'i"). Specifically, WSDOT was
concerned about the designated Level of Service (LOS) F as the standard for the
Wheaton/Warren Corridor. (See Attachment 1 - WSDO T Letter)
Subsequent City staff discussions with WSDOT determined that their concerns were already
adequately addressed by discussion in the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, and
that a few statements of clarification could be added to the CFP to satisfy these concerns.
Recommendation
Add statements to clarify that LOS E and F are interim standards. (See Attachment 2 -
Revisions to Section/. Transportation)
Attachment 1
Washington State
Department of Transportation
Sid Morrlson
Secrelary ot Transporlalion
September 2, 1997
Olympic Region Headquarters
5720 Capilol Boulevard. Tumwaler
P.O. Box 47440
Olympia, WA 98504-7440
(360) 357-2600
Fax (360) 357-2601
Ms. Kay Wilson
City of Bremerton
239 4m Street
Brcmcrton, WA 98337
Dear Ms. Wilson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review Part 2 of the City of Bremerton's Draft Capital
Facilities Program document. We have reviewed the Transportation Section, and are very
concerned with the fact that it recommends Level of Se/vice (LOS) F as the standard for the
Wheaton/Warren Corridor, or State Route (SR) 303.
We are currently in the process of updating our Highway System Plan (HSP), and with file
assistance of the Kit.sap Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (including Rmldy Witt),
we have identified file need for a Major Investment Study (MIS) on the Wheaton/Warren (SR
303) Corridor, which would lead to capital improvements for mobility. In reference to the
enclosed spreadsheet, which represents our current dralt of the HSP update, we have estimated
for the SR 303 MIS that WSDOT will contribute $400,000, and Randy Witt has indicated that
the City of Bremerton will contribute $200,000. We also understand that Kitsap County will
contribute as well.
Our concern is the fact that Local, State, and Federal funding will be necessary to conduct the
MIS and provide subsequent capital improvements. However, if the LOS F is the standard for
this corridor, then it will become nearly impossible to ever prioritize funding for any type of
capacity improvements, including the MIS. Therefore, we recommend that the City of
Brcmerton revise the recommended standard to indicate LOS E or better.
Regarding the Manette Bridge LOS, we have recently completed a Feasibility Analysis for a
Bridge Preservation Project to replace this deteriorating structure. The City of Bremerton and
its residence took an active part in the Analysis, and there was overwhelming support from a
majority of local participants that WSDOT not expand .thru-lane capacity on the Bridge.
Thank you again for tile opportunity to conmaent.. If you have any questions or commcnts,
please contact me at (360) 357-2651 or Ashley Probart at (360) 357-2727.
Sincerely,
/~~. FARNSWORTH, PE
Transportation Planning Engineer
GCF:ap
Enclosure
cc: Randy Witt, City of Bremerton
P~SSIBL£ PRIORITY LIST FOR F~TTSAP COUNTY D~.AFT
1995 ~ 2~ZO
VK V;C FIX
104 R 0.20 24]6 SIT 101 to IOngotee ~ emi
C~u~t
Furllmr Study: Pud'mi ~giood mid l"col dbne. kk~ bvnetm#t se.j! M So.l.4 M CoflOdlf ldloly~ b Agm~ Request Budget. Comity pasticilxtJes eskaow~ et th tine
St~dy/~o~onmestuJ impact StutamMt foe' moire mute
104 R 20.58 2~ Sit 307 to Lbdveg Rd , 0,56 1.21 0.34 Wkles from 2 Joes to ~ l"m, .~,. mesogesuet. Cost net included fo~ now sis...~ ~( s:o.~3 ~[
P & R bis at Heasw~l-Ailer BUy od exlmfls~on of ~esrge'e Corem' P~k lad
Ride bt, th~ofuro not in esdmeto
Co~dof ,~oly~ ic Agency Requ~t Budget
104 R 23.89 ~..~.86 t. Jndwg Rd to Kingston Fray end 0~4 0.91K 0.17 to Construct oddiGon.I bo. end signaI" per SR 104 Col~do~ Traffic Ckc~¼6es s3.n ,'d S?.64 M Cor~Jor ,Oaoiysl" in Agency Request Budget [bchden coupbtl
Coujdet O.~K improwmests
104 R 23.89 2,4.86 Lindw$ Rd to K'mgston merry end 0,34 0.70 0.17 to Furlh~ Study: Pesding regbeoi and bcol dlscus~on# M,<o ~ so.6~ M CookOut Aaoiysb b Agescy Requent Budget (Includes coupe"cl. Woshinftne
Coupist 0.23i( portkipltJon unimowtl et thb time.
3 RAJ 28.23 34~.6 ilde,wn/l(itesF County Lbo to SR 0.55 1.12 0.74 W'dm from 2J3 hines to 4 bees p~ SR 106 to Gorst de~gn oh]dy, eeiunc~d sz:2.77 M $14.6~ M $olitlmbl' 1 ~ Sh]d¥ by ABAM. Ne grade enplrltbes IAenemo It-grade
18 IjlUr it ~rlt hesit, eocene mneogemnet iatarMctbad
3 R 52.29 · c'"%88~ami'glRdU-]dng~'k, toNW 6.62 t.27 1.27 SR3/QOSe,',~--imWovoments(PTnionec~mn~tmnettoc~mpbtoSR3/$R305 Se.~aM So.?~ ~SR305, MP13.31teMP43.52tOiluvaF,]$,pTivtteOewbi~ri_AGENCYR[OUES
T'hompenu Rd ~ btarch~el
3 U 45.96 .r:~G SR 3~SR 303 kltercimnge ~ btKclunge knprovomests et Weofe Woy per study. WSOOT ptrtici#doo
{WOOl WI~J t 8.88 Id. Tltld COlt b $13;70.M ' '
3O3 U
0.00 ' ::n16SR304tuSR3 Furlhr Sh]dy: kbjor bvestmest Study'k~AOmcy Request Budget f~endn 30.40~ So.46M
route
Ma~ Invutmmt oh]dy in A~mcy Request Budget. City of
ad(rdbaol
307 U/R 0.00 .~ZS. SR 305 to SR 104 0.71K O.40K WTdm hem 2 june to 4 bum, ocnees cootroL Coot does a,t inchdo I~te ~9.:~ M Sl~.O8 ~ Olim~m traffic imlMCtS
:.' to dewbper funded improwmestt fur $ 3.263 M {1996 dohrd
0.67K
! 6fi U 3.36 3.65 Bbci~l~ Creek brkigo to Ibtlut 0,63 1.65K 0.44 to Furth~ study: I~ading regional end ¼eel diesusaione {Wides tTom
Burby Rood .93K 4~5
160 U 0.00 0.6~ SR 160~SR 16 bte~chango to 0.88 1.161( 0.96 W'ldm from 2 joes tu 4
· . Ibtlml Rd ~cinity to 1.4~ Route Oov~epmest Ftne
Pos~Jb doubb LT bees on br.//1
310 U O.O0 'i.84 SR 3 to SR 304 0.64 1.80K .96 to Acnees monegomest, trtooportoticn syotomo munegemest (TSMI, and s~.o~
1.60K treslpOrtltbn domesd mlnlgenlest [TON i l les ltl res
1.03 mb out of 1.84 mbs are future doGcinet, th~ofure, c~n~ef otrotogy tlut
'he esth'l I'0utl.
DRAI:T
- Attachment 2 _
I. Transportation
This section is a summary of information contained in the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
1. Inventory of Existing Facilities
Bremerton's transportation system generally consists of streets, highways, sidewalks,
ferries, and public transit. The Transportation Element includes the following information
on existing facilities:
Streets and Highways
· Principal Arterials
· Minor Arterials
· Collector Arterials
· Residential Streets
(See Transportation Element Table 1)
(See Transportation Element Table 1)
(See Transportation Element Table 1)
(Not inventoried)
Mass Transit
· Kitsap Transit
· Washington State Ferries: Bremerton-Seattle
· Horluck Transportation Co.: Bremerton-Port Orchard
(See Transportation Element pg. 20)
(See Transportation Element pg. 20)
(See Transportation Element pg. 20)
Source: Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element"F"
2. Forecast of Future Needs -- Level of Service (LOS) Standard
Levels of Service (LOS) is an estimate of the quality and performance of transportation
facility operations in a community. The Transportation Element measures LOS by
calculating the volume to capacity ratio (V/C) of the midblock of a roadway, using a
range from A (free flow) to F (stop-and-go traffic).
(a) Current Level of Service
AlmbSt all tbadways~in ;the:City fUncti0n at or bette~,than: LOS D; :The following
existing roadway sections exceed or are close to exceeding a Level of Service D
(Volume/Capacity Ratio .90) threshold during the PM peak hour:
_ Attachment 2 _
Burwell Warren to Naval 0.77 D
SR 304 Preble to Farragut 0.91 E
Kitsap Way Callow to SR3 0.87 D
Manette Bridge 0.89 D
Warren 11th to Bridge 0.8 D
Warren (Wheaton) Bridge to Callahan 0.99 E
Source: Table 1 - Existing Corridor Level of Service, Transportation Element
(b) Recommended Level of Service (LOS)
The Transportation Element establishes the following level of service threshold
standards:
Arterial Streets -- LOS D or better (vic less than or equal to 0.9), :With the
exception of the foiiOwinq:
· Wheaton/VVarren Corridor-- Maximum LOS F with VIC threshold of
1.06
· Kitsap Way Corridor-- MaXimum LOS E or better (V/C less than or
equal to 1.00
· Manette Bridge -- Maximum LOS E or better (V/C less than or equal
to 1.00)
/<~ Th'ehiAh~rthte~hOldinth'eaboVethree corridorsallQWS time ;to develop
~ti~at'e~i~S'~'tb add~e~s':the C~ddo'r transportation~needsi :Transport.ation proiects
in;:thesecotridors Will:have a:qoal to Obtain a LOS: D;
Six-year Financial Plan
The six-year financial plan for transportation facilities is included in Section K of this
Capital Facilities Program.
Exhibit
MERIT COMPANY-- Plan Amendment:
This amendment changes the designation of the northern ten acres of this twenty-acre lot from
"Medium Density Residential (MDR)" to "Mixed Use/PUD (MU)" to allow a mixed
commercial/residential development or the expansion of the adjacent shopping center. Approval
of this Plan Amendment will be followed by a change in zoning to apply the "NLX (Mixed Use)"
zone, which is the primary zone for the "MU" designation.
.E~ 11 Road
C-G
LDR
C-G
· MDR ~
~ LDR~
t ili"'if I l~
[l[lI[lt 1
LDR
1997 Plan Amend. Ord. -- Page 7
Exhibit
REZONE:
Merit Company --- northern 10 acres of a 20 acre lot
The northern ten acres of a 20-acre lot at the south,vest comer of Riddell Road and Almira Drive,
as shown on the map below, is hereby changed from ;'MF (Residential, Medium-density)" to
"NLX (Mixed Use)", with the following conditions:
A. If a true residential/commercial mixed use development is proposed for the subject site. ir shall be
designed so that only residential uses front on ALmira Drive and non-residential uses are oriented
toward the Wheaton Way corridor.
B. Sire design shall not allow commercial traffic acess from Almira Drive but shall eacourage
pedestrian and bicycle access from surrounding neighborhoods.
C. If a commercial expansion is designed for the subject site without residential along Almira Drive,
· it shall be separated from Almira Drive by a buffer of landscaping and trees to a depth of no less
than one hundred (100) feet. [This provision can satisfy most of the ske's 15% requirement for
active and passive open space and may include a meandering pedestrian/bicycle pathway or other
amenities, as well as pedestrian access to the shopping center.]
D. Development of this site is subject to Site Plan approval by the Bremerton City Council, following
a public hearing.
1997 Zoning Map Amendment Ord. -- Page 6
ORDINANCE NO..¢'d g
AN ORDINANCE adopting 1997 amendments
to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan.
.WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton adopted its revised Comprehensive Plan by
Ordinance No. 4545 in February 1996; and
WHEREAS, requested and proposed amendments to the Plan were docketed in
accordance with an adopted procedure for amending the Plan once per year, were processed
through the Planning Commission public hearings in May and June, and were submitted for a
mandatory 60-day review by state agencies on June 11, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Pla.rming Commission, following its public study sessions
and hearings during May and June 1996, recommended City Council adoption of the proposed
amendments, as presented, subject to any adjustments that may be necessary as a result of public
testimony and comments from state agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council conducted public hearings on these proposed
amendments on August 20 and 27, 1997 to accept additional public comments and to consider
the recommendations of the Planning Commission and state agencies; now therefore
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
Section 1. The Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby amended in the West
Hills neighborhood south of Roosevelt Avenue to change the designation from "Utility (U)" to
"Medium Density Residential (MDR)", as shown in attached Exhibit "A", on a small portion of
a City reservoir site that has been surplussed and may be sold for residential development.
Section 2. The Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby amended on the east side of
Wheaton Way, north of Dibb Street, to change the designation of two lots from "School (S)" to
"General & Highway Commercial (C-G)", as shown in attached Exhibit "B".
Section 3. The Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby amended in the vicinity of the Auto
Center district to change the designation of four lots, consisting of about 22 acres, from "General
and Professional Office (C-P)" to "Industrial Park (IP)", as shown in attached Exhibit "C".
Section 4. The Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby amended to change the designation
of two small lots, comprising about one-third acre total area and located on the south side of
Broad Street from "General & Highway Commercial (C-G)" to "Medium Density Residential
(MDR)", as shown on attached Exhibit "D".
1997 Plan Amend. Ord. -- Page I
Section 5. The text of the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to incorporated the
annual update of the Capital Facilities Program portion of the Capital Facilities Element, as
attached hereto as Exhibit "E".
Section 6. The Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby amended to expand the "Parks (P)"
designation north of Sheldon Boulevard and Thirteenth Street, south of Smith Cove, and to
expand the "High' Density Residential (HI)R)" designation to include two additional lots on the
east side of' Highland Avenue, as shown in attached Exhibit "F".
Section 7. The Land Use Plan maps contained within the Comprehensive Plan are
hereby amended to eliminate the designation "Cemetery (C)" and change all areas currently
designated "C" to "Low Density Residential (LDR)", as shown in attached Exhibit "G".
Section 8. The text of the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add descriptions
of the land use designations used on Plan map, as contained in attached Exhibit "H".
APPROVED by the City Council on the first reading this
day of August ,1997.
27th
PASSED by the Bremerton City Council this
,1997.
day of
DAVID FARR, President
Bremerton City Council
APPROVED this
day of ,1997.
ATTEST:
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
Published:
Effective:
1997 Plan Amend. Ord. m Page 2
Exhibit "A"
HARBOR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS --- Plan Amendment;
This amendment changes the designation of the area shown below from "Utility (U)" to
"Medium Density Residential (MDR)". All other portions of the site proposed for the Harbor
Heights Apartments development are currently designated "MDR". This amendment brings the
entire site under that designation and allows the surplus Utility land to become part of the
development.
Map Amendment:
Area to be amended from "U" (Utility)
to "MDR" (Medium Density Residential~'"~~N
t
Area recently annexed to the City.
Designated "MDR".
Zoned "MF"
(MUlti-family Residential)
1997 Plan Amend. Ord. -- Page 3
3'¢
Exhibit ~B~
BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT --- Plan Amendment;
This Plan Map amendment will allow the School District to sell two lots of surplus property for
commercial development. The lots front on Wheaton Way and are adjacent to other commercial
properties to the north and south. The Plan designations of the two lots are changed from
"School (S)" to "General & Highway Commercial (C-G)".
Change the Plan designation
on the subject property from
"S" to "C G"
C-G MDR
LDR -
C-.P
LDR
MU
LDR
U
1997 Plan Amend. Ord. m Page 4
Exhibit ~C~
AUTO CENTER AREA INDUSTRIAL --- Plan Amendment:
This amendment applies to four lots (about 22 acres) located on the hillside above and to the
west of the Auto Center district. The property is currently planned and zoned for office
development. The amendment will change the designations of these lots from "General &
Professional Offices (C-P)" to "Industrial Park (IP)".
I I .... '"
~..~!~ l ._ ~ ' # .. ..... '" ,~to~.~,c~.',
I I ~./I .c.~1'.3:1,'1(.
~' ,n,.. ~..,~ :' ".. " "
"'"'
~l,t . ,,,~: .- ",. ".,
I I ..-...-.'"~ ~,,;..,..,...
"' '~' ~ i
tll , , · ~n~nllll ~ '.
..... · I tit
1
'"1."_.1 ............ I ....... I!: . !'~.l~.:{~,.
H!
The Plan designation of the shaded area
is changed from "C-P" to "IP"
IP
HI
r Rd.
P C-G
I I
1997 Plan Amend. Ord. ~ Page 5
Exhibit "D"
BROAD STREET RESIDENTIAL--- Plan Amendment:
This amendment changes the designation of two small lots from "General & Highway
Commercial (C-G)" to "Medium Density Residential (MDR)". The lots are too small and too
far removed from Wheaton Way to be suitable for co .mmercial development. With the recent
development of Broadmore Village, the west end of Broad Street has become a viable residential
neighborhood. This change is consistent with that trend.
I
C-G
E. Broad Street
LDR
C-G
1997 Pi~n Amend. Oral. m Page 6
Exhibit "E"
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT AMENDMENTS;
Draft Revisions
August 12, I997
Bremerton ComprehensA;e Plan
CAPITAL FACILITIES
ELEMENT
Part 2 of 2: Capital Facilities Program
Prepared by:
BREMERTON PLANNING
Adopled: April 5, 1995
Revised: October 23, 1996
1997 Plhn Amend. Ord. -- Page 7
Exhibit "F"
SOUTH SMITH COVE --- Plan Amendment:
This amendment changes the designation of lands along the north side of Sheldon
Boulevard and Thirteenth Street from "Mixed Use/PUD (MU)" to "Parks (P)". This will
achieve consistency with the master plan for the expansion of Evergreen Park and prevent
commercial or industrial development from disturbing documented soil contamination
areas immediately south of Smith Cove and north of Sheldon/Thirteenth.
The Plan designations on two lots on the east side of Highland Avenue are changed from
"Mixed Use/PUD (MU)" to "High Density Residential (HDR)".
A'~d Mixed Use
~ NC Neighborhood Convenience
! . LDR Low Densi~/Residential
_lC_..] ~, /~% ".- /~d~ .. r,, n~, MDI1. Medium Deflsi~/Residcflti,I
~ ~0~0~~
MDR
Current
__HDR
1997 Plan Amend. Ord. ~ Page 8
Exhibit ggG
REMOVAL OF "Cemetery." DESIGNATION --- Plan Amendment:
This amendment eliminates the designation "Cemetery (C)" from all Comprehensive Plan maps
to remove the potential for confusion and conflicts with zoning. This change affects only two
areas of the City, as shown below, and will have no effect on the ability of an existing cemetery
to expand in the future in accordance with the provisions of underlying zoning.
The Plan designation of all areas currently designated "Cemetery (C)" are hereby changed to
"Low Density Residential (LDR).
Location Maps:
A: West Bremerton
Land Use Plan
HDR
Oyster Bay
C-P
B: Central Bremerton Land Use Plan
~ ~ LDR:
1997 Plan Amend. Ord. m Page 9
Exhibit
Land Use Designations
Land Use
DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION
LDR Low Density Residential: This designation includes existing and proposed
residential neighborhoods at densities of 8 dwellings per acre or less. It is applied to
areas that don't have the levels of urban services needed for higher density development,
or that have terrain, sensitive areas (wetlands, creeks or shorelines), poor access, or
special amenities (views) .that are best pr.otected through Iow density development.
Large lots are allowed in LDR zones, especially in areas without sewer service.
Developers are encouraged to cluster development on smaller lots in exchange for open
space through the PUD process to make the best possible use o£the site. Four Prhnary
Residential Zones are directly consistent with this Plan designation (SF-1, SF-2, SF-3,
and DR). The Limited Parking Overlay (LPO) and Parks & Schools (PS) zones are also
consistent with ali residential Plan designations. Small "secondary zones" may be
approved within larger residential developments to serve local needs l~or convenience
shopping, employment, education or recreation.
MDR Medium Density Residential:' This designation is applied to the older higher-
density residential neighborhoods of Central Bremerton where lots are small and mixed
development is common or desirable. Other areas may be designated MDR when
found to be suitable for the 8-18 units per acre density level. Such areas are generally
near transportation corridors and sh°ppin~/employment concentrations, and have
adequate availability of urban services and facilities. MF and CBR are the primary
zones in this designation. They all6w virtually all types of residential'development,
including single-unit homes and duplexes on small lots, multi-unit developments,
townhouses, and boarding houses. Limited mixed uses are permitted in these zones to
provide convenient services to neighborhoods without causing land use conflicts.
I/DR lligh Density Residential: This designation allows the City's highest densities
(more than 18 units per a.cre) and is dire.ctly consistent with the "MI/" zone which allows
up to 44 units per acre. HDR areas are intended primarily for locations along major
transportation corridors, within and around the Central Business District and smaller
business districts, and where such development can take advantage oirunique views or
such amenities as shorelines, recreational facilities, or access to ferries or buses.
Utilities, services and transportation must be adequate to serve HDR development.
C-G General & Highway Commercial: This is the City's most intense
co,nmercial designation. It provides for the "GB (General Business)" and "SC
(Shopping Center)" zones, both of which are automobile oriented and designed for
application along highways and major arterial streets having high traffic volumes, direct
auto access, and maximum drive-by visibility. These locations are suitable for such
"heavy commercial" uses as shopping centers, major grocery stores, auto services, auto
repairs, motels, taverns, restaurants, adult entertainment, fast food, and large scale
retailers that require very large structures'and expansive parking. Most types of
businesses are permitted in these areas, along with office uses. Residential is pertnitted
as a secondary use.
1997 Plan Amend. Ord. ~ Page 10
Land Use
DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION
C-P General & Professional Offices: This designation supports the "1'0
(Professional Office)" zone. It's applied in locations that are uniquely suitable for ofl~ce
development, areas that have physical or locational features that might be less suitable
for higher intensity uses, or areas in which office development might provide a buffer or
transition between two zones that might otherwise conflict. Office districts may consist
of a mixture of offices and support services such as copy and computer services, office
machine repairs, or mail services. Light retail, such as a restaurant, book or stationery
store, art supplies store, delicatessen, or newspapeffmagazine shop are usually
compatible with this district.
CBD Central Business District: This is downtown Bremerton. This desigation
supports a number of zone.s, including BC (Business Core), GB (General Business), PO
(Professional Office), and the medium and high density residential zones MF and MR.
The URD (Urban Renewal District).is on the CBD waterfront. The CBD is intended to
provide a ~nix of uses that includes retail at the street level of the prinmry pedestrian
streets, with offices, apartments, studio lofts, and other uses on the upper levels. The
downtown zones allow the highest residential densities in tile City with tile fewest
development limitations. Residential zones (MF and MR) may be permitted on side
streets at densities up to 44 units per acre where it can be demonstrated that pedestrian
retail is less important tha.n close proximity of full time downtown residents. CBD
development should be designed to encourage walking, shopping, browsing, and tile use
of public transit, bicycles and tile ferry system to reduce Ihe importance of tile private
automobile in this compact downtown environment.
NC Neighborhood Convenience: This designation supports the "NB
(Neighborhood Business)" Zone and is intended to provide small scale convenience
services and retail goods within small neighborhood service areas. This district is often
centrally located within neighborhoo/:ls and should minimize vehicular traffic and
encourage short-distance walking. It should not include businesses with regional
markets that bring traffic from other areas. Neighborhood Convenience centers often
consist ofsmall "Mom & Pop" markets and may also include such personal services as a
barber/beauty salon, day care center, neighborhood or senior center, and other activities
that might benefit the surrounding neighborhood.
MU Mixed Use/PUD: Tliis designation'is intended for areas that are in transition,
usually from residential to commercial or industrial, or that are in a transitional location,
such as between a residential neighborhood and a commercial district.' The "MX (Mixed
Use)" zone is the primary zone and leans toward commercial development with
residential allowed as a secondary use. In cases where the MX zone doesn't provide the
needed flexibility, Ihe MU Plan designation promotes mixed use developments through
the PUD process. Single purpose developments that don't require a PUD and can't be
built within the parameters of thc MX zo. ne should not be designated MU.
1997 Plan Amend. Ord. -- Page 11
Land Use
DESI GNATI ON DESCRI PTI ON
HI lteavy Industrial: This designation is applied to the City's {cast sensitive areas
and areas most suitable for. large-scale industrial uses. It supports the "IG (industrial
General)" and "MX (Mixed Use with industrial emphasis)" zones. Such uses include
manufacturing, warehousing, trucking operations, motor vehicle sales and service, large
open display lots, and are often accompanied by extensive outdoor sto~'age of supplies,
vehicles, heavy equipment, products, or other materials. Businesses that typically
generate noise, dust, odors, operate at late or odd hours, or that otherwise might not be
pleasant neighbors could expect to lind a home in the l-Il district. This district is placed
as close as possible to major highways, freeways, airports and rail lines, and as far as
possible from residential neighborhoods and other sensitive land uses.
IP Industrial Park: This designation supports the "IP (Industrial Pprk)" and "MX
(Mixed Use with light industrial emphasis)" zones. It is intended to provide areas for a
mix of office, wholesale, trade and distribution, bulk retailing, and light manufacturing
in a Iow-density, campus-like environment. The district should be designed to ~ninimize
adverse impacts on adjacent areas and to present an attractive well-landscaped
appearance. Businesses located within an Industrial Park should be contained within
buildings and have very little, if any, outdoor storage other than business-related vehicle
parking. All areas of the Industrial Park should be landscaped with grass, shrubs, trees,
etc., and all roads, driveways and parking areas should be paved. Preserved open space
areas might include such employee amenities as walking/jogging paths or bike paths to
encourage exercise or alternative commuting.
BP Business Park: This designation was designed for very unique situations. It
allows small and very unol~trusive businesses to locate within or adjacent to residential
neighborhoods. The primary zones are "BP (Business Park)", "PO (Professional
Office)", and "MX (Mixed Use witli business emphasis)". These zones allow a limited
variety of Iow-intensity commercial, office and manufacturing businesses that are most
compatible with residential neighbors. Care should be taken to ensure that development
within the BP district is attractive, well-landscaped and an asset to the neighborhood in
which it is located. This designation may also serve as a buffer or transitional district.
RE Resource Extraction: This designation is reserved for possible application to
areas that may be identified as mineral resource sites of commercial s!gnificance that
should be protected from other types of development. The City has not used this
designation because all known mineral/gravel resource extraction sites within the City
are already permitted, are in operation, and are zoned appropriately for industrial use.
The RE designation could be applied'as the Jong-range Jnlcnt on lands that are in a
different short-term use. A phased zoning approach may work well in such a situation.
T Transportation Facilities: This designation has been applied to major
transportation facilities of regional significance, such as thc ferry terminal aud Kitsap
Transit's bus maintenance and storage facilities. It might also be applied to locations
found to be uniquely suited for commuter parking lots, heliports, etc. There is no zone
that is specifically related to this Plan designation, but all commercial and industrial
zones are considered appropriate.
1997 Plan Amend. Ord. -- Page 12
Land Use ·
DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION
P or OS Parks or Open Space: All active public parks and recreation areas and major
passive open space areas are designated either "P (Park)" or "OS (Open Space)" on the
Comprehensive Plan maps. The primary zone is "PS (Parks & Schools)"
S School: All public schools are designated "S" on the Comprehensive Plan and are
zoned "PS (Parks & Schools)". Private schools are not so designated but are included
.. within their host zone.
H Hospital: Harrison Hospital and the Naval Hospital in Jackson Park are designated
"H" on the Plan maps. This designation is intended to show the locations of these
facilities and not to determine their physical size. Hospitals are allowed in the "HC
(Health Care)", "GB (General Business)" and "BC (Business Core)" zones.
PW Public Works: This designation is intended to show the location of the City's
major public works facility on Oyster Bay Avenue. It does not determine the physical
size ofthat facility. Public Works facilities are allowed in the "lG (Industrial General)"
and "IP (Industrial Park)" zones.
U & UL Utilities & Utility Lands: The"U (Utilities)" designation shows the location of
the City's main Utilities and Engineering offices on Olympus Drive in East Bremerton.
Most utilities and their offices are permitted in other zones and don't require designation
on the Plan maps. The designation "UL (Utility Lands)" is applied to major areas that
are owned and operated by the City's Utility, primarily in areas west of Gorst.
WS Watershed: This designation is applied only to the City's Union'River Watershed
that surrounds and protects the reservoir behind Casad Dam. The related zone is "WS
(Water Supply)" which is a very restrictive zone intended to protect the water resource.
Military This is a Iocational designation intended only to identify major military facilities such as
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Jackson Park and the Naval llospital at Jackson Park.
These facilities are also designated according to thcir primary uses. Only PSNS has a
Plan designation but remains unzoned.
1997 Plan Amend. Ord. -- Page 13
ORDINANCE NO. o 7'
AN ORDINANCE revising the Official Zoning Map
of the City of Bremerton, Washington to Maintain Consistency
with 1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton may amend its Comprehensive Plan once each year
and the City Council has completed action on the 1997 docket of Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton maintains development codes that are consistent
with its Comprehensive Plan and with the requirements of the Growth Management Act, and
which include the Zoning Code and Official Zoning Map, which were both re-adopted on April
9, 1997 following major text revisions; and
WHEREAS, some of the 1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendments were site specific and
require related zoning adjustments to maintain Plan/Zoning consistency; and
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted by the Bremerton Planning Commission
on July 15 and August 19, 1997 to consider Plan-related zoning adjustments prior to making
formal recommendations to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council conducted public hearings on August 20 and
August 27, 1997 fo accept public comments pertaining to the proposed zoning adjustments and to
consider the Planning Commission's recommendation; now, therefore
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
Section 1. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Bremerton is hereby amended to
change the zoning of specific portions of the proposed Harbor Heights Apartments development
site from the present designations of"FM (Forest Management)" and "SF-3 (Residential, Low-
density)" to "MF (Residential, Medium-density)", as described in attached Exhibit "A".
Section 2. The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended to change the designations of
two lots, located on the east side of Wheaton Way, north of Dibb Street, from "PS (Parks &
Schools)" to "GB (General Business)", as described in attached Exhibit "B".
Section 3. The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended to change the designation of
four lots, consisting of approximately 22 acres, in the Auto Center area from "PO (Professional
Office)" to "IP (Industrial Park)", with conditions, as described in attached Exhibit "C".
1997 Zoning Map Amendment Ord. -- Page 1
Section 4. The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended to change the designation of
two lots on the south side of Broad Street, west of Wheaton Way, from "GB (General Business)"
to "MF (Residential, Medium-density)", and approving a Special Zoning Ordinance Exception
for the abutting commercial lot, as described in Exhibit "D".
Section 5. The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended southeast of Smith Cove by
expanding the "MR (Residential, High-density)" zone northward to include two additional lots
on the east side of Highland Avenue, as described in Exhibit "E".
APPROVED by the City Council on the first reading this
27th
day of August ,1997.
PASSED by the Bremerton City Council this
,1997.
day of
DAVID FARR, President
Bremerton City Council
APPROVED this
day of ,1997.
ATTEST:
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
Published:.
Effective:
CPA-97:zma-97.ord
1997 Zoning Map Amendment Ord. -- Page 2
Exhibit "A"
REZONE: Harbor Heights Apartments'
The area described and shown on the map below are hereby changed from "FM (Forest
Management)" and "SF-3 (Residential, Low-density)" to "MF (Residential, Medium-density)".
REZONE:
Change from "FM (Forest Management
to "MF (Residential, Medium-density)".
Change from "SF-3 (Residential,
Low-density)"
to "MF (Residential, Medium-density)".
FM
MF
IG
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That portion of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 24 North,
Range I East, W.M., in Kitsap County, Washington AND that portion of block ! 1, Ole Hanson's Navy
Yard Addition, as per Plat recorded in Volume 4 of Plats, page 56, records of Kitsap County, Washington,
described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Section 28; thence North 88032'06'' West along the
North line of said Section 28 a distance of 539.97 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence North 7*08'25"
east 93.99 feet to the beginning ,fa 50 foot radius curve; thence along said curve to the left through a
central angle of 50* 10'30" for an arc distance of 43.79 feet; thence North 43'02'05" West 44.52 feet to the
center line of Jones Street being a point on a curve whose radius point bears North 43002'05'' West 475.00
feet; thence southwesterly along said center line being a curve to the right through a central angle of
16'36'53" for an arc distance of 137.74 feet; thence South 26°25'12'' East 38.08 feet to the beginning .fa
50 foot radius curve; thence along said curve to the right through a central angle of 33'33'37" for an arc
distance of 29.29 feet; thence South 7*08'25" West 37.41 feet; thence South 88°32'06" East 125.62 feet;
thence North 7*08' 25" East 15.07 feet to the Point of Beginning.
1997 Zoning Map Amendment Ord. --- Page 3
Exhibit "B"
REZONE: Bremerton School District --- Wheaton Way
The two lots described below are hereby changed from "PS (Parks & Schools)"
(General Business)".
to "GB
F
GB.
PO
33RD S~.
PS
Legal Description:
Parcel "A":
The West 225.00 feet of Lot 3, Plat of Sylvan Park
according to the plat recorded in Volume 6 of Plats
page 45 and located in a portion of the SW quarter
of the SW quarter of Section 1, Township 24 N,
Range I E, W.M., EXCEPT the West 6.00 feet
thereof deeded to City of Bremerton under
Auditor's File Number 8611260137 records
of Kitsap County, Washington.
Parcel "C":
The West 225.00 feet of Lot 2, Plat of Sylvan Park
according to the plat recorded in Volume 6 of Plats,
page 45 and located in a portion of the SW quarter
of the SW quarter of Section 1, Township 24 N,
Range 1 E, W.M., EXCEPT the West 6.00 feet
thereof deeded to City of Bremerton under
Auditor's File Number 8611260137 records
of Kitsap County, Washington.
PS
3OT}I
3
1997 Zoning Map Amendmeht Ord. m Page 4
Exhibit
REZONE:
Auto Center Area Industrial
The four lots shown on the map below are hereby changed from "PO (Professional Office)"
"IP (Industrial Park)", with the following conditions to be applied to Lots A, B; and C only:
Bo
Co
Do
to
New Development shall be designed to encourage a campus-like arrangement of buildings,
parking, pedestrian walkways and open space.
All areas not paved or built upon shall be landscaped or left in natural vegetation to minimize
dust, mud and erosion.
Development projects shall be designed to include a minimum of 15 percent open space, exclusive
of required setbacks. When such open space is used primarily for hillside stabilization, visual
enhancement, or sensitive area protection, the City shall consider waiving or reducing the
requirement that 60 percent or more &the open space be used for active recreation.
Outdoor storage &equipment, materials, products, etc., shall be placed toward the uphill side of
buildings (not the view side) whenever feasible and/or effectively screened from view with
landscaping or a combination of fences and landscaping.
Assessor's I.D:
Lot "A": 212401-2-145
Lot "B": 212401-2-146
Lot "C": 212401-1-082
Lot "D": 212401-1-074
PS
Pendergast
)orts Complex
IP
-- ISF-3 I
1997 Zoning Map Amendment Ord. -- Page 5
7/
Exhibit ggD
REZONE: Broad Street Residential (2 lots)
The area described and shown on the map below is hereby changed from "GB (General
Business)" to "MF (Residential, Medium-density)" for the following two lots:
Assessor's Account No:
(~) 4574-000-010-0204
(~) 4574-000-011-0104
A Zoning Ordinance Special Exception is hereby granted for the adjacent
commercially-zoned lot (Assessor's Acct. No. 4574-000-012-00) to relieve future
development on that lot from the required setback from the abutting residential zone that
would have otherwise resulted from this Rezone.
Two lots Rezoned from "GB" to "MF".
MF
ge
Broad Street
GB
SF-3
The Special Exception allows development
to occur on this lot with no required setback
from its west property line.
1997 Zoning Map Amendment Ord. w Page 6
Exhibit "E"
REZONE: South Smith Cove Zoning Adjustments
As shown on the map below, the zoning of two lots on the east side of Highland Avenue
is changed from "BP (Business Park)" to "MR (Residential, High-density)".
PS
Current Zoning;
BP
11 [ n ' ]'"i I' [ ! ~
Amended Zoning Map:
Assessor's hlentification;
(~) 3709-001-002-0103: 0.27ac.
(~) 3709-001-003-0102: 1.40ac.
PS
1997 Zoning Map Amendment Ord. m Page 7
1997 Docket of
Comprehensive Plan Amendments & Rezones
ADJUSTMENTS
The following adjustments have been made to
the maps and text of the adopting ordinances per
City Council direction on August 20, 1997.
1. HARBOR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS: O/vest Hills area)
8 No changes necessary.
2. BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT: (2 lots on Wheaton Way)
~ No changes necessary.
3. AUTO CENTER AREA INDUSTRIAL: (4 hillside lots in Auto Center)
8 No changes necessary.
BROAD STREET RESIDENTIAL: (2 small lots on Broad Street)
8 Added approval of a Special Exception to the map and text of the Rezone
ordinance to relieve adjacent property from building setback requirement.
5. SOUTH SMITH COVE: (mostly related to Evergreen Park expansion) · Plan Amendment extends "Park" designation, as proposed.
8 Zoning Adjustment leaves park expansion area "BP" but changes the
zoning of two lots on the east side of Highland Ave. from "BP" to "MR".
(/~ERIT COMPANY: (northern 10 acres of a 20-acre lot)
~8 Plan/Zoning Amendment requests denied. Removed from ordinances.
WATERFRONT ACCESS PLAN AMENDMENT:
Council denied the request to remove the "viewpoint" designation from the
end of Eleventh Street Place. Removed from ordinances.
8. LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS:
· Approved as presented --- no change.
9. REMOVAL OF "CEMETERY (C)" DESIGNATION:
Plan Amendment Ordinance revised to state that lands formerly
designated "C" are now designated "Low Density Residential (LDR)".
No zoning changes proposed or necessary,
CAPITAL ELEMENT UPDATE:
FACILITIES
· Three changes were made to the proposed revisions (attached).
CFP Overview -. -
,'n i,:o' r..' ~ ,~- ~ ~ ,:o' ~' :..:
· : .
ICl .'~ '"" "'" ~ '""* *"" '"" "'" '"" '"* ~
|~1~ (~ 0') O~ (~ O~ O~ O)iO~.O'~iO~'O.O 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~-' .r-
I~_C~ 0~, O~ O~ O) O~ O~ ~0) 0~::0"0:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i I I I
spuesnoqj.
UOll~lndOd
Figure CF-2 Population Forecast: 1990-2012
Capital Facilities Element - Part 2 CFP - 12
Capital Facilities Program
Municipal Buildings -' -
(2) Proposed Facilities
The City conducted a preliminary facilities study in 1985 to consider the
City's short-term and long-term facility needs. This study found that the
City's existing facilities were generally inadequate to meet the City's
current operating requirements, and that population growth would further
increase facilities needs. The most critical needs identified at that time
included: a substandard jail and crowded Municipal Court; dispersal of
City administrative activities to various facilities; the quality of City Hall;
and inadequate facilities for operational sections of Public Works.
Several changes have been made since 1985, including closure of the
jail, addition of the Permit Center, and construction of the new Oyster Bay
Public Works & Utilities Operations Center.
A follow-up Facilities Management Alternative Plans study was prepared
in 1994 to help plan for near- to mid-term facilities needs for various City
departments. Work on this study has been on hold, pending finalization
of downtown waterfront redevelopment plans.
Although the City does not expect to need additional capacity by 2001,
the City recognizes that it needs to continue facilities planning to further
consolidate activities and replace aging structures. ~-! ~rab!~
!~i~[q~9!t~eefficient pro~i~i0U Qfcity se~!~es; Therefore, the City
proposes to continue its on-going facilities study to focus on consolidation
of City administrative functions, with the possible inclusion of courts and
law enforcement functions, at one centralized site. If this can be done,
the City expects that the effective level of service can be increased
within the proposed LOS. Toward this end, the City is programming
funds for replacement of City Hall, the Permit Center, and some or all of
the facilities used by the Police Department (see Law Enforcement
section) with once consolidated facility in 2002.
b. Parkinq Structures
('1) Existing Demand
(To be completed)
(2) Level of Service (LOS
(To be completed)
(3) Future Demand
Capital Facilities Element - Part 2
CFP - 30
Capital Facilities Program
Water - -
Existing Sources 9.1 - 23.7
Potential Sources 11.0 - 12.2
Total Sources 20.1 - 35.9
Source: Bremerton Water System Comprehensive Plan Table 8-7
13,460 - 16,565
7,470
20,930 - 24,035
It is projected that if pending water rights certificates are secured, then no
additional sources will be needed to meet the total demand through the next six
years. However, future water sources will need to be secured to meet
anticipated demands beyond year 2000. (Table WA-3)
:.i' :~:::;i::;::I :~i::i:' ilili~i ii:L;:.:: ::: Area)
1995 * 56,701 9.04
1995-2000 (new) 9,686 4.20
Total as of 2000 66,387 13.24
2000-2014 4.38
Total as of 2014
I
11,764 I
I
78,151
Sources: Bremerton Water System Comprehensive Plan, updated by Bremerton Water Utility
* 1995 demand from Kitsap County Department of Development
Assumptions: 2000: Pop. X 103 gallons/capita + 3.2 MG for PSNS
2014: Pop. X 100 gallons/capita + 3.2 MG for PSNS
17.62
3. Proposed Facility Improvements
The Bremerton Water Plan recommends that an additional 0.7 mgd of groundwater
supply should be developed by 1995 and a total of 1.4 mgd should be developed by
year 2000. (Table WA-2) T, hle~iCitYi~:S~ a'd~!tiO~!~!~d~l~:~q~ a~;~iti~g!:iwa~er
The Water Plan concludes that existing distribution system is capable of meeting typical
system demands. Improvements in transmission and distribution mains are necessary
Draft Capital Facilities Plan
WA - 7 8/26/97