Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/03/96 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 239 4TH STREET BREMERTON, WA 98337 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JANUARY 3t 1996 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 - November 29, 1995 #AB96-001 3. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 4. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 5. MAYOR'S REPORT 6. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) NEW BUSINESS A. Appointment Of Wanda L. Butler To The Parks And Recreation Commission #AB96-002 ~~ AGENDA BILL .. BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: MINUTES -'NOVEMBER 29, t995 1-3-96 FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: Q~t¥ Co,mci] ORIGINATOR: Sherril ~uff-~n~ Pres. DATE SUBMITTED: -- '- 2. C__I~NCES: (comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: ENDORSEMENT__ INFORMATION__ MAYOR APPROVED BY coUNcIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: coUNCIL PRESIDENT-~~ /~///~~ 4. SUM~Y STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR'COUNCIL ACTION: 8. RECOMMENDATION: 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOT~CE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE: ~ED TAPE #1339 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL NEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 29~ L995 #0019 #0033 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, November 29, 1995, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Sherril Huff-Menees presiding. Council members present were Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Morrie Dawkins, Carlos Montgomery, John Law, David Farr, Richard Neville, and Lon Overson. Councilman John Law was absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Huff-Menees and Invocation given by Pastor August Lubkeman of Memorial Lutheran Church. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - November 1, 1995 #AB95-261 M/S/C/U(Neville/Farr) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. CLaIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on November 29, 1995, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 189854 through 189857, 189875 through 190023 in the total amount of $448,276.21; and Retirees' Payroll for the period ending November 30, 1995, in the amount of $85,056.62. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Colvin thanked the many citizens, who sent him cards and letters, and the nurses and doctors at Valley General Hospital for their taking care of him. He is looking for his "lost" raincoat, which disappeared from the Council office area. Mr. Winters sent get well wishes to his uncle, Irv Winters, who recently suffered a minor heart attack. He extended a special "welcome" to a group of people recently transferred to this area from Alameda, California, and Philadelphia. I~YOR~S REPORT TAPE #1339 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 2 of 23 Mayor Pro Tem Bob Winters read the following Proclamation: December 1, 1995, as WORLD AIDS DAY. Deborah Wilson, HIV AIDS Education Program Coordinator for the West Sound Chapter of the American Red Cross, thanked the Mayor and City Council for recognizing this important day. Police Chief Paul Du-Fresne presented Terry Welling and Rob Forbes, two members of his department, to be commissioned to the rank of Lieutenant. Municipal Judge Bruce Martin administered the oath of commissioning. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Phil Drouin, Bremerton resident, asked why is the City charging a City tax on the garbage dumping fee? It concerned him that on his current bill $1.08 was being paid to the dumping fee. He stated he is an advocate for needy families and is speaking on their behalf. The only way they can get their money to pay their refuse bill is to do without in a lot of cases. Many people come to St. Vincent DePaul asking for help to pay their utility bills, rent, etc.. He asked that a written explanation be given to him on why the City is charging a tax on the dumping fee. Carol Atklnson, Bremerton Main Street Association, announced on Friday at 5:30 P.M. Santa will arrive on a City Fire truck and greet children and families on 4th Street. This event is sponsored by the Bremerton Main Street Association, The Sun, Americorp, downtown Bremerton Payless store, Bremerton Kiwanis Club, Bremerton High School Key Club and Olympic College Girls Basketball Team. She also wanted to draw everyone's attention to the fact that holiday banners have been hung. Pe~v Atkins, old Belfair Highway resident, asked when will the City clean up debris along edges of the pavement along the old Belfair Highway following the removal of trees along that area. She felt it was dangerous for walkers and bikers traveling using that roadway. 7A - ORDINANCE NO. 4534 (SECOND READING), AN~NDN~NT TO CITY FIRR CODE AND ADOPTING THE 1994 UNIFORM FIRE CODE UNDER BMC CWaDTER #0626 18.0Z AND 18.08, #AB95-ZSZ Public comment - none. M/S/C(Montgomery/Farr) to pass Ordinance No. 4534 on second reading, adopting the 1994 Uniform Fire Code to ensure public safety in all structures, amending Title 18 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. Vote on motion: In Favor: Overson, Neville, Fart, Law, Huff-Menees, Montgomery, Dawkins #0653 #0682 #0707 TAPE #1339 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 3 of 23 Colvin Abstain: Winters Motion carried. 7B - ORDINANCE NO. 4535 (SECOND READING), REDUCING T~ B&O TAX ON GARBAGE AND REFUSE BUSINESSES, ~AB95-253 Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Dawkins) to pass Ordinance No. 4535 on second reading, relating to occupation tax for the garbage and refuse businesses, and amending Chapter 5.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. 7C - ORDINANCE NO. 4536 (SECOND READING), DECLARING AN ARR~ OF URBAN BLIGHT IN THE VICINITY OF ROGERS ROADt ~AB95-25~ Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Dawkins) to pass Ordinance No. 4536 on second reading, declaring an urban blight area in the vicinity of Rogers Street, adopting an urban renewal plan for the area, and authorizing the City's power of eminent domain to implement the plan. 7D - ORDINANCE NO. 4537 (SECOND B~ADING), A]~_NDNENT TO CITY BUILDING CODE ADOPTING 1994 EDITIONS OF UNIFOP~BUILDING CODES AND STATE BUILDING CODES UNDER B.M.C. CHAPTER 17.04, INCLUDING A 10~ FEE INCREASEr ~AB95-260 Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Overson/Montgomery) to pass Ordinance No. 4537 on second reading, adopting the 1994 editions of the Uniform Building Codes and State Building Codes, and amending Chapter 17.04 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF PL~trNING COI4I(IBSION'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE DENIAL OF A SHORT PLAT APPLICATION; APPELLANT: L~P FOWLER~ #AB95-217 The appellant's application is to create three (3) lots from a 0.45 acre parcel located on the north side of Burwell Street, approximately 140 feet west of Marion Avenue. On appeal, the Planning Director's original decision to deny was upheld by the Planning Commission. BMC 21.02.930(2-b) designates the City Council as the hearing body for appeals of Planning Commission decisions. When hearing an appeal, the City Council may take any of the following actions: 1) UPHOLD the Planning Commission's decision, DENYING the Short ¥ TAPE #1339 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 4 of 23 2) 3) Plat; OVERTURN the decision APPROVING the Short Plat (the City Council must make specific findings and conclusions for approval); MODIFY the decision by adding or deleting conditions; or REMAND the decision to the Planning Commission for further review of circumstances or impacts identified by the Council (City Council should include specific issues to be considered). President Huff-Menees asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members present being seated. Shane Jensen, Planner, stated he would be presenting the Findings and Conclusions of the Planning Commission regarding this appeal of a short plat denial. The applicant is proposing to divide a piece of property into three parcels. Mr. Jensen displayed a view graph, showing the location of single family residents and the number of dwelling units that could possibly be placed on each of those properties as a maximum, according to current zoning. The proposed short plat's access off of Burwell Street right-of-way, which is only 12 feet wide, and the lots would be identified as "A", "B" and "C". The applicant proposes to widen the Burwell Street right-of- way by dedicating 12 feet and creating a turn around for emergency vehicles. The reason for appeal was the applicant did not agree with the City Engineering Department's requirement for a 50 foot right-of-way and that it was unrealistic for this small project. Mr. Jensen noted prior to the City adopting new City Street Standards, 50 foot width was the smallest street width. At this time, there are new City Street Standards and he will address that point later in his presentation. There is also a question about access for Fire Department emergency equipment and a letter was issued by Scott Rapley of the Fire Marshall's office that states they would be able to allow building on the subject property even with a narrower right-of-way width if automatic fire sprinklers were installed in every house, a fire hydrant installed and a turn around on the road as proposed. Mr. Jensen displayed new City Street Standards for a shared driveway section for a residential short plat or short subdivision access way. This would allow for a 20 foot wide right-of-way with 18 feet of pavement, which translates into two nine foot lanes with a 7 1/2 foot utility easement on one side, which is the City's minimum standard. The subject roadway is proposed to serve a maximum of nine dwelling units. He reviewed the density allowable on surrounding properties and pointed out the access road could possibly end up with more than 9 dwelling units, depending on future development. In considering that fact, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the short plat. TAPE #1339 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Nove~%ber 29, 1995 Page 5 of 23 Otto Berg, Olympic Engineer representing the applicant, handed out a memo to the City Council members, which contained an option to be considered during this hearing. He provided three photographs showing the roadway to the proposed site. This request for a variance was brought to Council because the subject project cannot comply with the minimum standards as outlined by Mr. Jensen, specifically the roadway. At this point, the property owner has two options: "Option A" to build three or four houses on the existing parcel in which case no road improvements would be constructed, a fire hydrant would not be added and since there would be four commonly owned unites, they would probably be rentals. Option "B" is to build three houses on a 3-lot short plat, construct an access road to City standards along the frontage of the short plat, and improve the off-site road to the maximum width available. The applicant would also construct a turn around for emergency vehicles, extend the water main up the street and provide another fire hydrant. There are five existing homes using the road and with the proposed development, that would increase that number to eight, which is not a significant number of vehicles. With the addition of the property lines, the applicant could improve the area, so they are before Council to respectfully request approval to go forward with that project. Hugh Rapp, property owner in the subject area, stated the condition of the roadway is caused by Les Fowler's logging trucks. He has personally kept up the road for many years and it was never in that bad of shape until the logging trucks ruined it. Members of the neighborhood do not want that many houses located in a small area. That area is inundated with iow income housing as well as a reform school across the street and it has just gotten out-of-hand. They do not want to be a dump off ground for this kind of development. Mr. Montgomery asked if Burwell Street was 12 feet wide all the way to Bertha? Mr. Jensen explained the assessor's map shows the right-of-way width is approximately 12 feet all the way to Bertha; however, he was not sure if Bertha was a through street. Mr. Montgomery asked the length of roadway that is accessible? Mr. Jensen stated he was not sure. Mr. Montgomery asked if the applicant had tried to get the neighbors on both sides of the road to give the City to right-of-way to expand the road? Mr. Jensen stated he was not aware of any such action. Mr. Montgomery asked Mr. Rapp if anyone had ever approached him about giving an easement to the City? Mr. Ragp stated no one has ever contacted him; however, he has tried to contract Mr. Fowler, but was unsuccessful. Mr. Montgomery asked Mr. Rapp if he would consider such a proposal? Mr. Rapp stated not at this time. Mr. Colvin asked that a representative from the Fire Department comment on this proposal. Soott Rappleye, Fire Marshall's Office, TAPE #1339 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 6 of 23 stated the Fire Department viewed the access as a driveway rather than a City street. They do allow up to nine houses on a driveway, if homes are sprinklered. Discussions were held on proposed new City Street Standard prior to their adoption, but later he learned the access is actually a City street that would have to conform to the City Street Standards. Me pointed out there are some exceptions in the Fire Code that do allow building on narrower streets, if the houses are built with a sprinkler system, a hydrant is installed and a turn around for emergency vehicles is provided. He was not sure that was allowable under the new City Street Standards. Mr. Montgomery asked if the City would require sprinkler systems in the houses if only four units were built on the site without subdividing? Mr. RaDDleye stated the Fire Code requires an 8 feet road for access and the only exception is it gives the Fire Chief the authority to make some exceptions, such as sprinklers. Mr. Fart asked the City Attorney if there were any legal obligations if the City's own street doesn't meet the standards and are therefore somewhat responsible for the denial? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the City, in the past under different standards, may have approved and accepted a street that no longer meets the City's current standard. The problem with the subject street is that it can serve current levels of densities, but if application is made for increased density or subdivision, we can deny that increased land use development along a substandard street. There is no liability for denial based on a request to do more development on that standard of street. Mr. Fart asked considering the first scenario under current zoning would allow four houses without short platting, is the requested action really an increase in density? Mr. Sievers stated it could be the same impact as far as density without subdividing the property. He was not sure if the Street Standards were tied to the Building Permit process rather than the short plat. Gene Sample¥, Director of Public Works and Utilities, stated the Street Standards were adopted separate from, but will be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance. He did not believe they had any application in the Building Code. Part of the application process is the project must meet the approval of the City Engineer or the City Engineer must review the access and make a recommendation. He was not sure it was a City street, but it is a platted right-of-way. The City has not maintained the street or contributed to acknowledge it as a City street. Mr. Overson emphasized the proposal does not meet the requirements and this is not the place to rewrite the requirements. He suggested either rewrite the standards or figure out a way to legally apply the standards to what the owner seeks. Council's #1344 TAPE #1339 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 7 of 23 function is to look at the proposal based on current City standards. M/S/C(Overson/Montgomery) to adopt the Findings of Fact & Conclusions of the Planning Commission and to UPHOLD the Planning Commission's decision to DENY the Short Plat application. Mr. Overson went on to say that it appears the document handed out from the Fire Department was new information provided to Council that was not presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Jensen pointed out the information Mr. Overson referenced came in as additional City comment based on other things they found since the Planning Commission meeting. Vote On Motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Opposed: Winters, Overson, Neville, Montgomery, Dawkins, Colvin, Huff-Menees Fart 8B - PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER SURPLUSINGAND 8AL~ OF 168 ACRES IN ANDERSON CREEK BASIN, ~AB95-262 The Public Works & Utilities Department recommends ratification of surplusing and sale of approximately 168 acres of the approximately 300 acres in the Anderson Creek Basin surplused and sold under an option agreement on December 22, 1994 to Sciepko and Lunde. This property was originally acquired for watershed protection for the Water Utility's surface source from Anderson Creek. This source is currently unused, pending further required treatment, and the upper watershed was surplused and sold for the McCormick Woods development about ten years ago. The Utility maintains water rights, several important water supply wells, and the system's largest pumping station in the northeast portion of the City's parcel. The sale in December 1994 called for a wellhead protection study to determine the scope and area of a wellhead protection easement to protect these resources. The recently completed study indicates a large potential for additional ground water wells along the Anderson Creek corridor. The Utility Department and the optionees have agreed to amend the area subject to sale to permit future drilling, and the City will now retain 132 acres of its original ownership. Council is asked to ratify the surplusing and sale of this portion of the property surplused in December 1994. Changes to the Option Agreement are indicated with bold type in the attached agreement. To reiterate, the Option to Purchase will allow these owners to invest in property development feasibility studies and marketing over a three year period (two years remaining) for development of their own 76 acre parcel in combination with the City parcel. TAPE #1339 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 8 of 23 These owners will pay $48,000 if the option is held for all three years. The appraised price has been set at $2.4 million, plus timber value. The commitment of Sciepko and Lunde to annex their 76 acre parcel as a prerequisite to purchase was accomplished with the dismissal of the appeal on this annexation November 17, 1995. These are special considerations and conditions of sale over and above the concern for a possibly higher price through bidding and meet the criteria for negotiated sale under BMC 2.78.040. I&n Sievers, City Attorney, stated this is a reconsideration of Council action that was taken in December 1994, on the surplusing of approximately 300 acres of Water Utility land in south Bremerton. That land was originally purchased for a watershed as part of a surface water source from Anderson Creek, which was discontinued in 1985. Gene Sampley, Director of Public Works and Utilities and Kathleen Cahall, Water Resources Manager, will explain the reasons for the reconfiguration and the request to surplus less property. Basically, some things have changed during the past year. One of the big caveats on the original sale was that the Department was to complete a Wellhead Protection Study, which was recently completed and has led the Department to reconsider the amount of acreage that is being offered for sale and would like Council to revise its decision on the amount being surplused. This decision meets all the notification requirements of the City's ordinance on surplusing and sale of property. Mr. Sievers highlighted the following changes: (1) The amount being offered under an option to sell is 168 acres instead of 300, which was in the original agreement. (2) Exhibit "A", the legal description and the map of the area has changed. The legal description also indicates the wellhead protection easement, which was not defined in December 1994. (3) There is no change to the method of valuation. The MAI appraisal, which was the method for valuing the property, has also been completed and that valuation is 2.4 million dollars. As of this date, the timber appraisal had not been completed. Funds derived from the sale of timber will revert to the Water Utility fund. (4) The zoning recommendation also has changed - originally the City Administration committed to support Industrial Park Zoning for all of the original 300 acres, i.e. that action has been taken and 300 acres have been designed in the City's Comprehensive Plan as Industrial Park. If this new proposal for surplusing is approved, there will have to be some adjustments to the Comprehensive Plan in the future, and now the City Administration is recommending Industrial Park modified for a portion west of Anderson Creek and TAPE #1339 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 9 of 23 low density residential for the portion on the east side of the Anderson Creek basin. The modification is attached to the new agreement and what it does is to take a lot of the allowed uses under the Industrial Park zoning and also removes some of the uses allowed through a Special Use Permit. One thing not being reconsidered at this time is the Comprehensive Plan designation, again there will be as a matter of course if this action is approved a City request to change that designation. At this time, Council is strictly concerned with how much property to surplus and convert in to cash for other Utility Fund purposes and not a decision relating to land use designations or specific site development. Kathleen Cahall, Water Resources Manager, stated groundwater is critical to the water supply for the City of Bremerton, although 60% of its water comes from a surface source on the Union River, 40% on average comes from wells. The City has 12 production wells. The City is very fortunate that the water quality is excellent, but to protect from contamination of wells one of the things the City did was to develop a Well Head Protection Plan, which was just completed. To develop this plan, they looked at the geology of the area for all City wells and determined a protection area around them, including Anderson Creek wells. This protection area protects from contamination, if something were to fall on the ground and get into the water at that point there is a 1-5-10 year travel downward time. The key to preventing pollution in these areas is to manage activities that occur in those areas, which is done through public education, zoning, using best management practices and through Critical Areas Ordinances. In the case of Anderson Creek, the City placed an easement on the property in which restrictions were added, such as restricting the use of fertilizers so they would not leech down into the groundwater, proper storage of chemicals, best management practices for surface water, restrictions on use and storage of other hazardous waste, etc. President Huff-Menees announced public discussion on this issue will start with City residents. The following City residents spoke against the proposal as presented: Susan Griffith; Dan Griffith, Mar~ Lou Long, Baymont Place; Kenneth Mc~uire; Cecil McConne11, Almira Drive; The following non-City residents spoke in opposition: Elaine Manheimer; Clyde Abeline; Morrie Morris Emeca, Berry Lake Road; Jerry ~&rney, Attorney representing the Anderson Creek Association to protect Anderson Creek; Leslie Vanagan; Ron Kenney; Dave Della,rovere, 300 Anderson Hill Road; Susan Dow, Port Orchard; TAPE #1339 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 10 of 23 Mr. & Mrs. TaYlor (letter read into the record by Susan Dow; Pegqv Atkins, Old Belfair Highway; Earl Dow, Port Orchard; Mike McCu~din, McCormick Woods resident; Allan Lash, Anderson Hill Road resident; Helen Havens, Anderson Hill Road resident; Nowe11 Travis ~mmet Pritchard, Wetlands Ecologist, spoke in favor of the proposal based on his investigation of the site. He inspected a site west of Anderson Creek and what he found was one on-site wetland and two additional off-site wetland areas. These wetlands range in quality from Type II, according to City of Bremerton Critical Lands Ordinance, which requires a 100 foot buffer, to Type I, which are located off-site north and east of the parcel around the wellhead. The other sensitive areas would be the west branch of Anderson Creek and an unnamed stream, which are classed as Type II streams, by City ordinance. Those type of streams are required to have either a 100 foot buffer or a buffer measured by 25 feet from the top of the bank, which ever is greater. In this case both of the streams are in deep ravens. What that leaves is a swath of land through the middle, which is where the other on-site wetland is located. He believes the site to be very developable according to the location of the sensitive areas. When Ron Sciepko hired his firm to look at this site and he walked the area; he then agreed to give testimony regarding development of the subject area and how the sensitive areas could be blended into the landscape so that the fish and wildlife resources are protected. The following opposing comments were made: (1) water resources should be protected to the maximum; (2) all watershed properties should be retained; (3) water resources should be preserved considering the anticipated growth within the County; (4) annexing the subject area into Bremerton was important in the long range planning for future growth; (5) any encroachment on the watershed is a violation of the origin premise which the city acted in obtaining this land; (6) questioned the true reason for the sale of the subject site at this time and was it to financially bail out the Utility Department?; (7) Anderson Creek watershed should be kept in its natural state; (8) question: why is this land now being offered for surplus since it has been over 80 years that it has been under watershed protection? (9) There is an appearance of fairness question in the publics' minds about the options and sale with this site; (10) a problem with water contamination in Anderson Creek occurred in the 1950's, which shows how fragile this area is, yet it is a great water resources area; (11) concern that land will be paved over thereby depleting the natural recharging of water aquifers; (12) the City's sewer treatment plant odor control problem and upgrading construction project have impacted Utility funds and the sale of the watershed property is being acted upon to gain revenue for the Utility; (13) question: what will happen to the 16 inch watermain that runs from the watershed property to the TAPE #1339 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 11 of 23 City of Port Orchard? (14) Anderson Creek watershed water source was established to provide emergency water for the City of Bremerton; (15) a public hearing, advertising for public bids, should have been held if the City deemed Anderson Creek watershed property was surplus to City needs; (16) should consider the definition of development and how previous definitions have made us pay some very serious consequences in terms of how groundwater is ruined; (17) the Anderson Creek Association to protect Anderson Creek filed a lawsuit against the City of Bremerton contesting the prior sales option approved by the City Council based on several grounds; (18) sale of the subject site is governed in part by RCW 35.94.040, which covers the lease or sale of land or property originally acquired for public utility purposes; also part of the lawsuit addresses the form of the contract in that it amounts to an unconstitutional loan of the city's credit to a private individual for private purposes and the option to purchase is locking up the subject site, which would be used for other purposes or sold to other parties at little or no expense to the purchaser; (19) sale of the subject site may be in violation of Bremerton's own City ordinance, including that there has been no determination of fair market value for the site; (20) the sales contract requires the City to revisit the Comprehensive plan in the future, which has not passed through the SEPA process, which is again something that should be done prior to the completion of this sale; (21) Anderson Creek wells are relied upon heavily during times of drought; (22) concerns about erosion, tribidity and temperature and reduced oxygen in water flows in local creeks; (23) Anderson Creek area is a geological hazardous area per Kitsap County GIS maps; (24) only 10% impermeable surface of the watershed can severely impact salmon stream health; (25) question: how will the subject site be serviced with infrastructure and who will pay for it? TAPE #1340 (26) the 1-5-10 year indications of the spread of possible contamination from an industrial park into an aquifer are inadequate; (27) question - will there be sufficient water for people in the year 2025 and where is the source if more is needed? (28) steep slopes in the watershed area are inherently unstable; (29) concern that private wells will be come contaminated and if that happens, who will be responsible? (30) The corporate campus proposal is not in Anderson Creek resident's comfort zone; (31) question - who is conducting Wellhead Protection Study for private wells in the Anderson Creek area? (32) The people here today have a trust with the people of the future to preserve natural resources in an area that produces clear drinkable water as well as a spawning ground for salmon; (33) you can't buy drinking water when here is none; (34) affected property owners in the Anderson Creek area were not property notified of this meeting; (35) area around watershed is rural residential; (36) McCormick Woods' Campus TAPE #1340 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 12 of 23 Station development near the proposed site will add to the congestion and traffic problems; (36) the addition of the planned mobile home park next to the subject site will added to traffic problems; (37) City services (Police, Fire, Streets, etc.) will be stretched to service the subject area; (38) over 500 Bremerton residents oppose the loss of Anderson Creek watershed property; (39) there are other sites more suitable than Anderson Creek watershed property for an industrial; (40) City of Bremerton Planning Staff member Ron Hough indicated it would not be in the best interest of the City to use the subject site for industrial purposes; (41) the Suquamish Tribe voiced their concern over a change in use of the Anderson Creek watershed area; (42) development of the subject site could bring about erosion problems into Anderson Creek; (43) a better use for watershed land would be to develop a park for all the public to enjoy. Ron Sciepko stated he and his wife have already shared their vision for the Anderson Creek Corporate Campus development. The subject site was acquired prior to WWI as the original watershed and surface water supply for the City of Bremerton. In recent years upland areas of the Anderson Creek Basin were sold to McCormick Land Company for the Campus Station development. The Department Of Ecology specifically cites the importance of property management of upland areas in controlling the quality of both surface water and deep well aquifers. Because the surface water in the Anderson Creek Basin can no longer be used without implementing a filtration system, the City Public Works and Utilities Department decided that their portion of the Anderson Creek watershed should be surplused. The City has acquired other sources of water, specifically Union River watershed, which is a quality water source that will provide need water long into the future. Mr. Sciepko provided a map outlining 1,200 acres of watershed property of which McCormick Woods and Campus station took up approximately 800 acres of the upland areas, which are important for aquifer recharge. We are now just learning about the subterranean geology of aquifer recharge. For many years it was thought the aquifer recharge meant surface water; however, the city's Wellhead Study revealed that the area was comprised of soils that allowed very little water to permeate vertically. To fill the wells, water needs to move horizontally in an aquifer. In addition to McCormick Woods and Campus Station, there are 340 acres of City land, 91 acres of residential property on Anderson Hill Road and 57 acres for Corporate Campus inside the watershed and the remaining 130 acre portion of the total 187 campus lies outside of the watershed boundaries. Interestingly, the Anderson Hill residents occupy 91 acres inside the watershed. He and his wife are consistently on record recognizing that there are some areas on the property that need to be protected. In April of this year, he came TAPE #1340 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 13 of 23 before Council and pledged to set aside over 100 acres for a park or preserve. It has never been their intention to develop those areas. Approximately 187 acres are suitable for development as a Corporate Campus and they have geological and wetland reports supporting that data. A lot of comments have been made about development of a Corporate Campus would destroy wells and pollute the water, which he does not believe because it is absolutely contrary to the evidence provided by AGI Technology at their presentation made following the completion of their Wellhead Protection Study. Their analysis revealed that every soil unit within the watershed has a low susceptibility to surface source contamination. Mr. Sciepko provide aerial photographs of the subject site as well as ground level photos showing the lay of the land and describing his plans for the Corporate Campus. He stressed the need for economic diversification in Kitsap County in order to provide jobs for the children of today. He fears for the future of our community if 50% of our children are forced to leave because of lack of jobs locally. The Growth Management Plan includes the encouragement of development in urban areas and the encouragement of growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth. The proposed Corporate Campus lies within the Bremerton City Limits. In West Bremerton there are over 8,400 acres of watershed and utility lands. Development will be regulated by existing environmental statutes and regulations, which will protect any environmentally sensitive areas. The following question was posed: "What have they done since they began this project"? Answer: they listened and heard and responded to concerns about sensitive areas and agreed to develop only part of the property and set the remainder aside as a preserve. They are now agreeing to purchase 168 acres verses the original 300. They have also agreed to modify the Industrial Park Zoning to specifically eliminate eleven uses and to require Special Use Permits for three others. There will be no paint or chemical manufacturing facilities, concrete, gypsum or plastics manufacturing, construction yards, or rubber/plastic manufacturing. It is their hope to have a business campus that will please everyone . Finally, they have a unique opportunity of having available a fairly large piece of property to offer to a company looking to locate or relocate nationally or internationally. We have the opportunity to cease being just a bedroom community and to put jobs on this side of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. There are those who neither live in or pay taxes in the City of Bremerton who would have the taxpayers of our city pick up the tab so they can enjoy a private park. He believes with all his heart that the corporate campus he envisions will be a benchmark for the City of Bremerton. /~ TAPE #1340 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 14 of 23 TAPE #1341 (note: Helen Havens' continued comments; Noel Travis commented; Helen Havens read into the record a letter submitted by one of her neighbors opposing the proposed action; Mary Lou Long gave additional testimony; Dave Della'rovere gave additional testimony; President Huff-Menees closed the time of public input. Mr. Montqomery stated when he joined the City Council he took an oath to represent City of Bremerton citizens. He did not take that oath lightly. When first confronted with the Anderson Creek issue of surplusing, he contacted Kathleen Cahall and Bill McKinney and requested a tour of the subject site, which he then walked and asked many questions regarding the future use of the watershed and the feasibility of developing the property for City use and environmental concerns were always in the forefront. He found a good portion of the 340 acres could not be developed since it would be protected by the Wildlife and Fisheries Department, Department Of Ecology and the City's Critical Lands Ordinance. At this time, Council is validating the sale of 168 acres, which does not include the immediate land surrounding Anderson Creek itself. This property has been declared excess to the City's need. He noted some things outlive their original use and need to be reexamined to find other uses, which has been done in this instance. The sale of this property would put it back on City tax rolls and provide additional income to the City. What he finds amusing about the "blue" cards that were passed around so freely, is that not only is the author(s) ashamed to include their name on it, but that most of the information is incorrect. This person claimed "it is our land"...he asked is the author a City resident? He pointed out it has been alluded that 40% of the City's water comes from Anderson Creek. He recalled at the wellhead protection meeting it was stated water from Anderson Creek does not serve the wells from which the City pumps water. He asked Ms. Cahall if that statement was true? Kathleen Cahall, Water Resources Manager, stated Mr. Montgomery was correct. Mr. Montgomery questioned assuming the city wants to use Anderson Creek water how much water can be reasonably expected to recover? Ms. Cahall stated Anderson Creek was one of the first sources of surface water the City of Bremerton had and it was used up to 1985-86 on an emergency basis. That source can still be used because the City holds a claim, which is critical to Bremerton. It is estimated that about 3 million gallons per day, if the City could use it, could be used from Anderson Creek itself. The City has four production wells at Anderson Creek, two in a shallower aquifer of 200 feet and two deeper at 600 feet. If each of those four wells were turned on and pumped, about 3 1/2 million gallons of water per day could be produced, which is 40% of the City's average day demand of about 8 1/2 million gallons per day. It is very rare that the City would use those wells for that purpose. In looking back at past records, TAPE #1341 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 15 of 23 on an annual basis over several years Anderson Creek wells provide about 17% of the water overall. If the City wanted to use the water in Anderson Creek, the City would need to do some capital improvements in order to treat that water first. The City does not have any immediate plans to treat that water, but it could be done in the future and would be part of a long range plan. Mr. Montqome~ questioned assuming the City wanted to use that water source, what would it cost to build the capital facility? Ms. Cah&ll estimated that cost to be in excess of one million dollars to build the filtration system under current regulations. Mr. Ovmrson stated it was his understanding that the City has done everything to protect the water in the wells and Anderson Creek. Ms. Cmhall stated the City has gathered all the information to tell how to protect them. Mr. Overson pointed out the City is retaining the majority of the real estate and the area proposed for development is away from the creek and under the control of Environmental Protection Agency and all the development processes. Ms. C&h&ll stated as long as best management practices are used during construction. Mr. Parr asked Ms. Cahall to give an explanation as to what was meant by the 1-5-10 protection areas as mapped out in the Wellhead Protection Plan. Ms. ~&h&ll explained that comes out of the Wellhead Protection Regulations from the State. She appreciated the time and energy taken by people to learn about water quality and protection of wells. There is a 1-5-10 year time of travel for water to percolate down to aquifers from the ground surface. She explained in the Anderson Creek watershed area there are different layers of soils and it appears, following testing, that there is an aquitard (silt/clay layers) above the Anderson Creek aquifers that would act as protection. We don't know how long it would take for a barrel of spilled solvent to percolate down through the various layers of soil, but the Wellhead Protection Ordinance identifies areas to be protected in order that they be used as buffer zones from possible pollutants. She believes the City's plan addresses those needs. Mr. l~eville asked for clarification of a comment made earlier that a 16 inch watermain runs from the Anderson Hill watershed area to the city of Port Orchard. He also asked if the City had sold water to Port Orchard in the past and does the City plan on selling water from Anderson Creek wells to that city in the future? stated there is an inter-tie with the City of Port Orchard and there is a contract between the two cities for the purchase of some maximum amount of water each month. They do get surplus water from the City when extra is available, which comes from the City's general water supply, not specifically from the Anderson Creek wells. All the City ' s water sources go into the City ' s /& TAPE #1341 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 16 of 23 distribution system so at any given point it could be a mixture of those sources. Mr. Neville stated then they are not getting infiltrated water. Ms. Cahall stated that was correct. Mr. Neville asked how often are the Anderson Creek wells used during the summer. Mr. Cabal1 stated those wells are used 17% of the time each year and depending on the circumstances affecting the surface water source that figure may increase. Mr. Neville emphasized the contract with Mr. Sciepko states very specific practices that can and cannot be applied to that property. However, he questioned would the aquifers be affected by someone pouring something like automobile oil onto the ground at near by residential areas? Ms., Cabal1 stated anything can happen and one component of the wellhead protection is public education. She emphasized such action is illegal and if someone sees their neighbor polluting in that manner there are steps they can take to report them. An important element will be to have a County-wide Wellhead Protection Committee that will get together with all of the water purveyors and figure out how to work with the County, cities and planners/zoning for the protection of the water in the County. Mr. Neville stated much of the testimony given this evening were "worst case scenarios", such as spills polluting the aquifers and Anderson Creek. He pointed out most of the surrounding residents have shallow wells where in the City's case they are deep wells. He questioned if the resident wells went dry during a drought, is there any way they could tap into city water? Ms. Cabal1 stated that would depend if they were in the City's service area and some of them may be in a water service area of another jurisdiction. Mr. Montqomez7 asked if the shallower residential wells might be more susceptible to contamination by septic tanks and other uses allowed by the County more so than what would happen in the Anderson Creek basin? Ms. Cabal1 stated she could not say, but there are regulations that keep septic fields a certain distance away from domestic wells. She recommended anyone using a domestic well should have it tested to make sure it was not being polluted by some source. Mr. Montqomery stated based on the studies conducted by the Wellhead Protection consultant it showed that between the 10-year time frame and 1-year time frame there were enough layers of soil to prevent contamination of City wells, but it did not reflect a layer strong enough above the 100 foot level to protect the shallow wells on the east side of the creek. Ms., Cabal1 stated it appeared if something of a pollution nature were to happen, in the worst case, it would trickle down through the layers, hit the aquitard that protects the City's wells and then move into the stream. Following the study, the City's deep wells appear to be adequately protected and more of the concern has to do with the shallower wells and in the stream. Mr. Fart expressed his concern that during this discussion the City TAPE #1341 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 17 of 23 has been criticized for not going to the most extreme and costly method to determine the exact make up of the aquitard. To his understanding the only way to get 100% assurance of the composition of the aquitard and its depth was to excavate the entire hillside down to the aquifer. At some point you have to pick a method that will give one the desired level of confidence in the data to be reasonable. He asked Ms. Cahall if she was confident that we have an adequate level of confidence based on the testing procedure? MS. Cabal1 explained the zones were based on hydro-geology, pump tests, etc.. The electro testing helped to reveal what was in between the top and where the aquifer is located. To be 100% sure, many wells would have to be drilled at a cost of $30,000 per well. The electro conductivity test was done based on the professional judgement of the City's consultant, who then wrote the report and the City is confident with the result of that information. Even with that data, the City is still conservative in some of the things being asked in order to protect that area. Mr. Fart stated he appreciated all of the concerns expressed and they do make one think, but the logical ones and criticism based on fact are more appreciated than other more negative type comments. He was particularly concerned about one of the signs displayed on 6th Street by someone not in support of this action, which stated "back room deal", as well as comments made during this hearing that a "special deal was made with a friend of the City's" and gave them a iow ball price. He asked the City Attorney to explain the City's legal method for surplusing property. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, explained there is no State requirement, despite some of the allegations in the lawsuit previously mentioned, on this kind of property as to how you surplus and sell it and is pretty much up to the City Council. This City has developed its own procedures and its own ordinance as to surplus and sale of its own property. The Council is well aware of the different methods under which the City can sell property once it is determined surplus. That ordinance was amended within the past year in order to add "Broker listing" as a possible means of sale. Those are through sealed bid process and it talks about appraisals to determine the fair market value. It can be brokered and it can be negotiated to a particular party under three different situations. The circumstance that qualifies this particular sale for a negotiated sale are recited in the Agenda Bill and those have not changed from the last time Council considered the option sale. It is not a "back room" deal since this is the second public hearing on the subject of surplusing and negotiated sale. Again, the criteria that Council is asked to ratify for a negotiated sale to Mr. Siepke and his wife are that this particular buyer owning Industrial Park zoned property adjacent to the particular sale property consisting of 76 acres would be able to develop it in common as an industrial park, which would have a larger economic impact than if it was sold on the market through a bid process for residential or commercial property TAPE #1341 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 18 of 23 to some other developer. The second criteria unique to this developer is that he agreed to annex that property into the City, which was adjacent to City property. That annexation was actively supported by the purchasers over the past year and that process has now gone through Superior Court and is finalized. As far as the City is concerned, the process of not having to go to bid is perfectly permissible. Mr. ~&rN asked how was the sale price determined? Mr. Bievers explained there has been no change to that portion of the agreement. The fair market value is set by an objectiwe determination through an appraisal. The Anderson Creek Association's attorney asserted during this hearing that perhaps it violated constitutional provisions against lending of the city's credit based on the option mechanism that was approved, somehow tieing this property up with one buyer for 1-3 years. He believed that option on particularly large commercial ventures is not unusual in the development community. He also believes the terms approved by Council and are being asked to approve at this time, are commercially reasonable. He thinks Council needs to recognize the first year option price was not a lot of money, on the other hand, Mr. Sciepko was posting $3,000 that was not refundable on a piece of property that was zoned Forest Management upon which there was an undetermined wellhead protection easement, undermined in scope and restriction that could have basically covered the whole property, it does cover most of the property and basically could have restricted the property to no commercial use. The term of the proposed agreement under discussion will remain the same as the original date of December 1994. Mr. Sciepko will not get another low cost term and has in fact posted the $20,000 for the second option. In addition to the funds, another commercially reasonable term is that Mr. Sciepko, in his feasibility studies for commercial use of the property, those studies and marketing efforts became the property of the City whether or not he bought the property. Council has its own experience with the downtown waterfront property and producing marketing and feasibility studies for large commercial property can be quite expensive. Mr. Neville pointed out Mary Lou Long commented on Article 13 - Hold Harmless section, and asked if this applied just during the three year process of acquiring the property? Mr. Bievers stated he would have to look at the actual Purchase Agreement, which is attached to the agreement, but he would like that provision to survive the option agreement because if you look on the previous page of the agreement you would find the Grantee is holding the City harmless for many of his uses of the property and to defend any suits based on his use of the property. Mr. Neville stated Mrs. Long also stated the money from the sale of the property would go to the Wastewater Fund. Mr. Sievers pointed out the subject property is an asset of the Water Fund and the proceeds from this sale would go to the Water Fund, not the Wastewater Fund, which is TAPE #1341 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 19 of 23 a separate enterprise fund and by State law is required to be kept separate from the Water Fund because it has a different ratepayer base. Mr. Nmvillm stated nothing was mentioned as to what has been done to improve the habitat in Anderson Creek for the salmon. MS. Cahall explained in 1994 the City worked with Trout Unlimited to install a salmon ladder on Anderson Creek and there is a trout rearing facility as well. MT. Nevill~ stated based on the numbers of salmon returning to spawn in Anderson Creek, it appears that ladder is working well. MT. Sievers stated not only is the wellhead protection easement requiring best management practices both during and after development and not only is it dictating those areas will be deemed critical areas for both environmental and city review for any land use, but even if they don't go as planned, the water or any damaging water siltation will not flow into Anderson Creek on the west side of the creek. MT. Montgomery stated there have been a number of statements made during this hearing that a lot of Bremerton City residents were not made aware of this proposed sale. He emphasized people should start reading the local newspaper , listening to Channel 12 and attending City Council meetings if they want to know what is going on in their city. There is no way for the City to write a letter to every single person in the City and advise them as to what will be done tomorrow. It is a shame that a large number of residents in this City aren't even registered voters, and if you don't vote, then you should not have a word to say. He will not listen to anyone who does not vote. If they vote, he'll listen to them; however he may not agree with them. If they don't vote, he does not want to even talk to them, that is how strongly he feels about the right to vote in this country. And, if people don't start exercising that right by attending meetings and becoming informed and voicing their opinions, then what they say means nothing to him. He emphasized those comments reflect his own personal opinion. Mr. Winters stated many things have been stated during this hearing and many acquisitions have been made, be it truth or false. When he became an elected official it really concerned him because he cares about Bremerton and he cares about making changes. Since he took office people walk up to him and say "Bob - no new taxes". In order to make good decisions for the betterment of the City, Council listens to experts, pays for studies and data in an effort to become educated on specific topics. He pointed out Bremerton's population is close to 40,000 and he finds it interesting that 400 people submitted blue cards with comments opposing this proposal, but that does not represent the greater population. Previously, he voted no on this issue. He understands water is as good as gold and must be preserved in order to survive, but at the same time someone will comment "why aren't you doing any development and TAPE #1341 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 20 of 23 making Bremerton better"? It saddened him that pariticpation of the non-voting public and some of the voting public do not fully understand why things get surplused and there are reasons why development needs to take place to build a tax base. Mr. Colvin stated he believes the citizens have a right to voice their opinion whether or not they are registered voters. He questioned if he heard correctly that the SEPA threshold was done after the sale as opposed to being required before the sale? MN. Sievers stated he was sure the environmental review process that went into the City's Comprehensive Plan required environmental review, so the land use designations for industrial parks would have environmental review. The sale of public property is categorically exempt. There are certain options the City has to make them non-exempt, but the City's ordinance does not make them exempt so the sale of property is exempt. ~r. Colvin asked if the City had an obligation for public debate when selling City property? ~r. Sievers explained the public notice requirement in the City's Surplusing Ordinance are intended to invite debate. There are direct mailings to people owing surrounding property, newspaper notices as well as the normal Agenda process to attract people to give their input on these issues. As he mentioned, the Comprehensive Plan amendment may come back before Council, if this proposal is approved, and the zoning issue has not come before the Planning Commission or the City Council and that process will again require an environmental review. Mr. Colvin asked the City Attorney if he attached any significance to the concerns of the Suquamish Tribe? ~r. Sievers stated it seems to him their primary concern has to do with fish habitat in the stream. The proposed zoning is low residential on the west, which is in the surface watershed area. Mr. Colvin noted Mr. McCuddin made a statement that there was a better location for a project of this kind. He then asked Mr. McCuddin to address that point once again. Mr. McCu44in referenced a memorandum dated February 15, 1995, that was in the City's file for the Anderson Creek Proposal, and in it Mr. Hough, the City's Planning Manager, stated: "we could end up with a very unsightly mixture of heavy industry in a very scenic area. It could be another black eye for the City of Bremerton if we allow that to happen. The possibility of over zoning the property that may not be ideally suited to the uses of that zone, is also a concern. If we give this property the least restrictive zoning we have, it would be very difficult to reduce it later on if we determine that a mistake had been made. Considering the takings talk around Olympia these days, over zoning is probably more risky than it has ever been. My preference would be to encourage the type of industrial development that is allowed in our IP zone, or consider a mix of uses and zones through the PUD process, so that we have some control over how the site is developed. The city may TAPE #1341 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 21 of 23 have other sites within its Utility lands that are more suitable for heavy industry. We looked at some sites alonq Old Belfair Hiqhwa¥, west of Gorst, and found sites that are relatively flat, have qood vehicle/truck access, are close to the rail line, close to water service and are less visible to the travelinq public. These kinds of areas should also be considered if we are going to surplus Utility lands for industrial purposes. The study that will be done this year by the Utility Department will identi~y possible surplus lands and should also provide their information on other sites that may be suitable for industrial development. In answer to your oriqinal question, I don't believe that our review of Anderson Creek site has been complete enouqh to lead to any specific zoninq. This site may be more suitable for residential or other uses than for industrial development. I understand we need new industrial sites for jobs, revenue and qeneral economic diversity. If a decision has already been made to plan and zone Anderson Creek for heavy industry, then we will forward that recommendation to the Planninq Commission on February 21." President Huff-Menees asked the City Attorney to address the issue of not having had a determination of "fair market value" prior to the sale. Mr. Sievers it is a binding contract as long as there is a means of determining fair market value. The agreement did and still does call for an MIA appraisal of the property. The only direction was an assumed zoning because obviously Forest Management was not an appropriate highest or best use of the property. The appraisal has been completed within the last two months and it is valued at 2.4 million dollars. Even though the acreage in the original agreement has been greatly reduced, Mr. Sciepko has left the purchase price at that figure simply because the appraisal pointed out they assumed only 150 acres, given the amount of slopes and other critical areas, would be developable. On top of that figure will be the timber evaluation, which has not been completed as of this date. Presi4ent Huff-Menees noted some comments were made with respect to the City's water supply and Ms. Cahall responded to the percentage used from the Anderson Creek wells. However, a statement was made about the Union River and the times when it is silted and not used as a water supply in the summer when there is a drought. She asked Ms. Cahall to verify that information. Ms. Cahall explained the City uses the surface supply as the main supply and augments with the wells as needed. The times the surface supply is not used are when the water becomes cloudy and muddy with silt and the tribidity goes up. She recalls the last drought was in 1985, which was pretty severe and since that time the City has increased its ground water sources and they operate the reservoir on what is called a firm yield, so even under the worst circumstances the City does not dry out the reservoir. In the rare event of a true drought, the #2630 TAPE #1341 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 22 of 23 City puts into effect a drought response plan for the citizens. Mr. Montgomery asked the number of wells providing ground water? Ms. Cahall explained the City has 12 wells. Those wells are located in the Gorst area and north of the City limits. Presi4ent Huff-Menees stated she hoped the issue of a "back room deal" has been laid to rest. The issue for monies for the sewer treatment plant was address by the City Attorney. She emphasized money for the Water Fund has not been addressed as a benefit with respect to this, the greater benefit talked about in conjunction with this area is having to do with business development, diversification and the opportunity for jobs. From that standpoint, this has always been appealing and there was some excitement about the possibility of a particular business locating to that site. Perhaps Council was not as fully informed about that particular business as they would have liked and she regrets that fact. She also regrets her initial vote on this issue. She believes some unfair comments have been made about Mr. and Mrs. Sciepko and from the beginning of this process they have worked in very good faith with the city and worked very hard to address the kind of issues that they were asked to address in terms of sensitivity of the area. When we all began, I don't think we knew enough about the area and steps were taken to correct that situation. No one should fault the Sciepko's for having a business opportunity that will benefit them. The fact that it is a business opportunity that involves an area that is very critical to all of us certainly makes it more open to criticism, but she takes exception to stating that as though it were something wrong. Enterprise is something we embrace in this country along with the right to vote and other things. She also believes Council members were elected to represent all the citizens of Bremerton. She will vote against this issue, but her "no" vote is not that she doesn't have confidence in Mr. and Mrs. Sciepko, but as the months have gone by she examined her own issues with some of the development in the County, which has saddened and alarmed her, and questioned how can she support this kind of development when she has been so critical of developments that have eroded some beautiful and sensitive areas in the County. She believes the watershed was protected for very specific reasons and she also knows that issues have come before the County and this Council where all the precautions have been taken and statements were made about how specific situations that could have adverse affects would not happen, but yet the ending result did not turn out totally positive. She wants business diversification for this City as well as more jobs, but she does not want it at the expense of the watershed. M/S/C(Montgomery/Overson) to declare approximately 168 acres at ~2725 TAPE #1341 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1995 Page 23 of 23 Anderson Creek surplus to the City's needs, and approve Option to Purchase Unimproved Property. Mr. Overson stated he understands the concerns of those against this proposal although most of them are fears. If we don't support developers, such as Mr. Sciepko, this county will die a death worse than the City of Bremerton. We have to support developers because that is the backbone of America and the source of jobs as well as the national quality of living. If you haven't noticed we live at the best standard in the world because of our developers and industrial people, who are willing to take risks. We have gone distances to insure that the risk is minimal to protect the situation and we also need the development in the City. Vote on Motion: In Favor: Overson, Neville, Fart, Montgomery, Dawkins Opposed: Colvin, Winters, Huff-Menees Motion Carried. M/S/C(Montgomery/Overson) to approve the negotiated sale as set forth in Option to Purchase Anderson property. Vote on motion: In Favor: Neville, Farr, Montgomery, Dawkins, Overson, Winters Opposed: Colvin, Huff-Menees Motion carried. With no further business meeting adjourned at 10:07. KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk SHERRIL HUFF-MENEES, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/SH-M/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Appointment to the Parks and Recreation Commission FOR AGENDA OF: January ~. 19Q~ ORIGINATING DEPT: E×~Cllt, iVe ORIGINATOR: M~y~r ~r~nn DATE SUBMITTED: December 26. ]995 2. ~: (comment on back if necessary) 3. ~: Application for Appointment ENDORSEMENT __~ INFORMATION __ APPROVED BY COUNCIL P~ESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: There are vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission. It is recommended Wanda L. Butler be appointed to fill one of the vacancies. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to confirm the appointment of Wanda L. Butler to the Parks and Recreation Commission. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: AMENDED 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Less than full membership on the Commission 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EOUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: N/A 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: N/A CITY OF BREMERTON APPLICATION FOR CITY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEE NOTE: As an applicant for a City Board, Commission or Committee, your name, addre~s, and telephone number will be available to the press and public. You will be contacted before any action is taken on your appointment. (Please type or print clearly) HOME ADDRESS: OCCUPATION: PHONE: ~7'~- ~(~?~ (H) PROFESSIONAL/COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: LOCAL REFERENCES (name & phone number): (w) I AM INTERESTED IN SERVING ON (please check one or more): () () () () () () () Disability Action Committee Civil Service Commission (18 yrs. & older) Urban Forest Committee Cable Communications Advisory Committee Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee V.~, ,~.1~ ~'~, :1 Safe Streets Steering Committee Planning Commission (18 yrs, & older) Parks & Recreation Commission Ethics Commission Parking Advisory Board Solid Waste Management Bremerton Housing Authority ~,~(~,~ v, ~-~)Jp~c~lo, ,~Ou~,,,~p~,,~,i,~ Codes Special Committees as needed Is this an applic~,¼ion for reappointment? ]'.J ~ If yes, how many years hav~ you served on this commission/committee? PLEASE RETURN TO: Mayor's Office 239 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Signature Applications be reviewed periodically to determine continued availability. information may be put on back. Additional pertinent