Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/96 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 239 4TH STREET BREMERTON, WA 98337 CITY COUNCIL ~GENDA MARCH 6, 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 - February 14, 1996 #AB96-045 CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 4. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 5. MAYOR'S REPORT 6. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) NEW BUSINESS A. Evergreen Park Expansion Project -Amendment No. 1 To Professional Services Agreement With Failure Analysis Associates Inc. Be Municipal Court Budget Adjustment - Reorganization #AB96-046 ~ #AB96-047 /~ ORDINANCES A. Ordinance #4546 (Second Reading) Amending The #AB96-044 Bremerton Zoning Ordinance To Better Accommodate Recycling Facilities B. Ordinance (First Reading) Reorganizing The #AB96-048 Hearing Examiner Function GRANTS OFFICE 1995 EFFORTS DEPT PROJECT AMOUNT MATCH STAT AGENCY PW-U CSO PREV ED PW-U WELLHEAD PREV ED PW-U CALLOW CSO-PH 2 PW-U CALLOW CSO-PH 2 PW-U Dyes Inl/Clear Crk PW-E SR3/SR304 BreGrs Rd 1 PW-E SR3/SR304 BreGrs Rd 2 PW-E SR303 Warren MIS PW-E Bike Path Revtzn PW-E SR3/SR304 BreGrs PW-E SR303 Warren MIS PW-E llth Chest/Colby PW-E Cmy Rsp TCalmg Dvcs POL Delq Prevtn TrgSt POL D.A.R.E. Offcr POL Crime Scn/Prop Rm PARK Blueberry Resol PARK Evergreen Resol CDEV West Hills CDEV DT/Theatre DistRev ADMS Bus. Assit Prg ADMS Recyling Sta City ADMS Composting Park Yrd ADMS Urban Dumpster 7,100 6,700 PIE Rnd8 11,500 6,600 PIE Rnd8 2,500,000 1,564,000 FUNDED PWTF 2.8mil 2,500,000 1,564,000 FUNDED CENTENIAL LOAN 38,625 12,875 FUNDED CENTEN'L Grant 3,000,000 406,000 Apprvd PSRC-ISTEA 3,000,000 406,000 98% PSRC-ISTEA 1,000,000 106,100 PSRC-ISTEA 36,000 9,000 ISTEA 1,000,000 406,000 Next STP 1,000,000 106,100 STP 179,O00 36,000 UATA (TIB) 50,000 12,500 CDBG 750,000 75,000 GCCJJ 35,000 29,100 LEEP In process COPS MORE 225,300 225,300 IAC 299,900 299,900 IAC 1,000,000 1,320,000 EDD (3rd) 400,000 0 EDD 2,000 Inkind FUNDED CPG w/ KC 2,000 Inkind FUNDED CPG w/ KC 9,000 Inkind FUNDED CPG w/ KC 19,000 Inkind FUNDED CPG w/ KC Funded Applications: Funds Match PWU CALLOW CSO-PH 2 PWU CALLOW CSO-PH 2 PWU Dyes Inl/Clear Crk PWE SR3/SR304 BreGrs ADMS 4 Solid Waste Prgms 2,844,000 0 FUND 1,220,000 0 FUND 38,625 12,875 FUND 2,000,000 406,000 98% 15,186 10,120 FUND PWTF LOAN CENTENIAL LOAN CENTEN'L Grant PSRC-ISTEA Rd2 CPG w/ KC $6,546,806 6,117,811 428,995 Callow Avenue Basin CSO Separation funded by 2 agencies, Public Works Trust Fund & Centennial. PWTF awarded more than we applied for, & Engineering intends to leverage the funds, so funded amounts are different than applied & no City match is committed. SR3/SR304 scored 98 (top) & was funded; but money moved to ferries. Dyes Inlet/Clear Creek was funded for stated amounts, this project is multiagency with the County. SR3/SR304 may receive funding from STP depending on amount needed to fund previous projects & other overruns. It is the next listed project after the anticipated appropriation ran out. The applications with Kitsap County for the CPG program, were funded at 56% of applied, from State Solid Waste funds. Mr. Neville, with due respect, you recommended the consent agenda of February $~, be approved as read. The Official Publication of the Ordinance, as ambiguous as it is, was in the Sun March 4. Can you find it within your conscience to correct two statements that you made Wednesday, February 28 as clarifications to the viewing public? (1) You stated, "and we have addressed the Residential Permit areas where motor homes are NOT allowed." I am positive ordinance 4543 only restricted vehicles exceeding 10,000 pounds from those districts. A motor home is a motorized vehicle. (2) The Mayor, Ms. McCluskey, and I stated there was a second reading on February 14, passed and later rescinded for two weeks. You did not retract your statement, "this is the second reading, there has not been a previous incorrect, information should clarification. reading." I feel correct, not be provided the public "for For information, with one simple phone call this past Monday, I found a popular brand mobile home mounted on a Chevrolet frame. It has deluxe interior, 22 foot in length, with a registered gross weight of 10,200 pound. It is available about a 20 minute drive from Bremerton. The furnishings could be reduced by 200 pounds with very little reduction of luxury. Mr. Overson, if you are listening, I appreciate the message you passed to me through President Law. I hope that we can again work together for the good of the City. Andy Parypa 1. SUBJECT: MINUTES - AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 14', 1996 FOR AGENDA OF: March 6, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Council ORIGINATOR: 3ohn E. Law DATE SUBMITTED: 3-1-96 2. CLEAi~ANCES: (comment on back if necessary) MINUTES WILL BE DISTRIBUTED ON MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1996 ENDORSEMENT__ INFORMATION__ APPROVED BY COUNCIL~ /~ ~-~~P~?~--N,T FOR SUBMITTAL& 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR'COUNCIL ACTION: 8. RECOM}4ENDATION: 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE: DED TAPE #1355 UNAPPROVED DRAFT COUNCIL APPROVF. D MAR .. !99 CITY COUNCIL ~EETING MINUTEB FEBRUARY 14. 1996 #0031 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, February 14, 1996, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present were Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Cecil McConnell, Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees, David Farr and Lon Overson. Councilman Richard Neville was absent. Also present were city Attorney Ian Sievers and city Clerk Kathy McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Law and Invocation given by Councilman A1 Colvin. CON8ENT AGEND~ A. Minutes of Meeting - January 24, 1996, #AB96-032 B. Minutes of Meeting - January 31, 1996, #AB96-033 M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees/Montgomery) presented. to approve Consent Agenda as COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Overson extended best wishes to Councilman Neville, who experienced health problems. On February 7 and 8 he attended the AWC Legislative Conference, which he found to be a great educational experience. He emphasized the legislators are hard working individuals serving their constituents. Mr. Fart reported he attend Congressman Norm Dick's Town Meeting on Tuesday evening, which was well attended with a standing room only crowd. He hoped such future meetings could be held in a larger facility in order to handle the large turn out. He was impressed with the way Congressman Dicks answered questions from those in the audience. It was also an event that would have merited being televised on the local access channel. Mrs. Euff-Me~ee~ echoed Mr. Fart's comments regarding televising Congressman Dicks' TownMeetings. She too extended get well wishes to Councilman Neville. Mr. Montgomery echoed get well wishes to Councilman Neville. Mr. McConn~11 reported on his District 2 Neighborhood meeting, held on February 13, which was pretty well attended. He and those attending that meeting were quite impressed with the information TAPE #1355 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 2 of 29 provided by Randy Witt, City Engineer and Bob Tulp, Public Works Operations Manager, on City street issues as well as the sewer treatment plant. He also extended best wishes to Councilman Neville for a speedy recovery. Mr. Colvi~ echoed get well wishes for Councilman Neville. He also attended the AWC Legislative Conference and was very impressed by Attorney General Christine Gregoire. He was so impressed with her that he conveyed to her that she belonged in Washington D.C., because what she had to say was good for the entire nation. Mr. Winters thanked Congressman Norm Dicks for holding the Town Meeting and directly answering the publics' concerns, remarks and opinions on the "do's and don'ts of government". He was pleased to report the Daddy Daughter Dance, held on February 10, was very successful and he was pleased to be part of the First Annual Daddy Daughter Dance. He attended his first Cable Communications Committee meeting and will have a report next week regarding that meeting. He asked the residents of Bremerton to please be patient regarding what is taking place in Cable franchising. He extended "Happy Valentines Day" wishes to his wife and Mother, as well as those in the viewing audience. Mr. Law announced District #3 Neighborhood Meeting will be held February 20, 7:00 P.M., at the Senior Center. The main speaker for that meeting will be Russ Hauge, Kitsap County Prosecutor. Mayor,s Report Mayor Horton reported she just returned from giving testimony in Olympia. She announced the Bremerton Police Department passed accreditation and are one of the few in the State having met that goal. She extended compliments to Chief DuFresne, Captain Hatfield, Captain Rodgers, Lt. Forges and everyone else involved with that process. She was pleased to report new garbage cans have replaced the green containers in the downtown area and the old receptacles will be used in some of the less heavily used City park areas. Today, she attended the following events: (1) a Volunteer Fair at Bremerton High School where local groups needing volunteers had an opportunity to share their programs with students and solicit their assistance. The High School is offering one credit for 90-hours of community service. She thanked all of those involved in putting on the Volunteer Fair during school time. (2) A presentation at the Kitsap Regional Library where they learned about library services and their LINKNET program. (3) She and several City staff members were challenged to a rousing game of badminton by the Senior Center seniors. She also wished Councilman Neville a speedy recovery. PUBLIC RECOGNITION TAPE #1355 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 3 of 29 Charleen Burnet~, Parks and Recreation Department, reported on the very successful Daddy Daughter Dance held on February 10, and thanked Councilman Winters for his assistance at that event. Peter Myers, 4317 D Street, accused the City of non-negotiations with his representative about sale of his property in the condemnation area near the sewer treatment plant. Ed pietr&s - Black History Month Parade - February 17 at Sub Base Bangor - Unity Banquet/February 24, 6:00 P.M., at the CMO Club at Sub Bangor Base. Jo¥ce Libsack - The Association Of Retired Federal Employees (NARF) is sponsoring free Income Tax Counseling for the elderly at the Sheridan Park Community Center Monday through Friday 12:00 - 4:00 P.M. Don Larson, President Washington Scuba Alliance - complimented the City on the new garbage cans placed downtown. Kitsap Diving Association meeting - February 15, 7:00 P.M., at the Department Of Transportation Building in Port Orchard off of Hwy. 16/Mullenix Interchange. Earth Day Events - Annual Sinclair Inlet Clean Up/Marine Fair on April 20, 12:00 - 3:00 P.M., at the First Street Dock. Mr. Larson would like to work out a way to resolve the problem of volunteers getting parking tickets on the day of the clean up. The Department Of Ecology is backing down on their assistance to Earth Day events this year due to budgetary problems, so they will be looking for assistance from other local groups/agencies. April 15-26 the Naval Underwater Museum will have a tele presentation from Key Largo, Florida, which is primarily for children. The contact person for that presentation is Lt. CDR Hill (360) 396-6460 or Joyce Jensen (360) 396-4148. Kitsap Water Festival will be held March 22, at Olympic College. John Thomas - commented on the very successful Daddy-Daughter Dance. Patrick Hirsch, BCAT, reported he had not been requested to televise Congressman Dicks' Town Meeting. Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association - St. Patrick's Day Parade - March 16, 1996, 11:00 A.M. Gord¥ Byrd - commented on Congressman Dicks' Town Meeting and was continuing his fund-raising for the Byrds' Nest project. 7A - ONE YE~%R yMCA NEMBERSH~P FOR ALL QUALIFIED CITY EMPLOYEES. ~AB96-034 For the past nine months the Wellness Committee has devoted its TAPE #1355 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 4 of 29 time to developing a health/fitness program for all City employees. Program goals included a cost effective program that provided a benefit for all employees. The YMCA was selected due to the quality and level of services provided for the employees and their families. Some of these services include: centrally located facility; reasonable rates for family members to join, well rounded family facility that includes family and youth programs for all Y members at little or no cost (scholarships for low income are available); use of the City pool; and reciprocating memberships with other YMCAs. Ordinance #4514 allows expenditures from the Employee Medical Insurance Reserve Fund for employee wellness programs, subject to the budgetary authorization of the City Council. Ma¥or L~nn Horton pointed out a Health Reserve Account is earmarked for off-setting increasing health care premiums and can be used for things such as vision care, orthodontics dental care or in this capacity for membership to the YMCA. The City spends approximately $400-450,000 yearly out of the Health Reserve Fund. If the usage of the health care system can be reduced by even 10%, that means the City will be able to recover the $30,000 allocated for the wellness program plus the added benefit of having healthier employees. The Administration will monitor usage of the health benefits and the kinds of disabilities occurring to see if this program is working. At the end of the one-year term, the program will be evaluated as to its effectiveness and a recommendation forwarded to Council either to continue the program, modify it, or to cease the program. Wellness is something that is on all corporations minds and the Association Of Washington Cities has been promoting wellness and wellness programs over the last several years because they recognize the cost of health care. Mary Blanchard, Human Resources specialist, talked about they Employee Medical Insurance Reserve Fund. The current balance of this fund is approximately $538,000. The ordinance creating this fund places the following restrictions on its use: (1) off set future increases in employee medical benefits; (2) fund additional employee medical benefits; (3) fund an employee wellness program; (4) pay for stop loss coverage claims processing or other costs associated with the administration of the City's medical insurance program; (5) and/or for any other health related purposes. This ordinance also stipulates that expenditures from the fund shall be consistent with provisions of all collective bargaining agreements between the City and its employees. She pointed out the proposal is consistent with that provision. This proposal is being recommended to the City Council by the Wellness Committee and the Insurance Benefit Committee, which are comprised of representatives from City Unions as well as non-represented employees. TAPE #1355 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 5 of 29 In 1995, a survey was conducted among all City employees and the results of that survey strongly indicated a desire from the employees for some type of health fitness program. Out of 310 employees, 145 responded and 127 indicated they would take advantage of a health fitness program, if offered. This amounts to approximately 40% of the City's work force. The YMCA was selected based on the fact the Wellness Committee felt it provided a well rounded family facility and conveniently located to most work sites. The YMCA membership allow use of the City's swimming pool, offers a wide variety of family and youth programs at either low or no cost to members, provides reciprocating membership at other YMCAs, provide low-income scholarships and reasonable spouse and child rates. This proposal is only one element of the Wellness program. Other activities undertaken by the Wellness Committee in 1996, include: smoking cessation program, noon time nutrition workshops, blood pressure screening and a wise health care consumer workshop. Approximately 100 other cities throughout Washington currently have wellness programs in place or have employee health promotion programs. In the past 10 years, the Association of Washington cities has strongly encouraged and promoted the purpose of wellness programs in the work place. The City has recently applied for a grant through AWC to allow the City to provide ongoing wellness activities. The following individuals spoke in opposition to this proposal and cited their reasons as listed: Deborah Chard, Bremerton resident, Richard Boe, representing Bremerton Health & Raquet Club, Inc.,~ar~ Covington, Manager of the Bremerton Tennis and Athletic Club; Mark McDaniel, Manager Kitsap Gym & Racquet Club; Bli~abeth B~ell, High Avenue. (1) cautioned the City Council to give this issue a closer look considering the possibility of greater annual increases to health insurance premiums. (2) concerned that this proposal will adversely affect The Bremerton Health & Racquet Club; (3) legal concerns over the process of selection of the YMCA; (4) only a small percentage of City employees will continue their participation at the "Y" past a two month period and would result in throwing needless money away. (4) Most people participate in or attend a fitness club on the basis of convenience and close to where they live, not generally where they work. (5) Imprudent use of taxpayer dollars to pay for services not rendered and it would be more prudent to use those funds on the pay for service basis. (6) YMCA does not pay any sales taxes and private health clubs do. (7) It is a waste of money. The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposal: Charlene B~rnett, Parks & Recreation Department employee; TAPE #1355 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 6 of 29 Terrie O,Neill, Municipal Services Coordinator; Ron Belden, City employee and member of the Wellness Committee; John P&yne, Bremerton Fire Department; Paul Lucas, City employee and member of the Wellness Committee; Pat McGanney President Bremerton Fire Fighters' Union. Comments in support: (1) preferred having the opportunity to use a health facility closer to a work place. (2) The Wellness Committee will monitor the program closely and the employee must participate at a minimum of 8 times per month. (3) Once was a member of the YMCA, but had to suspend her membership due to the cost. (4) Use of the YMCA facilities helped reduce stress. (4) Found various facilities closer to residents had higher costs than those offered by the YMCA. (5) Not all health club type facilities offer family programs. (6) The City is putting its faith in the City employees, hopeful they won't let the City down. (7) Fellow employees can encourage each other to continue using the "Y" facilities. (8) The Wellness Committee took a lot of time and effort in developing this proposal, which was supported unanimously by Committee members. (9) Fire Fighters Union gives their total support for this proposal. Mr. Boe stated regardless of those speaking in favor of the program and the Wellness Committee, the bottom line is of the 300 employees how many will actually use the YMCA membership? He believed the proposed approach is all wrong. Jim Meith, Human Resources Manager, stated the Wellness Committee looked at the concept of giving some type of voucher to the employees. Administratively, they determined that would be a cumbersome process to handle through the Payroll Department. The funding source is money already set aside for this kind of purpose. He is very aware that the proposed program needs to be assessed and as part of that the employees will be asked to sign an agreement that they will participate at least 8 times per month and the generated activity will be monitored closely. He believes all the questions raised had been looked into. Mayor Horton stated in response to Mrs. Chard's comments about holding this money in abeyance in the event of an increase in future premiums, the City's premiums are based on the number of claims for the preceding year. If the number of claims can be reduced, then the premium costs can be ramped down. Approximately six years ago, the City was part of the AWC Insurance Pool and at that time the City felt y premium costs could be handled better if the City was self-insured. The City chose to enroll with KPS and Group Health, which has proven very successful in keeping premium rates down and resulted in the large health benefits reserve balance. The Wellness Committee is an employee committee and since their inception she has not interjected her views. The Committee took it upon themselves to research the issue. The Committee is #2335 TAPE #1355 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 7 of 29 made up of a lot of thoughtful people and she supports their recommendation and urged Council's approval. Mrs. Chard stated she believed the 35% increase in premiums she mentioned would happen whether or not the City was self-insured. She suggested reimbursing City employees if they complete a year in some type of wellness program. M/S/C(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) to approve the expenditure of $30,000 from the Employee Medical Insurance Reserve Fund to pay for the cost of a YMCA membership for all "regular" full and part time City employees and officials beginning March 1, 1996 - February 18, 1997. Expenditure to be paid in monthly installments of $2,500 per month and authorize the Mayor to sign the Group Membership Agreement. Mr. Winters asked how along ago the employee survey was taken that resulted in 145 responses? Ms. Blanchar4 stated in September 1995. Mr. Winters asked as clarification of the 145 responding were 127 in favor? Ms. Blanchar4 stated yes. Mr. Winters noted those figures are different than those given by the two gentlemen from the health clubs. He also asked how much do City employees pay out of their paychecks into this fund monthly? Ms. Blanchar4 explained employees pay $7.00 per dependent up to a maximum of $21.00 per month. Mr. Winters asked how much annually goes into that fund and how many years have the employees been paying into the fund?. Ms. Blanchard stated that figure would vary and she did not have an annual figure. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, gave a guess of $20,000, and the employees have been contributing for the past six years. Mr. Winters stated he would feel a lot better if 310 employees had responded to the survey and it concerned him that only half of all the City employees indicated they wished to actively pursue health fitness. Ms. Blanohar4 stated she felt getting a 47% response from a survey was an excellent response. Mr. Colvin questioned if the City might save a lot more money covering costs for fitness programs for those employees actively pursuing such activity. He asked the current cost for a membership at the YMCA? Ms. Blanchar4 responded $32.00 per month per person. Mr. Parr asked if the Wellness Committee conducted site visits as part of their selection criteria? Ms. Blanchar4 stated most of the criteria was spent on employee input. They were looking for a facility that was close to work sites as well as a program that offered family participation as well. The Committee also felt the City's swimming pool is an excellent facility and the membership provides use of that pool. Another attractive feature was the "Y" offered reciprocating memberships and that they provided reasonable child and spouse rates (spouse - $17.00/month; child-$5.00/month). TAPE #1355 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 8 of 29 Mr. overson stated he believes everyone endorses the program and the Committee and Ms. Blanchard have done an excellent job and the questions appear to be revolving around implementation. The document presented by Mr. McDaniels gives four ways to determine the value or return on investment in such a program and points out experience shows approximately $500.00 returned per employee who participates in such a program. He felt strongly that there will be a return on the investment and taxpayers will get more back than they will be investing. If this proposal does not pass, he recommended one additional survey be taken, which would provide a more broad selection of organization that the City feels could provide all the needed facilities for this kind of program. If the response from that survey indicated four facilities were the most popular, then possibly the $30,000 could be divided among those groups. Mrs. Huff-Menees pointed out there was some validity to some of Mr. Overson's comment; however the proposed program is a recommendation as a result of several months of study from City employees, based on their belief that the YMCA was the best facility to meet the employees' needs. She commended the Wellness Committee for the work that they did to come up with this proposal and urged Council's approval. Mr. Winters read into the record Councilman Neville's comments regarding this issue: "Mr. Neville is not only in favor of the proposal, but supports it very strongly." Vote on motion: In Favor: Fart, Huff-Menees, Montgomery, McConnell, Colvin, Winters, Law Motion carried. opposed: Overson #3079 8A - ORDINANCE ~4543 (SECOND REHDING) RESTRICTING STORAGE OF OVERSIZE VEHICLES~ ~HB96-030 President Law explained this item was presented at the previous Council meet and not everyone present at this meeting were present during first reading of the ordinance. He assured the public that those not present at the previous reading had reviewed the video tape of the meeting and would be seated on this issue. Public comment - none. M/S/C(Montgomery/Winters) to pass ordinance restricting parking oversized vehicles over 10,000 lbs., or 22 feet in length to 120 hours within any 30 day period and that we do not exclude motor TAPE #1355 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 9 of 29 homes. Mr. Overson called for a point of order and asked if it was appropriate to propose a modification on second reading? Ian sievers, city Attorney, stated yes, since there is the possibility of Council members getting input from constituents between the first and second reading. The only thing that cannot be done on second reading is to introduce a new subject. Mr. Overson expressed concern that members of the public, who own motor homes, would not have an opportunity to address this amendment at this time and felt they should have the opportunity give their input into this matter. Mr. Mont~omer~stated his motion just stated his same position on this issue as he commented at the previous Council meeting. Mr. Sievers stated the second way Mr. Montgomery phrased the motion was more accurate, in other words, the prohibition of long term storage of oversized vehicle would include motor homes. Mr. Overson stated then Mr. Sievers is saying the motion passed on first reading struck the term motor homes in the last sentence? TAPE #1356 Mr. Sievers stated no, he thought Mr. Montgomery made that comment during the discussion prior to the vote on first reading of the ordinance. Mr. Montgomery stated at the previous meeting Mr. Neville made the motion to accept the ordinance as written and Mr. Montgomery voted in opposition to that motion. Mr. Overson stated if Mr. Montgomery's motion did not pass, then Council could pass the motion as made at the time of first reading. Mr. Colvin called for a point of order and asked the City Attorney if the motion just made by Mr. Montgomery changed the second reading of the motion? Mr. Sievers stated Mr. Montgomery wishes to make an amendment to the ordinance on second reading. Mr. Colvin asked if that should revert back to the first reading of the ordinance? Mr. SieveNs stated Council can still make changes to an ordinance on second reading. It went through one form on first reading and now there is a motion on the floor to change the ordinance and modify it to some extent. As long as it is still dealing with the same legislative subject matter, amendments can be made. Mr. Colvin stated he believes the subject matter has changed by including motor homes and asked if he was correct? Mr. Sievers stated that depends on how narrow the subject matter is defined. The subject matter is oversized vehicles and storage in rights-of-ways. There were some exceptions written in and now Mr. Montgomery's motion proposes to take out an exception. President Law suggested for clarification Mr. Montgomery might like to read the change he is proposing. Mr. Mont~omerv referenced the last page of the ordinance, 7th line down from the top - deleting the words "except motor homes"; and that the last sentence under TAPE #1356 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 10 of 29 Section 3 - Amendment - be stricken which reads: "As used in this secton motor homes are vehicles, originally manufactured as a recreationa%.vehicle, which do not reuuire a special permit for hiqhway trave%." Mr. Owerson pointed out Ms. Goodell did a lot of work developing this ordinance, studied the issue and proposed it as written. Last week input was given by the public indicating they were glad to see motor homes excepted. He recommended to the Council that they vote against the motion so that action can be taken to pass the ordinance as approved on first reading. Mr. Colvin stated he supported Councilman Overson's comment in order to give members of the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment to the motion; and he would not support Mr. Montgomery's motion. Presi4e~t Law stated there was one other option available and that would be to make a motion to table the item. Mr. Colvi~ asked the City Clerk if that was an option to Council? K&thlee~ McCluske~, City Clerk, pointed out a motion has been made and on the floor and the "question" had been called. Council could vote down the motion and the issue could be tabled. Vote on Moton: In Favor: Huff-Menees, Montgomery, McConnell, Winters, Farr, Law Motion carried. Opposed: Colvin, Overson 9B - PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION ~2535 REGARDING RECOVERY OF FEES FOR THE REMOVAL OF GARBAGE ON THE PROPERTY AT 1340 HAYWARD ~VENUE. ~AB96-011 On 11/29/95, the City was forced to remove garbage and debris from the property located at 1340 Hayward Avenue, after the owner, Daniel C. Stenson, failed to obey a Notice and Order To Remove Refuse within 72 hours. The abatement fund was charged $319.80 for the work. President Law asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Janet Lunceford, Building Department, stated neighbors of the subject site filed a complaint on October 17, 1995, about garbage and debris strewn around the site and the house appeared abandoned. When she inspected the site on October 23, she found the area littered with debris and learned that the owner had walked away from the property, which was recently foreclosed. The owner did not receive any of the notices sent by the City, which resulted in no action. Therefore, since there was no action the City conducted a clean up of the site on November 28, and now the property has been taken over by the VA. #0205 TAPE #1356 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 11 of 29 Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to pass Resolution #2535 and order that the fees incurred for the abatement of garbage and debris at 1340 Hayward Avenue be collected as reasonable abatement costs, and become a personal obligation against the owner of the property, Daniel C. Stenson, which if not collected within 30 days will become a lien against the property. 9A - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - TR~CYTON BEACH PRE-]%NNE~AT~ON ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION; AND ORDINANCE (FIRST RE~DING). %~B96-031 President Law asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict of Interest" question. Mr. Winters stated for the record that he received a telephone call today from Dwight Nichols. Since Mr. Nichols expressed an opinion on this issue, Mr. Winters would step down if the public felt there was an appearance of fairness issue, but he felt he could still vote fairly. Tom O,Hare, Attorney for Mr. Vegeer, stated he was concerned about conversations that Mr. Colvin may have had with constituents on this subject. Mr. Colvin stated he received requests from the public to come and view the area in question, which he did. He has not offered any opinion to those constituents, and he has not yet made any decision in any manner. He also received a letter on this issue, which he referred to the City Clerk. Mr. Fart asked for clarification of a potential conflict of interest on an incident in the past when he sold a house to an investment group, which included Mr. Vegeer. Mr. Sievers stated that was a closed transaction and wouldn't present any appearance of fairness problems. President Law stated there has been a lot of attention on this matter, and all Council members probably received at least one letter, which were given to the City Clerk. Mrs. Huff-Menees stated she received two phone calls on this issue, but she offered no comments. Mr. Montgomery stated he visited the site, but talked to no one on this issue. Mr. McConne~l stated he received a phone call, and offered no opinion or comment. He cautioned the public on contacting the Council members prior to a hearing on a land use issue, because there is the possibility of causing a member to have to step down. Ail opinions should be expressed at the podium at the City Council TAPE #1356 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 12 of 29 meeting. Mr. Sievers stated there is a state statute that deals with the appearance of fairness and land use issues like this, and it does allow exparte contact with opponents and proponents, as long as it is disclosed prior to the hearing and the substance of the conversation is stated. He agrees with Mr. McConnell's comments, however, he hoped the public would not take it as rudeness if a Council member will not discuss an issue with them because they are acting on legal advice Mr. Overson stated he has also had conversations with people on this issue, but believes all discussions were within the content of information already printed in the Council Agenda packets. Joy Beckle¥, citizen, brought up an incident, but it was stated this was not an appearance of fairness issue. For the record, all Council members were seated following discussion of issues relating to possible appearance of fairness/conflict of interest. Ron Hough, City Planning Manager, stated this item is a continued public hearing from February 7, where he gave a formal presentation · He then gave an additional abbreviated presentation emphasizing the main objective is to apply the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Designation and a City zone to the area in question, which is being called the Tracyton Beach Annexation area. The Planning Commission held a hearing on this issue, and have made their recommendation to the City Council. The Planning staff originally recommended Single Family-3 because of land use efficiency, primarily availability of urban public services, and it was more consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives to allow higher density, with lower density in the rural areas. The current zoning in the County would be the next step up, Urban Residential-6. The current recommendation from the Planning staff, following the Planning Commission meeting, is for Council to approve, on first reading and pass on second reading, the ordinance adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Bremerton Planning Commission for Low DensitY Residential, and Single Family-2 zoning. This density is stated to be the more typical of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Montgomery asked for a clarification of the number of lots shown on the map and those listed in the packet. Mr. Hough identified a couple of "unknown" lots listed with the County Assessor that are just "slivers" of land. TAPE #1356 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Febrl/ary 14, 1996 Page 13 of 29 Mr. McConne11 asked the distance between Tracyton Beach Road and the water line. Mr. Hough stated approximately 50 feet. Kathy MoCluske¥, City Clerk, announced a packet of information provided by Mr. Vergeer and his attorney, Mr. O'Hare would be passed out to Council members. She then read letters into the record from the following individuals: Violet Krone-Peters, 124 E. 31st Street; Joy L. Be~k~eY, 2720 Tracyton Beach Road; Ri~h&r~ & Charlotte D'~%~ico, 307 E. 30th Street; Betty Lou Mu11~y, 319 E 29th Street; Violet E. Scott, 2824 Tracyton Beach Road; Haro14 James, 2779 Tracyton Beach Road. The above individuals raised the following concerns: (1) High density would indicate very small, low cost dwellings would be constructed, which would decrease valuations of neighboring properties; (2) increased traffic creating new hazards; (3) existing water drainage problem; (4) addressing existing wetland areas; (5) SF-2 zoning more appropriate to blend in with surrounding area; (6) increase in crime/drug activities; (7) pets will run loose in open territory. Barry Keenan, Project Manager, discussed items from the Growth Management Act, and Vision 2020. For clarification, he stated the current Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is 9 units per acre and is currently zoned in the County at 6 units per acre. Kitsap County will suggest that the property be rezoned to UR-9, if it is developed in the County, to match the surrounding areas. The present owner of the property has filed for a rezone in the County that would yield 10-19 units per acre. In 1995, the City of Bremerton revised their 1986 Comprehensive Plan to bring it into compliance with the State Growth Management Act (GMA). The following goals of the original State plan call for a 5-part strategy to manage growth, and they feel that the property use they are proposing follows these guidelines: (1) In order to achieve a higher level of home ownership. (2) Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land and sprawling, low-density development. (3) Ensure that sufficient land areas are available and appropriate zoning is in place to allow the level of new development that is needed to accommodate Bremerton's 20-year plan. (4) Adjust development development that is valuable urban land. guidelines and regulations to prevent inappropriately low, that might waste (5) Promote the concept of development clustering to conserve TAPE #1356 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 14 of 29 energy, save land, lower public costs, reduce sprawl, and provide open space. (6) Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments. (7) Promote a variety of residential densities and housing types and encourage preservation of existing housing. Dave Smith, discussed and addressed issues raised at the last Planning Commission meeting, and their conclusions as follows: (1) Impact of traffic that may occur on East 29th Street, sinc~ that is likely to be the main access to the development. He stated that the road simply has to meet City Standards for a "sub-collector" street, which it does. This allows up to an average of 1000 daily car trips. Their calculations show that one home uses an average of 10 trips per day, meaning this street could handle up to a maximum density of 100 units. There are currently 16 homes on East 29th Street. (2) Decrease in values to current homes and property. The homes to be built will be priced at approximately the same value or greater than adjoining lots. (3) View Impact. He questioned whether this is relevant, but views will be impacted regardless of the density. (4) Higher density causes lower quality design. He stated this is not true, higher density has nothing to do with quality of design, and cited examples of other developments with high density, and also high value. It was further pointed out by Mr. Vergeer that the homes on this property will be superior in construction, insulation, and design to those on adjoining properties. (5) Impact on schools. He stated Armin Jahr Elementary School is overcrowded, but this is due to the temporary assignment of students from Crown Hill while their new school is being built. It is a financial benefit to a school to be near capacity. (6) Impact on sewers. The overall population of Bremerton has drifted down slightly over the last 10 years, so there is plenty of capacity in the existing sewers. More ratepayers could possibly lower rate bills of existing customers. (7) Impact on tax revenues will be beneficial because no ~ncrea~e in public services w~ll be required for these additional TAPE #1356 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 15 of 29 homes. Encouraging home ownership will help create a trend of increasing tenancy in the City. Dave BerH~ist, discussed neighborhood impact. He understands how emotionally disruptive it can be to have new development next door, and it is normal to fear the worst. However, it is his experience that in every case he has been involved in, he can look back and see the neighbors' fears were abated, and their property values unharmed. He cited examples of other developments to support this point. Also, property values throughout the County are being devastated by substantial down-zoning as a result of the mandates of the Hearings Board and the Growth Management Act. Cities have successfully argued to the state that they have the infrastructure, the necessary infill sights, and the right to accommodate the coming growth with denser development. This would give Bremerton the opportunity it desperately needs to rebuild its population base. Mike Brown gave a general overview and raised some additional points: - Even though there was a large crowd in attendance tonight, he felt his group represented a much larger crowd who were not in attendance, those who might now possibly afford ownership of a home. It was an honorable decision of Mr. Vergeer to handle this process through the annexation and PUD process within the City, in an effort to bring the citizens, who are impacted by this project, together in the "information loop". Ail technical issues, such as stormwater run-off, are questions that many hours and many dollars will be spent to answer before they even get to the question of how the project is actually developed, and will be done at a later date. - The sole question tonight is density. Ail members of the development team are from this area, and care about improving the local communities. Tom O'Hare, Attorney for Mr. Vergeer, elaborated on points given previously by the project development group. He did point out that out of the 15 acres being annexed, only 10 acres are considered for development; and that East 28th Street can be considered as an alternate route. Ron Ross, Developer, stated he has tried for years to develop in the City of Bremerton, but has not been able to find suitable land. The City is favorable to developers because it has sewers, water, TAPE #1356 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 16 of 29 and density. He feels it would be practical to allow the annexation of the property at the density that is comparable to the neighboring density. Most importantly, it would give the City the control of the property. He too, brought up points from the Growth Management Act, and the City's plan, and the need for new homes just to replace current, deteriorating homes. TAPE #1357 Gerald S. Vergeer, Jr., owner of the property stated the proposed Tracyton Beach Annexation area, for all intents and purposes, is already a part of Bremerton. The annexation would recognize formally what already is fact. The issue is to what degree of density should the property be annexed. The property currently has the density designation of up to 9 units per acre, because the property has an existing infrastructure to support that density. He talked about a nearby large-lot development with lower density, and all the economic problems now being experienced. To have a quality, affordable housing development, he asked Council to approve the SF-3 zoning. Jo¥ce Libsaok, Alta Drive resident, stated her neighborhood is one of the lowest density areas, and also abuts the project area. She brought up the fact that Sheridan Hills is one home per acre. She also pointed out the fact that all of the present homes were built by professional builders, and none of them got the drainage problem right the first time. Art Castle, Executive Vice President for Home Builders Association of Kitsap County, stated because of the Growth Management Act, the route the cities must now take for the direction of new housing is going to be small lot urban housing developments. Lynda Gibbs, Schlagel Lane, a resident of this area for 20 years, stated the developers are following the Comprehensive Plan and using the present infrastructure to its full potential. She agrees with all information presented so far, and thinks the SF-3 zoning would be the best for the community. Vivian Bodle, Land Use Chair for the Kitsap County Association of Realtors, supported any plan that brings quality, affordable homes to citizens. The Navy will take their families where there are decent, affordable homes, and Kitsap County needs to offer that kind of housing. We also need to make sure our own children and grandchildren have decent, affordable homes. Doug Berger, representative for the neighbors, stated a petition with over 70 names was submitted in support of the Planning Commission's decision for the zoning density SF-2. Major points to TAPE #1357 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 17 of 29 support this are: (1) SF-2 density could achieve most of the goals for the developers anyway, with the bonus densities that are possible. (2) The density issue is the only point of control the neighbors feel they have in making sure the developers do not go well beyond what they indicated up to this point. (3) Even though other developments in the area are zoned at SF-3, the actual lot sizes are more consistent with SF-2. (4) Residents feel that Bremerton already has more than its fair share of low cost housing, and rather than develop new high density housing, the developers could re-develop some of the existing areas in West Bremerton that are in sad need of attention. (5) This property was originally in the County, so shouldn't have been included in the City's plan for the Vision 2020, but should be considered a "bonus". Ian Sievers, City Attorney, was asked for a Point of Order on presenting visuals, such as pictures, or new documents such as newspaper articles to Council, when they were not presented to the Planning Commission on the same issue. It was stated that all the newspaper articles were printed since the Planning Commission Hearing, and the rules say that if there is a reason why an article couldn't have been produced for the Planning Commission, Council can consider them now, if they want to. However, the property tax statements were of record and available when the Planning Commission met, so shouldn't be admitted as part of the record tonight. Entering a law that has been passed, such as the Comprehensive Plan of the County or the City, should not be a problem. He further explained procedurally we don't restrict people from submitting a letter and testifying. The following individuals expressed their concerns: Beth McConaughy, 2938 Pawnee Drive; Jim McDonald, 2944 Pawnee Drive NE; John McConnell, 313 E. 28th Street; Jerome Nelson, 2932 Pawnee Drive; Stephen O. Herkert, 2929 Pawnee Drive; Dwight Mickels, 129 E. 31st Street; Gar~ Clauson, 123 Alta; Audrey Boyer, 5625 Ocean View Blvd. NE; Dick Eskridge, 2720 Tracyton Beach Road NW; Michael Forney, 320 East 28th Street; Barbara Kluqe, 312 E. 29th Street. Issues of concern raised by the above named individuals are as follows: (1) Higher density as proposed is not consistent with the lot sizes of the surrounding neighborhoods, or the "character" of the existing neighborhoods. (2) Lack of adequate roads to the area. Access to the development from East 29th Street, and possibly Tracyton Beach Road is insufficient. (3) Severe water and drainage problems are known to already exist in the area, which has very steep slopes. (4) High density would indicate that very small iow- cost dwellings would be constructed, which would decrease the valuations of neighboring properties. (5) The development is open, flat ground, and there is little to buffer the development from the existing neighborhood. (6)Increase in traffic. (7) Increase in crime. (8) Increase in noise. (9) Smaller lots means smaller TAPE #1357 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 18 of 29 yards. (10) Lack of parking. (11) Environmental impact concerns. (12) View blockage. (13) Adverse affect on wildlife; (14) There is support for SF-2 zoning designation. (15) There is support for annexation of the subject area. (16) An Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed in order to determine what the site can handle. (17) Increased traffic would pose a hazard to children walking to school due to lack of sidewalks along Rickey Road and Pine Road. (18) The width of E. 29th Street and E. 28th Street are not adequate to allow two way traffic plus parking on both sides. Dave Bergq~ist stated a question was raised about the price of new homes, the proposed plat would probably have homes between $100 - $135,000. This discussion does not involved the "plat" of the site, but just zoning and annexation. Also, any water problems identified must be taken care of during the design and development of the site. The actual number of units will be determined by the property itself and what it will accommodate under the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brown pointed out he was one of three out of six developers involved in this project that live in the City of Bremerton and he has no plans to move. Also, the owner of the property lives next to the site. He gets a feeling from some of the opponents that they don't realize the input that is available to them through the PUD process that will address traffic concerns, environmental concerns, etc. He took issue with comments brought out about low income housing. He does not consider someone purchasing a home costing $100,000+ as low income. Comments have been made about lot sizes of the surrounding area and trying to draw some comparison to what should be done in the future. At any part of the text of the Growth Management Act, it clearly points out that what we have done in the past is not going to get us to a desirable point in the future. In fact, the thrust and reason for having the Comprehensive Plan and Growth Management Act is to re-evaluate what has been done and decide what should be done over the growth in the next 20 years and make some prudent decisions based on that information. That in mind, he felt the lots sizes surrounding the development are not as relevant as they have been made out to be. Mr. O,Hare pointed out in many ways the City made a policy decision when the City zoned all of the abutting areas SF-3. He urged Council to look past the issues of water, traffic, etc., because those issue will be met when a specific application is submitted. The issue being dealt with, at this hearing, is the overall policy issue. Don't also get confused by an argument that says SF-2 is just as good as SF-3 because there are some bonus density possibilities and exist only if the criteria established in the City's Zoning Ordinance are met. All Mr. Vergeer is saying is TAPE #1357 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 19 of 29 give him the same treatment that was given to the adjoining similar properties that he would be added to when annexed into the City of Bremerton. Mr. Smith stated higher density will produce more tax revenue. An issue was raised about some problems out beyond the site on Rickey Road and the opportunity to fix those has been stated in general. The greater opportunity to address some of the problems of infrastructure are going to be met with higher density. Mr. Berger stated if there is to be no consideration of SF-1, SF-2, SF-3, then he requested it be stricken from the City's planning operation and no longer considered because it will continue to be a waste of their time. He thought there were some choices to be made between SF-3, SF-2 and SF-1. What they have indicated is that it is not relevant and there are no choices. He reminded Council the surrounding neighbors were present at this hearing because they believe density is an issue and do have a choice and the neighborhood believes SF-2 would meet their needs, especially for the very reason if the developers are able to meet the requirements they can increase the density. Ail those things that say "if they can meet those requirements to increase density" will be the things that should address the concerns of the residents and they can probably achieve the density they desire. He also asked in consideration of everyone, unless someone has something more to say in support of SF-2, lets stop further public testimony and let the City Council make their decision. Mr. Overson stated he still needed to know the intended development, number of units and why isn't SF-2 zoning sufficient? Mr. Hough stated he could not answer Mr. Overson's concern because there is no development proposal submitted to the City at this time. There is a request for annexation into the City and what they are trying to determine for this piece of property is the most appropriate density the City will consider once it is annexed. Based on that, the developers will design something to fit the site. Mr. Overson stated based on his understanding of everything presented, he sees a lot of things in favor of SF-2 and very little that supports SF-3 zoning, particularly when considering the potential adverse impacts. He agreed that the City had the responsiblity to take in density, but it was pointed out this proposal was not infill, but new development. He asked if property along the water was designated SF-2? Mr. Hough explained there is a considerable amount of SF-2 in existing large lot development around the shorelines and that designation has been applied in the past. Mr. Montgomery emphasized the issue before Council is growth management and proper zoning of the site, not what will be built. TAPE #1357 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1996 Page 20 of 29 The surrounding property is all SF-3 and the developer of that area decided on the lot size, which is his privilege as long as they meet the requirements of SF-3. SF-2 would be a down zoning of that particular area, if you consider the SF-3 designation on the rest of the surrounding area. ~r. Houqh explained the surrounding subdivisions were built under the City's old R-1 zoning, which dates back to the 1940s, and the minimum lot size was 4,800 sq. ft., for a single family house and 5,800 sq. ft. for a duplex. The builder of that development chose the density he desired. ~r. Montqomer~ stated then the previous zoning and the current zoning of SF-3 in the surrounding area is the same. Mr. Houqh stated yes. Mr. Winters stated he attended a meeting in 1991, when Congressman Norm Dicks voiced his biggest concern was the housing stock available in Bremerton was an embarrassment. The 203K program is a perfect example of the rehab and first time home buyers assistance to become homeowners. He respectfully regretted that sometimes some Council members and others in this room get their intelligence insulted on the fact they have been working diligently on the growth management issue to increase the density in order to adhere to the Growth Management Act. He agreed there is a need to increase the density for a greater tax base in the City. He felt it would be very important for Mr. Castle to follow what it is we are doing to improve and adhere to the Growth Management Act. His last concern has to do with the land and whether or not an Environmental Impact Statement will be required later on. Mr. Houqh explained when a development is presented the next step in the environmental review process a Checklist is completed including being reviewed by the City's SEPA official, who determines what needs to be done in order to get all concerns out on the surface and deal with them through the type of process proposed, such as a P.U.D. TAPE #1358 Such a process may be an Environmental Impact Statement if serous enough or it could be a mitigated Determination Of Non-Significance where they have to provide additional information on the soils, water seepage, springs, drainage, hardpan, clay, traffic analysis, etc. The City also has a Critical Land Ordinance, which was adopted several years ago to address wetland and environmental issues. This process is carried out through a public process. Mr. Winters stated at the February 7th City Council meeting John McConnell stated added traffic on E. 29th Street would personally affect him since it was the only place where an ingress and exit to the site could be placed. Mr. Winters pointed out E. 28th Street would also be available; however, Mr. McConnell did not mention that fact in his testimony. He believed Mr. McConnell's concerns would be addressed later on if the development proceeds. He TAPE #1358 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1995 Page 21 of 29 respects the Planning Commission, but in this instance he disagreed with their recommendation. Mr. Colvin asked for clarification if there are two issues before Council: (1) support the findings of the Planning Commission; (2) to overturn the Planning Commissions recommendation? Mr. 8ievers stated in this case it is not an appeal and Council simply has a recommendation from the Planning Commission on a Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning that would take affect upon annexation. MN. Colvin asked if the Planning Commission availed themselves of all the same testimony? MT. 8~evers explained the Planning Commission held a public hearing and took testimony. Mr. Hough explained most of the testimony heard during this hearing was very similar to that given before the Planning Commission and that was one of the reasons why they recommended the SF-2 designation. That testimony was included in the data provided to Council in the Agenda Bill. Mrs. Huff-Menees stated she wished to correct something that had been stated a couple of times, which is that the Navy personnel housed in Tacoma were families. They were single sailors and that is why they were selected to be housed in Tacoma. The reason for that was not due to a housing shortage, but because of very specific type of housing needs. She felt it important to not use the Growth Management Act to entice Council to make bad decisions and yes, we do want to increase density in the City and we do want to increase the City's population. However, we don't want to make the kinds of decisions that they have watched being made around Bremerton with such dismay. Over and over again, we have been critical of land use decisions that have been made around the City. There are lots of opportunities for infill development and increasing densities in the areas where it is most appropriate to make such increases. She does not believe this proposal is one of those areas because it is a very sensitive area. She believes that SF-2 zoning will allow developers to get the density they are saying they want with the bonus opportunities that exist. Mr. McConnell stated it is the Council's responsiblity to increase the density and growth of the City, but it is also their responsiblity to ensure that what we do does not adversely affect what already exists. Designation SF-2 along the shoreline has been the standard practice for the City because of the potential danger of building above a shore, especially if we have extreme rains like what was recently experienced. Mr. Fart reminded his fellow Council members of the joint meeting between Council and the Planning Commission. He came away from that meeting with what he thought was an understanding that Council would in some cases disagree with findings of the Planning Commission and that was the way it should work because Council is #0430 TAPE #1358 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1995 Page 22 of 29 not to be a "rubber stamp" for the Planning Commission. He also called attention to, the fact the Planning Commission's vote on this issue was not unanimous, but a split vote. Having served on the Kitsap Regional Planning Council, he witnessed the bitter debate over whether or not this community could accept 20,000 people and when the City said it could, they were called "crazy". He sees this as the first in a series of times Council will be called upon for some tough decisions that won't be popular with some constituents in the immediate area to increase densities. In this case, it is not an increase in density. He did not see it as beneficial, if the City annexed property into the City and downgraded it from the surrounding area; and it could only cause an uphill battle to establish creditability that development will be encouraged in Bremerton. He respects people's rights to develop their own property in accordance with the regulations and for what they feel they can sell. Mr. McConne11 emphasized with SF-2 zoning the developer could match the current County zoning with a P.U.D. and open space considerations. Mr. Farr stated he believed the builder would go with the area that will grant him the highest density. If Council approves SF-2, he suggested there is the possibility that the process will go through the County and the neighbors will have the very thing they object to now and they'll miss out on the possibility for the City to come later and address their concerns and issues. President Law stated he has listened to the persuasive comments from the public and members of the Council. Even though the Planning Commission had a split vote, it was a well thought out vote. He is very apprehensive about the subject area being one that will come back to haunt them later. He supports increasing Bremerton's density because the facilities and services that give the best package for development are in Bremerton, but he did not feel this site was the best site to carry out that goal. Mr. Colvin stated he agreed with Mr. Farr about being short sighted, but he felt Council would be short sighted for not taking into consideration the topography of the subject area. Mr. Fart questionedthe Planning staff's original recommendation on this proposal? Mr. Hough stated the Planning Department's recommendation was for SF-3. Mr. Parr pointed out that was something Council might wish to take into consideration because there was thought into that recommendation as well. M/S/F(Montgomery/Farr) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, granting an SF-3 zoning designation. TAPE #1358 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1995 Page 23 of 29 Vote On Motion: In Favor: Farr, Winters, Montgomery Opposed: McConnell, Colvin, Overson, Huff-Menees, Law Motion failed. #0405M/S/C(Overson/Colvin) that Council approves the Planning Commission's recommendation to zone this area as SF-2, and approve Ordinance on first reading. Vote On Motion: In Favor: Colvin, Overson, Huff-Menees, McConnell, Law Motion carried. Opposed: Farr, Winters, Montgomery 9C - PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) TO A~ENDTHE CITY'8 COMPREHENSIVE PLaN TO COMPLY WITH THE FINAL DECISION AND ORDER OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARDt ~AB96-035 Bremerton's revised Comprehensive Plan was adopted on April 5, 1995. Portions of the Plan pertain to the Anderson Creek area were appealed to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. The Board reviewed the Plan, conducted a public hearing on November 28, 1995, and issued its decision in December. The Hearings Board upheld the City's plan but directed certain changes to correct some more internal consistency problems, those changes have been drafted. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 30, 1996, and recommended City Council approval of the changes as presented. President Law asked the City Attorney to clarify the issue before Council. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated this is readoption of the Comprehensive Plan that was earlier adopted by Resolution. The form of adoption does not change the ordinance, so a hearing will be held, at this time, and a hearing on second reading of the ordinance. That initial document was well supported by public hearings and Council followed the public input process. The only changes to the Comprehensive Plan are some technical corrections in the text and mapping, principally having to do with industrial lands. Most of those changes focus on the Anderson Creek area and those boundary lines and land use designations changes are driven by two events that have happened since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The boundaries changed because of an annexation, which took place in the intervening time; and because of a revision to a change in ownership or surplusing by the City Council since the initial adoption. Mr. Law asked if input should be limited to the proposed changes? Mr. S%evers stated that would be his advice, since a number of other hearings were held that led up to the Council adopting the entire Plan. TAPE #1358 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1995 Page 24 of 29 Ron Houqh, Planning Manager, briefly reviewed the issue as outlined in the Summary Statement. He noted the City has taken the steps required by the Hearings Board to comply, which were not extensive and primarily consistency issues internally within the Comprehensive Plan itself. It addresses some areas dealing with the Land Use Inventory Table that indicated a certain amount of industrial land where it was actually developed as industrial land and not vacant industrial land. The Board misinterpreted the Table, but an adjustment was made for several other reasons. Most of the changes included were meant to clarify what the City agreed to with Mr. Sciepko, who also annexed 76 acres adjacent to the Anderson Creek area, and has an option to purchase part of the Anderson Creek property. The amount of industrial land was approximately 340 acres; however, that amount has been reduced to 168 acres. The central corridor of Anderson Creek is now proposed to remain as Open Space and zoned as Forest Management. A much smaller amount of Industrial Park would be located on the upper west portion of the property and Mr. Sciepko's property, which has been shown in the Exhibits and adjusted on four maps in the Comprehensive Plan (Exhibits A, D, E. & F) to include the Sciepko annexation, which was not part of the Comprehensive Plan at the time of its adoption. President La~ asked the Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all members present being seated. Ron Sciepko, 3023 W. State Hwy. 16, stated the merits of Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan were reviewed, testified to, considered and decided by the City Council in the winter and spring of 1994/1995. The appellants took the matter to the Hearings Board to which they submitted a detailed brief and numerous supporting documents. The actual hearing on their appeals lasted most of a full day before a well prepared Hearings Examiner, who found that none of the arguments challenging the City's Comprehensive Plan had merit, factually or legally. The Hearings Board, on its own, discovered the City adopted this plan by Resolution rather than by Ordinance, which is one of the reasons this item is back before Council. There were no substantive defects in the plan and there were three other amendments the Hearings Board asked the City to address, which related to the recommended changes and all relating to being "mutually consistent". The City also proposes to amend the plan to include his 76 acres annexed land and to reduce from 340 to 168 acres the Utility land acreage that is designated in the Plan as Industrial Park and Residential. Some would argue that the use of this property as a Corporate Campus would be wrong. The Hearings Examiner was emphatic in explaining to the appellants several times during the hearing that the GMA mandates the consideration of several potentially conflicting goals. It is not improper to accommodate two objectives, protection of the TAPE #1358 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1995 Page 25 of 29 environment and creation of employment opportunity as mandated by the statute. The fact that certain lands contain critical areas does not prohibit development of non-critical portions of land. Nor does it preclude development on critical areas as long as those areas are protected. The Hearings Examiner found no merit in arguments against development of this area for industrial purposes given the protection requirements. The Plan, as it exists today, carries substantively more protection for the City's wells than it did when originally adopted. The city's Wellhead Protection Study, now completed, will guide the City in protecting the wells for the future. It would be wrong to generate a Comprehensive Plan that failed to balance properly two potentially conflicting goals, policies and objectives. The City's Plan harmonizes those apparently conflicting objectives so the purpose of each can be accomplished, that is so that we, as a community, can enjoy tempered, environmentally safe economic development. Don Pratt, Director of Community Development stated to Mr. Sciepko several times that he believes the City has the framework of codes and ordinances in place for full development of an industrial park on Corporate Campus. The appellants' challenged the City's ability to do this, so they challenge the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Growth Management Hearings Board found the City of Bremerton to be in compliance with the GMA with some minor, technical exceptions. Basically, the Growth Management Hearings Board has given the City of Bremerton a vote of confidence in their plan and in the methods they choose to manage development. Mary McKenzie, 2462 E. Phinney Bay Drive, stated her interest in this issue is as a resident of Bremerton and she wished to speak to the fact that 40% of Bremerton's water supply comes from the aquifer under Anderson Creek property. While she understands the amended plan is an improvement, it does leave a lot to be desired from an environmental perspective. She is greatly concerned that the City is willing to give greater consideration to a relatively small profit relative to the terms of the profit that may be made by others involved than long term revenues into the future. She did not want Bremerton's water resources mortgaged on the basis of limited research and expertise and felt it was a gamble at best. She is confident the City is reluctant as well. Reckless development of natural habitats that include main streams and aquifers, particularly for a commercial development, is irresponsible. She urged Council to give great consideration to the larger picture and long term affects of this decision. Helen Haven-Saun4ers, Anderson Hill Road, stated Mr. Sciepko has set a precedent of ranging far from the technical details of compliance and she would attempt to be more brief than usual. The Growth Management Hearings Board basically said most of what her Associations brought to them was not within their jurisdiction and TAPE #1358 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1995 Page 26 of 29 they did not give the City a vote of confidence in this plan. They gave them a vote of confidence in the City's Comprehensive Plan and emphasized the City's plans for Anderson Creek, while they might not be the right thing for the land, were not within their jurisdiction. The Hearings Examiner also commented that the County also had the obligation to designate and map critical areas for the City so they could be used in the City's designation planning. She and her group received a notice of public hearing that said the amendments are intended to correct the inconsistencies identified by the Hearings Board and also clarify the land use designations in the Anderson Creek area, that there were important changes and their comments were welcome. Based on that, she thought that there would be a little more than technical details being discussed during this hearing. She comes before the City Council as the representative of the Association To Protect Anderson Creek and did not ask their membership for a "turn out for this hearing". So far, the City has never held an unencumbered hearing on the land use designations for this area or zoning issues. The discussions about proposed uses of the land have always been shadowed by a "more important" discussion like its sale or like the entire Bremerton Comprehensive Plan being at stake. She is concerned that we have never discussed this in a rational fashion as a community with Council. The wording from the option to buy from Mr. Sciepko pricing the timber on the land will have the immediate affect of forcing the buyer to clear cut much of the area in order to achieve a profit. As conservators of the stream and their neighbors, this affect will be incongruent and impact the health of the stream, which is their major concern as well as the water beneath it. These land use designations and zonings, which follow them, are being considered without an environmental study that the City's own SEPA coordinator originally assessed was necessary for the Comprehensive Plan and zoning change. Therefore, the city is circumventing its own SEPA process and giving them no option but to look at another appeal. The original SEPA threshold determination, which was a Mitigated Determination Of Non-significance, was appealed and withdrawn last Spring. There has been no subsequent determination on the original proposal or on this amended combination of designations. A more detailed Environmental Check List was required of the prospective buyer and has not yet been submitted. This process, Check List, threshold determination and public input should be done first before the zoning and sale take place. With an industrial park and City residential designation for this relatively undeveloped area, the City will be contributing to one of the biggest transportation messes in Kitsap County. The Figley Park development, the County's quick fix for the embattled Noresland residents, will be in an Appeals Court this month and the County will be back in front of the Hearings Board with their Woods UGA. The city's plans for Anderson Hill and surrounding area tie in directly with their errors in this area. The studies conducted TAPE #1358 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1995 Page 27 of 29 about density in their portion of Southwest Kitsap depend upon road conditions, which have significantly deteriorated since those studies were completed, including the semi-closure of the road to Port Orchard, which impacts the traffic at the Anderson Hill/Old Clifton road junction and the semi-closure of the bottom of Anderson road. That is the major capital facility that has to be addressed before development is allowed. The plans for the Anderson creek area are destructive and poorly researched. Reasonable alternatives have never been properly discussed and the City will encounter determined and concerned opposition to the project until we approach community planning in a more democratic and deliberative manner. The agencies that exist to protect the environment are not being effective in Kitsap County. The only effective way to protect the environment is at the City Council level and they should only approve those land uses that are appropriate to a particular piece of land. A flat piece of land on a highway, on a rail line or near an airport would be far more appropriate than a steeply sloped forested piece of land that happens to be near a road with a creek running through it, above an important aquifer in a rural residential neighborhood. The City Council could still disapprove these changes and have the City withdraw the Anderson Hill plan and continue to study the appropriate uses of the land, and she urged Council to do so. David della-Rovere, 3300 Anderson Hill Road Sw, representing the Association To Protect Anderson Creek, referenced the Planning Commission meeting held a couple of weeks ago and the fact that he made a presentation and provided background information. At that time, the Planning Commission was under the impression that all they were voting on was the inconsistencies that were being corrected, so they were not open to any other kind of voting. Ail statements the "Association" has made previously about the Industrial Park portion of the project are still current and on the record. However, there is a change, which has been stated, that the main portion of Anderson Creek has been changed to "Utility Land" and the portion on the east side is designated as "Low Density Residential". That specific change has not been addressed by his group. A concern that they do have is in the Capital Facilities section, it does not adequately address impacts on schools. Under Industrial Park (IP) designation there would be no impact on schools, but when changed to "Low Density Residential" it does have an impact. He asked if there had been any consideration of talking to the South Kitsap School District to determine the kind of impact by the time it is zoned? Mr. Overson pointed out there are impact fees for any development of size to take care of such concerns. Mr. Dell&-Rovere stated the point is when a plan is developed you look at those things. He also raised the issue of "traffic" and the impact it would have on the surrounding neighborhood. Having sat through a public hearing on a land use #2897 TAPE #1358 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1995 Page 28 of 29 issue prior to this item, he heard from the proponents their applauding the city for taking in 20,000 new residents and the GMA resulting in cutting down on development outside the cities so development can occur within the cities. Council had a discussion about the City's responsibility to the GMA and the need to densify the City by increasing densities. His opinion was not that far off from Council's decision. He agrees with the concept of the GMA, and that basically is growth will occur in the cities. Now, the problem he and his neighbors face is from the City's standpoint this area is within the City, but from a practical standpoint, it really isn't. Presi~ent Law cautioned Mr. Della-Rovere to stick to the issue. Mr. De11&-Rovere referenced the vote of several Council members on the Tracyton Beach issue and their saying you have to look a what is really there. He urged the same kind of consideration in the Anderson Creek area. If you follow Growth Management, yes development should be within the City, but this area is really a rural area, not an urban area. He agreed with Mr. Sciepko's statement that "you need more industrial land within your urban areas to provide jobs." He is not opposed to a Corporate Campus type development within a city. This area, although it is technically in the City Limits of Bremerton, is still a rural area. Mr. Overson pointed out the Anderson Creek area is within the urban growth area as designed by the Growth Management Plan, both City and County. Mr. Della-Rovere noted the County's plan is stili up for debate. Mr. Winters read the impact of non-passage of the changes: "The recommended changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan were directed by the Growth Management Hearing Boards in its final decision and order issued in December 1995. The Board gave a compliance deadline of 4:00 P.M. on February 26. The adopted amendments must be filed with the Hearings board by March 4. If the City does not adopt the corrections to the Comprehensive Plan, the Plan will remain internally inconsistent and that status could affect the City's eligibility for certain types of grants or other State funding for needed projects and could leave the City vulnerable to the State imposed sanction." Mr. Overson directed his comments to the last two speakers from the public and urged them to study the facts that have been before Council. The area has already been clear cut to the extent it is to be clear cut, the area around the creek has been protected, and the watershed is well protected as far as that within the city's control. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Winters) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, adopting the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and including amendments ordered by the Growth Management Hearings Board. #3012 #3152 TAPE #1358 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 14, 1995 Page 29 of 29 Presi4ent Law announced Mayor Horton has requested Council to review their vote taken on Ordinance #4543. Mayor Horton stated the recommended motion approved on February 7, was to exclude RV's from the ordinance, which means RV's would be allowed to stay longer than the time limit identified in the Ordinance. Council's action tonight changed that model motion and it concerned her that the public was not given prior notification that such action was under consideration. She was concerned about the public's reaction when the ordinance became law in 10 days and the City started enforcing it without further public notice. She asked Council to reconsider the motion and then table the motion for two weeks in order to get information out to the public. She will abide by Council's decision either way, but she wants to assure the opportunity for public input. M/S/C(McConnell/Winters) moved to rescind the vote on Ordinance #4543 and to continue the item for two weeks. Vote on motion: In Favor: Overson, Farr,~ Huff-Menees, Opposed McConnell, Colvin, Montgomery, Winters, Law Motion Carried 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(Winters/Montgomery) on February 14, 1996, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 195061, 195078 through 195303 in the amount of $634,415.17. With no further business meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M. ~ KATHLEEN L~Y, ~O~N E. LAW, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/JL/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault City Clerk AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: March 6, 1996 EVERGREEN PARK EXPANSION ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & Utilities PROJECT - AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ORIGINATOR: G. Sample¥, Director PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT DATE SUBMITTED: February 22, 1996 WITH FAILURE ANALYSIS ASSOCIATES, INC. CLEARANCES: (Comment on ~.a~k if necessarY(/ Director, PW & Utile Director, Parks &-~~~~ Director, Admin City Attorney '~---~~' City Treasurer Fin & Budget Comm Operations Comm 3. EXHIBITS: Amendment No. 1 Exhibit "A" Budget Adjustment Request .MAYOR~ · COUNCIL PRESIDEN~_.~<' 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT ~ND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Failure Analysis Associates (FaAA), under contract with the City, has completed Phase I investigations of existing conditions of properties within the proposed expansion area of Evergreen Park and has concluded that the City should proceed to the next phase of project development within the current plan. A Professional Services Agreement (PEA) authorizing funding of Phases I and II of the project was approved by Council effective October 18, 1995. RECOMMENDATION: (Continuation on Page Z) City Council approve Amendment No. 1 to the professional services agreement with Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment subject to City Administra~ti~e~olicie~ ~nd Procedures. ~ 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL~ Public Works and Utilities Director ~ ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL. ~W---~-~rksa-~U---~ll~ Director ~ \ EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED [] TABLED [] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: AMENDED [] CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 0 SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation An amendment to the existing PSA is recommended as follows: a) The existing Evergreen Park property is outside the study area defined in the Scope of Services. It was necessary to include this property in the Phase I study at an additional cost of $5,900. b) Consultant support services are needed in the maximum amount of $27,716 to bring timely closure of remediation issues from the Department of Ecology (Ecology) so that Phase I development of Evergreen Park planned for this year can proceed in parallel with remediation efforts in the remaining park expansion area. c) Authorize completion of the original Scope of Services in the amount of $183,206. This work is required to complete the remedial investigation and feasibility study which will define the remediation plan to be approved by Ecology. Notice to proceed with work included in this item will be subject to the City's successful negotiation of Purchase Option Agreements with current owners of the subject properties. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: It will not be possible to complete the project as planned. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES: Staffinq: N/A Budqet: Council previously authorized $70,000 for consultant services ($55,825) and Legal Counsel ($14,175). An appropriation of $216,822 is necessary from the Real Estate Excise Tax fund. $100,000 is included in the adopted 1996 Budget and a budget amendment of $186,822 is included in this request. Facilities: N/A Equipment: N/A 8. RESEARCH SOURCES: SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1 Name of Project: REMEDIATION WORK - EVERGREEN PARK The City of Bremerton desires to supplement the agreement (Agreement) entered into with Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. (Consultant) and executed on November 20, 1995. All provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this Amendment No. 1. The changes to the Agreement are described as follows: Section 1, ScoPE: The Scope of Services is amended to incorporate Exhibit A, Change Proposal to the Professional Services Agreement dated February 15, 1996, attached and by this reference made a part of this Amendment. Section 2, COMPENSATION: The total fees under the Agreement shall increase $33,616.00 to a maximum amount payable of $272,647.00 as set forth in Table 3 of Exhibit A. FAILURE ANALYSES ASSOCIATES, INC. Date: BY: MICHAEL R. GAULKE, President CiTY OF BREMERTON Date: BY: LYNN S. HORTON, Mayor of Public Works & Utilities ATTEST: KATHLEEN L. MCCLUSKEY, Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: lAN R. SIEVERS, City Attorney A~.IENDMENT NO. Exhibit "A" Change Proposal to the Professional Services Agreement Rez~diation Work- Evergreen Park Presented to The City of Bremerton, Washington by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. 149 Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel. (415) 688-7312 February 15, 1996 Michael R. Gaulke President Change Proposal, Fe~"ru~, 16, 1996 Pa§e 1 PROJECT CHANGE PROPOSAL In response to the City of Bremerton's (City) request for additional support with respect to the Kemediation Work - Evergreen Park (Project) Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. (FaAA) is pleased to provide the following~ Change Proposal (proposal). Section 1. Inclusion of Evergreen Park in Phase 1 Report Background During a meeting on 7 December, 1995 Representatives of the City asked FaAA to include Evergreen Park in the Phase One Report. Under the terms of the basic Professional Services Agreement (Agreement) Phase One Report currently summarizes environmental issues for the Brem-Aire, Chevron and Lofihus sites. The report expansion effort is summarized below. AdditionM Scope FaAA proposes to expand Phase One Report to include the data review and analysis for the southern and northern portions of Evergreen Park. Delineation of impacted soil and groundwater has not occurred; however, available data has been reviewed, analyzed and incorporated into the report. Cost The cost of the additional work is $5,900. Please note that costs associated with remedial investigations and plans are not included. Additional costs estimates for the expanded scope should be anticipated in the planning of the remedial investigation and planning phase of the Project. Secti6n 2. Environmental Issues - Development of Evergreen Park Background Additional assistance has been requested by the City with regard to environmental issues associated with the City's development of the Park. The northern portion of the site is currently awaiting Phase I development as part of the Park expansion project. Historical information indicates that no industrial or commercial activity had occurred in this area of the park. However, in support of an earlier shoreline redevelopment project, test pits detected diesel oil and Cadmium that exceeds MTCA Method cleanup standards. Change Proposal, February 16, 1996 Page 2 It is the purpose of this change to obtain timely closure from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) with respect to these issues so that Phase I development of the Evergreen Park can proceed in parallel with the cleanup of the southern portion of the park and adjacent parcels. Additional Scope The effort involves the following tasks: 1. REVIEW OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CLOSURE STRATEGY. Documents that were previously prepared by FishPro will be reviewed, as well as any known draft permit applications or other public domain documents. Any information that the City possesses which is made available to FaAA regarding sampling activities or applicable paperwork will be evaluated. Ecology's closure requirements will be evaluated against available information. PTI will develop a strategy based on this information for negotiations with Ecology. This strategy will be summarized in a memorandum. 2. NEGOTIATE WTrH ECOLOGY. FAA.4. will meet with Ecology to review available information and to present the City's arguments for closure. 3. ADDITIONAL SAMPLING. (optional) Based on the City's strategy and the outcome of the meeting with Ecology, additional sampling may be required to determine the lateral and vertical extent of impacted soil (see Figure 1 attached). A phased sampling approach will consist of advancing one preliminary borehole in approximately the same location as Test Pit #2. Four second-tier boreholes will be advanced ( as shown in the figure) and soil samples will be collected to define potential lateral boundaries. As many as five third-tier boreholes will be advanced with soil samples collected for archival. All samples will be collected by Geoprobe®, a method that advances a steel sampler into the ground to a specified depth using a truck-mounted hydraulic device. Samples will be collected by retrieving the sampling device, and no soil "cuttings" will be generated. This method minimizes disruption and is an appropriate method of investigation for a public recreational area such as Evergreen Park. Boreholes will be advanced to a maximum depth of 10 ff below ground surface (bgs), and samples will be collected at 2.5-ft intervals in order to better define potential vertical boundaries.. Samples will be screened in the field (i.e., sheen test, head space test, use of photoionization detector, odor and visual appearance) to evaluate the presence of gross contamination. Depending on field screening results, a total of S-10 soil samples may be submitted for the following analyses: 7 Change Proposal, February 16, 1996 Page 3 Total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPI-I) quantification for diesel and heavy oil by Washington State Method WTPH-D extended (EPA Method 8015 extended, $100/sample) · Metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead) by EPA Method 6010 and mercury by EPA Method 7471 ($100/sample) · BTEX by EPA Method 8020 ($70/sample) · PAils by GC~S-S~ ($21 O/sample) The preliminary sample collected within the vicinity of Test Pit #2 will be analyzed for TPH quantification. If there are no detected concentrations above 200 rog/kg, then no further analyses will be conducted. If diesel or heavy oil concentrations are between 200 and 500 mg/kg in the preliminary sample, then the sample will be analyzed for BTEX and PAHs to provide data to support risk-based closure arguments. Samples collected from second-tier boreholes will be analyzed on the basis of quantitative results of the preliminary sample, and samples collected from third-tier boreholes will be analyzed only if warranted by results from the second-tier sampling. In addition to addressing outstanding test pit data, we may also advance four boreholes near the park's maintenance shed to assess potential lateral and vertical extent of contamination. On the day of field activities, a brief reconnaissance of the building and adjacent areas will be conducted. Based on observations made, one borehole may be advanced on each side of the building to a depth of 10 ft. Soil samples will be screened in the field and analyzed for TPH by Washington Method WTPH-D extended (EPA Method 8015 extended) as appropriate. Prepare closure report. Appropriate closure documentation will be prepared for the City and Ecology in accordance with the negotiated scope of work. Iffieldwork rebuts contamination issues, then a straightforward closure report can be prepared. If sampling confirms a contamination problem, the closure report will focus on remedial actions occurring as part of Phase I construction work and the' separation of the Phase I area from the southern portion of the park. SCHEDULE It is understood that the City requires timely completion of these tasks. The meeting with Ecology can be set up within 3 weeks of receipt of authorization to proceed. If necessary, sampling fieldwork can be scheduled within 2 weeks after this meeting, assuming subcontractors are available. A draft report will be provided to the City for review either within 2 weeks of receipt of analytical data if samples are collected or within 3 weeks from the meeting with Ecology if no additional sampling is required. A final closure report can be issued to Ecology within 2 weeks of receipt of comments from the City. Change Proposal, February !6, 1_996 Page 4 COSTS The estimated costs for completing the closure of the northern portion of Evergreen Park is $27,716. ASSUMPTIONS The cost estimate and scope of work are based on the following assumptions: · The subsurface soils are suitable for sampling with Geoprobe® (i.e., fill does not entirely consist of concrete, rock, or other solid material). Costs are based on two people performing field activities for 1 day. Every effort will be made to follow the proposed scope based on site conditions encountered. This proposal includes the costs for two meetings, one between the City and project personnel and one with Ecology, as well as telephone conference calls as necessary. If sampling is required, we will contact the Utility On-Call Locate Service 3 days prior to beginning fieldwork to identify public utilities. In addition, city personnel will be responsible for identi~fing the location of all city-owned utilities (irrigation drainage, electrical, . sewer, water, etc.). Collection and analysis of groundwater samples are not anticipated. (If impacted soils are in contact with groundwater, it may be necessary to add samples for groundwater evaluation). Samples will be analyzed on the basis of our current knowledge of the site. It may be necessary to revise the proposed analytical program to evaluate specific sources not currently identified. If preliminary sampling indicates that the zone of potential contamination extends further than previously believed, we may recommend additional sampling or investigations. These additional tasks are not included in this cost estimate. The closure deliverable will consist of a brief letter report summarizing site conditions, with corresponding data tables and figures. Additional costs for iterations required by Ecology may be necessary and are not included in this scope of work. q Change Proposal, February 16, 1996 Page 5 Section 3 - Summary A summary of the cost of the proposed changes, if approved, are contained in Table 3. Please note that the costs associated with Subtask 6.3, as described above, are included for evaluation purposes only. Finalization of these costs can occur only after Ecology negotiations are complete. Table 3 Basic Contract Revised P1 Report Evergreen Park Total Proposed Rcwised Contract Cost Envt. Issues Increase Value $239;031.00 $5,900.00 $27,716.00 $33,616.00 $272,647.00 /0 0 Flower O~u~n (approximate) IIII J ILl I . ~ .... -' Figure 1, Sketch of Evergreen Park and poter~tial sampling locations. Requesting Department: __ __ CITY OF BREMERTOI...._ BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX FUND NO. 109 NO. 96-4 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Description DECREASE ENDING CASH Amount ( Remaining Budget End Cash = ~$2~,~ NARRATIVE: USE OF FUNDS: Description SMITH COVE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Amount This adjustment will provide expenditure authority for the complete odginal scope of work, (Phase I through VI), and the changes in scope identified to date (Evergreen Pank and support with Ecology). Department Head Signature Treasurer Comments: Date Date ~('/".~ Post-it' Fax Note 7671 ~,~_~ ipages_ Date Recommended Mayor Comments: Not Recommended Treasurer's Signature Date Recommended ~-~ Not Rec_ommended Approved [--] Denied Fiscal & Budget Committee Comments: Mayor's Signature Date Recommended Approved Not Recommended Denied Fiscal & Budget Committee Signature Date Requesting Department: __ __ CITY OF BREMERTOI... _ BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX FUND NO. 109 No. 96-4 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Description DECREASE ENDING CASH Amount 186,822 ( Remaining Budget End Cash = $214,449 ) USE OF FUNDS: Description SMITH COVE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Amount 186,822 NARRATIVE: This adjustment will provide expenditure authority for the complete odginal scope of work, (Phase I through VI), and the changes in scope identified to date (Evergreen Pa~lk and support with Ecology). Department Head Signature Date Director Signature Date Treasurer Comments: Recommended ~ Not Recommended Treasurer's Signature Mayor Comments: Not Recommended Denied Fiscal & Budget Committee Comments: Signature ~ Recommended E~ r-~ Approved r-~ Not Recommended Denied Fiscal & Budget Committee Signature Date AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Municipal Court Budget Adjustment - Reorganization FOR AGENDA OF: March 6, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT: Admin. Services ORIGINATOR: Kathleen McCluskey~ DATE SUBMITTED: February 28, 1996 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back 3. EXHIBITS: if necessary) Presented to Council Study Session 2/28/96 ~/ Human Resources ~f~. Treasurer ~ ~/ Municipal Judge - ! 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNC~CTION: A reorganization of probation services to provide for referral of defendants to outside agencies, scheduling, monitoring and reporting to the court will result in the elimination of one position. The Court's new Discis computer system includes a program for monitoring cases with probation conditions and collection of fees. This organizational change will provide for a more efficient method of managing probation conditions. RECOMMENDATION: ~[u~ ~3%/~G Motion to approve elimination of probation officer positio~ and budget adjustment. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE'. AMENDED 11. AGENDA BILL NO: CLEARANCE COMMENTS (cont.): 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (cont.): IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Continue current probation practices. e IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES Budge~ Adjustment to reduce revenue by $34,711 (the probation officer salary 4/1/96-12/31/96) and exp. by $34,711. There will be some savings in 1996, however the full savings will be realized in 1997 and forward when a full year of the position reduction is budgeted. RESEARCH SOURCES: City of Tacoma and other Puget Sound cities Requesting Department: CITY OF BREMERTO...- _ BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - GENERAL FUND No. 96-5 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Description REDUCE COURT REVENUE Amount 34,700 USE OF FUNDS: Description REDUCE COURT PERSONNEL Amount 34,700 NARRATIVE: This adjustment will provide for the elimination of one Probation Officer position effective Apdl 1, 1996. Revised budget document pages are attached. Department Head Signature Date Treasurer Comments: Director Sign~t'ur~ ~ D]ate ' ' Recommended ~ Not Recommende'~ Treasurer's Sign-'ature Mayor Comments: [---] Recommended [~ Not Recommended ~ Approved ~ Denied Ma~ure ~' ~ ~ Fiscal & Budget Committee Comments: Date Recommended ~ Approved ~-~ Not Recommended Denied Fiscal & Budget Committee Signature Date - CITY OF BREMERTON-'- RT_MENT: Administrative Services DEPARTMENT FUNCTION The Administrative Services Department is comprised of the following divisions: City Clark, Treasurer, Information Services, Risk Management and Municipal Court Administration as delegated by the Judge. The Director of Administrative Services also performs the functions of City Clark as directed by City Charter and State law. EXPENDITURE SUMMARY 1994 1995 199{ ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGE[ Ending Working Capital Supplies & Services 372,523 460,542 473,252 Taxes Capital Outlay 27,117 32,450 53,000 Operating Transfers Debt Service TOTAL 1,646,554 2,144,829 2,151,407 STAFFING AUTHORIZATION POSITION Director of Admin. Serv./City Clerk Purchasing Supv./Deputy City Clerk Business Lic. Inspector/Auditor Office Assistant Sr. Office Assistant I SUB-TOTAL CITY CLERK 1994 1995 1996 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 6.50 7.00 7.00 City Treasurer Assistant Treasurer Budget Specialist Accountant Utility Accounts Supervisor Paryoll Specialist Utility Billing Specialist Accounting Assistant Senior Accounting Assistant II Accounting Assistant I SUB-TOTAL TREASURER 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 8.00 15.00 14.00 DATA PROCESSING Manager, Information Services Computer Programmer/Analyst Network Administrator P.C. Technician SUB-TOTAL DATA PROCESSING 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 RISK MANAGER 1.00 1.00 1.00 MUNICIPAL COURT Judge 1.00 1.00 1.00 Court Services Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 Legal Technician III 1.00 1.00 1.00 Legal Technician II 5.00 5.00 5.00 Legal Technician I 1.00 1.00 1.00 Legal Technician I (funding in Fund 105) 1.00 1.00 1.00 SUB-TOTAL MUNICIPAL COURT 11.00 11.00 10.00 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 30.50 38.00 36.00 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES BUDGET BREAKDOWN 1994 1995 1996 ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CITY CLERK Personnel 288,780 321,107 325,758 Supplies & Services 31,565 44,647 45,800 Capital Outlay 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 320,345 365,754 371,558 MUNICIPAL COURT Supplies & Services 188,706 207,950 204,550 Capital Outlay 5.759 9.500 0 TOTAL EXPEND ITU RES 607,049 660,234 616,346 TREASURER Personnel 306,120 625,334 608,001 Supplies & Services 64,591 113,648 125,600 Capital Outlay 3.132 10.350 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 373,843 749,332 733,601 DATA PROCESSING Personnel 183,700 202,263 211,953 Supplies & Services 85,116 91,047 94,052 Capital Outlay 18.226 12.600 53.000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 287,042 305,910 359,005 RISK MANAGER Personnel 55,730 60,349 67,647 Supplies & Services 2,545 3,250 3,250 Capital Outlay 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 58,275 63,599 70,897 TOTAL ADMIN. SERVICES 1,646,554 2,144,829 2,151,407 MOP. 6 '96 16:~8 WEST SOUND TREATMENT CTR ~ A [Jr~il'ecJ Way West Sound Treatment Center -Outpatient Treatment for Alcohol a.d I)rug Abuse Location: 504 Austin .A~cnuc, l:orl Orchard WA 98306 Mailing: 5]4 Division St. MS-II, Port Orchard V~',,X 98366 'l'~lephone: 360 87fi- 9430 March 6, 1996 lohn L~w, President Bremerton City Council 239 4th Brmn~'ton, Wa. 98337 D~- President Law: Please consider this letter an expr~sion of my concern shout the possibility ofelirnin~ng the probation officer position with l~e city. As the adminislrntor of an agency that regularly consulls with probation officers about our muaud clients, I would like to suB, st that you think about the cost effectiveness ora Probation Officer compared to the cost ofthe incarceration of those defendants who ars returned to jail becmm~ there is no tr~,_ mtent/judicisd team. My understanding is {hat uae of the Probation Officer's major duties is to monitor the defendanffs compliance with the court orders iu a way that will insure no need for further, expensive, jail time. Treatment provider Agencies cm help, but counselors c~n't be expected to provide adequate therapy and also be, in fact, an agent of the court. I am certain that you will find that the ~liraination of the face to face elemenI needed to provide accurate information to the court will result in more cost and confiusion than the chmge is worth. I will be h~0py to discuss this issue further. please comract me at (360) 876-9430. Executive Director If you trove my questions or if! can help, unlimited State Certified Drug and Alcohol Program 5464 Kitsap Way, Bremerton, Washington 98312 -- (206) 373-1529 March 6, 1996 Bremerton City Council 239 4th Street Bremerton, Wa 98310 To Whom It May Concern, It has been brought to my attention that the Bremerton Municipal Probation Department is to be discontinued within thirty (30) days. As the Executive Director of Agape' Unlimited, a State Certified Chemical Dependency Program in Bremerton, I am extremely concerned that this decision will be very costly for the City of Bremerton and will endanger the residents of Kitsap County. Without supervision, hundreds of persons with chemical dependency problems will drop through the cracks. As you know by recent studies, eighty-five (85) to eighty-nine (89 percent of all police calls and involvement are oonnected with persons under the influence of mind altering drugs which includes alcohol. A staggering number of emergency hospital visits are connected with substance abuse. The Bremerton Probation Department and particularly Linda Rose and her staff have gone the extra mile to provide supervision and intervention in many cases where the client would have re-offended and/or caused untold harm to themselves or others. In closing, I wish to state my great concern for the tremendous problems which I feel will be created by eliminating the Probation Department in the City of Bremerton. In the long run, costly increases in police calls, injury accidents, domestic violence disturbances will far surpass any savings in funds that the City may expect to gain in this action. Sincerely, ~ Barbara Day Mil/er Executive Director cc: Linda Rose Judge Martin AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ....... To amend the Bremerton Zoning Ordinag(;e ORIGINATING DEPT: to better accommodate recycling facilitY,. ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: 2. CLEARANCES:/'(Os~) bac.~ necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: City Attorne ~~/~ Dir. Comm. Dev.~ Operations Comm~ - -- --7/__ February 2~1 1996 DCD/Planninq RonW. Hough ~ Feb. 131 1996 ~ Staff Report Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The Bremerton Zoning Ordinance allows "recycling centers" in two zones --- Industrial General and General Business. To better administer these types of uses throughout the community, amendments to the Zoning Ordinance have been drafted to better define the terms for recycling facilities, to include those facilities in more zones in the Land Use Tables, and to establish design standards for collection stations intended for public use. The Bremerton Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments on January 16, 1996 and unanimously recommended City Council approval. 8. RECOMMENDATION: City Council passage of the Ordianr~e on second reading. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: '10. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: ~11. AGENDA BILL NO: AMENDED 8A 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: If these amendments are not approved, "Recycling Centers" will continue to be permitted outright in the Industrial General zone and by Special Use Permit in the General Business zone. Other zones that may also have appropriate locations will not be considered, or will require rezones to accommodate this kind of use. A possible effect could be that a sufficient number of recycling facilities of the needed types cannot be located throughout Bremerton, resulting in the inconvenience of having to transport recyclables greater distances, or simply not recycling certain things at all. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, ECII, IIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: No anticipated impacts on staff other than normal permitting and site plan review procedures. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: ORDINANCE NO. ,/~//~XT/~ AN ORDINANCE amending the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance to better accommodate recycling facilities and amending chapter 21.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. WHEREAS, the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance includes a broad definition of "Recycling Center" but no definition for "Recycling Collection Station"; and WHEREAS, recycling centers are permitted outright in the Industrial General zone and by Special Use Permit in the General Business zone; and WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission has studied ways to better accommodate recycling-related facilities and, following a public hearing on January 16, 1996, recommended City Council approval of several amendments to the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council considered the proposed amendments, conducted a public hearing on February 21, 1996 to accept public comments, and approved the amendments for inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance, which is currently undergoing review; now, therefore, THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Amendment. Section 21.02.050 of the Bremerton Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 21.02.050DEFINITIONS. For the purposes-of interpreting the Zoning code, all words used in this chapter shall have their normal and customary meanings, unless specifically defined in this chapter or in the Uniform Building or Fire code adopted by the City. ... [(a)(1) through (0(2) unchanged] (3) "Recycling center" An ¢~'~LEa~mcnt A facility for the collection, storage and processing of recyclable materials including crushing, breaking, sorting and packaging and related operations. This definition does not include a junk yard. (4) "Recycling collection station" A :'wact'arc or cc, n*",2ner A facility consisting of RECYCLE.ORD - Di~k 2 - 2/14196 structures, bins, or other containers designed or intended for the collection and temporary storage, ~',.,~,~ ....... .,.,~ ~.,,.'~ ........ v~,.,,.,.~,~,..,6,:~ of recyclable materials until they are picked up and transported to another location for processing and/or packaging. (5) "Recycling Collection Station (Limited)" A recycling collection station for the collection of glass, tin cans, aluminum, cardboard, newspaper, magazines, plastics, and other recyclables in small units, but not including large appliances, furniture, auto parts, tires, hazardous or liquid wastes, or any forms of domestic garbage (petrucible wastes). (5~_) "Rehabilitation" The upgrading of a building or structure, previously in a dilapidated or substandard condition, for human habitation or use. (67_) "Restaurant" Commercial use (excluding fast food restaurants) which sells prepared food or beverages and generally offers accommodations for consuming the food or beverage on the premises. (7-_8) "Restaurant, Fast-food" An establishment whose principal business is the sale of pre-prepared or rapidly prepared food directly to the customer for consumption either on or off premises. This definition does not include sidewalk vendors. ... [(s)(1) through (y)(4) unchanged] Section 3. Amendment. The Land Use Tables of Chapter 21.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code are hereby amended according to Exhibit " A" attached hereto. Section 4. New Section. A new Section 21.02.225,RECYCLING COLLECTION STATION, is hereby added to Chapter 21.02 to read as follows: 21.02.225 RECYCLING COLLECTION STATION. (a) The following standards apply to collection stations intended for public use. They are not mandatory (but may be applied voluntarily) for private on-premise collection RECYCLE.ORD- Disk 2 - 2/14/96 and storage organizations. Such on-premise collection and storage is considered accessory principal use of the property and not available to the general public. (1) (2) (3) (5) manner. Section 4. Effective Date. passage and publication. of recyclables by owners or tenants of residential properties, businesses or to the Areas to be used in the collection operation must have a gravel, asphalt or concrete surface and shall be landscaped to the same standards that apply to any other development or use within the subject zone. The facility shall be closed to public access between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. in residential zones. A sight-obscuring fence or wall built to the maximum allowed height of the zone shall be constructed and maintained along the sides and rear of the facility. Chain-link type fences and gates are permitted along front lot lines. The facility may be lighted for use during hours of darkness, but shall not be lighted between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. in residential zones. The site shall be monitored and maintained in a clean, safe and healthful This ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days from APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this~ ,1996. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ~ ., 1996. day of day of RECYCLE.ORD - Di~ 2 - 2/14196 3 JOHN E. LAW, Council President APPROVED this ~ day of ., 1996. LYNN HORTON, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk RECYCLE.ORD- Disk 2 - 2/14/96 4 E~LHIBIT "A" LAND USE TABLES sF sF sv 1 2 3 DR MF CBR MR HD PO NB GB SC BC BP IP IG MX Uses allowed --- by zone Electrical & Electronics Products Mfg. A A A A Wholesaling of Products Permitted in Zone A A SUP A A Warehousing --- General SUP SUP A A Mini-warehousing (small-unit storage) A A A A A SUP Research, Development & Testing Svcs. SUP A A A A A - Professional / Scientific Instrument Mfg. A A A A A Printing, Publishing & Related Services A A A SUP A A SUP Paints & Allied Products Mfg. or Processing SUP SUP A Electrical Machinery & Equip. Mfg. SUP SUP A A Apparel and other Textile Products Mfg. SUP A A A Drugs, Chemicals & related Mfg. SUP SUP Soap, Cleaning Products Mtg. SUP SUP Food Products Mfg. SUP SUP A A Machinery & Metal Products Mfg. SUP A A Machine Shop -- general purpose SUP SUP A _[ _ Recycling Center SUP A Recycling Collection Station SUP SUP SUP SUP Recycling Collection Station (Limited) * SUP SUP SUP SUP A A A A A A A A A Jullk Yard SUP SUP Petroleum bulk Storage & Terminals SUP A * Allow only when it meets all design standards. ZONES: Page 25 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 16, 1996 The meeting began with the Secretary calling the roll: Those present were: Chairman Olden, Commissioners Hancock. Jackson. Dingfie!d, Boyd, Stone, and RObinson. Absent was Commissioner Goetze. Staff Present: Ron Hough. Shane Jensen. Jack Allingham and M0rylyn Waibel. (;hairman Olsen asked if there was a quorum'? The Secretary responded yes. Chairman Olsen stated that on the back of the meeting agenda for tonight are the procedures for holding a public hearing. The q;hairman requested that everyone read it carefully because the Commission follows the procedure listed. Chairman Olsen called the meeting to order. Chairman Olsen requested approval of the Agenda. Motion to approve agenda was made by Commissioner Stone and seconded by Commissioner Jackson. Approved unanimously. (~hairman Olsen requested approval of the December 19, 1995 minutes. Commissioner Stone stated that since he had not received the minutes that this item be deferred until the next meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner BOy& Approved unanimously. (~hairman Olsen requested any public input from any item that was not on the agenda: Doug Berger: wants to speak about the Tracyton Beach annexation. 'Chairman Olsen informed Mr. Berger that this item was on the agenda and he would have the opportunity to speak to the issue at that time. Director's Repo~i l~ reported that regarding Pope Resources, the Commission had made a recommendation to City Council to approve a minor map amendment on the Comprehensive Plan to include about a 25 acre industrial area near Pendergast Regional Park. That was approved by the City Council on January 10, 1996 and it goes to second reading tomorrow night. R n_.o_n._H_o..~ reported that the Growth Management Hearings Board made its decision at the end of December on the appeals of our Comprehensive Plan. They gave us about two months to make some changes in the Anderson Creek area to Comprehensive Plan niaps, texts and tables, etc. We have drafted those changes and will bring them back for a public hearing in two weeks with the Planning Commission. February 7th it will go to the Council Operations PAGE -I- (~K. iio'f'O I~. 6,)--~ Ron Hgugh stated th~ we are not sure the acce., right to all of those properties. There are about 1.5 properties .ere and I am not sure tha of them have good is for development and if someone w: to build a house on particular one of them we ould want to know how they are gc to get in and out. Thai sort of a design issue ral than a zoning issue. Those things :e going up further dos the road when we get ~me sort of a plan for devel~ that will show what of an access program the going to develop along with the 1.That is not what we considering tonight, bec~ we do not have proposal. This is an annexation issue. stated that ,wner of the property access through Mr. Shulmer's McConahay, resid of the nei Jerome Nelson, of the area, concerned wi supports SF2. designation, value of thC >err3.', of the area, concern with impact on sexver Ron Hough :ated that from hearing speakers it appeared the con: was for SF2. Stated heights are the SF1, SF2, and SF3--30 fe Stated reason for recommen~ of SF3 was becaus{ is efficient density for public services. Stated p~ and cons for higher density. hearing to the Commissio~ the purpose of the he 28th and E. 29th? Ron Hough indi en closed the pi asked Ron Hough what th~ was zoning only. of the lots that are located that he was unsure. asked Ron Hough if already located in the Ci in fact it is-SF2? indicated that it was SF3. Commissioner Stone stated he fei is important to look at cm ti the neighbj;~ood. Motion by Commissioner Stg~ to forward a recommend~ to the City Council th~the area to be included in the Tracyton Beach Annexation be d~s'ign '.d as follows upo0,/annexafion, Comprehensive Plan Designation LDR with Zoning ~ reference of SF2. Mgdon seconded by Debra Jackson. Question called: Olsen, yes; ,d, abstain; Stone, yes'; Robinson, no; Hancock, no; Jackson, yes; Dingfield, yes. Motion passes. Hearing//2 - Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Chairman Olsen announced the second heating and asked the appearance of fairness questions. PAGE -6- Ron Hough presented the staff report with regard to the zoning text amendment as it pertains to recycling centers. Definitions were drafted for recycling terms. Proposing to amend the land use tables of the zoning ordinance to allow recycling centers in the Industrial Park Zone by special use permit and in addition to where it is allowed in the Industrial General Zone and General Business Zone. Amend the same table to allow recycling collection stations by special use permit in the General Business Zone/Shopping Center Zone and the Industrial Park Zone and the Industrial General Zone. The recycling collection station limited is proposed to allow that outright in all zones when it meets recycling collection station design standards. These are for public use facilities only. Chairman Olsen requested public input. Tom Triggs, Bremerton resident, agrees with 99% of the proposal. Concern with the collection stations turning into garbage dumps. Chairman OIsen closed the public hearing to the Commission. Commissioner Stone in response to Mr. Triggs remarks questioned paper and cardboard bins'? Ron Hough indicated that there are already paper and cardboard bins throughout the City a.nd it would be difficult to require them to landscape around them and added that they are not really a problem. Commi~si0ner Boyd asked if there are any controls over the bins to requh-e them to empty them? Commissioner Stone indicated that the Lion's club has several bins and that Brem-Air is good about emptying them. Also questioned recycling center design centers, with regard to the landscaping. Ron Hough indicated the landscaping requirements are for the public facilities, not for example, apartment complexes. Commissioner Robinson questioned definition//3, recycling center and recycling collection both have attached to them approval of a SUP, the collections station limited does not. ~ indicated that it is good to be able to review them under the SUP, because you are never sure what that are going to look like. Commissioner ~$t0ne asked that the limited situation applies primarily to apartment complex, etc.? Ron Hough responded not necessarily, it could be a private operation on a vacant lot, limited to lighter weight recyclables. Commissioner Dingfield asked if the City were to establish public recycling collection centers, would that open up the door for removing the mandatory paid requirements for residential residents? PAGE -7- Ron Hough indicated that was not the intent, but would supplement the program. Commissioner Robinson asked Ron Hough what the down side of including cardboard and paper'? Ron H~)ugh indicated the old ones could be grandfathered in. The new ones would have to meet the standards. R0n Hough reminded the Commission of Mr. Triggs concern with regard to the landscaping. Chairman Olsen asked if that would be taken care of by stafF? R0n Hough indicated that it would be treated like a new parking lot going in. Chairman Olsen recommended that paper and cardboard be added to any motion made. Motion by Robinson, after reviewing and considering the proposed amendments and input provided by the public and by Ciw staff, I f'md the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to meet the City's approval criteria with the addition of accommodating both paper and cardboard recyclable products and I move that these amendment be recommended for Ciw Council for approval. Second by Commissioner Stone. Question Called. Boyd, yes; Stone, yes; Robinson, yes; Hancock, yes; Jackson, Dingfield, yes; Olsen, yes. Motion passes. )'es; Hearing $3 - Our Lady Star of the Sea/p/arish ~~ Olse~~,nled the he: 5jd~ and asked the e of fairness .C, tmmissioner.,Hancock indicator mt he is a member o parish and aske¢ audience if he /hould re~ himself or/~ Jerry. Sofiano stated thja~' the audience should j~t have to object a~d that if anyOne on tl~ ~C°/~..~ssi°n has a/7t'lict theY sh°uld re/7"themself' _~// / ,l~n Hough add¢8 that Commissioner I~ncock had abstaineO/on the first decision a cj:~ple of -///~eeks ag°'/~mmissi°ner Han~14ft th7 r°°m'- 6th,_ ~,, to~p. lan~ :~ the hearing in Novejn/ber. Applicatij~ for a ;e plan review and ~ecial use permit ~[a zoning ordinance spe~cial exception $0~r a red front yard setba~ Also the parish p ; to use a security revere which exceedyfieight Ii Vacation and of the ~nix g staff recomn~nds approval of~e right- /vacation. 8 ~ ~ AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Ordinance # Reorganizing the Hearing Examiner Function FOR AGENDA OF: March 6, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT: Admin. Services ORIGINATOR: Kathy McCluskey~.¢~.. DATE SUBMITTED: February 29, 1996 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back 3. EXHIBITS: City Attorney ~ ~, ~ , / ENDORSEMENT ~ ~IN~TION__ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRE~tDE~-~OR SUBMI~TAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNClL~CTION: The provisions for appealing to the Hearing Examiner were made uniform throughout the BMC including a filing fee of $50, giving the appellant wking days to file an appeal, and requiring that the appeal be based upon a written decision authorized by the Department Director. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to pass proposed ordinance. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Admin. Services ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Admin. Services EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE: AMENDED AGENDA BILL NO: CLEARANCE COMMENTS (cont.): 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (cont.): IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Hearing Examiner provisions will not be uniform throughout code. Se IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES N/A 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: AN ORDINANCE reorganizing the hearing examiner function as part of the Bremerton Municipal Court and amending Chapters 2.62, 5.02, 6.04, 6.32, 7.07, 7.08, 10.11, 10.40 and 15.08 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Amendment. Section 2.62.045 is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.62.045 HEARING EXAMINER - PROCEDURE - APPEAL. The hearing examiner shall have jurisdiction to receive and rule on appeals by aggrieved appellants of administrative decisions after a written complaint has been denied by the Department Director or designee. Appeals to the office of the hearing examiner from any final administrative decision covered by the provisions of this chapter shall be made within ~ seven (7) working days from the date of appellant's notification of the decision. Date of mailing shall be considered date of notification. Appeals shall include the appellant's name, address and telephone number, and the written decision being appealed and the municipal code section establishing the appeal process. Appeals shall be accompanied by a Fifty Dollar ($50.00) filing fee, which shall be refunded if the appellant substantially prevails. The Municipal Court Judge shall adopt rules for scheduling and conduct of administrative hearings. Enforcement of the administrative decision being appealed to the examiner shall be stayed during the pendency of an appeal which has been properly and timely filed provided there is not imminent threat to the public's safety and weffare. The hearing examiner's decision shall be final and conclusive unless the appellant or the City files for a Writ of Certiorari in Kitsap County Superior Court within thirty (30) days. Procedures of this section, including filing fee, and appeal of the examiner's decision shall apply unless different procedures are specified in the ordinance establishing the administrative appeal. The examiner shall have jurisdiction to receive and nde on appeals of administrative decisions from the following Titles of the Bremerton Municipal Code: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Business Licenses and Regulations, Title 5 Health and Sanitation, Title 6 Animals and Fowl, Title 7 Peace, Safety_ and Morals, Title 9 Traffic, Title 10 Municipal Utilities, Title 15 Section 2. Amendment. Section 5.02.310 is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.02.310 APPEALS. Any taxpayer aggrieved by the amount of the fee or tax found by the Treasurer to be required under the provisions of this chapter may file a written appeal with the office of the hearing examiner within ~ seven (7) working ealeada~ days from the time such taxpayer was sent written notice of such amount. Such notice shall also contain the taxholder's appeal rights ,r~ u~_:_~ ~,~: .... u~n_: ...... : .... u~, ~, ....a ..... a: ...... v a ....... :,u ,~.~ o ....a ..... ,~,,~: ......~ ,~.~ r~:,,, (Ckapter 2.84). The determination appealed from shall be regarded as prima facie correct. The examiner may reverse or modify an action of the Treasurer and ascertain the correct amount of the fee or tax due if the Treasurer's determination violates the terms of this chapter or is contrary to law. Section 3. Amendment. Section 5.02.360 is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.02,360 REVOCATION OF BUSINESS LICENSE CONDITIONS. The Treasurer may revoke or suspend the business license issued to any person engaged in business activities within the City who is in default in any payment of any license fee or tax owed under Title 3 or 5 of the Bremerton Municipal Code; or who shall fail to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter; or where any licensee or employee of the licensee is engaged in any conduct which violates any state or local laws or ordinances at the licensee's place of business, and of which the licensee has actual or constructive notice; or upon the recommendation of the county health department that such business is being managed, conducted or maintained without regard to proper sanitation and hygiene. In the event the Treasurer shall suspend or revoke the license, (s)he shall cause to be served upon the licensee an order by certified mail which states the reasons therefor and the licensee's appeal rights. Such revocation or suspension shall take effect ~ seven (.7) working eatead~ days from the date of receipt of notice by certified mail from the Treasurer unless the licensee files a written appeal with the office of the hearing examiner before the effective date of the Treasurer's administrative decision of revocation or suspension. A licensee who has been licensed in the preceding license year may continue to engage in the activity for which the license is required, pending decision by the examiner, unless the Treasurer determines that a clear, substantial and imminent hazard to the health, safety, welfare, privacy or property of any person would result. The administrative decision appealed from shall be regarded as prima facie correct. The examiner may affirm or deny the Treasurer's decision to suspend or revoke a license. The decision of the examiner shall be final unless a pet:"dcn; ........ :-~ .... :~ ~--' '~' ..... :,-,~-- :~ ~ appeal of the decision is filed under BMC 2.62.045. Section 4. Amendment. Section 6.04.090 is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.04.090 APPEALS. Determinations made by the garbage contractor regarding the frequency of collection or the size of solid waste containers required of the public may be appealed ..... ~. ...... u ....a by .u .... u ..... . ..... H aring Ex mia · e a er. 3 Section 5. Amendment. Section 6.32.090 is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.32.090 RIGHT TO APPEAL. Any person aggrieved by an order, decision, rifling or interpretation by the administrator may file an appeal in writing with the office of the Bremerton Hearing Examiner pursuant to BMC g:84 2.62. Section 6. Amendment. Section 7.07.200 is hereby amended to read as follows: 7.07.200 HEARING. The custodian of a dog declared dangerous may file a request within ten (10) days from the date of such notice for a hearing before the hearing examiner of the City of Bremerton to contest such declaration under procedures of BMC ~ 2.62. Section 7. Amendment. Section 7.08.200 is hereby amended to read as follows: 7.08.200 ABATEMENT - IMPOUNDMENT. To abate a nuisance defined above, or to rescue an animal from cruel treatment as defined in BMC 7.08.600, an animal control officer may: (d) (2) If the custodian does not request the hearing provided for by 7.07.200 or if such hearing is requested and the Hearing Examiner upholds the Animal Control Officer's "dangerous dog~ determination, said animal may be detained until the custodian shows proof that he/she has complied with requirements of this Chapter pertaining to the keeping of a dangerous dog. (i) If the custodian shows proof that he or she has met the requirements for keeping a dangerous dog in the City, the dog will be released upon payment of impound and boarding fees. (ii) If the custodian has not shown proof that hr or she has met the requirements for keeping a dangerous dog within fifteea-(4~ thirty_ (30) days of the Hearing Examiner's decision, the animal may be immediately destroyed. 4 Section 8. Amendment. Section 10.11.050 is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.11.050 NUISANCE DECLARED - APPEAL. (a) In addition to the enforcement provisions of Section 10.11.040, if any person fails to respond to three or more outstanding infractions for parking a vehicle in violation of this Title, the City Attorney shah mail a Declaration of Vehicle Nuisance to the registered and legal owners of said vehicle as shown by the records of the Washington State Department of Licensing informing them that the cited vehicle shah be declared a nuisance and subject to immediate impound or immobilization unless, within ten (10) days, either owner (1) pays the underlying infractions or (2) appeals the Declaration of Vehicle Nuisance. (b) Appeal of the Declaration of Nuisance Vehicle may will bet-,- ~---~'~ ~,~' a hearL':g -~+~. x!eh~c!z heard by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to BMC 2.62. Failure to appear at the scheduled hearing will be deemed a waiver of any rights to contest the Declaration. At the hearing, the owner shah have the burden of showing the registered owner did not fail to respond to three or more outstanding infractions for parking. Section 9. Amendment. 10.40.130 APPEAI~. (a) (1) Section 10.40.130 is hereby amended to read as follows: Hearing an AppeaL Venue. The affected employer :S~..l~. :e!ezt tz may appeal the initial order of the Presiding Officer :':: -i'k-r 'k- '":'-' ~' ~ ......... ~".--:~:--' through the administrative ..... .., ....................... ~,,.. Cz::-t or process set forth in BMC 10.40.130(a)(3). Section 10. Amendment. Section 15.08.020 is hereby amended to read as follows: 5 15.08.020 APPEAL - MUNICIPAL COURT. Bremerton Municipal Court shall have jurisdiction to receive and rule on appeals from customers aggrieved by the Department's decision to shut off water, or any decision regarding the amount charged for water, sewer or stormwater services after a written complaint has been denied by the Department under section 15.08.010. The administrative appeal under this chapter shall be conducted according to procedures o mu c co e c a er 2. rcv c, ........... ~ .................... j ~ ..~ ..... ~ .... Section 11. passage and publication. APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days from 1996. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of , day of ,1996. APPROVED this JOHN LAW, Council President day of ,1996. ATTEST: LYNN HORTON, Mayor KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk 6