Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09/25/96 AGENDA
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 239 4TH STREET BREMERTON, WA 98337 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SEPTEMBER 25t 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, from the Consent Agenda and placed on the the request of a Council member. A. Minutes - August 28, 1996 B. Confirmation Of Jim Spencer As Interim Director Of Parks & Recreation it may be removed Regular Agenda at #AB96-214 CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 4. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 5. MAYOR'S REPORT 6. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) 7 o NEW BUSINESS A. School Resource Program Contract Renewal B. Amendment #3 To The Professional Services Contract With Abeyta & Associates Co To Approve Consultant Contract With Kato & Warren, Inc., For Consulting Assistance With The Charleston Community Plan (Under State PERF Grant) D. Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement for 1708 Park Avenue #AB96-216 ,~-O #AB96-217 ~/~ #AB96-218 37 #AB96-219 ~ ~I (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE) ORDINANCES A. Ordinance #4571 (Second Reading) Reorganizing Reorganizing Health District B. Ordinance #4572 (Second Reading) Adopting The #AB96-213 /~ Harrison District Plan As An amendment To The Bremerton Comprehensive Plan C. Ordinance (First Reading) Amending B.M.C. Chapter 2.88, Disability Action Committee PUBLIC HEARING - 6:00 PM OR LATER A. Appeal Of Planning Commission Decision Denying #AB96-221 Shoreline Permit For Private Recreational Dock At 1542 Madrona Point Drive (Don Holtz) (Closed Hearing Pursuant To City Council Policy And Procedures Rule 912) 1. SUBJECT: AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL Minutes - August 28, 1996 FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: September 25, 1996 City Council John Law, President 9-13-96 2. C__~: (com~aent on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: ENDORSEMENT__ INFORPLATION __ APPROVED BY coUNcILp/~D~N~T FOR SUBMI~>XLp ' NT FOR SUBMITT : MAYOR coUNcIL PRESIDENT /~//~/~ 4. S~Y STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL 2~ION: 8. RECOM/~ENDATION: RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED __ AMENDED DATE: 2A TAPE #1401 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 28, 1996 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the city Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, August 28, 1996, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present were Bob Winters, Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees, Richard Neville, Lon Overson, and Cecil McConnell. Councilmen David Farr and A1 Colvin were absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Law and Invocation given by Reverend Donna Frey De Cou of Summit Avenue Presbyterian Church. CONSENT AGENDA - NONE #0017 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 ROW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. M/S/C/U(Overson/Montgomery) on August 28, 1996, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: EFT, 200683, 200878 through 201099 in the amount of $773,807.81; and Retirees' Payroll for the period ending 8-31-96 in the amount of $95,365.60. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS President Law announced Councilman Colvin was absent from the meeting due to his attending a gathering of the Tuskagee Airmen in Seattle. Mr. M¢Connell announced the next District #2 Neighborhood Meeting will be held on September 10, 6:00 P.M., at Fire Station #3. The topic of discussion at that meeting will be the "proposed revised City Charter". Mr. Overson announced on September 10, 7:00 P.M., a Neighborhood Information New Work meeting will be held in the city Council Chambers, with the subject of discussion being "Sinclair Landing Project". Mr. Montgomery reported on the following; (1) his enjoyment of the Kitsap County Fair, particularly the musical performance of Leanne Rimes, a 13-year old vocalist. (2) He attended the last Concert on TAPE #1401 city Council Reg. Mtg. August 28, 1996 Page 2 of 16 Minutes the Boardwalk and was pleased to report none of outdoor concerts experienced rain. (3) He too was disappointed that the USS Missouri will most likely be moved to the State of Hawaii, which in his opinion would preclude the majority of the citizens of the continental United States from visiting it due to the cost of travel. The U.S. Congress will be making the final decision about the Missouri, but he doubted there would be a change from the recommendation that Hawaii be its final resting place. Nevertheless, the Sinclair Landing Project will proceed as originally planned and will be successful. (4) Mr. Montgomery read two letters addressed to Del Knauss from Richard Neville, City Council Vice President and Mary McClure, Executive Director of Sinclair Landing Association (SLA), in response to Mr. Knauss's concerns relating to City Council members attending an event at McCormick Woods on August 2, that was hosted by SLA and Fletcher Wright Inc.. Both of the letters emphasized the fact that the activity was a social event, not a formal meeting. Mrs. McClure's letter also addressed membership of the Gateway Committee in order to address an issue raised by Mr. Knauss that having Jerry Menees serve on that committee created a conflict of interest for Councilman Huff-Menees when future issues relating to the project come before Council for a vote. Mr. Winters stated two weeks ago he exhausted City staff members and Council members over a lease agreement regarding the amount of potential lost revenue for the City over placing of communication towers and antennas on City property by commercial entities. He feels strongly that this is a very important issue for the City and he will continue to investigate the exact dollars and how much revenue is potentially lost to the City. He announced District #9's annual Neighborhood Meeting will be held September 9, 1996, 7:00 P.M., at his residence located at 1104 Carr Blvd. He noted it is important to support youth fund raising activities, which seem to be quite prevalent at this time of year. Lastly, he and his family recently visited Disneyland and he continues to believe that theme parks and a place of destination is truly successful in some cities and he hoped someday Bremerton could head in that direction because it is a good family way to create jobs. Mr. Law announced the next District #3 Neighborhood Meeting will be held on September 17, 1996, 7:00 P.M., at the Senior Center. Police Chief Paul DuFresne will be the guest speaker at that meeting. Lastly, he announced Council will hold a Study Session immediately following the Council meeting to discuss Comprehensive Plan Amendments. M~YOR~S REPORT Mayor Lynn Horton brought good news...~the City has been ranked #1 to receive an EDA grant.in the amount of $300,000 to be matched by TAPE #1401 City Council Reg. August 28, 1996 Page 3 of 16 Mtg. Minutes the City for improvements to Evergreen Park. The City placed #1 out of 61 projects. Presently, the City is in the bid process for the relocation of 14th Street and soon the Street Department will demolish the existing restroom, which will be rebuilt, and, work will begin on some shoreline restoration. She is also moving forward with property acquisition along the southern portion of Smith Cove; however, further soil contamination sampling must be completed before finalizing the Consent Decree in order to acquire that property. Mayor Horton read the following Proclamation: (1) September 2 through October 1, 1996 as Washington Water Weeks. Don Larson, President of Washington Scuba Alliance, accepted the Proclamation and announced Washington Scuba Alliance and Sinclair Inlet Action Committee will sponsor a clean up on September 21, starting at the First Street Dock. Information on the clean up event is available by calling 373-5367. Mayor Horton stated the loss of retaining the USS Missouri has been a real concern to a lot of people and whether or not another ship will be pursued has not been determined; however, that issue will be given careful review. She does not believe that another ship can come in and simply replace the Missouri, both from a community support standpoint and a financial standpoint, so careful review needs to be given in order to build consensus if the Missouri is to be replaced with something else. PUBLIC RECOGNITION President Law announced following a concern raised by a citizen, Council will no longer record citizen's addresses or phone numbers in the City Council Meeting Minutes. When known, individuals speaking before the City Council will be identified as "Bremerton resident", "County resident" or some other identified city. Del Knauss thanked Richard Neville for his response to his questions brought up on August 14, however, he still felt that Council members should have notified the public of their plans to attend or the fact that they did attend the August 2nd event at McCormick Woods. He referenced Mary McClure's letter and the fact that his item #2 was never answered...are we talking about one-way traffic for Burwell and 6th Street? In his opinion, public tax dollars were spent, approximately $335.00 on the "social event", which he felt should have been open to the public. Anne Albright, Gina Cruz, Colleen Barmy, Patty Robson, all Bremerton residents, expressed concern over drug and crime activity, gang activity, child neglect, vandalism, loud parties, fighting and prostitution in there neighborhood (1000 block of 4th and 5th Street) that goes on day and night. Calls have been made TAPE #1401 city Council Reg. Mtg. August 28, 1996 Page 4 of 16 Minutes to the Police Department; however, they have not received relief from the disturbing activity and they are afraid to let their children play outside because of the danger it presents. Mariwyn Tinsle¥ reported on the upcoming Constitution Day Luncheon on September 15, and the award of the Martin Luther King Bridge Builder Award. Mark Mosha¥ and Phil Moncrief invited everyone to attend a Labor Day Rally and Protest Demonstration on the waterfront boardwalk on September 2, 1996, 4:00 P.M.. Matthew Palermini, representing Harrison Memorial Hospital, thanked the 63 blood donors at the August 26 Blood Draw. Another Blood Drawing will be held on August 30, at the South Kitsap Health Care Campus from 1:00 PM - 7:00 P.M.. Don Larson, President Washington Scuba Alliance, announced the EPA has a free activity guide for Water Weeks and can be obtained by calling 1-800-424-4EPA. He also announced an International Under Water Clean Up will be held September 21. He was sad to see the Missouri leaving the Bremerton area, but he supported the idea finding another battleship to take its place as a tourist attraction. He toured the USS Texas, a WWI - WWII Battleship, in Houston, Texas, which he found very interesting. Charlie Brown, Bremerton resident, noted the State of Washington funded over $300 million dollars to build a Mariner's stadium, as well as offering $3 million dollars toward retaining the USS Missouri in Bremerton and Kitsap County was willing to provide $4 million dollars for the Missouri project; but no one can find enough money to permanently solve the drug problem in Bremerton. He questioned where are the priorities? Don Atkinson, KITZ Radio, announced a Parents Rights Rally will be held on August 31, 1996, in Poulsbo from 12:00 noon to 5:00 P.M., at Rob Park, and the MC will be Mike Siegel. Emily Mosha¥, Bremerton resident, reported Terrie O'Neil, Municipal Services Coordinator and Lori Smith, City Council Office, assisted her in tracking down the missing flower barrel that had been placed on the corner of Burwell and Pacific. It appears the barrel was damaged due to an accident; however, it will be replaced. She thanked the Police Department for helping her get rid of some very bad drug, prostitution and crime situations. John Thomas stated he was not opposed to the City Council receiving a raise in pay, but he would like that raise to be tied to the equal percentage point of the lowest bargaining unit pay raise TAPE #1401 City Council Reg. Mtg. August 28, 1996 Page 5 of 16 Minutes given to City employees. Should Council decide to tie it to the CPI, he suggested to modify the current bargaining units contracts to raise their's to that CPI. 7A - LEASE/AGREEMENT WITH AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES (ALSO KNOWN AS WESTERN TELEPAGE), ~i~B96-181 The city of Bremerton formerly had three leases with AT&T (2 for the Cheryl Drive site and one for the Olympus Drive site). Monthly payments for these three sites were approximately $1,100.00. During renegotiations, it was determined that it would be prudent to re-examine monthly rates and to combine the three leases into two. The method of payment would be based on the total number of frequencies utilized by Western Telepage at$250.00 per frequency. They currently had five frequencies and were adding one additional which brought the monthly rent to $1,500.00 (excluding tax). Paul Lucas, Public Works and Utilities Department, stated no construction is involved with this proposal and is simply AT&T installing antennas on existing communication towers. Revenues to the City will increase as a result of this proposal and the $250.00 per frequency is pretty much the standard for the industry in the area for that particular type of addition. He noted several minor editorial changes were made to the agreement as follows: last paragraph and last line of section 1 - Premises...delete the words and emerqenc¥ qenerator. Under Section 4 - Compensation - the first sentence shall read as follows: "Lessee shall pay Lessor a monthly rental charge of $1,250.00 per month in addition to leasehold excise tax and the other lease at $250.00 per month in addition to applicable leasehold excise tax. Under Section 7 - Taxes, second sentence shall read: "Lessor shall pay all real property taxes attributable to the property and lessee shall pay lease hold taxes as required. Public comment - none. Mr. Nevill~ asked if he understood correctly that the City would receive $250.00 per additional frequency and that rate would be adjusted each year according to the CPI? Mr. Lucas stated yes. Mr. Neville asked if we are 3-4 years into the contract and the original $250.00 charge for each additional frequency is now $280.00, according to the agreement that new frequency comes in at $250.00, or would it come in at the new adjusted price? Mr. Lucas stated he assumed that with the CPI increases any additional frequency would come in at that higher rate; however, the contract does not clarify that point and felt it was something that could be negotiated with AT&T prior to the final signing of the agreement. Mr. Neville asked if the proposed contract term would start 10 days after the City signed the agreement? Mr. Lucas explained currently #2111 TAPE #1401 city Council Reg. Mtg. August 28, 1996 Page 6 of 16 Minutes AT&T has contracts with the City, the most recent one expires 6-9- 97 and AT&T can add more antennas, but it would not be at the same price negotiated in the proposed agreement. Mr. Winters referenced the comment by Mr. Lucas that $250.00 per month was the industry standard for this area. He asked who had been contacted to determine that fact. Mr. Lucas stated he talked with Dean Heistand at CENCOM, who is familiar with the communications within the area and supported that data. Also, the proposed charge was offered by AT&T and Mr. Lucas talked with Pagenet, who had approached the City, and they concurred that $250.00 per month per frequency is an acceptable charge. Mr. Neville asked if the contract needed to be amended to include that additional frequencies will be charged at the new adjusted rate rather than $250.00 per month? K&thleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated Mr. Neville was correct and could be added to the motion. M/S/C(Huff-Menees/Montgomery) City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the same subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures; including the cost of any additional frequencies will be paid at the new adjusted rate. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In Favor; Abstain: Huff-Menees, Neville, Montgomery, McConnell, Overson, Law Winters 8A - RESOLUTION ~2554t IN SUPPORT OF RECOMMENDING THAT CITIZENS OF BREMERTON VOTE FOR "911 BALLOT MEASURE"t ~AB96-182 The Bremerton Fire Chief came before the City Council to ask their support in a unified message to our citizens in that they have the opportunity to vote a do pass vote to upgrade the County-wide 911 Emergency and Public Safety Dispatch Center. The building, equipment and tower all need upgrading in order to adequately handle the growing volume of emergency calls. Fire chief Mick McKinley stated he and Police Chief Paul DuFresne have been working on this issue for several years and are very familiar with the technology and believe this is the solution for the City of Bremerton and Kitsap County and will carry well into the next century. At this time, they are asking for Council's support of the ballot measure. Public comment - none. Mrs. Huff-Menees stated her support of the resolution and encouraged citizens during the few weeks before the Primary #2446 TAPE #1401 city Council Reg. Mtg. August 28, 1996 Page 7 of 16 Minutes Election to learn more about this issue at public meetings. She emphasized this is a very critical issue for the safety of our community and deserves our support. Mr. Neville pointed out the information provided under Impact Of Non-Passage...if the levy fails because of dated equipment, building and tower, calls may be delayed, delaying emergency crews to those needing their help. Mr. Neville pointed out there have already been situations where the local air bands have been closed to local calls when other areas responding to emergency situations take precedent. One recent incident involved a false call relating to a plane crash in Elliott Bay, which took one of the local bands totally off the air, which could have jeopardized someone in Kitsap County had they tried to make an emergency call. He asked the cost to the rate payers if the proposal is approved by the voters? Police Chief DuFrense explained the levy to pay back the lO-year Bond issue would cost a typical $100,000 home just over $19.00 per year. He equated that cost to the cost of a large pizza; therefore the cost is very affordable although the total cost of the project is over 18 million dollars. Mr. winters pointed out when calls come into CENCOM (911) they are prioritized according to levels of emergencies and he hoped citizens understand that the service they get is great and for the price it is superior, but not always is their emergency as important as what comes into CENCOM, although they are very important. He urged members of the public to support the CENCOM ballot measure. President Law stated he supports both the proposed resolution and the ballot measure. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) to pass Resolution #2554. 8B - RESOLUTION #2555, ADOPTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FOR THE YEARS 1996 2001t #AB96-183 The Mayor and staff have produced the attached CIP document for the year 1996-2001. Copies of the draft document have been provided to Council for review and it has been presented to Council committees. It is now requested that the Council adopt the CIP for the years 1996 - 2001. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated the CIP document was prepared as a cooperative effort of all City departments. He noted this document is one of a number of documents where the City's Administration invests as much resources as available into a variety of long range planning documents in order to provide more efficient services to the citizens. The proposed document combines the Utilities' Comprehensive Plans, Parks Department, 6-Year Street 2810 TAPE #1401 city Council Reg. Mtg. August 28, 1996 Page 8 of 16 Minutes Plan as well as the General Facilities plans into a single document, which will coordinate with the CFP that is required by the State's Growth Management Act and provides the foundation for the City's annual budget for 1997 and ensuing years. Public comment - none. Mr. Neville asked how the proposed CIP document fell within the Growth Management Act? Mr. Hanna explained the Capital element of the city's Comprehensive Plan, required by GMA, demands a document that summarizes at a somewhat higher level than the CIP. The threshold between the two documents is the inclusion of any capital expenditure in excess of $15,000. The threshold for the GMA document is $35,000. Mr. Neville questioned if the CIP was a .guideline to be used, into the future, for improvement of facilities, such as parks, buildings? Mr. Manna stated Mr. Neville was correct. Mr. Neville noted even though the plan covers a 5- year period it is updated annually. He complimented Mr. Hanna and his staff in the preparation of the document. He asked what would happen if the plan was not approved by Council? Mr. Hanna doubted anything would happen. However, it brings about a greater degree of coordinating projects between the various departments. Under the Mayor's guidance, as they prepare the Preliminary 1997 Budget, they will use the CIP as a guide. Mr. Overson stated he could recall a period when there was no CIP, which he views as a valuable tool, and thanked Mr. Hanna for a job well done. M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) to pass Resolution #2555 adopting the City of Bremerton CIP for the years 1996 2001. 8C - RESOLUTION ~2556, DESIGNATING KITSAP COUNTY L~AD AGENCY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN, #AB96- 184 The current Solid Waste Management Plan was completed and adopted by all participating parties (cities, tribes and county) in 1992. RCW 70.95 requires review and revision of Solid Waste Management Plans every five years. The RCW allows for cooperative development of the plans and encourages regional solutions to solid waste management. In the past, Kitsap County Public Works, with concurrence from the cities and tribes, has been the lead agency for development of plans for the region. The County is prepared to continue in the role of coordinating the solid waste planning efforts for the unincorporated county, cities and tribes. We have the option of developing our own plan or participating in coordinated regional planning. TAPE #1401 city Council Reg. Mtg. August 28, 1996 Page 9 of 16 Minutes The City of Bremerton participated in the advisory committee for the previous plan development and were pleased with the results. Funding will come from an Ecology grant and a County Solid Waste Reserve fund earmarked for planning purposes. There will be no cost to the City. It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution assigning Kitsap County lead agency status for the review and update of the current solid waste plans. President Law asked if there is any liability to the City in this proposal? Kathleen McCluske¥, City Clerk, stated it would probably be the same liability that would accrue to the other participants. Once the plan comes back to the City, Council will be asked to adopt it, and once it is adopted it becomes the City's plan. She believes the City will have more active participation in this planning process since the Utility is appointing Bill McKinney, Bremerton's Forester, to serve on the committee. When the prior plan was developed, a Bremerton resident was involved and staff involvement was on a lessor basis. Public comment - none. Mr. Neville noted one of the things he highlighted on this proposal was the fact it would not cost the City any money. #2995 M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) to pass Resolution #2556, designating Kitsap County lead agency for development of a comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. 9A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF $346t938.50 LID BONDS AND ACCEPTING THE PURCHASE OFFER OF SEAFIRST BANK The proposed Ordinance will authorize a bond issue which will finance the construction of LID's No. 327 and 328. The bonds will be repaid from the assessments paid by the adjoining property owners as stipulated in the Ordinances which adopted the respective assessment rolls. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, noted the documentation being passed out to Council at this time is the second draft of the Preliminary Official Statement and a revision to the calculations, which sized the bond issue. At the conclusion of the construction phase of the L.I.D. funded projects, the Engineering Department brought to Council an Ordinance, which upon passage finalized the Assessment Roll on all of the benefitted properties in an amount equal to the construction cost; and in the case of Kitsap Lake the construction cost less the City's contribution to the project. Following that action, it was Mr. Hanna's duty to contact property owners making them aware of the Assessment levied on their property and to provide them an opportunity to make prepayment prior to securing the permanent financing. That activity has come and gone and has TAPE #1401 City Council Reg. August 28, 1996 Page 10 of 16 Mtg. Minutes had one late breaking change from the information originally provided, i.e., one prepayment on the Kitsap Lake L.I.D.. That change (an additional $4,500) has been incorporated into the latest version of the Official Statement so that the Bond issue is now sized at $342,421.31. The Agenda Bill also mentions that the City is accepting the Purchase Offer of Seafirst Bank, which is not being done at this time. In attempting to comply with Council's directive to avoid whenever possible using Emergency Ordinances in securing financing, it will be necessary to fill in the blanks and present to Council the purchase offer from Seafirst at the time of second reading of the proposed ordinance. TAPE #1402 Mr. Hanna pointed out the dollar amounts on pages 2, 3 and 4 of the Ordinance will be changed to be consistent with that one additional prepayment. Also, at the top of page 12 of the ordinance the first line shall read: "has been and is fixed at the rate of 8.2% per annum pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 4560 and 4559, respectively." There is a state statute requirement that the interest rate be fixed in the ordinance that approves the bonds, which is a fairly recent change in the statute where that was previously required to be in the ordinance affixing the final Assessment Roll. President Law asked if he understood Mr. Hanna correctly that he was talking about the interest rate for delinquency? Mr. Hanna stated the interest rate he referred to is the interest rate charged to the property owners under the Assessment Roll. The interest rate that the City will pay will not be fixed until the pricing is completed with Seafirst. Public comment - none. #0131 M/S/C/U (Overson/Montgomery) to approve Ordinance, on first reading Mr. Hanna cautioned Council, as officers of the City, they should not be participating as purchasers of the bonds, but he encouraged citizens to consider such an investment opportunity. 10A - PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ASSISTED LIVING CONCEPTS GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITYt ~AB96-186 On June 18, 1996, the Planning Commission approved a special use permit and site plan for Assisted Living Concepts' Group Residential Facility - Class I Large. The 39 unit facility is intended to provide housing for elderly persons. These approvals are being appealed by adjoining property owner, TAPE #1402 City Council Reg. Mtg. August 28, 1996 Page 11 of 16 Minutes Bremerton Cascade Associates, on the grounds stated in their Letter Of Appeal received by the Council's office on 8/12/96. The written arguments pertaining to this appeal and Planning Commission's exhibits are on file at the Council's Office and are available for the Council's and publics' review. The City Council, when hearing an appeal, shall either: 1) Affirm the decision under review; 2) Reverse the decision under review; 3) Modify in whole or part the decision under review; or 4) Remand the matter back to the approving authority for further consideration. Such action shall be decided by a majority vote of the members present. That vote may be taken at the same or any subsequent meeting. Ian sievers, city Attorney, outlined the procedures for the Closed Record Hearing as required by State law. President Law asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with no objections being made. He then asked if all City Council members had reviewed the documentation in the Agenda packet on this issue? Council members Bob Winters and Sherril Huff-Menees stepped down due to their not having reviewed all of the information; however all remaining Council members would remain seated. Jack Allinqham, Planner, stated the application is for a Special Use Permit and a Site Plan Review for a group residential facility Class I Large. The Planning Commission Hearing date was June 18, 1996. The site is located approximately 995 feet south of Sylvan Way on the east side of Rickey Road. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and approved the Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review subject to four conditions as listed in the Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law. The site is zoned Multi- family use and a group residential facility is allowed in that zone with a Special Use Permit. The Planning staff's recommendation is to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. The written arguments on the Appeal have been filed with the City Council and the Planning Commission's exhibits (6) have all been filed with the Council and available during this hearing. Mr. Sievers stated his commenting on the record as presented to Council, to sustain the argument for compliance with Rule 12 as far as inserting new information rather than arguing into the record and that was reviewed in Council during an Executive Session. He recommended that the comments contained in the Appellant's written argument concerning the background of~one of the witnesses at the Planning Commission, Miss Gibbs, be stricken and not be considered #0435 TAPE #1402 City Council Reg. Mtg. Augllst 28, 1996 Page 12 of 16 Minutes as part of Council's deliberations in making this decision, based on the fact it does not comply with Council's Rule 12 (b), which directs which types of new information may be submitted. M/S/C/U(Overson/Colvin) to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Neville stated his support of the motion based on information provided indicating the City Engineer determined the road was suitable and the number of trips would be less with the senior facility than if it were only single family dwellings. Mr. McConnell stated after a through review of the documentation he too supports the motion. President Law stated he neglected to ask earlier in the discussion if any member of the Council had visited the subject site? Mr. Montgomery stated he had driven by the area on several occasions, not could not recall a specific date. Hr. H¢Connell stated he had traveled in that area frequently, but not just to specifically view the site. President Law stated he visited the subject area and was aware that the project was under consideration, but he did not contact anyone while there. Mr. Montgomery questioned if Rickey Road is an approved City road? Mr. Allinqham stated Rickey Road is a dedicated public right-of- way. Mr. Overson pointed out Rickey Road is also an emerging road that will receive significant improvements in future years. Vote on motion - unanimous. Councilman Huff-Menees returned to the Council Chambers at 7:30 P.M.. Councilman Winters did not return to the Council chambers. 10B - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) TO AMEND "ADMINISTRATION" SECTION OF THE BREMERTON ZONING ORDINANCE, ~AB96- 187 The "Administration" section of the Zoning Ordinance contains the procedures for processing most land use permits. The proposed revisions will classify those permits into four "types", will simplify the advertising and notification requirements for each type, will standardize the steps in permit processing, and will amend and clarify permit approval criteria. The proposed changes also incorporate the requirements of ESHB 1724. These changes will improve our notice requirements, will provide a "consolidated process" for multiple permits, and will integrate SEPA (environmental review) with the Site Plan Review process. The Bremerton Planning Commission, following several study sessions and a special meeting on August 13, recommends City Council approval of TAPE #1402 city Council Reg. August 28, 1996 Page 13 of 16 Mtg. Minutes the proposed amendments. Ron Bough, Planning Manager, stated Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance deals mostly with land use types of permits that are issued out of the Planning Department and provides guidance for those permits as far as site plan review, the application procedures, public hearing procedures, approvals and down through appeal procedures. This section has been revamped to integrate the 1724 Regulatory Reform changes. Following is a summary of the changes that are proposed for the Administration secton of the Zoning Ordinance: (1) categorized land use decisions into four types (2) Standardized processing procedures for each permit category type. (3) Added a new section on "planned actions" that are already proposed in other documents. (4) Adjusted the processing procedures to comply with 1724, the first of which is offering a Consolidated Permit Process. (5) Greater emphasis is to be given Pre-application conferences. The Code requires a Pre-application conference for the Consolidated Permit Process because it is complex. (6) Clarified process for "technical review" prior to Determination of Completeness. (7) A new process for Determination of Completeness, within 28 day of submittal for review of application. (8) Notice of Application timeline criteria. (9) Notice of Public Hearings is stated more specifically within the document. (10) the Notices of Decision and final decision have been modified from past practices. (11) A new section on Development Agreements was added, which came out of 1724, which allows entering into Development Agreements following something, like a major PUD, that may take several years to build out. (12) Revised procedures for the major permits, i.e. Special Use Permit, Variance, Special Exception, Rezone, Development Regulation Amendment, Site Plan Review and Appeals. Mr. Hough referenced a Permit Process Table that lists the basic types of decisions: (1) Type I - basic over the counter type decisions that do not require paper work or application forms. (2) Type II Decisions are a little more complex and require applications and public notices. (3) Type III Decisions are Preliminary Subdivisions, Vacations, Planned Unit Developments, etc., which use to have dual public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. One of the new requirements of the new legislation is to limit the number of public hearings the applicant has to go through in the process, so now one Open Hearing is held and one Closed Appeal Hearing or the system can be set up where only one Open Public Hearing is held within the process. (note: the table identifies where the hearing will be held.) (4) Type IV Decisions address Annexations, Urban Renewal Plans, District/Neighborhood Plans, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Development Regulatory Adoption and Development Regulatory #1067 TAPE #1402 city Council Reg. Mtg. August 28, 1996 Page 14 of 16 Minutes Amendments. (5) Shoreline Decisions address Subdivision Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Permit Revisions and Master program Amendments (legislative). Mr. Hough reviewed the various discussions by the Planning com~ission on who should hold the "public hearing" and the "closed hearings" for each of the types of decisions identified above. The recommendation is to approve the Ordinance adopting Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Public comment - none. Mr. Montqomer¥ stated he agrees with the general principal for 1724 when a mandate of 120 days was designated from the time application to approval of permits. However, he felt strongly that the State had no business telling cities how to handling their permitting processes. The City Council is suppose to set policy for the City. He was violently opposed to the decision 385 where it goes from the Planning Department directly to the City Council. He asked the City Attorney if he understood correctly that the Planning Commission can hold a pre-decision hearing? Ian Sievers, City Attorney stated in effect they can have a hearing so long as it is not used for the record of the ultimate decision. However, the correct term to use would be "public meeting", not a hearing. Mr. Montqomer¥ stated he would object to the ordinance as written because it does not define types I, II, III, IV and V. Mr. McConnell stated he was not particularly crazy how the state has mandated the hearing process, but it had to be better than the "closed hearing" council just deliberated on. M/S/C(McConnell/Overson) to approve Ordinance, on first reading. Mr. Overson complimented staff on weaving through the challenges of the legislation adopted in 1995. He agreed that the proposed ordinance was not perfect, but he believes it gives the public what they would like and that is an opportunity to voice their concerns to their elected officials. Mr. Neville questioned if the Planning Commission was to hold a "public meeting" could that go to Superior Court? Mr. Sievers stated "public meeting" is defined and does comply with the State Act. It is a voluntary meeting that can be held by the Planning Commission or Council, but it is not the record hearing upon which the decision can be made. If such meeting are held by the Planning Commission, the City Council would then be free to hold the record "public meeting" and Council could consider any recommendation as a result of a Planning Commission held "public meeting". Mr. Neville pointed out the Planning Commission indicated they are not TAPE #1402 City Council Reg. August 28, 1996 Page 15 of 16 Mtg. Minutes comfortable with the idea of their holding "public meetings" rather than "public hearings" for Type III issues. Mr. Houqh stated the Planning Commission was uncomfortable because to do a neighborhood meeting of that type the Planning Department would probably send out notices to people within a certain area, inviting them to make comment and meeting minutes would be produced to establish a record of that meeting. The Planning Commission felt that might be perceived as a "public hearing" because it is relatively formal. Mr. Neville agreed it was a type of formality, but he has always respected the Planning Commission's decisions and the effort they have given and he enjoyed receiving their facts and findings and took their recommendations seriously. For Council to omit them from the Type III category is an injustice; however, on the other hand the people who are appealing have a right to the elected official rather than an appointed body as the final say in the matter. Mr. Montqomer¥ stated he attended two Planning Commission Study Sessions where they discussed this subject and the impression he got was their being uncomfortable with the "open hearing" definition; however, they were looking for direction from the City Council. Mr. Houqh agreed that the Planning Commission was looking for direction from Council. Mr. M¢connell stated he understood the Planning Commission did not want to hold "public meetings", but his interpretation on that ruling is the Commission can hold such a meeting but none of the documentation they create can come to Council for consideration and the only consideration would be their recommendation. President Law concurred with everyone's concern that the Planning Commission is not involved in the Type III Decisions, but the Planning Commission is not comfortable with the interpretation under the rules. The Commission unanimously voted to either be the "open hearing" body or to be excluded from participation of any kind for Type III Decisions. At this point, his perception is that the Planning Commission does not want to mislead the public. He will support the motion and hopes a solution can be made to change the perception of the Planning Commission and the way the State wants it handled. Mr. Neville raised a point of clarification on Mr. Law's statement that the Planning Commission had a unanimous vote on their decision to not hold "public meetings" on Type III Decisions. He referenced page 188 of the Agenda Packet and noted the motion was documented as 4-affirmative votes and 2-abstained. Because of the two abstained votes, to him it means there is reasonable doubt and according to their minutes of August 13, they had three recommendations for Council: (1) recommend the proposal that #1427 TAPE #1402 city Council Reg. August 28, 1996 Page 16 of 16 Mtg. Minutes includes public Commission meetings and recommendations; (2) remove the Commission from any involvement of Type III Decisions; (3) ignore the mandate of 1724 and recommend that a public hearing be held by both the Commission and City Council for Type III Decisions. Mr. Neville strongly supports the Planning Commission hold "public meetings" and forward their recommendation to the City Council. M/S/C(Montgomery/Neville) an amendment to the motion to include the Planning Commission in the Type III Decisions. Mr. Overson stated he was not sure where the confusion was coming from over the Planning Commission's intent of involvement, but he felt they desired to correspond with the requirements of 1724, which means one open hearing and one closed hearing. If the proposal is to go with an open hearing under Type III Decisions at the Planning commission level it would automatically establish closed hearings at the Council level. He could support either position, but he felt Council needed to approve the motion as originally stated and test the system for effectiveness. Vote on Amended motion: Motion carried In Favor: Opposed: Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Winters, McConnell, Neville Overson, Law Vote on main motion as amended: In Favor: Motion carried. Opposed: Huff-Menees, Neville, McConnell, Montgomery Law, Overson President Law thanked the TV camera crew for their services: Erin Daniels, Vallerie Daniels, Noah Daniels, and Stephany James. With no further business meeting adjourned at 8;00 PM. KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk JOHN E. LAW, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/JL/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL Confirmation of Jim Spencer as interim director of Parks and Recreation. FOR AGENDA OF: 9/25/06 ORIGINATING DEPT: Executive ORIGINATOR: I. Sievers,City DATE SUBMITTED: 9/19/96 Z. ~LEARAN~ES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ENDORSEMENT ,~ INFORMATION [] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: MAYOR ~ ~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Council is asked to approve the extension of Mr. Spencer's appointment as interir Director of Parks and Recreation for an indefinite period pursuant to BM( 2.49.040. Long term provisional appointments to management and professional positions subject to Council confirmation must be approved by the Council. APPROVE extension of provisional appointment of Jim of Parks and Recreation for an indefinite period. Spencer as interim Directo] RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] DATE: COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: AGENDA BILL NO.: (OVER) 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: IMPACT OF NON-PASS~GE: 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EOUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: /? AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: School Resource Program Contract renewal FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: Sept 25 1996 Police ~/~ Chief Du Fresn~ =~=-~ Sept. 12, 1996 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back 3. EXHIBITS: cessary) City Attorney~X~f~&%~- Contract document ENDORSEMENT/~ INFORMA~O~ ' APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: 4. S~Y STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL A~: This is a renewal of the contact for school resource officer service with the Bremerton school district. This agreement pays ~ the salary for one officer (entry level) and provides for some additional overtime hours to enhance coverage to the district. Council is asked to approve execution by the Mayor. RECOM}{ENDATION: Approve the signing of this contract. o RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: M n r Mine June, 1997 PULLED __ TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. APPROVED DATE: 11. NOTICE OF ACTION DISAPPROVED AMENDED AGENDA BILL NO: ~&--~,./& 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS (cont. ~: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (cont.): 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: This program would end, revenue. and the budget would not have the additional 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EOUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES Progr~n and staffing provided for in current years budget and will be included in 1997 budget request. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: BREMERTON POLICE DEPARTM~NT THIS AGREEMENT, MADE AND ENTERED INTO 1N TRIPLICATE, THIS 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1996 BY AND BETWEEN THE BP,~MERTON ~CHOOL DISTRICT 100oC HEREINA~"IER CALLED THE OWNER AND BREM~RTON POLICE DEPARTMENT HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CONTRACTOR WITNESSETH: That the OWner, by the authority in it vested, has awarded to the Contractor a contract for SECURITY SERVICES as outlined below: THE [~REMERTON POLICE DEPARTMENT WILL. PROVIDE A SCHOOL REOOURCE OFFICER TO ASSIST FACULTY, STAFF, STUDENTS, AND FAMILIES AT [~REMERTON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL AND MOUNTAIN VIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL. AN OFFICER WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THIS DUTY FULL TIME. THE [~REMERTON POLICE DEPARTMENT WILL PROVIDE A PART-TIME SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER TO ASSIST FACULTY, STAFF, STUDENTS AND FAMILIES AS NEEDED IN SCHOOLS THROUGHOUT THE BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT. THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS ALONG WITH HENRY MINCEY, MANAGER, COMMUNITY RESOURCE DIVISION, AND CHIEF OF THE BREMERTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, PAUL DU FRESNE, WILL WORK WITH THE BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT AND BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS TO PROVIDE A POSITIVE, SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR STUDENTS AND EMPLOYEES. THE OFFICERS WILL WORK WITH INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS, SMALL GROUPS OF STUDENTS, AND LARGE GROUPS OF STUDENTS TO ENCOURAGE POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL CHOICES. THE, BREME, RTON POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS WILL WORK WITH THE BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION TO PLAN AND CARRY OUT INSERVICES FOR STAFF WH]CH WILL HELP STAFF LEARN TO IDENTIFY SAFETY RISRS AND LEARN APPROPRIATE RESPONSES IN UNSAFE SITUATIONS. THE [~REMERTON POLICE OFFICERS WILL AT ALL TIMES CONDUCT THEMSELVES ACCORDING TO PROCEDURES LAID OUT BY BUILDING PRINCIPALS. [~REMERTON BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH THE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE MANAGER OF THE COMMUNITY RESOURCE DIVISION TO PLAN AND IMI~,EMIENT SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES DESIGNED TO IMPROVE STUDENT BEHAVIORAL CHOICES AT EACH SITE. ALL PARTIES AGREE TO MEET TOGETHER ON A REGULARLY SCHEDULED BASIS. ~REMER?OM POLICE PAGE TWO Effective dates of service shall be September 4, 1996 through June 17, 1997. The Contractor shall invoice the Bremerton School District monthly for 50% of costs for officer services rendered. Total contract not to exceed $37,000. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Contractor has signed and executed this agreement and the School District has caused this contract to be signed and executed by its duly authorized officer of the day and year first above written. BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT CO/Y'I'I~I CT01~: BREMERTON POLICE DEPARTMENT Carol Whitehead Date Superintendent Signature Date Betty Matthews Date Bus'~ions Supervisor Board MeVnber Date Signature Dale 'AGENDA BILL BP~EMERTON CI~"f COUNCIL SUBJECT: Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Services Contract with Abeyta & Associates FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINAl, DR: DATE SIIBMII-r~D: Septer~Der 25. 1996 P~lic Works & Utilsq. P.R,Lucas. Admin SeDte~ber 10. 1996/ 2. CLEARANCES: (Conmnentpn back 3. ~IBITS: if necessary)//) (1) PeA w/Abeyta & Associates ~/~/~/_ ~. dated September 12, 1995 Director, PW & U~i~/ ~ (2) ~en~ent No. 1 dated 11/7/95 City Attorney~i~~ (3) ~en~ent No. 2 dated 9/10/96 City Treasurer ~ $~./w Operations Co~ ~.. ~ ~ ~, ~ / ~ //, . '~ Fiscal & Budget~;]~C ~ '~/L~ ~ ~,~F - ~ 4. S~ STA~ ~ ~OUI~ FOR CO~CIL ~0N: Since approval of ~en~ent No. 1, Ms. ~eyta has been the pri~ contact with all o~ers, agents, la,ers, etc., of pr~erties in the area approved for conde~ation arced the~P. ~e scope of her responsibilities ~d time re~ired in the ac~isition process has increased si~ific~tly. At present, the project is approxi~tely 70% co~lete ~d the amount of the agreement has been reached. ~ increase in the Professional Se~ices A~eement with~eyta & Associates to ~ amount not to exceed $60,000.00 is re~ested. Ms. ~eyta's role with this project (Continued on reverse) 8. RE ATI - That the City Council approve an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement between the City and Abeyta & Associates for an amount not to exceed $60,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the same, subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures. o RESPONSIBLE 0FFICIA3~: ~h~blic Works and Utilities Director ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Administrative Analyst EXPIRATION DA~q~: December 1996 REVIEW DATE: N/A P~L~ [] T~LED COUNCILDIRECTI~: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION [] APPRO¥~/3 [] DISA~PRO¥~D [] AMENDED [] 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 4. SU~94ARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation will continue in the closing process and obtaining of title records for all transactions. 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The tasks currently performed by Ms. someone from the City Staff. Abeyta will have to be absorbed 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EOUIPMENT AND OTWR~ RESOURCES: No impact on staffing unless not passed. Funding will continue to be from the Wastewater Administration Account. As before, no City equipment or resources except for minor administrative support will be used. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT September 5, 1995 THIS AGREEFiENT is between the City of Bremerton, corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Associates, (hereinafter referred to as "Agent"). a municipal bbeyta and W I T N E S S E T H: 1. SCOPE: Agent will represent City in negotiating property sales from owners in an area known as the Wastewater Treatment Plant Buffer Zone (specifically those properties north of the plant and east of Oyster Bay Avenue S.) Negotiations will include contact by telephone, personal meetings, contact by mail, etc. Agent will provide weekly reports of progress and number of hours devoted to project to date, to the Director of Public Works and Utilities. 2. TERM: Contract shall commence effective August 7, 1995 and will terminate upon completion of the project or sooner upon mutual agreement that Agent's services are no longer required. 3. COM~ENSATION: Agent shall receive a sum not to exceed $10,000.00 for the services described in agent's letter to the City dated August 3, 1995, incorporated as Attachment A. Payment shall be based on a rate of $40.00 per hour with each hour of service documented by a weekly progress report provided by Agent to the City. Agent shall submit statements, no more than monthly, for payment with itemized breakdown of Agent's services completed in accordance with this Agreement. The City, upon receipt and approval of the completed statement, shall promptly process said claim for payment. 4. RRT~TIONSHIP OF PARTIES: The parties understand and agree that Agent is a firm skilled in matters pertaining to land acquisition and will perform independent functions and responsibilities in the area of its particular field of expertise. Agent and its personnel shall act as independent contractors and not employees of the City. As such, they have no authority to bind the City nor control employees of the City, contractors, or other entities. Within the performance of these duties, agent shall work under the direction of the Director of Public Works & Utilities. 5. INDUS~RIAL INSURANCE: Agent agrees to provide for PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT State industrial insurance coverage for its personnel as required by State law. 6. LICENSE AND TAXES: Agent shall possess any regulatory license required to fulfill land negotiating obligations under this Agreement. B&O taxes, if any, shall be paid when due and Agent, by this Agreement, assigns any payments due under this Agreement to the City Clerk for payment of such taxes which have been declared delinquent. 7. INSURANCE AND HOLD HARMLESS: Prior to and during the performance of the work covered by this Agreement, Agent shall provide the Risk Manager for the City of Bremerton with evidence that, if required, it has obtained and maintains in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement a policy of professional liability insurance, providing coverage of at least $1,000,000.00 against professional liability or errors and omissions in connection with the work to be performed by Agent under this agreement. Risk Manager shall be provided thirty (30) days' written notice of any cancellation of said professional liability insurance. Agent agrees to defend, indemnify and save harmless the City, its appointed and elected officers and employees, from and against any and all liability, loss, costs, damage and expense, including costs and attorney fees in defense thereof because of actions, claims or lawsuits for damages resulting from personal or bodily injury, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained or alleged to have been sustained by any person or persons and on account of damage to property, arising or alleged to have arisen directly or indirectly out of or in consequence of or the performance of this Agreement, whether such injuries to persons or damage to property is due to the negligence of Agent its subcontractors, agents, successors or assigns. This provision shall be inapplicable to the extent the City is judicially found solely negligent for such damage or injury. 8. GEN~u~kL CONDITIONS: a. Reports and Information - Agent, at such times and in such forms as the City may require, shall furnish the City such reasonable periodic reports and documents as it may request pertaining to the work or services undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, the costs and obligations incurred or to be incurred in connection therewith, and any other matters covered by this Agreement. Agent will maintain accounting records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals and practices to substantiate all invoiced amounts. b. Entire Agreement - This ~greement constitutes the PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -2- entire agreement between the parties and both parties acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or oral, that have not been fully set forth in the text of this Agreement. c. A~mendments - The parties hereby further agree that this Agreement cannot be amended or modified without the written concurrence of both parties. d. Notices - Any notices required to be given by the City to Agent or by the Agent to the City shall be in writing and delivered to the parties at the following addresses: City Clerk 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA Abeyta & Associates 1001 Fourth Avenue, Plaza Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98154 e. Waiver - Failure to insist upon strict compliance with any terms, covenants or conditions of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of such, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of such right or power at any time be taken to be a waiver of any other breach. f. Compliance with State, Local and Federal Laws - Agent agrees to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws in performance of all services under this Agreement.' g. Applicable Law; Venue - This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington, and in the event of dispute, the venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in Kitsap County Superior Court. h. Attorney Fees - The substantially prevailing party in any litigation arising hereunder shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney's feeds and court costs, including appeals, if any. 9. NONDISCIq_I-MINATION: Agent shall not discriminate in employment or services to the public on the basis of race,, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status or disability in employment or the provision of services. 10. TERMINATION: This Agreement may be terminated by either party for convenience upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party, or for cause if either party fails substantially to perform through no fault of the other and does not commence correction within five (5) days of written notice and diligently completes the correction thereafter. Upon such termination, City will be entitled to reports showing the status of all matters upon PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -3- which Abeyta & Associates is advising the City as of the effective date of termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year indicated. CITY OF BREMERTON Lynn Horton. Mayor D E PARTMEN TA~-A-RP Re VAL: W. Eugen~ Sampl~u~-P'~..E. Director of Public Works and Utilities ATTEST: Kathleen McCluskey, Clerk RM: City Attorney PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -4- ABEYTA & ASSuCIATES REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE AND CONSULTING SERVICES August 3, 1995 City of Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities Paul Lucas, Property Manager 3027 Olumpis Dn Bremerton, Washington 983104799 RE: Bid Proposal for Land Acquisition Dear Mr. Lucas: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to meet with you and Mr. Sampley. Pursuant to your request, I have enclosed my bid proposal for land acquisition services of 45 parcels adjacent to the water treatment plant in the City of Bremertom [ look forward working together on this project- If you have any questions concerning my proposal please feel free to call me at (206) 467-7574. t~ElrrA & r~$OCL, kT'Jg$ i001 Fot.rlri'H AVENIJ~ P[g.7-A, SUITE 3200. SEATI'LF.. WASHINGTON 98154, (206) 649-1881. FAX: (206) 932-6468 PROJECT TASK Land Acquisition SIX MONTH PROJECTION I. SCOPE OF SERVICES Pre-negotiation services, including review of title documents, ver/fication of ownership, initial exploratory contact with owners, and characterization and documentation of the owners' willingness to seil specific property, and ability, to convey marketable and insurable title to the same. Negotiation services for the acquisition of real property, and real property, interests using forms approved by City of Bremerton: Status Report each week during the Consultant's substantive work period and in a form approved by City of Bremerton. Creation and Maintenance of Project Files for each properw assigned to the consultant. Regnlarly updating files so that each file corltains appropriate notafior~s of communications to and from the property's owner(s) and services performed with respect to such property. Made available to the Depaxtment upon request, for inspection and copying during regular Dep~,'tment office hours. DeLiver to the Project Manager the Completed Project Files for each property assigned to the Consultant. Other services requested by the Depaxtment and related to the project. CAPABILITIES UPON REQUEST: Market real estate property in Western Washington Prepare market analysis for residential, land, mobile homes, condominiums multiplexes, & commercial. NegoOation services for access r/ghts, easements, Rights of Way and permits. True Cost Estimates Title investigations-, clem-~g, and provide title reports with supporting docm=ents. Eminent Domain acquisitions and relocations Read and comprehend Civil Engfneering Conslrucfion, Rights of Way and Profile Plans Notar/ze Legal docmuents PROJECT TASK Land Acquisition SIX MONTH PROYECTION II. CONSULTANT FEES TITLE EST. HOURS HOURLY BILL,LNG RATE EST. COST RE Broker 750 + $40.00 $30,000 + III. ESTIMATED CONSULTANT EFFORT Task Assignment A. Pre-negotiation services for 45 parcels. 2 hours for each parcel. B. Negotiation services for 45 parcels 12 hours for each parcel. C. Project Liaison and management, incl. preparation and compilation of negotiation status reports, bookkeeping, data processing, file m~intenance, etc. D. Consultation with tenants: Approx. three (3) hours per tenants. Total mount of tenant_Sl Unknown E~. Ho~5 90 540 ~20 tV. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST~ Consultant hours for land acquisition: (750 hours @ $40.00) Direct Costs: (Included in consultant fees) Consultant hours for tenant consultation: $30,000.00 $ 00.00 $ Unknown Total Co~: $30,000.00+ AUGUST 7 THRU SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 NUMBER OF MEETINGS WITH PROPERTY OWNERS: 17 NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS COMPLETED: 5 NUMBER OF CERTIFIED LETTERS SENT TO OWNERS: 20 NUMBER OF PROPERTIES INVOLVED: 41 NUMEROUS PHONE CALLS TO OWNERS TO SETUP MEETINGS TWICE WEEKLY MEETING WITH CITY PROJECT MANAGER TO DISCUSS NEW DEVELOPMENTS, RECEIVE GUIDANCE ON OWNERS NOT TO CONTACT OR DIFFERENT MF, ANS OF CONTACT (I.E., VIA ATTORNEY). A/~L COSTS OF PROJECT ARE WRAPPED INTO AGENT'S $40.00 HOURLY BILLING RATE (GASOLINE, FERRY TICKETS, PHONE BILLS, POSTAGE, ETC) . AMENDMENT NO. 1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT The City of Bremerton, Washington (the "CITY"), and Abeyta & Associates ("ABEYTA & ASSOCIATES"), have entered into a PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, hereinafter referred to as AGREEMENT for a project generally described as: PROPERTY PURCHASE NEGOTIATIONS IN THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT BUFFER ZONE This AMENDMENT NO. 1 modifies the amount to be paid to Abeyta & Associates by the City for the services as set forth in the basic AGREEMENT. The amount not to exceed for services is extended to $35,000.00. Except as herein modified, the terms of the basic AGREEMENT dated September 12 1995, shall remain in effect. ' In WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT NO. 1 to the Professional Services AGreement the date and year indicated. For the CITY OF BREMERTON, Washington, this ~_~day of~]F~1995. Public Works & Utilities ~E/~ & ASSOCIATTES R~s'a' M.' Abeyt~ ~/- A ~ CITY OF BREM]~RTON Lynn Horton, Mayor Attest: athleen L. McCluskey, Clerk Approved as to Form: Ian~/~/j~~' , City Attorney ~ENDMENT NO. 2 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT The City of Bremerton, Washington (the "CITY"), and Abeyta & Associates ("ABEI"rA &ASSOCIATES"), have entered into a PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEb~T, hereinafter referred to as AGREE~/~NT for a project generally described as: PROPER~"f PURCHASE NEGOTIATIONS IN THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT BUFFER ZONE This AMEND~lqT NO. 2 modifies the amount to be paid to Abeyta & Associates by the City for the services as set forth in the basic AGREEMENT. The amount not to exceed for services is extended to $42,000.00. Except as herein modified, the terms of the basic AGREEME1Tr dated September 12, 1995, shall remain in effect. In WITNESS Wki~REOF, the parties hereto have executed this A~ENDMENT NO. 2 to the Professional Services AGreement the date and year indicated. For the CIT"f OF BREMERTON, Washington, this day of 1996. ABEYTA &ASSOCI~I-rmS Date: By: Rosa M. Abeyta CITY OF BREM~RTON Date: By: Departmental Approval: Lynn Horton, Mayor Attest: W. Eugene Sampley, P.E. Public Works & Utilities Approved as to Form: Kathleen L. McCluskey, Clerk Ian R. Sievers, City Attorney AMENDMENT NO. 3 PROFESSION;kL SERVICES AGREEMENT The City of Bremerton, Washington (the "CITer"), and Abeyta & Associates ("ABEYTA & ASSOCIATES"), have entered into a PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEME/~T, hereinafter referred to as AGREEMENT for a project generally described as: PROPERTY PURCHASE NEGOTIATIONS IN T~E WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT BUFFER ZONE This AMENDMENT N0. 3 modifies the amount to be paid to Abeyta & Associates by the City for the services as set forth in the basic AGREEMENT. The amount not to exceed for services is extended to $60,000.00. Except as herein modified, the terms of the basic AGREEMENT dated September 12, 1995, shall remain in effect. In WITNESS WIiEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT NO. 3 to the Professional Services AGreement the date and year indicated. For the CI~f OF BREMERTON, Washington, this day of 1996. kBEYTA & ASSOCIA'i-r~S Date: By: Rosa M. Abeyta CITY OF BREb~RTON Date: By: Departmental Approval: Lynn Horton, Mayor Attest: W. Eugene Sampley, P.E. Public Works & Utilities Approved as to Form: Kathleen L. McCluskey, Clerk Ian R. Sievers, City Attorney AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL I. SUBJECT: CONSULTANT CONTRACT To approve a contract for consultant assistance with the Charleston Community Plan (under state PERF Grant) FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: September 25, 1996 Dept. of Corem. Dev. J"~l 1 Kay Wilson,Sr. Planne~AJ September 19, 1996 2. CLEARANCES: (Co~.~n~t on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: Dir. Comm. Dev. ~'~//~ · Contract with Kato & Warren, Inc. City Attorney City Treasurer Fiscal/Budget Com ~m~. z.),',.d. 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTIOn: The City has been awarded a $40,000 State Planning and Environmental Assistance (PERF) grant to assist with preparation of the Charleston Community Plan. $30,000 is earmarked for consultant help with five components of the project: (1)ElS; (2)poster-brochure; (3)videotape; (4)regulations; (5) monitoring system. The City issued a Request for Proposals, which resulted in the submittal of proposals by five firms. Three were selected for interviews by an interview committee consisting of a Planning Commissioner, a Charleston District business owner, a Charleston area property owner, and city staff. The interview committee unanimously recommended that the contract be awarded to Kato & Warren, lnG. 8. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL of contract with Kato & Warren, Inc. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10, NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL CONSULTANT CONTRACT -- Kato & Warren, Inc. Page 2 of 2 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: If the contract is not approved, the City will need to offer the contract to another consultant in order to get the necessary help to complete its contractual obligations for the State PERF grant. This would result in selection of a consultant other than the one recommended by the Interview Committee. In this case, there would be a delay in offering the contract to another consultant and scheduling City Council approval of a contract, and the City would be behind schedule in meeting its PERF grant obligations. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES. EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Budgets: The $30,000 contract falls under the $40,000 State PERF grant~ The remaining $10,000 is budgeted for city coordination, printing, and contingency costs. Staffing, Facilities, Equipment, & Other Resources: No impact. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: City PERF grant contract. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT CHARLESTON PLAN COMPONENTS THIS AGREEMENT is between the city of Bremerton, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Kato & Warren Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). W I TN E S SETH: 1. SCOPE: See attached Scope of Work, Exhibit "A". 2. TERM: Contract shall commence on the date of execution and will terminate on December 31, 1997. 3. COMPENSATION: City shall pay Consultant compensation as follows: Total fees under this Agreement shall be Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00). Consultant shall submit a monthly statement describing the services rendered with a breakdown for work completed as authorized under this Agreement. The City, upon receipt of the completed statement, shall promptly process said claim for payment. If the description of services on the Proposal designates additional services which may be requested by the City, said additional services will be paid for by the City at the rate set forth in the Proposal, which sum may exceed the "not to exceed" amount set forth above; however, said services will only be performed, and compensated by the City after the City has directed such performance in writing. 4. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES: The parties understand and agree that Kato & Warren Incorporated is a firm skilled in matters pertaining to Environmental and Land Use Planners and will perform independent functions and responsibilities in the area of its particular field of expertise. Consultant and its personnel shall act as independent contractors and not employees of the City. As such they have no authority to bind the City nor control employees of the City, contractors, or other entities. Within the performance of these duties, Consultant shall work under the direction of the Don Pratt, Director of Community Development. 5. INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE: Consultant agrees to provide for State industrial insurance coverage for its personnel as required by State law. 6. LICENSE AND TAXES: Consultant shall possess a current Bremerton Business License and any regulatory license required to PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT --1-- ~&W-Inc. PSA - Agreements Disk 1 ~ 9/17/96 fulfill Consultant obligations under this Agreement. B & O taxes shall be paid when due and Consultant, by this Agreement, assigns any payments due under this Agreement to the City Clerk for payment of such taxes which have been declared delinquent. 7. INSURANCE A_ND HOLD HARMLESS: Prior to and during the performance of the work covered by this Agreement, Consultant shall provide the Risk Manager for the City of Bremerton with evidence that it has obtained and maintains in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement a policy of professional liability insurance, providing coverage of at least $1,000,000.00 against professional liability for errors and omissions in connection with the work to be performed by Consultant under this Agreement. Risk Manager shall be provided thirty (30) days' written notice of any cancellation of said professional liability insurance. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and save harmless the city, its appointed and elected officers and employees, from and against any and all liability, loss, costs, damage and expense, including costs and attorney fees in defense thereof because of actions, claims or lawsuits for damages resulting from personal or bodily injury, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained or alleged to have been sustained by any person or persons and on account of damage to property, arising or alleged to have arisen directly or indirectly out of or in consequence of the performance of this agreement or the negligence of consultant, agents, successors or assigns. This provision shall be inapplicable to the extent such damage or injury is judicial found to be caused by the sole negligence of the City. 8. GENERAL CONDITIONS: a. Reports and Information - Consultant, at such times and in such forms as the City may require, shall furnish the City such reasonable periodic reports and documents as it may request pertaining to the work or services undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, the costs and obligations incurred or to be incurred in connection therewith, and any other matters covered by this Agreement. Consultant will maintain accounting records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices to substantiate all invoiced amounts. b. Entire Agreement - This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and both parties acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or oral, that have not been fully set forth in the text of this Agreement. There are attached hereto and incorporated by reference as part of this Agreement Exhibit "A". c. Amendments - The parties hereby further agree that this Agreement cannot be amended or modified without the written PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -2- concurrence of both parties. d. Notices - Any notices required to be given by the City to Consultant or by Consultant to the City shall be in writing and delivered to the parties at the following addresses: City Clerk 239 Fourth St. Bremerton, WA 98337 Kato & Warren Incorporated Attn: Bryce A. Ecklein 2001 Western Avenue Seattle, WA 98121 e. Waiver - Failure to insist upon strict compliance with any terms, covenants or conditions of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of such, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of such right or power at any time be taken to be a waiver of any other breach. f. Compliance with State, Local and Federal Laws - Consultant agrees to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws in performance of all services under this Agreement. g. Applicable Law; Venue - This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and, in the event of dispute, the venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in Kitsap County Superior Court. h. Attorney Fees - The substantially prevailing party in any litigation arising hereunder shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, including appeals, if any. 9. NONDISCRIMINATION: Consultant shall not discriminate in employment or services to the public on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status or disability, except employment actions based on a bona fide occupational qualification. 10. TERMINATION: This Agreement may be terminated by either party for convenience upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party, or for cause if either party fails substantially to perform through no fault of the other and does not commence correction within five (5) days of written notice and diligently completes the correction thereafter. Upon such termination, City will be entitled to reports showing the status of all matters upon which Consultant is advising the City as of the effective date of termination. II II II II PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -3- K&W-Inc. PSA - Agreements Disk 1 - 9/17/96 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year indicated. Kato & Warren Incorporated Date: BY: Date: DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL: CITY OF BREMERTON BY: LYNN HORTON, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: IAN R. SIEVERS, City Attorney RECEIVED FOR FILING: KATHLEEN L. McCLUSk%Y, CITY CLERK PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -4- K&W-Inc. PSA - Agreements Disk 1 - 9/17/96 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK CHARLESTON PLAN COMPONENTS I. PROJECT SUMMARY The consultant will assist City staff in the preparation of an Integrated GMA/SEPA Plan for the Charleston community, and related project components. The project is funded by a Growth Management Planning and Environmental Review Fund (PERF) grant from the State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED). The City is under contract with CTED to produce the following final projects: An Integrated GMA/SEPA (Growth Management Act/State Environmental Policy Act) Plan for the Charleston Community. A poster-brochure summarizing the Plan and explaining the streamlined development permit/environmental review process within the plan area. A videotape describing the Plan and project review process within the plan area. The video will be designed for viewing by prospective applicants but will also be appropriate for affected members of the community. Development regulations that are integrated with the subarea plan and environmental analysis pursuant to RCW 43.21C. Mechanisms to monitor the consequences of growth as it occurs in the plan area and provide ongoing data to update the plan and environmental analysis. City Department of Community Development (DCD) staff will prepare the basic GMA community plan and coordinate the project. The consultant will prepare the documents necessary for the plan to meet SEPA requirements for Integrated GMA/SEPA Plans. II. CONSULTANT RESPONSIBILITIES The Consultant will be responsible for preparing all deliverables set forth in Section E. below. The process and product shall be substantially consistent with the Consultant's proposal submitted to the City on August 26, 1996 and RCW 36.70A.500. Charleston Plan Components Scope of Work Deliverables will be provided in paper and electronic format compatible with Microsoft Word. Deliverables in videotape format will be compatible with VHS playback systems. The Consultant shall be responsible for the following: The Consultant will participate in no less than four (4) community meetings and/or workshops, as well as such additional meetings necessary to coordinate the project (e.g. technical advisory committee, steering committee) as mutually agreed upon by the City and the Consultant. B. The Consultant will keep the City informed at all times of project status. The Consultant will assist the City in preparing a brief end-of-project evaluative report for CTED on what was learned about SEPA/GMA integration during this process, including: what worked; what didn't work; where is improvement, clarification, coordination, etc. necessary in terms of process, statutes, WAC's, other agencies, etc. The Consultant will provide the following services, consistent with the Consultant's proposal to the City except as modified by mutual agreement: 2. 3. 4. 5. SEPA Documentation Poster-Brochure Preparation Video Production Development Regulations Regulation Review and Monitoring Plan The Consultant will prepare and provide deliverables to the City for subsequent City delivery to CTED by CTED quarterly Milestone dates. The Consultant will provide such deliverables in a timely fashion consistent with scheduled meetings and mutually agreeable project deadlines, but not later than the following dates: Milestone Deliverable to City by Consultant 1. (N/A) 2. (N/A) 3. December 24, 1996 4. March 24, 1997 5. June 23, 1997 Deliverable to CTED by City (June 30, 1996) (September 30, 1996) December 31, 1996 March 31, 1997 June 30, 1997 Clarification: The numbering of the following Deliverables corresponds to the numbering used in the City's contract with CTED. Only those deliverables for which the Consultant is responsible. The missing numbers are for deliverables for which the Consultant is not responsible. Charleston Plan Components Scope of Work Milestone #3 Deliverables 7. Scoping Notice and Meeting The Consultant will prepare a scoping notice for issuance by the City prior to the scoping meeting. The Consultant will assist the City in planning for, and will participate in, a community scoping meeting. Work Product: Scoping notice and appropriate meeting handouts ge 10. Work Product: Milestone #4 Deliverables 11. Preliminary Draft Integrated Plan EIS/SEIS The Consultant will prepare a preliminary draft EIS/SEIS. The preliminary draft will be in a form so as to be easily incorporated into the preliminary draft Integrated Plan as applicable. The preliminary draft will consist of work completed to date, and may be incomplete. Work Product: Preliminary draft EIS/SEIS Conceptual Poster-Brochure The Consultant will prepare a mock=up of the poster-brochure. It will present a conceptual scheme for the brochure, showing the general layout for the text and plan map. Work Product: Conceptual poster-brochure layout Video Script The Consultant will prepare a draft script outline for the public information video. The script will identify the proposed audience and outline the general form the video will take to present a summary of the plan and the streamlined permit process within the plan area. Work paper Draft/Final Integrated Plan EIS/SEIS The Consultant will prepare a draft and final EIS/SEIS. The draft will be prepared in a manner so as to be conveniently integrated into the draft Integrated Plan as applicable. The timing of issuance of the draft and final EIS/SEIS shall provide for completion of the FEIS/FSEIS prior to scheduled Planning Commission action on the Integrated Plan. Charleston Plan Components Scope of Work 3 Work Product: Draft EIS/SEIS Final EIS/SEIS 12. Regulation Review The Consultant will review applicable City regulations and prepare an outline of expected development regulation modifications for use by City staff in preparing such regulation modifications. Work Product: Outline of Regulation Modifications 13. Draft Poster-Brochure The Consultant will prepare a camera-ready draft poster-brochure for public review. The brochure will include a summary of plan proposals and the land use plan map from the draft plan, along with appropriate photos, graphics and original artwork. The draft brochure will include a smm~ary of plan proposals and the land use plan map from the draft plan, and explain the streamlined development permit process for the plan area. The brochure will be available in draft form for public hearings on the plan. The City will be responsible for printing. Work Product: Draft poster-brochure 14. Draft Video The Consultant will prepare a draft videotape depicting highlights of the draft plan and describing the streamlined development permit process for prospective applicants and interested citizens in the plan area. The video will be shown at public hearings on the plan. Work Product: Draft videotape Milestone #5 Deliverables 15. Adopted Integrated Plan Environmental Analysis Following adoption of the Plan by the City: The Consultant will prepare the environmental analysis of the alernative selected to become the final Plan. The analysis will be in a form so as to be integrated into the adopted Plan document to be published by the City. The environmental analysis will be published as an addendum or supplement to the FEIS as appropriate and if necessary as a result of the adoption process. Work Product: Environmental Analysis of Selected Alternative Charleston Plan Components Scope of Work 4 16. Final Poster-Brochure Following City adoption of the Plan: The Consultant will prepare a camera-ready copy of the final poster-brochure for printing by the City. The poster-brochure will be revised as necessary to incorporate any changes made to the Plan upon adoption. Work Product: 17. Final Videotape Final Poster-Brochure Master Copy Following City adoption of the Plan: The Consultant will prepare a final master copy of the videotape for reproduction by the City. The videotape will be revised as necessary to incorporate any changes made to the Plan upon adoption. Work Product: Final Videotape Master Copy 18. Monitoring Plan The Consultant will include identification of monitoring mechanisms in the FEIS/FSEIS documentation. Such mechanisms will be tailored for incorporation into the City's automated permit tracking system where applicable. Work Product: Discussion Paper III. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES The City shall be responsible for the following: I. The City will work closely with the Consultant to coordinate the project so as to facilitate timely production of deliverables. This will include arranging for community meetings and agency contacts. 2. The City will forward all required deliverables to CTED in accordance with the City's contract with CTED. CONTRACT K&W Charleston Plan Components Scope of Work 5 TASK1 TASK2 TASK3 TASK4 COST ALLOCATION SEPA Documentation: Preparation of DEIS draft and final document with integrated monitoring features. (300 hours production) Poster Preparation: Preparation of camera-ready poster artwork. (30 hours production) Video Production: Development of story line and production of video. (40 hours production) Development Regulations: Preparation of outline of development regulations. (12 hours production) TOTAL Estimate: $22,000 Estimate: $2,000 Estimate: $5,000 Estimate: $1,000 $30,000 KATOr~WARREN AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ~ REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT 1708 PARK AVENUE Dir~to~ of ~ublic Works (Comment on back if necessary) City A~~ FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: & utilities City Treasurer Council Fiscal & Budget Committee ©ctcbcr 9, 1996 Public Works & Utils Gene Sampley, PW&U Dir September 20, 1996 1. Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement 2. Site Map Council Operations Committee MAYoRENDORSEMENT ~. INFORMATION [] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT 4. $~Y STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The property proposed for purchase is an undeveloped parcel located immediately adjacent to the City's wastewater pump station CE-1. This is the primary pump station within the wastewater system. This property is desired to provide a site for future construction of additional pump station storage. This will provide emergency storage in case of pump station failure and can be used 5. RECO~L~ENDATION: The City Council approve the Real Paul Brons for property commonly Mayor to execute the same. Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement with Mr. known as 1708 Park Avenue and authorize the o RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAJ~: Director Pub Wks & Util EXPIP. ATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: (OVER) 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 3. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation as storage to reduce combined sewer overflows. The storage would be located below ground and allow the area to be used by the public. The property has an area of 0.13 acres. The assessed value of the property is $55,000. It is recommended that Council approve the attached Real Estate Purchase Agreement to allow acquisition of this property. 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The property described will will not be able to utilize capacity. not be purchased under this agreement and the City this property for additional pump station storage 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EOUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES: ~ No Impact. Budget: An expenditure from the Wastewater Capital Fund of $ 55/00~ is necessary. Facilities/Equipment: No impact. e~bn o t found NOTE: lot ~idth, ' Parcel 'B' - R. LW.=~.O0' V.C.= 1'L,50' It VICINITY MAP NOT TO SO · A Vlg'W CORRIDOR ~AS'EMENT I$ H~'RI~¥ GRAN"I~' TO:: ~ CITY O~ BREM~TON AS A ¢ONDIllON 'D~U..~IT 5'3rA~DARDS' Or'-..'~i~ C~T3'$ ~..~IVIR0hlId~T.D..r~GHAl10flS & R~0Ui?_~,!_~NT5 (CH,~TEE 3)'. REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SD~LE AGREEMENT Improved Property THIS CONTP~ACT CONTROLS THE TERMS OF THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY. READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING. THE CITY OF BREMERTON, a Washington municipal corporation, (hereinafter called "Purchaser") hereby agrees to purchase and the undersigned Sellers hereby agree to sell the following described real estate located in the City of Bremerton, County of Kitsap, commonly known as 1708 P~rk Avenue. Bremerton. Washington, and legally described as follows: TAX ~ 132401-2-001-2007 SEE ARTFAC~K~r APPENDIX "A" FOR LEG/LL DESCRIPTION 1. P E PRICE: The total purchase price is FIFi'Y-FIVE THOUSAND Dollars ($55.000.00). 2. CONDITION OF TITLE: The title is to be free of all encumbrances or defects except: Rights reserved in federal patents or state deeds, building or use restrictions general to the area, existing easements not inconsistent with Purchaser's intended use, and building or zoning regulations or provisions shall not be deemed encumbrances or defects. Encumbrances to be discharged by Sellers may be paid out of purchase money at date of closing. 3 T TL IN : Sellers shall furnish to Purchaser a Washington Land Title Association Standard Form Owner's or Purchaser's Policy of Title Insurance in the amount of the purchase price. Sellers authorize the City Attorney to apply as soon as practical for such title insurance, and as soon as reasonably possible, Purchaser shall be furnished a preliminary commitment therefor issued by Land Title Company. (The Sellers shall assume any cancellation fee of such commitment or policy.) The title policy to be issued shall contain no exceptions other than those provided in said standard form plus encumbrances or defects noted in paragraph 1 above. If title is ILEAL ESTATH PURCtL~SE AND SALE AGREEMENT -1- REPSA.AGT - Agreement Forms - 3/15/95 not so insurable as above provided and cannot be made so insurable by the termination date set forth herein, this agreement shall terminate; provided, however, that Purchaser may waive defects in writing and elect to purchase. 4. DEFAULT: If either party defaults (that is, fails to perform the acts required of that party) in that party's contractual performance herein, the non-defaulting party may seek specific performance pursuant to the terms of this agreement, damages, or rescission. 5. PRO-RATION: Taxes for the current year, rents, insurance, interest, water and other utilities constituting liens shall be prorated as of date of closing. Purchaser shall pay for remaining oil in fuel tank, the amount to be determined by the supplier. Sellers shall deliver possession to Purchaser on closing, or ~/W days after closing. Sellers agree to pay Purchaser the sum of $ ~/~ for each day of possession beyond date of closing. Possession shall be deemed given when Sellers have vacated the premises and delivered the keys to same to Purchaser or to closing agent. Said payment shall be the sole responsibility of Sellers. 7. CONDITION OF PROPERTY: Purchaser offers to purchase the property in its present conditions on the terms noted. Sellers hereby warrant that to the best of their knowledge the premises described herein and the improvements thereon do not violate the applicable building or zoning regulations and that they are unaware of any material defect in the premises or improvements thereon with the exception of the following, to-wit: None. 8. TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE: Purchaser's offer is made subject t% agceptance of Sellers on or before Twelve o'clock midnight on ~/~/*~ 9. TIME FOR CLOSING - RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES: The sale shall be closed in the office of the Bremerton City Attorney within 45 days after preliminary commitment for title policy is delivered showing title insurable, as ab~ provided, but in any event not later than the ~/~ day of ~W~. , 19 ~, upon which date the agreement shall terminate. The Purchaser and Sellers shall deposit with the Bremerton City REAL ESTATE PURC/{ASE AND SAT,R AGREEMENT -2- £EPSA.AGT - Agreement Forms - 3/15/95 Attorney all instruments, documents and monies necessary to complete the sale in accordance with this agreement. 10. CLOSING ~OSTS AND PRORATIONS: The Sellers agree to pay for the costs of clearing the Sellers' title to the sale property, including any delinquent property taxes, the owner's standard title insurance policy, and any real estate excise tax related to the sale property. Real estate taxes for the year of closing, and utilities constituting liens against the property, shall be prorated as of closing. Any assessments shall be paid by the respective Sellers. 12. DATE OF CLOSING: For purposes of this agreement, "date of closing" shall be construed as the date upon which all appropriate documents are recorded and proceeds of this sale are available for disbursement to Sellers. Funds held in reserve accounts pursuant to escrow instructions shall be deemed, for purposes of this definition, as available for disbursement to Sellers. 12. RISK OF LOSS: If prior to closing, improvements on said premises shall be destroyed or materially damaged by fire or other casualty, this agreement at option of Purchaser shall become null and void. If Purchaser elects to continue, all insurance proceeds, if any, shall be payable to Purchaser. 13. PERSONAL PROPERTY: Ail attached floor covering, attached television antenna, window screens,screen doors, storm windows, storm doors, plumbing and lighting fixtures (except floor, standing, and swag lamps), shades and venetian blinds, curtain rods, attached bathroom fixtures, awnings, ventilating, cooling and heating systems including build in and "drop in" ranges (but exceeding all other ranges) and all other fixtures that are now on the premises shall be included in the sale unless otherwise provided herein. 14. ATTORNEY'S FEES: If either party hereto is required to retain an attorney to bring suit or seek arbitration to enforce any provisions of this agreement, said party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees regardless of whether the matter proceeds to judgment or is resolved by defaulting party curing default. 15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: There are no other verbal or other agreements which modify or affect this agreement. Time is of the REAL ESTATE PURCI{ASE AND SALE AGREEMEN~ -3 - REPSA.AGT - Agreement Forms - 3/15/95 essence of this agreement. Ail subsequent modifications or waivers of any condition of this agreement shall be in writing and signed by the appropriate.parties. CITY OF BREMERTON BY- Date LYNN HORTON, Mayor PURCHASER of Public Works & Utilities IAN R. SIEVERS, City Attorney Purchaser's Address: Bremerton City Hall Attention: Kathleen L. 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 McCluskey, Clerk Purchaser's Phone: (360) 478-5290 On this date ~fT )~, J~ , we hereby approve and accept the sale set forth in the above agreement and agree to carry out all the terms thereof on the part of the Sellers. Sellers' Address: Sellers' Phone: REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT -4- REPSA.AGT - Agreement Forms - 3/15/95 A true copy of hereby received on the foregoing aqreement sign~/ by Sellers Bremerton City Attorney/ Agent for Purchaser is RECEIVED FOR FILING: KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT -5 - REPSA.AGT - Agreement Forms - 3/15/95 APPENDIX ~A" TO REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF B~RTON AND MR. PAUL R. BRONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATEU AT 1708 PARK AVENUE, BREMERTON, WA. LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT "B" of City cf Bremerton Shoe Plat No. __being mare thoroughly described as fallows: That po~on of Go~/t lot 1, Section 13, Township 24 North. Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, in Kitsap County, Wa. described as follc~s: Beginning at a point on the oWnels.t:~Tundary line of sa~.d, section 13, 2080 feet North of the Quarter section comer of said Sec'Cd 3; Thence perpendicular to said West line of SeCdon 13, S 89°02'58'' E, 179.75 feet to the Gov't Meander line of Dye's inlet; 'J'~ence along said Gov't meander line N 37°11'04" W, 35.46 fe~t Thence continuing along said Go'/t meander line S 47°11'04" E to the West line of said section 13; Thence Sou~h along the west line of sect]on 13 to the Point of beginning. EXCEPT the west 22.50 feet for Park Avenue EXCEPT that portion lying Northwesterly of the folJcvcmg described ~ine: ~eginning at a point on the West boundary line of said sect]on 13, 2080 feet North of ~he Quarter section comer of said Section 13; Thence perpendicular to Sa~d West line of Section 13, S 89°02'58" E a distance of 22.50 to the east Right-of-Way line of Park Avenue; Thence N~0°5702'' E, along said East Right-of-Way 99.18 feet; Thence N 45°5702" E, 37.26 feet to the Gov't meander line of said Section 13 and the TRUE FOIt~T OF BEGINNING; Thence S 45=57'02' W, 37.20 feet~ the Eas~ Right-of-Way Margin of ~ark Avenue. E;XC~:? I that por'don Iwng Southeasterly of the folkTC~ng described line: Beginning at a point on the West boundary line of said section 13, 2080 feet North of the Quarter section comer cf ssid SecQcn 13; Thence perpendicular te sad West line of Secdcn 13, S 89%)2'58" E a distance of 22.50 to the east Right-of-Way line of Park Avenue; Thence N 00°5702'' E, along said East Right-of-Way 44.00 feet; Thence S 89°02'58'' E, 35.33 fee[; Thence N 45°5702" E 54.79 feet to the Gov't meander line of Cye's inlet and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence S 45057'02'' W, 54.79 feet; Thence H 89002'58'' W, 35.33 feet; to the East Right-of-Way m~rgin cf Park Avenue. Toqether with; ~[l ~delands as conveyed by ~e Slate cf Washington situated in front of, adjacent to, and abutting [hereon. SUBJECT TO an easement for the City of Bremerton for access to, and maintenance of existing utilities as originally recorded under AFN 8401240106 and amended by a pardal re- conveyance via quit ctaim deed recorded under AFN 9507210041 (both being records cf Kit'sap County, WA.) ' TOG~FHER WITH all tidelands as conveyed by the State of Washington situated in front of, adjacent to and abutting thereon. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO a 12.00 foot W~e easement to the City cf Bremerton for a view corridor as shown on City of Bremerton ~crt subdivision recorded under AFN records of KJtsap County, WA. Ordinance ~eorganizing Health District AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: Sept 18, 1996 ~< Executive I. Sievers, City At 9/12/96 (Comment on back if necessary) 3. ~Ydt%~I2~: Draft Ordinance Study Session 9/9.~96 COUNCIL COMMITTEE 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The draft ordinance continues the joint city- county health district establishes a Board of Health, Health Officer and a process for creating anl funding the Districts budget. Each participating jurisdiction is required t~ approve the organizational ordinance. Approve Health District ordinance on ~ r~ ~a~ H~ith Di~L~ct crdina~ on second reading. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED [] TABLED [] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] DATE: 8A 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: County will operate health department. for directing and cooperatively funding Cities would lose a forum for directin~ expanded health services. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS. FACILITIES, EOUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REGARDING THE BREMERTON-KITSAP COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District was created pursuant to RCW 70.46 et.seq by resolution on November 3, 1947; WHEREAS, RCW 70.46.031 establishes that the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District may remain in existence; WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton desires to continue to participate in the Bremerton- Kitsap County Health District; WHEREAS, the legislative authorities for the cities of Bainbridge Island, Port Orchard, and Poulsbo and the Board of Kitsap County Commissioners desire to continue to participate in the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District: THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Definitions. The following terms are defined as follows: (a) Board of Health - the Board of Health for the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District. (b) Cities - the cities of Bainbridge Island, Bremerton, Port Orchard and Poulsbo. © County - Kitsap County. (d) Health District - the territory within the cities and within the county which provides public health services to persons. (e) Health Officer - the legally qualified physician who has been appointed by the Board of Health. Section 2. Organization established. The existence of the Health District as a separate R ~ entity is reaffirmed in accordance with CW 70.46.0~ 1. Section 3. Powers and duties of the Healtb District. The Health District shall provide public health services tot he residents of and on behalf of the County and Cities. In addition, the Health District is vested with all the powers to perform all duties as set forth in RCW 70.05 et. seq. and RCW 70.46 et seq. Section 4. Board of Health established. The Board of Health is hereby reaffirmed and established. Section 5. Control by the Board of Health. The control, direction and management of the Health District Are hereby vested in the Board of Health. Section 6. Composition of the Board of Health. The Board of Health shall be composed of nine (9) persons as follows: (1) the three (3) county _commissioners; (2) the mayor, city council president and one at-large council member of Bremerton; (3) the mayors of Bainbridge Island, 1 Port Orchard and Poulsbo. Section 7. Conduct of business by the Board of Health. (a) Meetings. The business and other matters which come before the Board of Health shall be transacted at open, public meetings. Meetings may be scheduled at regular times or may be called as necessary. (b) Quorum. Five (5) members of the Board of Health shall constitute a quorum and business may be transacted by a majority vote. © Election. At the first meeting of each calendar year the Board of Health shall elect one of its members chairperson and another vice chairperson. Each shall serve for the balance of the calendar year or until successors are elected. (d) Minutes. The Health Officer or someone designated by him/her shall keep the minutes of all meetings. (e) Rules. The Board of Health meetings shall be conducted in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order. Section 8. Health Officer. The Board of Health shall appoint a Health Officer who shall organize, administrate and operate the Health District on a day-to-day basis. The Health Officer shall serve at the pleasure of the Board of Health. Section 9. Powers and duties of Health Officer. The Health Officer shall: (a) Enforce public health statutes of the state, rules of the state board of health and the secretary of health, and all local rules and regulations regarding public health. (b) Take such action as is necessary to maintain the health and sanitation supervision over the County and Cities. © Control and prevent the spread of any dangerous, contagious or infectious diseases. (d) Inform the public as to the causes, nature, and prevention of disease and disability and preservation, promotion and improvement of health. (e) Prevent, control or abate nuisances xvhich are detrimental to the public health. (f) Attend all conferences called by the secretary of health or his/her authorized representative. (g) Collect such fees as are established by the state board of health or the Board of Health for the issuance or renewal of licenses or permits or such other fees as may be authorized. (h) Inspect, as necessary, expansion or modifications of existing public water systems, and the construction of new public water systems, to assure that the expansion, modification, or construction conforms to system design and plans. (I) Take such measures as he/she deems necessary in order to promote the public health, to participate in the establishment of health educational or training activities, and to authorize the attendance of employees of the Health District or individuals engaged in community health programs related to or pan of the programs of the Health District. Section 10. Budget. (a) Submittal of basic budget. Prior to the expiration of each calendar year, the Health Officer shall submit a proposed basis budget to the budget director of Kitsap County. The proposed basis budget shall include expenditures funded by: Kitsap County's contribution, the County public health account established under RCW 70.05. 125, user fees, grants, gifts and shall be consistent with budgetary guidelines issued by the Kitsap County budget director. Thereafter, the proposed basic budget submitted to the Board of Health aPter the County budget department has verified the County's contribution in accordance with the guidelines. (b) Adoption. The Board of Health shall adopt a basic budget each calendar year~ © Submittal of supplemental budget. If the Health Officer determines that supplemental funding is required, he/she will simultaneously submit a supplemental proposal with the basic budget proposal. The proposed supplemental budget shall be submitted to the budget director of the County and of each City for his/her recommendation. Thereafter, the proposed supplemental budget, together with the recommendations of each budget director, shall be submitted to the Board of Health. (d) Adoption. The Board of Health shall adopt a supplemental budget, if applicable, each calendar year. Approval shall require unanimous vote from the members contributing funds to the supplemental budget. (e) Special projects. The County or any City, or any combination thereof, may voluntarily fund a special project of the Health District. Section 11. Funding. (a) Basic Budget. The annual basic budget amount of the Health District shall be funded by the County's contribution from the general fund, receipt of grants, and the and the public health account, which is created under RCW 70.05. 125 and distributed by the state treasurer. (b) Supplemental Budget The supplemental budget amount of the Health District not funded in the basic budget shall be funded by assessments from Cities. The assessment amount for each city shall be that amount which is proportionate to the population of that city, and that percentage is then multiplied by the budget alnount. The County, in its discretion, may agree to participate in the funding of'the supplemental budget. In the event that the County does agree to participate, the assessment amount for the county shall be that amount which is proportionate to the population of the unincorporated portion of the County and that percentage is then multiplied by the budget amount. Population figures utilized shall be the latest figures available from the Bureau of Census as updated periodically by the state department of health or other official source. © Special projects. Funding for special projects may be obtained from any entity agreeing to commit funds. The County and Cities shall not have the authority to commit funds of another entity. Section 12. Fund established. Moneys received and collected on behalf of the Health District shall be deposited in a fund known as the Health District fund maintained by the County's 3 treasurer. Expenditures oy the Health District shall be made from tn~s fund. Section 13. Construction. This ordinance shall be liberally construed to secure the public health, safety and welfare, and the rule of strict construction shall have no application. Section 14. Severability. If any portion of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder or application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. Section 15. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days from passage and publication. Section 16. Repealer. The 1947 Resolution and Interlocal Agreements passed by Cities and County regarding the Health District are hereby repealed. APPROVED by City Council of the City of Bremerton this __ day of . 1996. PASSED by City Council of the City of Bremerton this __ day of , 1996. APPROVED this __ day of , 1996. JOHN E. LAW, Council President ATTEST: LYNN S. HORTON, IVlayor KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk HEALTH. ORD-IRS Dksk 11-9/1 4 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: ~. I- ORDINANCE/ FOR AGENDA OF: Sept. 18, 1996 To consider and adopt the Harrison District ORIGINATING DEPT: DCD/Planninq Plan as an amendment to the Bremerton ORIGINATOR: Ron W. Houqh Comprehensive Plan. DATE SUBMITTED: Sept. 12, 1996 2. CLEARANCES:.~=Ise baCl~ if necessary) Dir. Comm. Dev. Operations Comm. ,,0~... ._/Z~ ."Y~_ 3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance to adopt Harrison Ptan ,/ Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Correspondence ,/ Parks & Rec. Commission Minutes Harrison District Plan (document) MAYOR ~ ,~ COUNCIL PRESlDENTL~, .,,-'~.~/~'''-~ 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The Harrison Plan was prepared to identify and address the concerns of the people who live, work, or own property in the vicinity of Harrison Hospital and its surrounding business district. The Plan was prepared over the past year by City Planning Division staff. Public involvement was encouraged at neighborhood meetings held within the district, as well as study sessions and public hearings before the Planning Commission. At the end of June, following the Planning Commission's hearing and approval, the Plan was submitted to State agencies for the required 60-day review. No comments were received as a result of that review. The Plan is now ready to be considered for adoption by the City Council, as recommended by the Planning Commission. 8. RECOMMENDATION: -~o~rf~unc~ ap,erc:'a! cf thc ~tached O;di~ancc ct, fiF~t reaJ:,~. ~ City Council passage of the Ordiannce on second reading. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: Donald L. Pratt i0. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: - ! 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Non-passage would have the following effects: 1. The problems and proposed solutions that are addressed in the Plan will not be addressed and corrected at this time. 2. The two proposed new zones will not be considered. 3. There will be no planning basis for proposed changes such as realignment of Old Wheaton Way, the cul-de-sac on Ash Street, the closing of Campbell Way, and others. 4. The area will remain as presently planned and zoned. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: The overall effect of the proposed changes should be minimal on City staff and budgets. The proposed changes to the Capital Facilities Program are very important to the budget process and to the implementation of proposed capital projects. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: o mm cH No. AN ORDINANCE adopting the Harrison District Plan as an Amendment to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton adopted a revised Comprehensiv? Plan by resolution in April 1995 and readopted the Plan by Ordinance No. 4545 in February 1996 to include amendments ordered by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board; and WHEREAS, an area plan for the Harrison District has since been prepared to identify and address the concerns of the people who live, work or own property in the vicinity of Harrison Hospital and its adjacent business district; and WHEREAS, comprehensive sub-area plans are exempt from statutes that limit other amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plans to once per year; and WHEREAS, the preparation of the Harrison District Plan included public involvement at neighborhood meetings, Planning Commission study sessions, public hearings on May 21 and June 25, and culminating in a recommendation for City Council adoption; and WHEREAS, the Plan was submitted for a mandatory 60-day review by state agencies in June, 1996, during which no comments were received from any State agency; and WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council conducted a public hearing on these proposed amendments on September 18, 1996 to accept additional public comments and to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission; now therefore THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN Section 1. The Harrison District Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. APPROVED by the City Council on the first reading this day of ,1996. PASSED by the Bremerton City Council this ,1996. day of JOHN LAW, President Bremerton City Council APPROVED this day of ,1996. ATTEST: LYNN HORTON, Mayor KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk Published: Effective: /"27. EXHIBIT A - ATTACHMENT 1 ADOPTED REVISIONS HARRISON DISTRICT PLAN Chapter 6 Parks and Recreation Element Sheridan Park Paqe 6-15- Strate(~ies: Revise to replace awkward sentence structure -- Effectively block ¢.r,d rc~torc user-created trails down the bluff ~;.th~at:~they !8-s.-,~d~ap~;:fes~tbte th~2~e;~',a~ea~ to a natural state to!~l~¥e~e'nt Paqe 6-20 -- Harrison District Waterfront Access "Link" Plan: Revise section to re-locate pathway system from top of bluff to street side of properties -- The Harrison District Waterfront Access "Link" Plan It is the intent of the City of Bremerton that the adoption of this Harrison District Plan includes adoption of applicable parts of this parks section as a waterfront access "link" plan forthe Harrison District shoreline. This plan will guide provision of public access for shoreline development subject to Bremerton Shoreline Master Program and Bremerton Waterfront Access Plan public access requirements. Thff ;CitEre~g pize~ ~he ~raO, rdina~y.and ~igue ci?cu~!ces [elafigg '~¢ ,the steep, ~ nsta b!e b[~ :a!~ :t~;;~arriso~.Di~Stri~!s horeli~ cT~e~' bluff i~pP~ ~e~r~e fo[ property!ownffi[f required bY the ~Oreli[!~Ma~te( Program t0 provide improved pqbli~ a~ss ~;a~ ~!ong th~ Shofe!ine;~ theiCfty b!a~e~,~app!~ '::~#a*nc¢!lo the;re~?uirement for ~mp(oVe~ ;ialo~g !Distdct ~e,~ ¢t*~atisfaCtion Of the ~State law allows the granting of relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards in the shoreline program. Relief can only be granted when there are "...extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that strict impleme_ntation of the Master Program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020." -- "Variance Permit", Bremerton Shoreline Master Program, pg. 7-3. Adopted Revisions -- Harrison District Plan Policies Recognize applicable portions of the Harrison District Plan as a~ ~t~,adopted Waterfront Access "Link" Plan ~ne~;, ;;'h:;h :; T~l~{~.i. fi~pl~is intended to provide guidance for the development of public access ~ i~ct sli~¢ehCie ....~ ...... , cons~ste ~tt~ the Bremerton ............. , ........... ~j,... Shoreline Master Program. Applicable ~;.~'.;;; ~!$f¢¢~t;p~n. ' · · a) ~p!a~'(t b, Sheridan Park; c. Main Street; and d. Magnussen Viewpoint, A IOW d~oEm~nt a ong;the ~a[rjSbn p!~ttict shorelir~e;to ~atis~hor~ n~e:',Master plan fo~ t~cb~S~ucfisb 'Of ~ !at~d~C~p~ ~pabl!~ac,~es~:'pat~ ~y~t~ ,~,~a ~g tffe s~feet Strategies Adopt a plan ~ora ~ndscapffd p~b!!~;iacqes~ pathwaY:~y~te~,a!9~g:t~ s~reg.t s!¢e~!l ~aE!~q:n ~?~Ct:~sh0rel!n~ prop~!~s;to; ~o~id~¢!ink~ be~eeq ~1! ~shbre!!~!~cesS points, i~cl~ding t~e:~m~h!ty Theater;:Sheridan Pa~ M~!~:street, ~d t~ Hag~'bssen v!ewpoiO a: T~p~hway SYst~ ~o~!~ i~lu~; pro~!sioq~ f0~ b~th;;pe~str!an ~pd ~!cy~!~ tra~e!;' ~ithef ~ro~gh ~a ~ay~'and ~n:street ~ke ~a~es;7o( throag~a ~mbined biCYqle/pe~tda8 pathway The~!an ~hou!d speci~ appropriate trees, signs and street furnishings for use along the: :¢;;bc~ 2:;t;:c: w;tcrF;;~: ,%c~; "L[=~¢ P:A,, t~e pathway System, 2¸: AdoPt an amendment to: the Shqr~libe Master:~rogram to requ re reproved public aCCess cons stent w th this Waterfront A~i~SS E nE B aD ~ ~ng !~ HaE sor~ D str c~ shore ne Adopted Revisions - Harrison District Plan Initiate an~ LID to construct ~ PUbl!c~access~pathway sYstem to imPlement this waterfront AcceS~s ,Lin~ pl~r~ a Pa~i~ipate in the LIDi!0~. Construct bluff-top pathway linkages for all City shoreline properties in the Harrison District, between Magnussen Viewpoint and the Community Theater. b. Seek permission from the State Department of Transportation to construct a pathway link along the top of the bluff in the Warren Avenue Bridge right-of-way underneath the bridge. Conceptual Harrison District Waterfront Access "Link" Plan: SHERIDAN COMM. VILLAGE ~ERIDAN HOSPITAL Adopted Revisions - Harrison District Plan 3 Chapter 7 Zoning Ordinance Shoreline Mixed Use (SMU) Zone Paqe 7-5 -- Development Guidelines: Revise to eliminate reference to pathway location 1. Maximizing views, public access and other site amenities should guide project design within the SMU zone. F,2~ :f pr=~r,ctr, ::'.thLn th:.: :=.n= t: ::hi;'.': r,b~==','.':= #~. Because view and amenities are of foremost importance, the City will give greater weight to public amenities that are provided along the b',u,'f ir,;, ;:'r,~:;=7 =r bcr,r,h :.ccc=r, ~a~i~0~t pU~!!~"aA~s~s~P~¢!~y~¢~, in exchange for relief from other constraining deve[oment requirements. Such relief is requested through the Variance, PUD, or Special Exception process. Shoreline Master Program Development Standards Public Access The Master Program already requires all new commercial development and multi-family development of five or more units to provide "improved public access", which consists of a hard surface walkway to and along the shoreline. "' ..... fr,r purr,hr,:,~ r,~',~ dr, r,L';F,,mr,.*,t r,f p The Harrison District Plan establishes a "Harrison District Waterfront Access "Link" ................ ',--- th- t-- -fth ..... Which Calls Tg~ a landscaged pathway system a ong thestreet Sid~f~pr~perties: T~e MaSt~!'~i!l:~i~dtO b~ arne~ded;to a ow th ~ ~b~figat~t O~ H~eger since the Shoreline Master Program already recognizes adopted waterfront access plans, it will not need to be changed to recognize the waterfront access plan for the Harrison District. LINK.HDP Adopted Revisions -- Harrison District Plan 4 Harrison District Plan Bremerton Planning Commission Recommendation June 18, 1996 Table of Contents Chapter f Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Introduotion Distriot Profile Growth Management 2-I Chapter 4 Conoerns Chapter 5 Vision for the Harrison Distriot Chapter 6 The Distriot Plan Chapter 7 Implementing Regulations Chapter 8 Environmental Review A B C D E F llppendioes (Unpublished) Specific Area E-2: Harrison Health Services District East Bremerton Land Use Inventory Bremerton Shoreline Master Program - Applicable Excerpts Liability for Injuries to Recreation Users (RCW 4.24.210) Campbell Way Reconfiguration Options Integrated GMA/SEPA Documents (ESHB 1724) 1 Infroducfion Plan Addresses Neighborhood Conoerns The purpose of the Harrison District Plan is to identify concerns of the people who live, work, or own properly in the neighborhood, and to devise strategies for addressing these concerns. The Plan will help guide future development in the neighborhood. It also identifies facilities and services to be addressed in the City's Capital Facilities Program. Plan Streamlines Environmental Review The Harrison District Plan is designed to pave the way for new development proposals consistent with the plan. Proposed projects in the neighborhood will qualify for streamlined environmental review if the probable adverse impacts of the proposal are addressed in the environmental review of this plan. (See Chapter VI for more information.) Plan Refines Cif}~vide Comprehensive Plan The City adopted a new Bremerton Comprehensive Plan in April 1995. This plan was an update of the City's 1986 comprehensive plan to bring it into conformance with new Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements. The citywide comprehensive plan provides broad policy direction for the City. It also identifies the "Harrison Health Services District" as a "Specific Area" for further study. This area is the subject of the Harrison District plan. The neighborhood plan operates within the more general framework of the city-wide c6mprehensive plan. (See Appendix A for additional information on the Specific Area.) Dralf Hardson District Plan 1-1 7/~5/96 Neighborhood Participated in Planning Process This plan is based on discussions with residents, employees and business people at a series of community meetings held from June 1995 to June 1996. The plan was adopted in 1996 after Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. Plan Includes Neighborhood Vision and Objectives Highlights of the Plan recommendations include: Establish a Health Care Campus for medical facilities. Construct a south-bound off-ramp from Wheaton Way. Reconfigure Wheaton Way at Sheridan and expand Hal's Corner park. Reconfigure or close Campbell Way Designate more areas for medium and high density housing. Expand Sheridan Park. Establish a Waterfront Access Plan along the shoreline. Draft Harrison District Plan 1-2 7/25/96 Harrison District Plan includes eight chapters and appendices The Harrison District Plan includes eight chapters: I Introduction -- This chapter. 2 District Profile -- Facts about the district and its population. 3 Growth Management -- How the Growth Management Act affects the district. 4 Concerns -~ Assets, problems and opportunities. 5 Vision for the Harrison District -- The desired future for the district. 6 The District Plan -- A plan for future land uses, transportation, housing, capital facilities, utilities and parks. 7 Implementing Regulations -- Special requirements for future neighborhood development. 8 Environmental Review -- Analysis of environmental impacts of implementing the plan. The Plan also includes unpublished appendices, which are kept in the Department of Community Development offices: Appendices (Unpublished) -- Detailed background information on the neighborhood. Draff Harrison District Plan 1-3 7/25196 0 0 0 Draft Harrison Distdct Plan 1-4 7r25/96 2 The Place Dlsfriot Is Looated In East Bremerton The Harrison district is located on the Manette Peninsula in East Bremerton, between the Warren Avenue Bridge and the Manette neighborhood. It is generally bounded on the: west: by the Warren Avenue Bridge approach; nodh: by Sheridan Road; east: by Schley Boulevard and the Naval East Park Residential Area; south: by the Pod Washington Narrows. Figure I - General Location Draft Harrison District Plan 2-1 7/25/96 Natural Setting Features Soenio Views The Harrison neighborhood is located along a scenic high bluff shoreline above the Pod Washington Narrows, a branch of Puget Sound. The neighborhood is framed on the west by the heavily wooded East Park Nature Area. Most of the area slopes steadily from the crest of the hill above the Nature Area to the shoreline. Many people enjoy spectacular views of the Port Washington Narrows and the Olympic Mountains from their hillside homes and places of business. District Is Part of Former Sheridan Park Area The Harrison district is the easterly part of the larger Sheridan Park area. Sheridan Park was originally constructed by the federal government for naval housing and other military facilities. Most of these holdings were later surplussed. In the late 1940's the City acquired Sheridan Park (including the community center), Stephenson Canyon, and Lebo Field and Coal Dock from the Public Housing Administration. Between 1966 and 1968 the City was able to acquire East Park and the East Park Nature Area with assistance from the Bureau of Land Management and the Interagency committee for Outdoor Recreation. The construction of the Warren Avenue Bridge in the late t950's effectively chopped the Sheridan Park community in two. The Harrison neighborhood gets its name from Harrison Memorial Hospital, the most prominent facility in the district today. The hospital was moved from central Bremerton to its present site in the 19__'s. Existing Land Uses are Diverse The Harrison neighborhood is characterized by one of the most diverse mixes of residential, commercial and public uses in the city. Residents live in single family homes, duplexes, apartments, and condominiums. There are three retirement complexes and one nursing home. Shopping, food service and recreation facilities are within walking distance of most residents. The Sheridan Village Shopping Center includes a grocery store, drug store, bank, and numerous small shops. Other commercial development along "Old" Wheaton Way includes a mix of retail, services and office uses, ranging from restaurants, carwash, and convenience store to hair salon, dive shop, and bowling alley. The Sheridan Park Community Center provides a variety of recreational programs that draw people from the city and surrounding areas. "Lower" Sheridan Park and the East Park Nature area provide more passive recreational opportunities for the neighborhood. Stephenson Canyon Park and East Park are Draft Harrison District Plan 2 - 2 7/25/96 just beyond the borders of the district. Bremerton Junior High School is just north of the district, across Sheridan Road. There are some important differences between the Harrison district and a "typical" neighborhood. The district no longer includes a school -- the former Olympic View Elementary School has been torn down, and the property prepared for development. But more striking, new medical office development surrounding Harrison Hospital has filled vacant lots, replaced residential areas, and changed the character of this neighborhood forever. The People The 1990 Census provides a rough "sketch" of the residents of the Harrison district. While population counts are available for just the neighborhood, other census data is only available for a larger area referred to here as the "East Sheridan Area", which includes the East Park Naval Housing Area (outside the district).~ Table I shows that the East Sheridan area contains over twice as many people as live in the Harrison district. Also, the census information is now six years old. Therefore, while this information is the best available, it must be used with some caution. Disfriot is Home to over l 000 Residents There are approximately 1,340 people living in the Sheridan District ~- about 4% of the City's 1990 population. This figure can be derived from 1990 Census data adjusted to reflect existing circumstances.2 Table 2-1 Total Persons 1,340 ] 3,386 Percent of City (38,142) 4% 9% Many Seniors Live in Area Table 2-2 compares the ages of East Sheridan area residents with those in the City as a whole. 1The East Sheridan Park Area" is made up of census block 9roups 1 and 2 in census tract 803. See Appendix __ for more detailed census information. 2The 1990 Census counted 1,249 residents in the Harrison neighborhood. The construction of Cantefbur7 Manor in 1994 added 76 housing units. Based on the city-wide average of 1.2 persons per household in multifamily units, these units can be assumed to house about 91 persons. Draft Harrison District Plan 2 - 3 7/25196 The median age of the East Sheridan area residents (29 years) is only slightly higher than for City residents (28 years).3 A significantly higher proportion of people age 65 and over (18%) live in the East Sheridan area than in the City (11%). This is likely due to the concentration of senior housing facilities in the neighborhood.4 Table 2-2 Information Type East Sheridan Area City of Brernerton Persons 3,386 38,142 Median Age 29 28 % under 18 26% 24% % 65 and over 18% 11% Raolal Pafferns ~tr'e Typioal of City Racial patterns in the East Sheridan area are similar to those in the City as a whole. (See Table 2-3) White persons predominate in about the same proportion in the East Sheridan area (85%) as in the City as a whole (84%). · Blacks make up the second largest racial group in the larger area (9%), as they do in the City (7%), although at a slightly higher proportion. · Asians are the third largest'racial group in the Area (4%) and the City (5%). · The proportion of residents of Hispanic origin is slightly lower in the East Sheridan area (3%) than in the City (5%).2 3The median age for just the Harrison neighborhood is probably higher, since the 'East Sheridan area' includes the East Park Naval Housing Area, which is just outside the neighborhood. The median age for census block group 2, which includes the east half of the neighborhood as well as East Park is only 23 years. 4The actual propo~on of people over 65 is probably much higher in the Harrison neighborhood than in the larger 'East Sheridan area". The percent of persons 65 years and over in census block group 2 (east half of neighborhood plus East Park) is only 4%, compared with census block group 1 (north and west parts of neighborhood plus an area nodheast of East Park), where 28% are over 65 years of age. 5persons of Hispanic odgin can belong to any racial group. Draft Hardson District Plan 2-4 7~5~6 Table 2-3 White 85% 84% Black 9% 7% American Indian 4% 2% Asian 1% 5% Other 2% 2% Hispanic Origin 3% 5% Most Live in Family HousehOlds The census classifies residents as living in either "households" or "group quarters". Households include persons living in families, living alone, or living with other unrelated people. Group quad·rs include institutions or other group living arrangements such as military quarters or nursing homes. (See Table 2-4) · There are 1,345 households in the East Sheridan area -- 9% of the City's 14,718 households. About two thirds (61%) of area households are families, about the same proportion as in the City as a whole (60%). Just over half (52%) of East Sheridan area households are married-couple households, compared with less than half (46%) of City households. Over one third (39%) of area households are nonfamily households, compared with less than one tenth (8%) of City households. About one third (32%) of East Sheridan area households consist of single persons living alone, about the same as the propodion of City households (33%). · The average household (HH) size is about the same in the area (2.35 persons/HH) as in the City as a whole (2.34/HH). Over half (55%) of East Sheridan area residents live in households, compared with the City as a whole (39%). (The City is significantly lower because a large number of military persons live in group housing quarters.) Draft Harrison Distdct Plan 2 - ,,~ 7/25/96 Table 2-4 Total Households 1,345 100% 14,718 100% - Families 824 61% 8,785 60% - Married Couples 693 52% 6,794 46% - Nonfamily HH 521 39% 1,134 8% ~ Living Alone 428 32% 4,799 33% Persons in HH 3,158 93% 34,392 90% - Avg Persons/HH 2.35 2.34 Most Group Quarters Residents Live in Institutions Table 2-5 compares persons living in group quarters in the East Sheridan area with those in the City as a whole. + A smaller proportion of East Sheridan area residents (7%) live in group quarters than in the City as a whole (10%). + Of those Area residents living in group residential facilities, almost all (98%) live in institutions, compared with Iess than one fifth (17%) in the City as a whole. Table 2-5 Persons in Group Qtrs 228 7% 3,750 10% - In Institutions 224 98% 636 17% - Other Group Qtrs 4 0% 3,114 83% The Housing The 1990 Census gives a very general picture of the housing in the Harrison district. While City housing unit counts are available for just the district, other information on housing is only available for the larger area referred to here as the "East Sheridan area", which includes the East Park Naval Housing Area (outside the district). It is important to keep in mind that the census data is six years old. While this information is the best available, it must be used with some caution. However the 1990 data will provide an important baseline for comparison after the year 2000 census information becomes available. Draft Harrison District Plan 2 - 6 7/25/96 Distriot Contains some 600 Housing Units A City housing survey in 1993 counted 603 housing units in the Harrison neighborhood. The same 1993 survey counted an additional 347 units in the East Park Naval Housing Area, for a total of 950 units in the combined East Sheridan area. In contrast, the 1990 census counted a total of 725 housing units in the East Sheridan area -- 225 fewer units than the 1993 City count. Therefore, the census information needs to be used with some caution. (See Table 2-6) Table 2-6 Harrison District East Sheridan I Difference % Difference 1993 Area 1990 I Housing Units 603 725 I 122 17% Renters Outnumber Owners Only 15% of the housing units in the East Sheridan area were occupied by owners in 1990. Even allowing for the fact that the Area includes the East Park Naval Housing (outside the neighborhood), this is a very Iow proportion of owner-occupants. For comparison, the City of Bremerton had 39% owner- occupancy (still very Iow), while Kitsap County as a whole had a more typical 64% owner-occupancy rate. (See Table 2-7) Table 2-7 Occupied Housing Units 1,345 100% - Owner occupied 203 15% - Renter occupied 1,142 85% Housing Costs Relatively Low The median value of owner-occupied housing in the East Sheridan area ($68,022) was $3,822 higher than the median value for the City as a whole ($64,200) in 1990. However, it was $21,078 lower than the median value of such housing in Kitsap County as a whole ($89,100). The median rent in the East Sheridan area ($311 ) was $18 less than for the City ($329) in 1990. However, it was $69 less than the median rent for Kitsap County as a whole ($380). (See Table 2-8) Draft Harrison District Plan 2- 7 7/25/96 Table 2-8 Median Value $68,02;) $64,200 $89,100 Median Rent $311 $329 $380 Ineomes Lower than City-wide Average Income information for the neighborhood is sketchy. It is only available for the larger census tract 803 area, and is seven years out of date. In 1989 the residents of what we will call the "Greater East Sheridan" area had a median income ($20,495) that was $2,115 less than the median income for the City ($22,610), and $11,548 less than for the County ($32,043). It is possible that East Park Naval Housing Area incomes lower the median income below what it would otherwise be, but the large number of retired persons likely also plays a part. (See Table 2-9) Table 2-9 Draft Hardson District Plan 2-8 7/25/96 3 Growth Management Several existing studies, plans and regulations apply to the Harrison District. This chapter describes the main ones affecting the district: Growth Management Act Build-Out Analysis Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Bremerton Zoning Ordinance Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Growth Management Act The Washington State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1990 to deal with increasing problems related to growth. For the first time the faster growing counties and their cities were required to adopt comprehensive plans to determine in advance how growth would be managed. The growth was coming, and each county had to plan to absorb its share of that growth. Prior to this it was a local option to do a comprehensive plan, and such plans did not have much clout. In contrast, growth management plans carry the force of law. They provide a framework for zoning and other development regulations to manage growth. In addition, they determine what public facilities will be needed, how much they will cost, and how they will be paid for. Build. Out Analysis The City conducted a "Land Use Inventory and Build-out Analysis* in 1993. The study included an inventory of land uses on every parcel in the city. It documented the number of existing housing units and the current density. The study calculated the amount of land area zoned for various land uses. It identified the amount of land available for "infill", and estimate~ the number of housing units that could be built under existing zoning. Distriot Has Potential for Redevelopment While the Harrison district is largely developed, it offers many "infill' and redevelopment opportunities. The City "Build-out Analysis" counted a total of Draft Harrison District Plan 3-1 7~5~6 551 dwelling units (D.U.) in the neighborhood at a current density of 3.6 units per acre. The study calculated that the neighborhood could absorb about 148 additional dwelling units under the existing zoning for a total "build-out" of 699 units. The following table summarizes the results of the build-out analysis for the Harrison district. (See Table 3-1) Table 3-1 26-B 4t 1.360,650 142,391 1,503,041 48 89 3.9 26-C 298 1.912.464 541,237 2,453,701 97 395 37-A ;'12 2,783,716 18,:287 2,802,003 3 215 24.8 TOTALS: 551 6,056,830 701,915 6,758,745 148 699 3.6 Assuming 75% of the vacant and under-utilized lots become available for development within the next 20 years, about 111 new dwelling units can be accommodated within the East Sheridan area under existing zoning, for a total of 662 units. The 111 new units could house about 244 new residents, for a total of 1,456 residents. (This estimate assumes an average household size or 2.2 persons per unit by year 2015, when household sizes are expected to be a little smaIler than they are today.) The above table summai'izes the Study results for the HaFison DistrlcL Three subareas make up the district · i ' · :26-B ~ NWpart of,d. str ct ¢rb~ She?dan Rd S0Uthto area South of Cat ahan ; 26-(; '- ' NE:~a~t of distr ct frog:She,:dan south tO East ~5~rk NaSa Hous ng ACea · 37-A · ~ S0[Jth p?t Of distr bt ftb~n ~i~ea w~st bt' East Park t0 Dyes n et ,Ter~s'used in the table include: · : ;~ ::: : : , Su~a~e~ ~ S. ma {ectton{ of Cou~ As?esso'~ ma. il~ USed for S{iJ~: areas , ExiSting ;u~i{s ~-['hb actua c~un[ 0f eXisfin[i dwelling ~Jhiis ;: 'Re~iden{~ai Land A~ea~ Squa~:e to0tage total~ Of and 'n res debt a use w th n a subarea , i~f II Are~ ~h.e ~bunt'of I~nd zoned ~nd:~Va ab ~ f0~ reside'htiai us~. ' ·: Total R~idential At~a -~ The' total a~i~r~t: 0t la~d ~'~ned ~br ~i~'ntial dse:: · Draft Hardson District Plan 3-2 7/25/96 Comprehensive Plan The City adopted a new Bremerton Comprehensive Plan in April 1995. All of Bremerton is included within a larger "Urban Growth Area" (UGA) established by Kitsap County. Bremerton is required to plan for 20,000 new people in the next 16 years. The comprehensive plan lays the groundwork for Bremerton to house about 58,000 people within its existing boundaries by year 2014. The Comprehensive Plan contains five "elements" that are required by the Growth Management Act: Land Use; Transpodation; Housing; Capital Facilities; and Utilities. It also includes some optional elements: The Vision for Bremerton; Planning Goals; Citizen Involvement Program; Environmental Management; and Implementation, Consistency & Concurrency. The following discussion summaries specific impacts of the plan on the Harrison District. Land Use Element Promotes Mix of Uses The Land Use Element of the City's new comprehensive plan designates areas where various land uses will be allowed. In the Harrison district the plan provides for a mix of uses ranging from "Low Density Residential" to "General and Professional Offices" to "Parks" to "Hospital". The plan doesn't call for any major changes in land use in the neighborhood, since it is almost fully developed. (See Figure 2) Objectives The Land Use Element identifies the need for a "specific area plan" for the "Harrison Health Services District". (See Appendix A) The element sets fodh seven objectives to form a minimum framework for the area plan: 1. To build on past health services and commercial investments. 2. To improve access to the service providers, as well as circulation within the district. 3. To maintain and strengthen the professional relationships between Harrison Hospital and surrounding physicians' offices and related medical services. 4. To anticipate future growth needs and incorporate them into a land use plan for the distdct that minimize the need for future Plan amendments and rezones. 5. To minimize increased traffic, bypass traffic, physical encroachment, and other disruptions to surrounding stable residential neighborhoods. To maximize the efficient utilization of existing lands through creative design and site planning, improved public transit service, mixed use development, and other featuree. To establish a balance of land uses that complement each other and maintain 1cng term stability. Dralf Hardson District Plan ,3 - 3 7/25/96 Harrison Dixtrict PLAN DESIGNATIONS LDR Low Density Residential MDR Medium Density Residential tlDR ! ligh Density Residential C-G General & llighway Colnmercial C-P General & Professional Offices OS Open Space I' Park facilities Il Ilospital Figure 2 - Adopted Comprehensive Plan Map Transportation Element Proposes Improvements The new comprehensive plan includes a Transportation Element, which analyzes the capacity of the City's transportation system to handle expected growth over the next 20 years. It identifies trouble spots in city arterials and recommends improvements where needed. The plan also includes a six-year finance program listing those projects planned for funding between 1995-2000. The Transportation Element analyzes three roadway sections along the edges of the Harrison district. Levels of service (LOS) from "A" to "F" are calculated for each section to rate the degree of traffic congestion and delay during the afternoon peak hour. A LOS A indicates the least amount of congestion (a free flow condition), while LOS F indicates the highest amount of congestion (stop- and-go traffic). The element describes studies that were done to identify likely impacts of projected growth on city roadways over the next 20 years. It analyzes several scenarios for addressing transportation deficiencies, and recommends improvements to correct these deficiencies. Draft Harrison District Plan 3-4 7/25/96 Warren Avenue Bridge The intersections on each end of the Warren Avenue Bridge are calculated to be operating at LOS E. The actual Level of Service on the bridge itself may operate somewhat better. The capacity of the roadway section between the bridge and Callahan is 4,100 vehicles per hour. An average of 4,050 vehicles use this part of the roadway during the afternoon peak-hour. The Transportation Element proposes that the City initiate a Major Investment Study (MIS) in 1996, if outside funds are available to match the city share. The purpose of the MIS would be to determine whether a third bridge should be built to relieve pressure on the Warren Avenue Bridge, and if so, where it should be located. This study would need to be conducted under federal requirements, in conjunction with the State (WSDOT), Kitsap County, and Kitsap Transit. The MIS wouId include a major citizen input program. Sheridan Road Intersection with Wheaton Way Sheridan Road needs to be widened for a distance of 1000-3000 feet on each side of Wheaton Way to provide additional capacity at the intersection and to accommodate turning movements for access to adjacent property. This work is programmed for beyond yeal' 200Q Warren Avenue Southbound Off-ramp to Juniper Street A southbound off-ramp will be constructed from Warren Avenue to Lebo Boulevard via Juniper Street. This project will improve signalized intersection operations on Sheridan Road and improve access to Harrison Hospital. This work was programmed for 1995-96, but design of the project is on hold pending approval of this plan to ensure consistency with the Harrison District Plan. The project is partially funded with federal FAUS funds. A tocal funding source is needed to complete the project. Housing Element Promotes Liveable Neighborhoods The Housing Element of the adopted Bremedon Comprehensive Plan contains general City goals, policies and strategies. Although most are very general, several have special significance for the district: Significant Goals and Policies Goals 1. Housing Condition - Preserve and enhance Bremedon's housing stock. New Housing Development - Provide a variety of housing types and densities to meet changing needs of Bremerton residents. Draft Harrison Distdct Plan 3 - 5 7/25/96 4. Liveable Neighborhoods - Build strong, liveable neighborhoods where the Amedcan Dream of home ownership is possible for a majodty of Bremerton residents. Policies 2.a. Maintain a strong code enforcement program. 3. Use neighborhood plans to outline public and private projects for each neighborhood. 3.d. Commence the neighborhood planning process in the Sheridan/Harrison Hospital neighborhood, with a focus on: new multi-family senior housing structures; and rehabilitated single-family dwellings. 4.b. Implement a six-year street plan and a street maintenance plan. 4.c. Implement the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan. 5. Promote safe, attractive, liveable neighborhoods that will attract homeowners. Capital Facilities Element Lists Projects The Capital Facilities Element of the adopted Bremerton Comprehensive Plan contains an inventory of public facilities, a forecast of future needs based on expected population growth, and a six-year finance program for capital facilities. The following table lists planned capital facilities for the Harrison District listed in the Capital Facilities Element six-year finance plan. (See Table 3-2) Table 3-2 East Park Nature Area 5,000 15,000 20,000 Wheaton Way Major 50,000 100,000 50,000 200,000 Investment Study (MIS) TOTAL = 0 50,000 100,500 65,000 0 0 220,000 Utilities Element Identifies Facilities Needs The Comprehensive Plan Utilities Element includes an inventory of existing natural gas, electrical and telecommunications service system.s in the City. also contains an analysis of future needs and a general list of planned improvements for each utility system. No major natural gas or telecommunications systems facilities are located or planned within the Harrison district. A Puget Power transmission line crosses the Port Washington Narrows parallel to the east side of the Warren Avenue Draft Harrison District Plan 3-6 7~5~6 bridge, landing between the bridge and Sheridan Park. No new major electrical system facilities are planned within the district during the planning period. Bremerton Zoning Ordinance The City's 1986 Zoning Ordinance was updated to be consistent with the new comprehensive plan in June 1996. The following map shows the current zoning designations. (See Figure 3) Harrison District ZONES DR Duplex Residential MF Multiple-family Residential ,MR Mixed Residential GB General Business PO Professional Office PS Parks & Schools PS Figure 3 - Bremerton Zoning Map Draft Harrison District Plan 3 - 7 7/'25/96 Shoreline Iffasfer Program The Bremerton Shoreline Master Program regulates uses and activities along the shoreline under the authority of the State Shoreline Management Act. The Master Program applies to those lands extending 200 feet landward from the ordinary high-water mark. Within the Harrison district this shoreline area consists of almost all the properly on the shore side of Wheaton Way. Traoyfon Beach Natural System The Harrison District shoreline is part of the Tracyton Beach Natural System, which roughly extends from nodh of Lion's Field to the Mannette Bridge. L "-~- ,-.I f' - "· ~ .... Tracyfon Beach is a stretch of land along Port Washington Narrows in east Bremerton. This beach ", ¢'~ -";'~.-.~ i? i'% l ~ area is contiguous with Puget Sound and is directly .. ~ , -- affected by the tide action of the Sound. · , ';~ Waves, wind. tide and geological material are the . . ~ ; ,, · principal factors that have led to the existence of the .-7. .... rr- Tracyton Beach area. The chief source of supply of .... '. beach material is the cliff area that is to the south of the beach that defines the Port Washington Narrows, This is also identified as a natural system, existing as a feeder bank. Figure 4 - mracyton Beach - Bremerfon Shoreline MasterPmgram Natural System iB~i~h~::;i~i0~:::~::::: :::. ~.: :' ::... :: Beaches ~r~ .a P~:od uct of Wav~ iWave~; dteate: them, ~nd ~vaVes'~.~l~ them away Und er nati.i(ai:cbr~ditionS'~ost baach'es ~foa~ du~ing 156flod§ ~f stor'm w~e' aat vty~. Duflng storms the ' ~a,.;~ ~r~ larg~'r ?th hnbr~ en~'rg~ to n~0V~ p~t~bl~§ ~n~ b~bbl~ ~10fi~ th~ ~h0~e :Wa~es fiol~dM~:~ith'a high fide ~h~ can d~ th~ r'~6~ h ~het oh t~ ~ach ~ausln~ m~ m~m erosiom DUdng th~ ca mar per bds of summer, Wave~ e~ed t[ e: ~n6¢gy o~ the beachbs n ;fact Sm~Jle~ Cal~er waves ~fi br ng.back ~01~ 0fthe 'finer ~ds frb~ 6ff~hore Up 6~ t6 the be~he~ ~b~v~fiJehtJy cfea~hg ~ s~ffe~ bea~ ~U~ for ~bh6~ifl ng ::The ma n p~ nt to ~e 'em~h~iz~d'h~r~ ~th~t n P~g~t Sdb~d :sh:b~ n~ ~rb~ on s'~ ~St e~c ~:ve y ~ ~t0~m: :phen~h ': .;: : :.':' ::":~ : '2 : It is important to make a;d st ncr on baleen bea8h and btuf~ ~roSib~ :Most O{ the beaches n · : Pbde('Sb~a am: ~tOd~6ts O¢'sed~'el~t~ :efbaed Out bt t~ ~h6¢e b uffS~ Thu~ one m~h"S~:: e~ln~ bibir 8~t&s Ah~the~ mah ~ 6~'~;: B6~ch'e{~ ~ the:bth~ h:~:&a"~b~res~n~ th& f~ ~ue 0f ~e et0si6~ ptocass ~hey m ght Shb~ ~6m~ ~e~s0ha: chahg~ h Phys Ca Shape arid appearance isOhe 8fthe Chiefcau~s · · bt beach':athalon , built Draft Harrison District Plan 3-8 7r25/96 The high bluff area along the Harrison district shoreline is an important "feeder bank" that supplies material for nearby beaches. These beaches could erode rapidly if this source of sediment were to be interrupted or cut off completely. Since most beach sediment in Puget Sound comes from shore bluff erosion, someone's property must erode to allow another's beach to be maintained. (See above Beach erosion sidebad Shoreline Environmen; Designa;lons The Shorefine Master Program assigns "environment designations" to various city shorelines. These designations determine special requirements that apply to activities and development along the shoreline. Harrison district shorelines are designated Urban Conservancy (CS-7) and Urban Commercial (C-3). (See Figure 5) ICS7 Figure 5 - Bremerton Master Program Shoreline Environment Designations Draft Harrison District Plan 3-9 7/25/96 CS-7: Sheridan Park/Community Theater - The southerly portion of a city park south of Lebo Boulevard at Clare Avenue, and the Community Theater site northwest of the park, along the northeast shore of the Port Washington Narrows. C-3: Campbell/Wheaton - Extends southeast along old Wheaton Way from Sheddan Park to a point just southwest of Warren C. Magnuson Way (the north boundary of the Bremerton Gardens apartment complex), on the northeast shore of the Port Washington Narrows. Shoreline Uses and Aofivifies The Master Program permits certain uses and activities within the Conservancy, Commercial designations and the Tracyton Beach Natural System (described above). The following table summarizes the uses permitted (or prohibited) within the environment designations now assigned to Harrison District shorelines. (See Table 3-3) Table 3-3 Commercial P X X Residential P X X Recreational P CU CU Marinas P X CU Piers & Docks P CU CU P = Permitted 4' X = Prohibited 4- CU = Permitted subject to obtaining Conditional Use Permit Water-dependent, Water-related, Water-enjoyment and Non-water-oriented Uses and Activities Special requirements apply to uses in the Commercial environment designation. Water-dependent, water-related, and water-enjoyment uses and activities are permitted. Non-water-oriented uses may on[y be permitted through approval of a Conditional Use Permit. (See TaMe 3-4.) Draft Harrison District Plan 3 - 10 7/25/96 Table 3-4 Water-dependent P P Water-related P P Non-water-oriented (upland) CU CU Over-water non-water-oriented - X Water-enjoyment P P P -- Permitted 4- X = Prohibited 4, CU = Permitted subject to obtaining Conditional Use Permit The terms water-dependent, water-related, water-enjoyment, and non-water- oriented have special meanings under the Shoreline Management Act. (See Shorefine Use Definitions, below) iocatioh: and !s.d~pendont Oh: the watei*:.l~y reasdn 0f~ the intrinslc nature of its i bPeratiSiis. Exa'mplesi0f Watei?doPehoent;bs'e§ ~4y inc!ud~ Cargo terminal !oading : ~r~a§ ferry and pasSenge¢ terminalS~ maildas arid sewer outfalls' :Wafer're/areal b~e -- A (Js~ O[ p0~t Oh 8f a'~J~e ~,h 8h S not htr n~iCa ly dependent on a .Wat~ fro~t 10~a(i0~i but who~e 0perati6n cannot ocCUr ec0homically without a shoreline location. ExaniPles (~f Water-related uses may include warehousing of goods tianSpbcted i3~te~, se~f0od processing ~la~ts, of: log st6~ge.. · :;" .Wa, f~r:enjoy~h~ UseL- A ~c~e~{ O:6~ ~Js~:~h :~ a ~i~:.:i~ier ~- Other:use :.faS~li!ating'publiC ~,ccess aS a primary Ch~rabte~ o~ the uSei'.0i~,;a use that pr0vides for :passive and :actiVe:ihteraction of a large 'n~ber of pe0'ple:With the sh0mline f0t leisbre :and enjoyment asa genei*al Cha~act'e¢'0f the use ahd Whibh :through location, design ah:d ;Sj~8(~tihg, '~s~'e the public S:~bilit~ t0: ici'tera~t'wlth: th&: Sh~reiine. In ~3~der to qualify as .a WatS¢-enjoyment use,: the d~e must be 0pen to the :public and most if not al of the shore ~ne 0nented space m the fac~hty must be devoted to the specific aspects otthe Use that foster shore h~intera(~tor) :: ' : ~ ::: Deve/op~r~e~¢ The Master Program includes additional requirements for Marine Bluff Review, Public Access, and View Protection in certain environment designations. (See Table 3-5) Draft Harrison District Plan 3 - '~1 7/25196 Table 3-5 Marine Bluff Review A(8) A(8) A(8) Public Access R R R View Protection A(8) A(8) A(8) A = As applicable +- (8) = See General Requirements (varies by use and location) + R = Required Marine Bluff Review The Marine Bluff Review requirement would allow development to "step down~, or extend down the slope of, the bluff if the review determined that "any new activity on the bluff will not result in erosion or add to unstable bluff conditions that might cause damage to marine resources." Public Access The Master Program requires all new commercial development and multi-family development of five or more units to provide "improved public access", which consists of a hard surface walkway "to and a~ong the shoreline". The Master Program also recognizes adopted waterfront access plans for specific shoreline areas. To date there is no adopted waterfront access plan for the Harrison District shoreline. View Protection The Master Program requires commercial and multi-family residential development to include a "view corridor" -- a special setback perpendicular to the water. The purpose of the view corridor is to prevent the shoreline from being cut off from public view by a "wall" of development. The following table summarizes the existing view corridor requirements. Table 3-6 Under 20 feet: 25% 20 - 35 feet: 35% Over 35 feet (1): 40o/~ (1) = Heights above 35 feet are permitted only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served. (RCW 90.58.320) Draft Harrison District Plan 3- '/2 7/25/96 4 Residents, business persons and property owners were invited to a series of meetings to discuss issues and opportunities in the neighborhood. They helped brainstorm lists of assets, problems, and opportunities at the June 1995 meeting. Participants at the August 1995 meeting then completed a survey to help identify key issues and preferred solutions. (Detailed results are included in the Appendix.) The neighborhood has many assets that should be protected: Business District Regional health care complex Employment center - most of city's 2,600 health services jobs Neighborhood shopping center Restaurants and other eateries High bluff shoreline -- potential for redevelopment Convenient to Wheaton retail corridor Residential Areas Stable residential areas Senior housing opportunities Vacant lots with utilities available Access and Circulation Access from Warren-Wheaton corridor Bus service Sidewalks in most areas Draft Hardson Distdct Plan 4-1 4/23196 Recreation Sheridan Community Center, Sheridan Park, bowling alley East Park Nature Area -- open space and buffer Stephenson Canyon and Lions Field nearby EastPark and Bremedon Municipal swimming Pool close Community Theater Spectacular water and mountain views Problems The neighborhood has some problems that should be addressed, mindful that problems can present opportunities for positive change. Health care center Medical center encroachment into residential area Lack of planned areas for medical center expansion Inadequate hospital parking Lack of understanding of economic role of medical center Need for new helicopter access to hospital when present site becomes unavailable Noise from hospital air conditioners disturbs nearby residents Residential areas Unclear boundary between medical and residential uses -- land use conflicts (especially on Cherry Place cul-de-sac) Traffic disruptions to residential neighborhoods Deteriorating rental houses Few vacant lots Access and circulation Poor access to neighborhood for southbound traffic on Wheaton Way Poor access to neighborhood from south via narrow Manette Bridge Difficult to give directions to neighborhood because of name confusion between "upped' and "lower" ("Old") Wheaton Way Rough roadways to hospital -- can be painful for injured' ambulance passengers Problem intersections: · Wheaton Way southbound -- poor access to neighborhood via SheridanANheaton Draft Harrison District Plan 4-2 6/26/96 · Wheaton/Sheridan -- no left turn allowed from Wheaton westbound onto Sheridan (many take shortcut through private property to proceed north on Wheaton Way) · Callahan/Wheaton -- poor sight distance to cross Wheaton eastbound on Callahan · Cherry/Callahan - poor sight distance to cross Callahan northbound on Cherry · Clare/Callahan nodhbound -- unsafe to turn right onto Callahan off- ramp from Clare northbound (danger of collision with fast traffic exiting Warren via off-ramp) · Callahan off-ramp/Warren on-ramp -- eastbound traffic turns left from Callahan off-ramp northbound to Warren on-ramp even though illegal and unsafe · Hemlock/Clare - danger to turn left from Hemlock to Clare from fast (downhill) southbound traffic on Clare · Campbell Way/Lebo/Clare -- difficult obtuse angle turn from Campbell westbound onto Lebo (poor sight distance to east) · Campbell Way/Wheaton -- difficult obtuse angle turn from Campbell eastbound onto Old Wheaton (poor sight distance to north) Poor or no sidewalks in some areas · Gap in sidewalk in front of vacant lot along west side of Wheaton north of Sheridan Village -- pedestrians must use a narrow trail or walk on street [See Identified Traffic Issues map on next page.] Shorelines Many commercial uses turn "backs" to shoreline Shoreline "view corridor" requirements restrict development Public visual and physical access to shorelines is scarce Neighborhood Character and Image Neglected property and vacant lots downgrade value of nearby property -- old abandoned foundations cause safety problems, attract transients Visual clutter - signs, wires, etc. -- detracts from scenic views and overall appearance Lack of physical definition of area interferes with a sense of "place" Other Scotch broom plantings on Warren Avenue Bridge approach - may aggravate allergies when in bloom (nearby residents of retirement housing repod distress) Dra~ Harrison District Plan 4-3 6f26/96 PARK NAVAL HOUSlND IDENTIFIED TRAFFIC ISSUES ~hcridan/W:u'rcn/Whc;don Wheaton/C:dhdm,~ Campbell Way Warren/Callahan/Clarc Callahan/Chcrry Cherry/Ash Iiickory Sh'ccl Soulhbound Warren Off-raml~ Draft Harrison District Plan 4-4 4/23/96 Opportunities The assets and problems identified above help suggest opportunities for neighborhood improvement. Padicipants were invited to rank the list of "opportunities' according to their importance. Those receiving votes are listed by percentage of votes received. (See Appendix__ for complete survey results.) Priority Recommendations 19% Construct a new northbound off-ramp from Wheaton to Lebo to provide better access to the neighborhood and the hospital. 17% Protect residential areas from commercial encroachment. 15% Improve the roads. 9% Construct improvements under the bridge/off-ramp to provide covered recreational opportunities (e.g. basketball courts). 9% Create "medical campus" area(s). 9% Improve hospital patient and visitor parking. 9% Improve access to the shoreline/water. 6% Provide Iow cost retirement housing. 4% Improve access to the district. 2% Improve emergency access to the hospital. 2% Create employee parking alternatives e.g. a parking garage, park-n- ride/transit, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. Ail Recommendations Listed below are all suggestions made for improving the neighborhood. Those identified as priorities above are listed in bold print. Medical Can ter Provide better access to the hospital and improve emergency access Create medical "campus" areas Improve hospital patient and visitor parking Create employee parking alternatives Limit non-medical and non-medically related uses Vacate streets within medical campus Link the medical complex to the East Park Naval Housing 'area and encourage the Navy to permit medical center expansion into the area. Business-Medical-Recreation District Design "Gateways" to the district Draft Harrison District Plan 4-5 4/23/96 Planning Issues Persons attending the August 1995 meeting were invited to complete a survey to help identify key issues and preferred solutions that should be addressed in the plan. Although over half of the participants had not attended the June meeting, the survey results reinforced the general results of the informal June vote. The survey results are listed below in order of priority, with those ranked "1" receiving the most support. Issues that were tied are listed at the same rank. (See Appendix. for survey details.) General Issues Maintenance and improvement of existing streets. 2 -- A medical district"campus" design concept. 3 - New or expanded parking areas. 3 -- Transitions between land uses. 3 -- Pedestrian system improvements. 4 -- Reduce visual clutter of signs, overhead wires, etc. 4 -- Other visual/aesthetic improvements (street trees, design, etc.) 5 -- Improved access to the hospital. Speoific Issues Strategy to deal with neglected properties. -- Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations. -- New Warren Avenue southbound off-ramp. 3 -- Re-align Wheaton/Sheridan intersection. 3 -- Reduce non-residential traffic in residential areas. 4 -- Sidewalk improvements. 5 -- Linkage of parks and open space. 5 -- Remove scotch broom plantings along the Warren Avenue Bridge approach (if they are a problem that needs attention). 5 -- Rename "Old" Wheat,on Way to eliminate confusion. 6 -- Determine feasibility of a northbound Warren Avenue Bridge off-ramp to Lebo. 7 -- Vacate Campbell Way. Draft Harrison District Plan 4-6 4/'23196 5 VJsioI1 for the Harrison District The Bremerton Comprehensive Plan is based on an overall "vision" of the community's future. This vision is presented in Element "B" of the plan -- The Vision for Bremedon -- in the form of a series of vision statements that describe the future Bremerton will work to achieve. Those comprehensive plan vision statements most directly applicable to the Harrison district are listed in the following section. A set of special vision statements for the district follows. The Vision for Brernerton Bremerton -- 20 Years From Now The comprehensive planning process involves an assessment of our community's strengths and weaknesses, problems, and opportunities for improvement. Through our visions, goals, and courses of action, we can greatly influence our future by directing change. The foflowing vision statements will show us the direction we intend to go and where we will be b4,enty years from now. During the next twenty years, Bremerton will experience the greatest population and development increases since World War II. The new growth will be planned, propedy serviced, and accepted with care to ensure that it will be beneficial and not disruptive to the community. Harrison Hospital will continue to play a major roll in the provision of medical servicees and its surrounding district will continue to grow and strengthen its role as a regional health services cente~ Neighborhoods will continue to evolve, improve, and become more attractive, comfortable, and desirable. They will provide a greater vadet~/ of housing options, affordable to a larger share of the market, and will become stronger and more stable as the proportion of owner-occupants gradually increases. Draft Harrison District Plan 5-I 4/23/96 Neighborhoods The quality and stability of neighborhoods are indicators of a community's overall health. We generally associate "quality" with a number of factors that include the level of property maintenance, neighborhood pride, peace and quiet, and the nature and style of the architecture, landscaping, and overall design. Bremerton has a great variety of housing choices. S°me neighborhoods are in need of protection while others need rehabilitation or, in some cases, redevelopment. Bramerton will continue to provide homes for Naval personnel and workers from all sectors of the local economy, retirees, Seattle commuters, and others. We will continue to strive for a variety and a good balance of housing opportunities for all economic and social segments of the community. We will see e greater emphasis on home ownership as a means of achieving a higher degree of neighborhood maintenance and pride, and to offer the American dream of home ownership to more Bremerton residents. In order to achieve a higher level of home ownership, a greater emphasis will be placed on the provision of small, private, affordable single-family homes, both in new subdivisions and as "in-fill" within existing neighborhoods. Condominiums and other forms of ownership will increase in popularity. Historic preservation will play a greater role in Bremerfon's future as certain unique areas and structures are recognized for their historical value. Neighborhood quality, safety, stability, and affordability will be given increased consideration in afl community improvement programs. Bremerton will support its neighborhoods through greater availability of community services and improved maintenance of streets and other public facilities. Urban Governmental Services Public involvement in local government will continue to be encouraged. There will be expanded opportunities for participation at both the neighborhood and community levels. Public access television, computer bufletin boards, and other advances in electronic technology will play greater roles in finking the local citizenry with the business of their elected officials. The Vision for the Harrison District The Vision for the Harrison district is consistent with the Vision for Bremerton. It refines and focuses the city-wide vision to address neighborhood concerns. Draft Harrison District Plan 5-2 4f23/96 Neighborhood Identity and Charaoter The Harrison district features a thdving regional healthcare center, a vibrant business district, and attractive, stable residential areas within walking distance of shopping and services. Attractive, Iow signing and underground wiring enhance scenic mountain and water views. Public and private property are well maintained, discouraging crime and protecting properly values. An active neighborhood council provides a place to meet new friends, exchange information, watchdog new public and private development and discuss common problems. It also furnishes a clear, organized way to speak to elected officials and city agencies. Regional Healthcare Center The Olympic View regional healthcare center consists of various medical and medically-related uses linked together by circulation patterns and an overall "campus" theme. B. Convenient, adequate parking is available to hospital patients, visitors and staff. Priority is given to protecting existing and encouraging new uses related to health care within the healthcare center. Business District A thriving neighborhood shopping center, healthcare support services and related businesses serve the needs of healthcare center patrons and employees, and nearby residents. Commercial areas are designed so as to be good neighbors to residential areas. Heights are controlled to protect residential views, and screening and buffering conceal parking and utility areas. Residential A~eas Residential areas are clearly separated from business areas to protect them from commercial encroachment. A variety of housing types are available to meet needs of a mix of needs and incomes. Draft Hardson District Plan 5-3 4/23/96 Housing that provides healthcare services and housing for healthcare district employees are available within walking distance of the healthcare/business district employment center. Acoess and Circulation Safe and convenient access is available from the Warren/Wheaton corridor to the healthcare/business district. Traffic is routed so as to discourage non-residential traffic in residential neighborhoods. Bike lanes along main streets encourage bicycle travel within and through the district. The district is a pedestrian-friendly place, with tree-lined sidewalks connecting the healthcare/business district with residential areas. Reoreafion A variety of recreational activities is available to residents, employees and business patrons, ranging from organized spods at the community center to scenic walks along the shoreline and through the Eastpark nature reserve. B. A network of walkways connects parks, business areas and other activity centers. Sheridan Park is devoted to recreational uses, with outdoor equipment storage relocated to a convenient non-shoreline area. A shoreline access system provides a walkway along the top of the bluff, viewpoints with benches, and a stairway to the beach. 000 Dralf Harrison District Plan 5-4 4/23196 b The District Plan The Harrison District Plan provides a general picture of the land use and circulation patterns that will be encouraged in the neighborhood over the next 15-20 years. It includes proposals to address many of the issues that have been identified. The adoption of this plan expands upon the city-wide Bremerfon Comprehensive Plan. The Harrison Distdct Plan supersedes the comprehensive plan in any case where they may differ. The Plan consists of the five elements required by the Growth Management Act, along with two optional elements: Required Elements · Land Use Transportation Housing Capital Facilities Utilities Optional Elements · Recreation · Shoreline Access The District Plan includes: · A Goal to identify the "end" toward which the City is striving. In addition, each District Plan Element includes: · Policies to guide land use decisions, and · Strategies to carry out the intents of policies. Draft Harrison District Plan 6-1 /: j: 7~5~6 Land Use Element The uses of land establish the overall character of an area. For example, whether land can be used for industry or for housing makes all the difference in a neighborhood. Along with a district goal, policies, and strategies, the Land Use section includes a plan map to designate areas for various uses. In addition, a Development Concept is included for the Campbell Way business area. Goal It is the goal of the City of Bremerton to: Strengthen the Harrison District health care center and business district, while protecting the quality of life for nearby residents. Health Care Center It is the intent of the City of Bremerfon to protect and strengthen the Harrison District medical center in order to ensure that it remains viable and successfuL The hospital and related medical services are an important asset to the city, and form a vital part of the local economy. The City will plan sufficient areas for medical center expansion, and protect these areas from uses that could diminish the function of the area as a regional health care center. The City will work with health care providers to improve access to and parking in the medical center. The City will ensure that emergency helicopter access to the hospital can be provided in the future when the existing site at Bremerton Middle School is no longer available. Policies 1. Strengthen the role of the district as a regional health services center. 2. Plan sufficient appropriate areas for medical center expansion to meet future needs. Establish a health care "campus" area within which medical and related uses will be preferred uses. a. Allow non-medically-related uses only if they will not un,dermine the health care campus concept. 4. Limit parking lot expansion while increasing parking options. 5. Identify and protect a new hospital emergency helicopter access area from conflicting uses. Draf~ Harrison District Plan 6-2 7/25/96 //i 6. Minimize conflicts between the medical center and residential areas. Strategies 1. Educate the community on the benefits of maintaining a medical center in the city. 2. Encourage formation of a Harrison District health care providers association that can work for the common good of the health care district. 3. Work with health care providers to develop a health care campus concept plan to tie together medical and related uses into a unified area. a. Develop a circulation plan that minimizes major entrances to the area and directs traffic along preferred routes. b. Develop a pedestrian circulation system that encourages walking. c. Develop a street tree and landscaping plan that emphasizes theme plantings along boundaries and at major entrances. d. Establish a plan for coordinated outdoor furnishings (benches, trash receptacles, lighting, etc.) and signing. Explore options to construct a parking garage to serve the health care campus. a. Work with the health care campus community to form a Business and Parking Improvement Area (BPIA) to coordinate and manage parking. b. Consider issuing city parking revenue bonds to finance construction of a parking garage. c. Encourage the hospital to improve parking for patients and visitors. 5. Facilitate the construction of an emergency access heiipad convenient to the hospital emergency room entrance. Shoreline Nixed Use .a_rea It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to establish a special mixed use district along the shoreline that responds to the special opportunities and constraints of the high bluff shoreline. Most existing uses atong the shoreline date back to the days before construction of the Warren Avenue Bridge when "Lowe¢' Wheaton Way was the main arterial connecting east and west Bremerton. The City will encourage redevelopment of the area for residential and/or commercial uses which take advantage of and enhance this high bluff shoreline location. The City will discourage development which endangers the stability of the bluff or the function of the Tracyton Beach Natural System. The City will modify development requirements for this section of shoreline to provide more flexibility in siting development between the edge of the street and the top of the bluff, Draft Hardson District Plan 6- 3 7~5~6 Policies Protect the integrity of the high bluff landform and the Tracyton Beach Natural System. a. Do not allow development to "step down" the bluff. b. Encourage vegetation management to preserve views while protecting steep slopes. 4 Allow a mix of commercial and/or residential uses along the shoreline, providing that any commercial use is water-oriented. a. A water-oriented commercial use is a use which qualifies as a water- dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment use under the Bremerfon Shoreline Master Program. (See Chapter 3, Shoreline Master Program Definitions inset.) Require development along the shoreline to incorporate public access consistent with the Harrison District Waterfront Access Plan. (See Parks and Recreation Element, later in this chapter.) 4. Allow proportional relief from view corridor requirements ir~ exchange for public access over and above the minimum requirement. Strategies 1. Update the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and/or Bremerton Zoning Ordinance (BZO) consistent with the Harrison District Plan. Provide increased flexibility to help compensate for the limited allowed building envelope inside the perimeter setbacks. a. Allow a portion of the SMP view corridor requirement to be satisfied by payment of a fee to a public access fund. b. Allow the SMP public access requirement to be satisfied by provision of a public access viewpoint along with payment of a fee to a public access fund. c. Establish a Harrison District Shoreline Public Access fund for deposit of fees in lieu of public access and view corridors, with the proceeds dedicated for purchase and development of park lands within the Harrison District shoreline area. d. Require a minimum setback from the top of the shoreline bluff until such time as a comprehensive study of the Tracyton Beach Natural System provides technical guidance for development. e. Require a minimum setback along the side yard without a view corridor to provide separation between buildings on adjacent sites. Draff Harrison District PIan 6- 4 7~5~6 Increase the height limit within the SMU Area to help compensate for the limited building areas between the setbacks from the top of the bluff and the street. Seek a grant(s) to conduct a geotechnical study of the Tracyton Beach Natural System, including high bluff areas, to determine development constraints and prescribe measures for protection of these features where necessary, including: setbacks, lot area coverage requirements, size of lots and development sites; height limits; density limits; and restoration of ground cover and bluff vegetation. a. Encourage property owners to participate financially as partners in the study in order to ensure that owner concerns are considered in more detail and to help build a cooperative approach to protection of the bluff. b. Investigate the feasibility of a bulkhead/pathway between Lent Lane Park and East 16th Street to stabilize the bluff and provide public access along the shoreline. Harrison Business District It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to protect and strengthen the Harrison business district. A strong business area will enhance the viability of the health care campus and nearby residential neighborhoods. Although several businesses have modernized their facilities in recent years, the district lacks a sense of cohesion. The City will strive to help the district become more attractive and pedestrian-friendly. Policies Work with the Harrison business district to build on its strengths and become a strong, viable commercial area that provides welcome support services to the health care campus and nearby residential areas. 2. Encourage pedestrian-oriented commercial development convenient to the health care campus that will encourage walk-in customers. Encourage a unifying theme using street trees, landscaping, signing and outdoor furnishings to strengthen the character and identity of the business district. Strategies 1. Encourage formation of a Harrison District merchants association that can work for the common good of the business district. Draft Hardson District Plan 6-5 7/25196 2. Work with the district to develop a unifying theme, using street trees, landscaping, signing and outdoor furnishings. a. Provide assistance from the City forester to help develop a street tree plan. OIj~mpio View Business Park It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to encourage redevelopment of the Olympic View commercial area to maximize the potential of its key location. By closing "Lower" Wheaten Way at Sheridan Road, the City will not only solve a traffic circulation problem, but will allow unification of an existing office site with the site of the former Olympic View School to create the potential for a modern business park. Policies 1. Encourage a planned business development at the site of the former Olympic View School. 2. Close "lower" Wheaten Way south of Sheridan Road at such time as the Wheaten Way south-found off-ramp is constructed. Strategies 1. Work with Sheridan Junction property owners to close the "Lower" Wheaten Way intersection with Sheridan Road. a. Create a historic site pocket park at Hal's Corner by enlarging the existing beautification spot using some of the closed right-of-way. (Also see Chapter 6 - Parks and Recreation Element) b. Vacate the remaining Wheaten Way right-of-way to adjoining property owners if requested. c. Earmark any revenues from the sale of Wheaten Way rights-of-way for improvements to the Hal's Corner pocket park and/or related transportation improvements within the Harrison District. Residen~fial Areas It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to foster strong, fiveable residential neighborhoods in the Harrison District. The City recognizes the connection between liveable neighborhoods and the overall health of the district. The City intends to focus its resources to help improve the quality and stability of these neighborhoods. There is a shortage of land for medium and high-density housing within the district. Circumstances have changed, and some lands that have been designated for office and for Iow density housing are more suitable for medium and high-density housing. The City will redesignate land for such use in appropriate areas. Draft Harrison District Plan 6-6 7/25/96 Policies 1. Foster healthy, liveable residential areas in the Harrison District. 2. Provide adequate areas for medium and high density residential development. 3. Encourage properly owners to maintain and improve the condition of housing in the Harrison District. 4. Establish clear boundaries between residential areas and adjacent business areas. a. Adjust comprehensive plan designations and zoning district boundaries to create logical boundaries between uses. b. Incorporate traffic calming features in heavily used residential streets. c. When feasible, improve the condition of existing sidewalks and install new sidewalks where none exist. 5. Require effective screening and buffering of business uses adjacent to residential areas. 6. Encourage underground wiring in areas affecting residential views. Strategies 1. Designate additional land for medium and high density housing on the comprehensive plan map. 2. Incorporate sidewalks and traffic calming measures into City public works projects when feasible. The Land Use Plan Map for the Harrison District puts form to the Vision and implements the Land Use policies for the district. It refines the recommendations in the Land Use Element of the city-wide comprehensive plan. The general land use categories in the plan establish a framework for zoning designations to follow. The District Land Use Plan Map designates areas where various land uses will be allowed. The plan features the following changes to the city-wide land use plan map: Draft Harrison District Plan 6 - 7' 7/25/96 A new Health Services designation protects scarce commercial land for health care-related uses, such as hospitals, medical offices, and pharmacies. A new Mixed Use/Shoreline designation responds to the special constraints posed by small properties limited by a high bluff along the shoreline and by traffic impacts from the "lower" Wheaton Way arterial along the upland. A reconfigured Olympic View business park area is created by closing "lower" Wheaton Way at Sheridan Road. (Also see Chapter 6 - Transportation Element for optional reconfiguration of lower Wheaton Way, which would change the configuration of the Olympic View business park area.) Future acquisition of adjacent property for expansion of Sheridan Park is shown. The former commercial designation north of Caltahan and west of Wheaton has been redesignated for medium and high density housing. Draft Harrison District Plan 6-8 7~5~6 //0 llarrison Ilospital Community Bnsincss Sheridan Community Center Sheridan Park (expanded) CommunityThcatcr Shorcliue Mixed Use District Shoreline/Bluff Open Space Low Density Rcsidc,~tial Medium & Iligh Density P, esidential Olympic View Business l'ark (expanded -"-. .......l'rails & l'athways * Future Acquisition for Park Expansion Figure 7 The Harrison District Land Use Plan Draft Harrison District Plan 6 - 9 7/25/96 //? Transportation Element A number of transportation-related issues have surfaced in the Harrison District. Most are related to the proximity of the district to State Highway 303 (Wheaton Way), and the conversion of an old naval facility to a regional medical center. Intent and Recommendations The following sections contain statements of intent and recommendations for several roadways in the district. I/Vheatcn I/Va.y- Southbound Off-Ramp It is the intent of the City of Bremerlon to improve access to the Hardson Distdct from "upper" Wheaton Way, with a focus on improving emergency vehicle access to Harrison hospital. The City will construct a south-bound off-ramp from Wheaton Way for this purpose as soon as complete funding can be obtained. The City will close "lower" Wheaton Way at Sheridan Road at the time the off- ramp is constructed. Recommendations: 1. Wheaton Way South-Bound Off-Ramp: Construct a south-bound off-ramp from Wheaton Way to Lebo Boulevard via Juniper Street. a. Work with business district properly owners to establish a Local Improvement District (LID) to raise remaining revenues needed to construct the Warren Avenue off-ramp. b. Earmark revenues from the sale of any vacated right-of-way within the Harrison District for construction of the Warren Avenue off-ramp. Wheaton Way Cul-de-sac: Close "lower" Wheaton Way south of Sheridan Road in conjunction with construction of the south-bound off-ramp. a. Work with adjoining property owners to design a cul-de-sac or turn- around at the north end of "lower" Wheaton Way. b. Vacate adequate Wheaton Way right-of-way to the Parks Department for expansion of the Hal's Corner beautification area. c. Vacate surplus right-of-way to adjoining owners upon request. Wheaton Way. Sheridan Road Intersection It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to eliminate the existing substandard intersection of "lower" Wheaton Way and Sheridan Road. This intersection will be closed in conjunction with the construction of the south-boL~nd off-ramp from "upper" Wheaton Way (see above section). However, the City will identify a "preferred alternative" Wheaton/Sheridan intersection in the event the property owner should request approval of such an intersection. Recommendation: Dra~ Harrison District Plan 6- 10 7/25/96 //9 1. Preferred Alternative for Wheaton/Sheridan Intersection: Realign lower Wheaton Way so as to extend nodhward from Callahan Drive through the former Olympic View School site to Sheridan Road if requested by the properly owner. The City will not pursue this alternative unless it is initiated by the properly owner. 141heaton Way- Rename It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to help make it easier to find the Harrison District by re-naming lower Wheaton Way. Recommendation: Change the name of lower Wheaton Way to "Manette Way" between Sheridan Road and the Manette Bridge. a. The timing of this name change should coincide with the closure of lower Wheaton Way at Sheridan. b. Affected property owners should be given ample notice to minimize confusion, inconvenience and expense. Campbell Way It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to realign or close Campbell Way in such a way as to improve traffic safety and to stimulate redevelopment and infill of adjoining properties. The City will work with the affected property owners to select a configuration that accomplishes these ends. A discussion of several alternative configurations is included in the Appendix. (See Appendix __ Campbell Way Development Concepts.) Recommendations: 1. Work with abutting property owners to realign or dose and vacate Campbell Way. 2. Protect public access to Main Street in any reconfiguration. 3. During the interim until a long-term solution is found, close off either the west or east end of Campbell Way, or designate it as a one-way street. ~lsh Street It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to close Ash Street at the intersection with Cherry Avenue in order to divert non-residential traffic away from the residential area. Recommendations: Close the south end of Ash Street at Cherry to separate the health care center from the residential area. a. Retain sufficient right-of-way to provide access to the East park Nature Area and water reservoir. Draft Harrison Distdct Plan 6-11 7~5~6 b. Vacate surplus right-of-way to adjoining owners for incorporation into the health care complex in exchange for construction of a turn-around at the south end of Ash Street. c. Work with abutting property owners to design a cul-de-sac or turn-around at the south end of Ash Street. Cherry Avenue It is the intent of the City of Bremerfon to prevent traffic con~lestion on Cherry Avenue between Callahan Drive and Sheridan Road where feasible. It is expected that some pressure on Cherry would be relieved if the City is able to reach an agreement to realign and extend "Iowe(' Wheaton Way to a new intersection east of its present location at Sheridan Road. Other minor improvements, such as a left turn lane, may relieve congestion significantly. Recommendations: Make appropriate improvements to Cherry Avenue between Sheridan Road and Callahan Drive to relieve congestion on Cherry. This could include a left turn lane to Sheridan, and may or may not include widening Cherry. Callahan Drive It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to improve traffic safety at the intersection of Callahan Drive and Wheaton Way. Recommendation: Designate Callahan - Wheaton - Cherry - Hickory as the main route from the Warren Avenue Bridge north-bound off-ramp to the hospital, and make corresponding improvements to increase safety and comfort for injured passengers being transported in emergency vehicles. Clare Street It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to improve traffic safety on Clare Street. Recommendations: 1. Close the Clare Street connection to the Callahan Drive off-ramp from Wheaton Way. Provide a turn-around for nodh-bound traffic on Clare. 2. Target southbound traffic on Clare Street for strict enforcement to discourage speeding. Housing Element The main housing issues in the Harrison District concern the affect of deteriorating housing on surrounding areas, and a shodage of affordable housing for senior citizens. Dratt Harrison District Plan 6- 12 7~5~6 Policies 1. Encourage home ownership in Harrison District residential areas. 2. Strengthen the liveability of residential areas to promote home ownership. 3. Encourage properly owners to maintain and improve residential properties. 4. Encourage redevelopment of existing lower density residential areas convenient to main streets for higher density housing. 5. Encourage development of affordable housing for low income senior citizens convenient to health services and shopping. Strategies 1. Identify eligible target areas in the Harrison District for the City's home improvement loan program. 2. Designate appropriate areas for higher density housing. 3. Encourage residents to file complaints with the City on dwelling units which appear to be in violation of city codes. Capital Facilities Element The Harrison District Plan includes a number of recommendations that could result in capital facilities expenditures by the City over the coming years. Those recommended for inclusion in the City's current Six-year Finance Plan are listed below. Wheaton Way Off-Ramp/Cul-de-sac Construction $400,000 Clare Street Connector $25,000 Sheridan Park - Expand park to southeast $126,000 Total = $551,000 Draft Harrison District Plan 6 - '/3 7/25/96 Utilifies Elemenf The recommendations in the Harrison District Plan are generally consistent with the adopted city-wide comprehensive plan and are not expected to result in a need for any changes in the provision of utilities. Parks and Recreafion £1emenf The city-wide Bremerton Comprehensive Plan does not yet contain a Parks and Recreation Element. The City did adopt a Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan in January 1995, shortly before the city-wide plan was adopted. Adoption of this District Plan will update both plans. Goal It is the goal of the City of Bremerton to: Develop a high quality, d/versified park system in the Harrison District to serve residents, employees and visitors to the area. Sheridan Park It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to expand and improve Sheridan Park. The City recognizes that Sheridan Park can and should be the jewel of the Harrison District. It should be redeveloped so as maximize its priceless high bluff shoreline location. In view of the nearby health care facilities, it should be designated a community/regional park and be made handicap-accessible. The City recognizes that, in the long term, the Parks Maintenance Facility site should be redeveloped for recreation use, and the maintenance facility should be relocated to a site away from the shoreline that is more suited to its industrial- type use. However, the City will only relocate the maintenance facility if all Parks Department staff can be housed together at a new site. The existing facility will continue to be used until a viable alternative is developed. Policies Designate lower Sheridan Park as a community/regional park to serve users of the regional health care facility as well as local residents and employees. 2. Expand the size of Sheridan Park if additional property can be acquired. Relocate the maintenance facility if an alternative site for the Parks and Recreation Department is acquired, and redevelop the maintenance facility site for recreation use if and when an alternative site is developed. Draft Harrison Distdct Plan 6 - 14 7/25/96 4. Provide a Iow key park setting for picnicking, resting and informal play. 5. Provide facilities for handicapped users. 6. Enhance scenic viewing opportunities. 7. Manage vegetation so as to protect the stability of the high bluff. Strategies 1. Seek funds to expand Sheridan Park if vacant property adjacent to the park can be acquired. 2. Provide a covered picnic area. Provide facilities for handicapped persons, including handicap parking, a handicap access ramp, and a handicap-accessible pathway to and along the bluff overlooking the shoreline. Find a suitable site away from the shoreline to relocate the parks maintenance storage facility, keeping in mind a cohesive Parks and Recreation Department operation, and redevelop the existing site for recreational use. 5. Develop a vegetation management plan to open up scenic views while increasing bluff stability. 6. Effectively block and restore user-created trails down the bluff to a natural state. Seek an agreement with the State Department of Transportation permitting the City to construct a pathway along the top of the bluff and to install and maintain landscaping along the sidewalk in the Warren Avenue Bridge right- of-way between Sheridan Park and the Community Theater. Sheridan Park Community Center It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to provide gym space and meeting rooms for community/regional use and recreation programming at the. Sheridan Park Community Center. For the short term, the City will provide office space for the staff of the Parks and Recreation Department at the community center. For the long term, the City will determine whether to relocate the Department and maintenance facility or keep them at the present site. Draft Harrison Distdct Plan 6- '/5 7/~5/96 The City will continue to make improvements to the facility to extend its useful life. A lack of adequate parking for users and staff at the center limits potential uses of the center. As a result, many staff and users must park on the unimproved parking strip across Lebo Boulevard, creating pedestrian safety concerns. These concerns will only be exacerbated when completion of the proposed south-bound off-ramp from Wheaton Way directs emergency vehicles and other traffic into the Harrison District via Lebo Boulevard. The City will seek ways to improve parking and pedestrian safety at the Community Center. Policies 1. Renovate the Sheridan Park Community Center as a community/regional recreation and meeting facility. Strategies Do a parking and circulation plan for the community center to provide adequate parking and improve safety. a. Consider reconfiguring and/or enlarging the existing parking lots to provide adequate short-term parking for community center users. b. Determine how to improve the safety of the on-street parking. Reconfigure the parking on the south side of Lebo Boulevard to meet City standards, so that vehicles do not back out into the street in order to leave. c. Consider constructing a long-term parking lot for staff and other long- term users at the maintenance facility site in lower Sheridan Park. 2. Improve safety at the pedestrian crossing area between the Community Center and lower Sheridan Park, making the crossing handicap accessible. Install a crosswalk if possible, and/or install traffic calming facilities consistent with maintaining traffic flow along Lebo Boulevard. 3. Conduct a facilities study to determine the best long-term location for the Parks and Recreation Department facilities, including the recreation center and the maintenance facility. EastPark Nature .4rea It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to maintain the East Park Nature Area as a community/regional conservancy area to preserve and protect a wooded habitat and buffer area and provide urban open space. The City will provide only limited park facilities, consistent with Iow key use of the area. Any significant changes in use would require approval under the City Parks Protection Ordinance per Bremerton Municipal Code Chapter 13.12. Draft Harrison Distdct Plan 6 - 16 7/25/96 Policies 1. Designate the East Park Nature Area as a community/regional conservancy area, while providing limited park facilities for local, walk-in use. 2. Protect the East Park Nature Area from encroachment by non-park uses. Allow continuance of the joint use parking lot next to the hospital. Consider permitting use of the site for a parking garage if designed to be sensitive to the conservancy role of the area. Strategies 1. Provide picnic tables convenient to the Ash Street entrance to the East Park Nature Area for walk-in users. Off-street parking will not be provided. Develop a trail system within the Nature Area, including a pathway linking this area to the East Park active use area. Add interpretive signs as appropriate to encourage appreciation of the natural functions of the area. Determine the best long-term use of the existing joint-use parking lot next to the hospital. Consider whether a parking structure could be developed at the site that would not further degrade the function of the nature area. Hal's Corner It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to maintain and enlarge the Hal's Cor~er beautification area to create an historic site pocket park for permanent display of the U.S.S. Missouri gun enplacements. Policies 1. Designate the Hal's Corner beautification area as a neighborhood pocket park. 2. Expand the Hal's Corner beautification area to create an historic site pocket park for local use and display of the U.S.S. Missouri guns. Strategies Vacate a portion of the Wheaton Way right-of-way to enlarge the Hal's Corner site at such time as lower Wheaton Way is closed to traffic at the Sheridan Road intersection. Draft Harrison District Plan 6-17 7r25/96 2. Dedicate a portion of the proceeds from any sale of facated Wheaton Way right-of-way for development of the Hal's Corner pocket park. 3. Add some picnic tables to the Hal's Corner pocket park to serve nearby residents and employees. "Olympio View', Reservoir Court It is the intent of the City of Bremerfon to maintain recreational use of the top of the City water reservoir located just south of the former Olympic View School, south of Sheridan Road. The City will maintain the court for recreational use, provided such use is consistent with the City's water quality program. The City will endeaver to provide access to the reservoir from lower Wheaton Way so that access over the former school site will not be required. Policies 1. Designate the top of the "Olympic View" water reservoir for controlled community/regional use, consistent with water quatity requirements. 2. Provide or quire access to the Olympic V~ew' reservoir court from city ac ' " ' ' , right-of-way. Strategies 1. Continue to hold basketball clinics and/or other controlled recreational programs on the "Olympic View" reservoir-top. 2. Determine how to best provide access to the reservoir without using private property. Main Street Beach Access It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to provide a view platform and beach access stair or pathway over the Main Street fight-of-way. The City recognizes that small sites like this are often not cost-effective, and that this access may not be feasible in the short term. In the long term, when resources allow, the City is committed to providing a modest waterfront access facility at this platted, undeveloped city street. Policies 1. Designate the Main Street Beach Access as a future viewpoint and beach access facility to function as an extension of Sheridan Park. Draft Harrison District Plan 6- 18 7/25/96 Strategies 1. Create a design concept for a view platform and beach access facility on the Main Street right-of-way. Magnussen Viewpoint It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to maintain the Magnussen Viewpoint as one of the only overlooks along the east shore of the Manette Peninsula. The City is committed to preserving the public's ability to locate and enjoy this very special mini-viewpoint. The City recognizes that only minor additional facilities at this very small, steep site may be cost-effective or necessary in the near term. In the long term, the City will investigate the possibility of a view platform and beach stairway down the steep bluff. Policies Designate the Magnussen Viewpoint as a Iow intensity neighborhood pocket park for the purpose of public access to waterfront views and potential beach access. 2. Establish pedestrian use as a priority over parking of cars at the Magnussen Viewpoint. Strategies Create a small pedestrian area, performing occasional stratigic pruning to open up peek-aboo views. Install a bench and other amenities if there is room between the fence and the parking area. 2. Install a few parking stalls, including handicap parking, consistent with city standards. Install facilities to more clearly identify the site as a public viewpoint and delineate it from the adjacent business parking area, e.g. signing closer to the road, bollards along the side property line, etc. 4. Adopt a vegetation management plan to help stabilize the bluff as appropriate. 5. Investigate the feasibility of constructing a view platform and beach access facility at some future time when funding is available. Harrison District Waterfront Aocess "Link" Plan Draff Hardson District Plan 6-19 7/25/96 It is the intent of the City of Bremerton that the adoption of this Harrison District Plan includes adoption of applicable parts of this parks section as a waterfront access "link"plan for the Harrison District shoreline. This plan will guide provision of public access for shoreline development subject to Bremerton Shoreline Master Program and Bremerton Waterfront Access Plan public access requirements. Policies Recognize applicable portions of the Harrison District Plan as an adopted Waterfront Access "Link" Plan, which is intended to provide guidance for the development of public access as required by the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. Applicable portions include those sections pertaining to Sheridan Park, Main Street, and the Magnussen Viewpoint. Require development along the Harrison District shoreline to provide an upland sidewalk and/or pathway to and along the top of the bluff, connecting existing or proposed water access areas where specified by this waterfront access "link" plan, including appropriate trees, signs and street furnishings. 3. Permit or provide payment in lieu of providing public access by contribution to a special Harrison District waterfront access fund. Strategies 1. Adopt a plan specifying appropriate trees, signs and street furnishings for use along the Harrison District WaterFront Access "Link" Plan. Establish a special shoreline public access fund for deposit of payments in lieu of providing public access along the Harrison District shoreline. Dedicate this fund toward improving public access on public property along the Harrison District shoreline. Construct bluff-top pathway linkages for all City shoreline properties in the Harrison District, between Magnussen Viewpoint and the Community Theater. a. Seek permission from the State Department of Transportation to construct a pathway link along the top of the bluff in the Warren Avenue Bridge right-of-way underneath the bridge. CHAPT_6.HDP Draft Harrison District Plan 6 - 20 7/25196 Implementing Regulations Certain new or changed development regulations will be needed in order to implement the Harrison District Plan. These include amendments to the City's Zoning and Shoreline Management ordinances. Zoning Ordinance Introduction The Harrison District Plan will guide future changes and improvements. But plans alone can't get the job done and usually need the assistance of regulations to implement the goals and policies. Most land use regulations are contained in the City's Zoning Ordinance (or Development Code). The entire district is zoned, but the present zoning wasn't based on this Plan and doesn't accurately reflect its detailed objectives in some key areas. To achieve the balance of land uses that is visualized in this Plan, two specific new zones are offered for consideration. This zoning process will continue beyond adoption of the Plan since the process of review, refinement and adoption of regulations is lengthy and doesn't fit within the time constraints of the Harrision District Plan project. State law requires that plans and their implementing regulations be consistent with each other. If the zoning doesn't carry out the Plan effectively, either the Plan or the zoning may need to be adjusted later to achieve consistency. Health Care (HC) zone: A. Purpose & Objectives A primary objective is to protect and strengthen the medical center to ensure that it remains strong and viable. Sufficient areas must be provided in the general vicinity for medical center expansion. At the same time, we should guard against uses that could diminish the function Draft Harrison District Plan 7- '~ 7/'25196 of the area as a regional healthcare center. The following primary objectives were considered in the development of the HC zone: I. A health care campus of related and compatible uses wtil be established. 2. Medical and related 'support" activities will be the preferred uses. 3. Areas for new growth and expansion will be provided. 4. Internal access and circulation will be improved. 5. Land use conflicts will be minimized. The areas delineated on the Harrison District Land Use Plan as "Health Care Center" are currently zoned "General Business" and "Professional Office" for the most part. The General Business zone is one of Bremerton's most intense commercial zones, is highway oriented, and allows a number of land uses that may not be in the best interests of a health care district. The suggested "HC" zone is a combination of the most appropriate uses from the Professional Office zone and the General Business zone and is intended to promote the objectives of this Plan while preventing most incompatible uses. B. Minimum Development Standards Minimum Lot Size None Maximum Lot Coverage 60% (building coverage) Minimum Lot Width None Max. Building Height 60 ft. (higher requires PUD) Max. Building Size None Building Setbacks (measured from property line) Front: 10 ft. Side: Min. of 10 ft. is required from any "residential" zone. No side setback required from non-residential zones. Rear: Min. of 10 ft. is required from any"residential" zone. No rear setback required from non-residential zones. C. Allowed Land Uses (SUP = requires Special Use Permit approval) Primary Uses: The following are encouraged as the preferred uses within this zone. Medical & Social Svcs. - Hospital Medical - Offices and Out-patient Services Medical Services (diagnostic, ENT, etc.) Medica{ Laboratory Draft Hardson District Plan 7-2 7~5~6 Recreation & Health - Other Retail Business - Detoxification Center & similar facilities -- SUP Weight Control and Aerobics Drug Store or Pharmacy Glasses & Optical Goods and Services Support Uses: The following uses are permitted in support of the primary uses within this zone. Their size and intensity should not dominate, but should be compatible with the overall character and purpose of this district. Residential - Residential, as a secondary use -- SUP Other Lodging - Entertainment/Culture - Medical & Social Svcs. - Recreation & Health - Other Public / Quasi-Public - Government & Utility Svcs. - Eating & Drinking - Personal Services - Business Services - Other Retail Business - A uto/Transportation - Industrial/Mfg. - Foster Home Day Care Facility (13 or more - all ages) Day Care Facility (12 or fewer - all ages) Group Residential Facillty - Class I -- SUP Group Residential Facility ~ Class ti -- SUP Youth, Senior, or Community Center -- SUP Social Service Facility Welfare & other chadtible Services/Facilities Indoor Athletic/Recreation Facility Park, Playground or other recreational facilities Educational facilities (health care emphasis encouraged) Library Law Enforcement & Fire Facilities Water, Sewer and Stormdrain Facilities Utility Substation -- SUP Communications Antenna/Relay Tower -- SUP Antenna Tower (non-commercial) -- SUP Restaurant/Cafe Food/Beverage Take-out (no inside seating) Donut Shop, Baked Goods Delicatessen Health Foods, Supplements, Vitamins, etc. Hair Care and Personal Grooming Personal/Family Counseling Services Convenience banking and financial services Office/Business Assistance Services General Offices Book Store (newspapers, magazines, etc.) Stationery, Paper Products, Office supplies Flowers, Gills and Greeting Cards Non-accessory Parking (structure or lot) Recycling Collection Stations Draft Hardson Distdct Plan 7-3 7~5~6 Shoreline Mixed Use (SMU) zone: A. Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this zone is to establish a mixed use district that responds to the constraints and special oppodunities of the high bluff areas that lie to the south of Wheaton Way, Campbell Way and Lebo Boulevard. The following primary objectives were considered in the development of the SMU zone: 1. Maximize the potential of bluff-top areas through redevelopment and infill. 2. Promote a mix of water-oriented commercial, office and residential uses. Ensure that new development is designed and sited to take advantage of high bluff views while enhancing the unique qualities of the shoreline location. Discourage development that endangers the stabilit,/of the bluff or function of the Tracyton Beach Natural System. (e.g., buildings that "step down" or cut into the bluff) Develop a public access walkway/bikeway along the top of the bluff and acquire public access easements along the water's edge. This is a key shoreline link in the City's future greenways system and is of community and regional importance. Areas delineated on the Harrison District Land Use Plan as "Shoreline Mixed Use" are currently zoned Professional Office (PO) and General Business (GB) for the most part. The GB zone is one of Bremerton's most intense zones, is highway oriented, and allows a number of land uses that are not well suited to a narrow bluff-top location. The suggested "SMU" zone borrows primarily from the Professional Office and residential zones in providing for a mix of residential and office uses, with limited commercial services. The following lists of uses are designed to meet the stated objectives while ensuring a compatible mix of appropriate uses for this very limited and sensitive area. B. Minimum Development Standards Minimum Lot Size None Maximum Lot Coverage 50% Minimum Lot Width None Max. Building Height 40 f~. Max. Building Size None Draft Hardson District Plan 7-4 7/25/96 Building Setbacks (measured from property lines) Front: Bluff-top: Side: Rear: 10 ft. min. 25 ft. min. or as determined by a geo-technical report 5 ft. min. (also subject to view corridor requirements) 10 ft. min. C. Development Guidelines The following guidelines are intended to assist in planning for a new project, expansion of an existing use, or in the City's consideration of unique design approaches. Maximizing views, public access and other site amenities should guide project design within the SMU zone. Mixed-use developments that integrate office and light commercial uses with residential uses are encouraged. A hard surface accessible public walkway and easement should be provided along the bluff-top as part of projects within this zone to achieve objective #5. Because view and amenities are of foremost importance, the City will give greater weight to public amenities that are provided along the bluff-top walkway or beach access, in exchange for relief from other constraining develoment requirements. Such relief is requested through the Variance, PUD, or Special Exception process. Commercial, office and mixed use developments shall provide a public access link from the public street to the bluff-top walkway. This link may be within a required view corridor. It may be approved as a temporary accessway until such time as the walkway is connected by other public right-of-way access points at each end. Buildings having a vedical design (multi-levels) are preferred in this zone to reduce lot coverage and result in more open space. Parking should be limited to the street side of buildings. MultiJevel parking structures are encouraged. New development should recognize the instability of the bluff, should minimize impacts on the physical structure of the bluff, and should avoid cuts, fills, stepping- down the bluff, or other unnecessary alterations of the natural landform, D. Allowed Land Uses (SUP = requires Special Use Permit approval Primary Uses: The following are encouraged as the preferred uses within this zone: Residential Multiple-unit residential structures (no density limitation) Townhouses (attached units on own lots) Draft Harrison Distdct Plan 7-5 7/25/96 Other Lodging - Eating & Drinking - Busineas Services - Bed & Breakfast Hotel or Motel Residential Hotel or Inn (weekly/monthly) Restaurant/Cafe General Offices (prefer those with limited client visits) Support Uses: The following uses are permitted in support of the primary uses within this zone. Their size and intensity should not dominate but should be compatible with the overall character and purpose of the district. Residential - Other Lodging - Enterfainment / Culture - Medical & Social Svc$. - Personal Services - Business Services - Public & Quasi-Public Government & Utility Svcs. Eating & Drinking - Residential -- as a secondary use Foster Home Convalescent/Rest Home Day Care Facilities (all sizes -- discouraged for children) Group Residential Facility -- Class I Youth, Senior or Community Center -- SUP Medical offices and out-patient services Personal Services (grooming, fitness, weight control, etc.) Business Services (copy, FAX, bookkeeping, accounting, etc.) Smalt art gallery (2,000 sq. ft. or smaller) Water, Sewer and Stormdrain Facilities Utility Substation -- SUP Food/Beverage Take-out (no inside seating) Donut Shop, Baked Goods Delicatessen General Business (GB) zone The Sheridan Village Shopping Center and commercial areas on the nodheast side of Wheaton Way are currently zoned "GB" and no changes are proposed. This is an intense commercial zone that allows a variety of retail commercial, offices, services, automotive services, restaurants and fast food, and other uses. This zone forms the retail core of the Harrison District. The "GB" zone is also applied to an area referred to as the Olympic View Business Park, along the south side of Sheridan Road east of Warren Avenue. This includes the site of the former school and additional area resulting from the proposed vacation of a part of Wheaton Way. Access and visibility is excellent at this location and the "GB" zone will provide a wide variety of possibilities for future development. Draft Harrison Distdct Plan 7- 6 7/25/96 Professional Offioe (PO) zone Three areas are currently zoned "PO". An area north of Callahan and west or Wheaton is now in residential use and proposed for medium-density residential zoning. Two segments of bluff-top shoreline property that would be included in the proposed "Shoreline Mixed Use" zone. A strip of "PO" zoning along the east side of Cherry between Ash and Callahan will be retained. If adopted as recommended, the Harrison District's final zoning would include just one "PO" zone, but would still have ample areas that would be zoned and suitable for office uses. Duplex Residential (DR) zone The "DR" zone allows a variety of dwelling types at an overall maximum density of 8 units per acre. This is the current zoning in the northeast corner of the Harrison District and will be retained for the protection of this neighborhood. Multiple-family Residential (MF~ zone: This medium-density zone allows apartments and other multi-unit structures to a maximum density of 18 dwellings per acre. It has limited application at the present time, but is proposed for expansion to include the area north of Callahan and west of Wheaton. The district will be stronger as an active "neighborhood" if it has more full-time residents. Thus, the core of the business district is surrounded by a variety of residential zoning to encourage a better balance of residential and non-residential uses within walking distance of each other. Mixed Residential (MR) zone: This high-density zone allows up to 44 dwellings per acre and has been applied only to the large apartment complex at the southwest corner of Sheridan Road and Schley Boulevard. No additional high-density residential areas are proposed within the Harrison District. Parks & Sohools (PS) zone: The "PS" zone is not proposed for any changes. This zone includes the Sheridan Community Center, Sheridan Park, the Community Theater, the Eastpark Nature Area, and the small park at the intersection of Warren Avenue and Sheridan Road. Revised Zoning Map: The map entitled "Harrison District Proposed Zoning" is offered as the next step toward implementation of this district plan. As described above, the map shows the proposed new zones --- Health Care (HC) and Shoreline Mixed Use (SMU) -- - along with the other existing zones which have been amended to reflect the Land Use Plan for this district. Draft Harrison District Plan 7-7 7~5~6 The zoning amendments are not of immediate importance to implement this Plan and not necessary to ensure Plan/Zoning consistency. However, the zoning proposals will help ensure that the Plan gets implemented sooner and more smoothly. The City's Official Zoning Map may be amended at any time. Adoption of the Harrison District Plan should be followed by serious consideration of these zoning proposals by the Planning Commission and City Council and adoption of Zoning amendments that will best implement the district plan. Draft Hardson District Plan Harrison District PROPOSED ZONING DR MF MR PO GB HC SMU PS Duplex Residential Multi-family Residential Mixed Residential Professional Office General Business Health Care Shoreline Mixed Use Parks & Schools Figure 1 Proposed Zoning Draft Harrison District Plan 7 - 9 7/25/96 SJ~o~'eli~o Mas~e~ Pro.ram The Bremerton Shoreline Master Program will apply to any new development within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark -- most of the property along the shore side of Lebo Boulevard, Campbell Way, and Wheaton Way. Very few changes will be required to make the Master Program consistent with the Harrison District Plan. Environment Designations The Shoreline Master Program already permits those uses proposed in the new SMU zone. Special requirements apply to uses in the Commercial environment designation. Since the Harrison District Plan recommends that only water-dependent, water- related, and water-enjoyment uses be permitted within the new SMU zone, the Master Program would need to be changed to prohibit non-water~oriented uses within that zone. Development Sfandards The Master Program includes additional requirements in certain environment designations for Marine Bluff Review, Public Access, and View Protection. Marine Bluff Review The existing Marine Bluff Review requirement would allow development to "step down", or extend down the slope of, the bluff if the review determined that "any new activity on the bluff will not result in erosion or add to unstable bluff conditions that might cause damage to marine resources." To be consistent with the Harrison District Plan, the Master Program will need to be changed to prohibit development down the slope of the bluff. Exceptions may be needed for such structures as stairways to the beach. Public Access The Master Program already requires all new commercial development and multi-family development of five or more units to provide "improved public access", which consists of a hard surface walkway to and along the shoreline. The Harrison District Plan proposes increased fle~dbility in this requirement as it applies to the district's steep, unstable shoreline. Toward this end, the following changes to the SMP are recommended: Allow the public access requirement to be satisfied by provision of a viewpoint connected by walkway to the Wheaton Way sidewalk in combination with payment of a fee-in-lieu of a pathway along the top of the bluff. Dralf Harrison District Plan 7- 70 7/25/96 Establish a dedicated Harrison Shoreline Public Acceess fund for deposit of fees in lieu of public access and view corridors, with the proceeds dedicated for purchase and development of park lands within the Harrison District shoreline area. The Harrison District Plan establishes a "Harrison District Waterfront Access "Link" Plan", within which new shoreline development will be required "to provide an upland sidewalk and/or pathway to and along the top of the bluff". Since the Shoreline Master Program already recognizes adopted waterfront access plans, it will not need to be changed to recognize the waterfront access plan for the Harrison District. View Protection The Harrison District Plan recommends "proportional relief from view corridor requirements in exchange for public access over and above the minimum requirement". The Master Program will need to be amended to provide such relief. Height The Master Program already allows structure heights per zoning limits by increasing the View Corridor width. Therefore, no SMP revisions will be needed to implement the Harrison District Plan. HARRISON.CH7 Draft Hardson Distdct Ptan 7- 11 7/25/96 0 0 0 Draft Harrison District Plan 7- 12 7/25/96 £nvJronn nta! Fle Jew Purpose and Intent The purpose of this chapter is to streamline environmental review for proposed projects that are consistent with the recommendations of the Harrison District Plan. This review meets the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for environmental analysis of the district plan itself. In addition, it seeks to provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of proposed future projects within the Harrison District planning area. The inclusion of this analysis within the plan document qualifies the Harrison District Plan as an "integrated GMA/SEPA document" under 1995 amendments to SEPA and the Growth Management Act (GMA).~ Since the adoption of the Harrison District Plan is not likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact, the plan is designated as an "integrated non-ElS document". ifa proposed GMA action is not likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact, an integrated GMA document shall be prepared that combines the formal SEPA document (such as an environmental checklist/DNS, a notice of adoption or addendum) with the GMA document. The provisions of WAC 197-11-235(1) and (2) apply to these integrated documents. -- WA C 197-11-235 (3) 'lnlegrated non-eis documents ". This chapter includes all components required for an integrated non-ElS document -- an environmental summary, along with pads A, C and D of the traditional environmental checklist. These are included in the following sections: ~ See Appendix__ - Amendments to the State Environmental Policy Act Rules; Adopted March 3, 1995. Dratf Harrison District Plan 8-1 7/25/96 Background -- A "fact sheet" of background information regarding the proposal. Environmental Summary -- A synopsis of any adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated to be caused by implementation of the plan. Nonproject Actions -- Analysis of the environmental impacts of the Harrison District Plan. Responsible Official's Signature -- Signature of Bremerton's SEPA Official. Background The following section contains background information, as required in WAC 197- 11-440(2) -- ElS Contents. At a minimum the fact sheet shall contain the infom~ation required in WAC 197-11-40(2) r'EIS Contents: Fact Sheet'7. The fact sheet shall precede the summary in the integrated GMA document. -- WAC fgT-I 1-235(5)(d) Proposed Project: Harrison District Plan Project Description: The Harrison District Plan is a comprehensive plan for the area of East Bremedon generally bounded by: Sheridan Road on the north; [~6:ilWarren Avenue::.Bii~i~ on the west; ~i~;~i::~:...~:::~i~'~iiEast Park Naval Housing Area on the east; and Port Washington Narrows on the south. This Plan expands upon Specific Area P/an E-2: Harrison Health Se~,ices District in the Bremerton Comprehensive P/an, adopted by the City of Bremedon in 1995 in accordance with the State Growth Management Act (GMA). Upon adoption, the Harrison District Plan will become an amendment to the Bremerton Comprehensive P/an. Project Sponsor: City of Bremerton Depadment of Community Development Tentative Date for Implementation: Proposed projects could be implemented during the 20 year planning period following adoption of the Plan. Draft Harrison District Plan 8-2 7r25/96 Lead Agency: Responsible Official: Contact Persons: Licenses Required: Prepared by: Date Prepared: Comment Period Ends: Public Meeting Schedule: Planned Date of Final Action: Planned Further Activity Related to Proposal: City of Bremedon Department of Community Development 286 4th Street Bremedon, WA 98337 Phone: (360) 478-5275 Jack Allingham, SFPA Official Kay W. Wilson, Senior Planner Ron W. Hough, Planning Manager Phone: (360) 478-5275 No licenses are required for adoption of the Harrison District Plan. However, it is possible that specific proposals recommended by the plan could require business or other licenses. Kay W. Wilson, Senior Planner May 13, 1996 N/A May 7, 1996 -- May 21, 1996 -- May 28, 1996 -- June 4,1996 -- June 18,1996 -- Planning Commission Study Session, 4:15 pm at 286 4th Street, Bremedon Planning Commission Public Hearing, 6:00 pm or later at City Hall, 239 4th Street, Bremedon Parks Commission Meeting, Sheridan Park Recreation Center, 680 Lebo Blvd., Bremedon Planning Commission Stud)' Session (if needed!, 4:15 pm at ~i~;~'i~ Continuation of Planning Commission Public Hearing (if-r~ecessary), 6:00 pm or later at City Hall, 239 4th Street, Bremedon City Council Study Sessions and Public Hearings 1996 -- City Council Adoption of Plan (Date subject to change) Various projects recommended by the plan are expected to be implemented over the coming 20 years. In addition, as an element of the City's GMA Comprehensive Plan, the Draft Harrison Distdct Plan 8 - 3 7/25/96 Related Environmental Information: Related Applications Pending: Government Approvals or Permits Needed for Proposal: Subsequent Environmental Review: Location of Background Information: Cost of Copies: Harrison District Plan will be subject to review annually, and will be reviewed at least every five years. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan, October 1935. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Bremerfon Comprehensive Plan, January 1986. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Bremerlon Comprehensive Plan, January 20, 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Bremerfon Comprehensive Plan, February 28, 1995. Miscellaneous proposed amendments to the Bremerfon Comprehensive Plan are undergoing annual Planning Commission and City Council revi~/, with final action ~!!~ !~..~6~.~!~ :~.[~.~:~;!~'~ 1996. The Harrison District Plan will take effect upon adoption by City Council Ordinance. However, project proposals within the Harrison District will need, at a minimum, Site Plan Approval and applicable Building Permits from the City of Bremerton. If on the shoreline, they may also need applicable shoreline permits from the City of Bremedon, the Corps of Engineers, and/or the State Depadment of Fisheries and Wildlife. (Depending on the proposal, other land use permits may also be required.) Future project proposals in the Hardson District will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for consistency with the Harrison District Plan. Those projects which are found consistent with the Plan will only need to do environmental review of issues not covered in this environmental analysis. Planning Division Depar[ment of Community Development 286 Foudh Street Bremedon, WA 98337 (360) 478-5275 $0.25 for first page, and $0.10 for each additional page. Draft Harrison District Plan 8-4 7~5~6 Environmenfal Summary An "integrated non-ElS document" is required to include an "environmental summary". The environmental summary includes the con{ents required in WAC Ig7-f1-440(4). The summary shall bdefly state the proposal's objectives, specifying the purpose and need to which the proposal is responding, the major conclusions, significant areas of controversy and unce~fainly, if any, and the issues to be resolved, including the environmental choices to be made among alternative courses of action and the effectiveness of mitigation measures.../-- WAC 197-1 f-440(4) ElS contents: Summary] The environmental summary for an "integrated non-ElS document" is to be concise, but emphasize certain issues: The environmental summary...shou/d emphasize the major conclusions, issues to be resolved, including the environmental choices to be made and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. The summary is not to be a summary of the GMA action. --WAC I g7- f 1-235(5)(a)-(c) Summary of Proposal The Harrison District Plan is a refinement of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan, which singles out the "Harrison Health Services District" as a specific area for further study. The Harrison District Plan is based on the comprehensive plan Vision statement: "Harrison Hospital will continue to play a major role in the provision of medical services, and its surrounding district will continue to grow and strengthen its role as a regional health services center'~ The Harrison District Plan has been developed in response to needs identified in the Bremerfon Comprehensive Plan for Specific Area E-2: Harrison Health Services District. The objectives of the proposal include: To maintain and strengfhen the district's role as a regional health services center by addressing land use, parking, and circulation issues. To establish a balance of land uses thai will complement each other and maintain long term stability. To minimize increased traffic, bypass traffic, physical encroachmet!t, and other disruptions to surrounding stable residential neighborhoods. The major recommendations of the plan are: Create a special Health Care district --The Plan recommends special comprehensive plan and zoning designations to create a Health Care tHC) district in the vicinity of the hospital. The purpose of this district is to plan'for sufficient areas for medical center Dratf Harrison District Plan 7/25/96 expansion, and to protect these areas from uses that could diminish the function of the area as a regional health care center. A parking structure and helipad would be allowed ~! q~t~pr~ convement to the hospital. Create a special Shoreline Mixed Use district - The Plan recommends special comprehensive plan and zoning designations to create a Shoreline Mixed Use (SMU) district along the high bluff shoreline. Recommended actions and development regulations will help protect the Tracyton Beach Natural System and foster water-related development that will be compatible with a shoreline location. Improve access to the district from Wheaton Way - The Plan recommends constructing a south-bound off-ramp from Wheaton Way to Lebo Boulevard. Improve access from the district to Sheridan Road - The Plan recommends closing ~ ~.~ !~!~ ~::lower Wheaton Way at Shedd~n Close or reconfigure Campbell Way - The Plan recommends closing Campbell Way at Lebo Boulevard, or reconfiguring the street to improve traffic safety and increase the development potential of the surrounding property. Close Ash Street at Cherry Avenue - The Plan recommends a cul-de-sac at the south end of Ash Street to keep medical center traffic out of the residentia[ area. Expand Sheridan Park - The Plan recommends expansion of Sheridan Park to the east if the adjacent property can be purchased. recommends that a view platform be constructed on the Main Street right-of-way as a part of a public access pathway along the top of the bluff. It also recommends that the feasibilit~ of a stairway to the beach be determined. Summary of Impacts, Alternatives, Mitigation Measures, and Significant Adverse Impacts that Cannot be Mitigated The table on the following page provides a summary of environmental impacts that are anticipated from the implementation of the Harrison District Plan. [Table The anticipated impacts are based on a comparison with existing comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The impacts.of these existing designations have Draft Hardson District Plan 8 - 6 7/25/96 already been examined in prior environmental reviews of those designations. Major Conolusions In general, the adoption of the Harrison District Plan is expected to have mostly positive or neutral impacts on the environment. If the plan were not adopted, the development of the district would continue to be guided by the existing Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and regulated by correspondin9 zonin9 and shoreline management requirements. The Supplementary ElS on the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan concluded that: The anticipated environmental impacts of the City's 20-year growth expectations, as presented in the Comprehensive Plan, are expected to be minima/. The Plan covers only areas already within the City and other unincorporated areas that are designaled "urban" and within CiO/utility service areas. The Harrison District Plan tailors specific plan and zoning designations for the special needs of the district. The plan proposes measures to mitigate identified potential adverse environmental impacts. Overall, the plan is expected to improve rather than detract from the elements of the environment. Draft Hardson District Plan 7/25/96 ::';: Tabl~8-1.:~ s~m~ry of impacts, Alternatives, Mitiga{ion Measures, and significant A;dveme.!mpacts tflat cannot be Mitigated . .' . p~-oP°~a :.: :': PositiVe lm~acts' ' 'AaVerse impacts and ~ s gnifica~tAdv~i's~'i~pacts. Alternatives ':!.i' :: ;:: ..i ':' . Planned Mitigation Measures thatCanm3tbeMiti~ated · ' : :Heal~ Car~ ! - Protect area for hea~ care - Scenic views from some - None identified. - Keep existing commercial and i(HC) D S~dc? i:. uses, residential areas could be residential (GB, PO & DU) : - Avoid impac~ caused by certain blocked by tall buildings. (Same designaEons. intense business uses ~hat are impacts as for exis~ng GB and -Reduce height limits in all or part of :::::: i:' ' inconsistent w~th hea~ care PO zones) district. ~::'. :::~ :: purpose of dis~ct. - M~gafion: None proposed. - ~low taller buildings on~y if :'..::: :~ ':::. - Converts Cherry Avenue so.acks are increased. i~.iPa~,l~i~g:' .' - solve hospital parking problems. - Possible location in East Park - Loca~on anywhere could - Locate stTucture at alternate site Structure - Reduce air emissions from Nature Area parking lot could increase vehicular emissions in less convenient to hospital. heal; Hospital vehicles searching for parking impact animal and plant habitat, vicinity. (These may be - Encourage construction of more space. - Mitigation: Consider design that balanced by reducing emissions parking lots near hospital. would not fur~er degrade nature from vehicles searching for - ConsthJct park-and-ride lot(s) : : area (pg. 6-20). parking space.) elsewhere, wf~ shutffe bus service :'? ; to hospital ~ H~ Ipad neat - Improve emergency medical - Helicopters w~ll result in - Helipad w~ll create noise, air - Require helipad design to: ; :.'Hospltat' care by reducing t~ansport ~me. add~onal air emissions and emission, and ~'affic impacts - Divert flight path away from ::i: :::.::i?'.i' Move impacts away from junior noise, regardless of where it is located, residential areas to extent possible; ;' :;:::i:: '::;: :. ' high school. - Helipad w~ll generate ~'affic - Include features to divert noise ·: ' ' impacts from emergency away from residential areas if ' ~': : vehicles, feasible; ·. - M~figation: ~l~i~ - Require analysis of possible ': ' · ~ihim~::~m~ts ~n~sten~ alternate sites before preferred site .Sh0rellne Mixed: - Protect func~on of Tracyton No significant adverse impacts - None iden~fied. - Keep exis~ng commercial (GB & iu~e:(SMU)i:.': .i:: Beach Natural System. anticipated from change in plan PO) designations. District':.]':; ; ' - Protect stability of high bluff, and zoning designations. : :.' ::;'i wate ent. r°tect public viaws of · · : commercial uses. E. xpar~: ::.' - Increase area available for multi- -~ ~R~:~~ - None iden~ed. - Keep ekisbng commercial office Medium Den$1ty family housing. ~f{~i~::~C~;~:~O~e~t (PO) designation. Callahan)::: Draf~ Hardson Distdct Plan ~ - 8 7/'25,'96 : Tab{~ ~:1: ~ sdmmar~ 0flmpac+'s, AltemAti~e~, Mitigation Measm:es, and Significant Adverse Impacts that cannot be Mitigated': ;' P~P0~i. PoSit Ve Impacts ·Adverse Impacts and : . significant Adverse ImPa;Cts Alternatives : i: · : PlAnned Mitigation Measures! ' that cannot be Mitig:~ted ~.': WheatonWay; - improve ease of access to - Some increase in fraffic- - None iden~ed. - Add noise reduction features to off- i Off-Ram~.:.:' dist~ct from north, associated noise and vehicle ramp design if feasible. ·: :': ::': i' emissions to adjacent area. - Do not construct off-ramp. ?:::i: ;- .i:i; i i - M~gation: None proposed. :[~wer~Tieat0n - Improve safety of Wheaton- - Less convenient access to - None identified. - Sfraighten Wheaton and extend Way CloSare at:' Sheddan intersection. Sheddan Road from parcels north ~hrough former O~ympic V~ew Sheridan:Road· - Improve safety of Wheaton- fronting on Wheaton, School site to Sheddan Road. · :: ; Cailahan interseddon. - M~gatJon: Change land use ::. designation west of Wheaton · : from office (PO) to rssidential (MF). · i-":.:;~ :".:.:?-': ':. ~'~hi ~ i~t~i :'~.sh StrUt ; - Protect residential area from - None ident~ied. - None iden~ed. - No change. Cl~s'u~;e :;:!:.: :: hospital ~'af~c. ;'sherid--n Park - Increase park area and public - Decrease in development - None iden~ed. - Do not expand park. ';:~xpan$io~. : visual access to waterfront, potential of Campbell Way properties. · :. - Mitigation: Increased value of properties near expanded park. ;'Main S~reet: : . Increase public visual, and - Possible physical access to - To be determined at time of - Construct a view platform, but do 'B~ach'Ac~sS possibly physical, access to beach could encourage use and feasibility study, not const~'uct stairs to beach. i waterfront, increase impacts to Tracyton · Beach Natural System and fish and wildlife habitat. · : - Mitigation: None proposed. Dratt Harrison District Plan 8 - 9 7/25/96 Signifioant Areas of Confroversy and Unoertainty, and Issues to be Resolved The following discussion identifies significant areas of controversy and uncertainty, and issues that remain to be resolved. Environmental choices to be made and the effectiveness of mitigation measures are discussed where applicable. Helipad Near Hospital The Plan recommends moving an emergency access heliport from its temporary location next to the junior high school to the vicinity of the hospital. The Harrison District is already impacted by the temporary location at the nearby junior high school north of Sheridan Road. While the proposed change could increase noise impacts for some, it could decrease them for others. In addition, by locating the helipad next to the hospital, ambulance runs between the helipad and the hospital can be eliminated, thereby reducing overall noise and traffic impacts associated with emergency care. The alternative of locating the helipad at a more distant site from the hospital would impact the new area. The reality is that, to maintain a viable hospital facility in the city will require emergency helicopter access. If a satisfactory site can't be found in the city, the long term alternative for the hospital may be to relocate away from the city. The City must balance the expected impacts of the helipad with the impacts of possible loss of the hospital. ~ii:~!;i~::;i~i!!~'61~i!~;!~i(~:~iii~¢.~!iE~/~,!i~i(~ Subsequent environmental review should analyze the extent to which the helipad and its flight path can be designed to minimize noise and other adverse impacts to nearby residents. Parking Structure The Plan recommends construction of a parking structure convenient to the hospital. Although three or four potential sites have been identified, the most convenient site would be at the existing joint-use parking lot next to the hospital, at the edge of the East Park Nature Area. It is possible that the parking lot site might not be large enough in its present configuration for a parking structure. If not, some expansion of the site further into the park could be required to accommodate the structure. This could eliminate plant and animal habitat that would otherwise be protected. There is no question of the need for additional parking convenient to the hospital. AIthough a remote parking lot for employee parking with shuttle service to the hospital has been discussed, it does not appear to be a practical solution, given the nature of health care workers' schedules. ~iii~ii;!;~!;~§i~ii!~ii~ Draft Harrison District Plan 8 ~ 10 7~5~6 / _¢7 probtem~arCbbe solved~at-thecresenbsfte,-theRx~pi~aFm,,sy be~feree~o~rtove moreffur~ons-to its-north end south, campuses~T-be-C-fty-must4:~tsnce-imp~cts of-~it~ r~j~a-park, ing~j e ragewvith-the4 m paets~ofJ~h elves sibte-tos~s-ofih o s pit~tt Subsequent environmental review should investigate the feasibility of at least one or two alternate sites. If the Nature Area is determined to be the best site, it should analyze the extent to which the proposed structure can avoid or minimize fudher intrusion into the nature area. Future Environmental Review Adoption of the Harrison District Plan will simplify environmental review that will be required for individual projects that are consistent with the general intent of the plan. Environmental review may still be required on a case-by-case basis where this analysis is too 9eneral to be meaningful. Main Environmental Options Preserved or Foreolosed by Adoption of the Harrison District Plan Adoption of the Harrison D/strict Plan is not expected to foreclose any significant environmental options. The Plan adds additional detail to existing plans, but does not cause a major turn in direction. Significant irreversible or irretrievable Commitments of natural resources Adoption of the Harrison D/strict Plan is not expected to cause irretrievable commitments of natural resources that would be likely to harm, long-term environmental productivity, even taking into account cumulative impacts. The Harrison District is already urbanized, and the Plan increases the City's commitment to preserve and protect its major environmental features -- Sheridan Park, the East Park Nature Area, and the Tracyton Beach Naturat System. Draft Harrison District Plan 7/25/96 Nonprojecf Checklis An "integrated non-ElS document" must include a completed environmental checklist for "nonproject actions". Nonproject Checklist Directions to Applicant: Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. [See Environmental Checklist Part B] When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. [Bold type added for emphasis.] -- WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist. Environmental Impaot Sub-Areas In order to anticipate environmental impacts specific to various use areas, the district has been divided into impact areas. These impact areas are sub-areas of use areas designated on the Harrison District Land Use Plan (pg. 5-9). The map on the following page shows the location of these sub-areas. [Figure 84] Summary of Proposed Plan and Zoning Changes A summary table following the Environmental Impact Sub-Areas map shows proposed changes to City comprehensive plan and zoning map designations by sub-area. [See Table 8-2] Abbreviations used in this table are listed below. Abbreviation Plan Desiqnation Abbreviation Hospital Health Care Center Commercial/General & Pr. Office Commercial/General & Highway Community Business Park Shoreline Mixed Use Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential H HCC C-P C-G CB P SMU LDR MDR HDR Zonin~ Desiqnation HC Health Care PO Professional Office GB General Business PS Parks & Schools SMU Shoreline Mixed Use DR Duplex Residential MF Multiple-family Res. MR Mixed Residential Draft Harrison District Plan 8- '/2 7r25/96 Figure 1 Harrison Distdct Plan Impact Sub-Areas DraR Hard$on District Plan 8 - '~,,~ 7r25/96 C - Residential C-P M&HR PO 2 Communi~ A- Sheridan Park C-G CB GB No change Business (CB) Shopping Center B - CampbelIWay C-G CB PO Triangle 3, 4 Sheridan Park A- Park, Commun~ P P PS No change & 5 Center & Theater 4 B - Park Expansion C-P Mixed Use ~p/~ : B- Shoreline Business C-P GB Open Space . 8 Residential A- Low Densi~ LDR LDR DR No change 9 Residential A- Low Densi~ LDR M&HR DR B- Medium Densi~ MDR M&HR MF No change C - High Densi~/Existing HDR M&HR MR No change Increase in Allowed Development ,ntensi, Decrease in Allowed Development Intensi~ No Sign~cant Change in Allowed Development Intensi~ In order to be concise, the following discussion of impacts refers to the preceding sub-areas by name and/or number. Only sub-areas where adverse impacts are expected are discussed under each question. Matrixes are used where possible to improve readability. Draft Hardson District Plan 8- 14 7~5~6 Water Disoharges, Air Emissions, Toxio or Hazardous Substances, and Noise 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air, production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Table 8-2, above, identifies proposed changes in comprehensive plan map and/or zoning map designations that could result in changes in development intensity. In general, an increase in development intensity could result in increased impacts on water, air, noise, and/or increased use of hazardous substances. Likewise, a decrease in development intensity could result in corresponding decreases in such impacts. For example, sub-areas changed from Professional Office (PO) to Health Care (HC) could increase somewhat in development intensity, but sub-areas changed from General Business (GB) to HC could decrease in intensity. In this example, the increase in development intensity would be balanced by a corresponding decrease if the areas were similar in size and other characteristics. Table 8-2 lists eight sub-areas that could increase in development intensity, and four that coutd decrease. It could therefore be concluded that the proposed changes could result in some overatl increase in development intensity, and therefore some increased adverse environmental impacts to water or air, or from noise or hazardous substances could occur. However, in general, the proposed changes are not expected to make a significant difference in water, air, environmental health, or noise impacts compared with uses permitted under existing plan and zoning designations. Construction of an emergency access heliport near the hospital would move noise impacts from the existing temporary location next to the junior high school nearer to the hospital. This is an impact that may not be possible to mitigate significantly. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Several improvements to the circulation system will expedite traffic flow, and thereby decrease vehicular emissions caused by traffic congestion. These include: the Wheaton Way southbound off-ramp, closure of ~!;i~!iii~i¢i~'~ii widening of Cherry between Sheridan and Callahan, and closure or reconfiguration of Campbell Way at Lebo. Draft Harrison District Plan 7/25/96 Construction of a parking garage in the vicinity of the hospital will reduce distances traveled to locate parking, and thereby decrease vehicular emissions. Pedestrian improvements will encourage more people to walk rather than drive automobiles, and thereby decrease vehicular emissions. The steep hillside at the East Park Nature Area may help buffer noise impacts from a heliport location near the hospital so that fewer residents are affected. Plants, Animals, Fish or Marine Life 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life? No adverse impacts on plants, animals, fish or marine life are expected to result from the plan. Without the plan, various parcels could be developed according to existing zoning and shoreline management requirements. With the plan, these same parcels can also be developed, in most cases at similar or identical development intensities. With or without the plan, the East Park Nature Area will be maintained in its natural state as a conservancy area to preserve and protect a wooded habitat and buffer area and provide urban open space. However, construction of a parking structure in the East Park joint-use parking lot could affect existing plants and animals if the parking structure site were expanded. With or without the plan, the high bluff shoreline area could be developed for commercial use. However, with the plan, cedain higher intensity commercial uses could not be developed, while residential uses would be allowed anywhere along the shoreline. (Residential uses are only permitted in combination with commercial/office uses in the GB and PO zones,) Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish or marine life are: A geotechnical study of the Tracyton Beach Natural System will help preserve the integrity of the system. A marine bluff vegetation management plan will help prevent erosion and thereby preserve habitat along the bluff and the beach. Draft Harrison District Plan '/6 7/25/96 /57 Expansion of Sheridan Park~;::i ~;~i~ii~j~B~ ~:~I ~6 ~ ~5:[~i~8~;i wou d preserve the existing open space and at least pad of the existing plant and animal habitat in the vacant lot adjacent to the park. ~:~:(~ii~) Under the existing comprehens vep an ~68!!~!~ tl~ '~"~ ie could be developed for professional office use. Energy or Natural Resources 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The depletion of energy and/or natural resources will not differ significantly, regardless of whether the existing city-wide comprehensive plan or the Harrison District Plan governs development. In either case, much of the district could be developed at similar intensities, and depletion of energy and natural resources during construction and/or ongoing use can be expected. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Circulation improvements, listed in section 2 above, will also result in increased fuel efficiency for vehicles using the street system. Increased areas for medium and higher density housing would allow more people to live within walking distance of shopping and services, and encourage reduced dependence on private automobiles. Pedestrian improvements will encourage people to walk rather than using their vehicles. Environmentally Sensitive or Proteoted Areas 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The district includes two significant environmentally sensitive areas: the East Park Nature Area, and the shoreline bluff. There are no wild and scenic rivers, or prime farmlands in the area, and no known threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites or wetlands. The shoreline is classified as a Draft Harrison District Plan 8-17 7/25/96 floodplain. The plan would not change the use of the East Park Nature Area, which is already designated a nature preserve. However it could result in construction of a parking structure at the existing joint-use parking lot next to the hospital, as discussed above ('see section 2, above). It could also result in construction of a heliport for emergency access to the hospital. A nearby heliport could cause noise and air emission impacts to the Nature Area. The plan would allow certain higher intensity uses (lower impact commercial and high density residential) rather than other higher intensity uses (higher impact commercial) along the shoreline. In either case, the integrity of the Tracyton Beach Natural System, including the marine bluff, could be impacted. The plan will improve protection of the integrity of the Tracyton Beach Natural System, including the marine bluff, by coordinating vegetation management along the steep slopes, and by requiring development to abide by findings of a geotechnical study of the bluff. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: A parking structure could be considered at the East Park Nature Area joint use parking lot if it were "designed to be sensitive to the conservancy role of the area". A geotechnical study would be conducted of the Tracyton Beach Natural system, including high bluff areas, to determine development constraints and prescribe measures for protection of these features where necessary. A vegetation management plan would help protect the stability of the marine bluff. Land and Shoreline Use 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The land use effects are summarized in Table 8-2 and discussed in section 1, above. In general, the proposed changes in land use plan and zoning designations would result in: an increase in health care-related uses and corresponding decrease in Draft Hardson District Plan 8- 18 7/'25/96 general commercial uses, such as auto-oriented uses, and Iow density residential uses; an increase in water-oriented commercial and higher density residential uses, and a corresponding decrease in general business and office uses along the shoreline; an increase in medium to high density residential uses, and a corresponding decrease in professional office and Iow density residential uses; and · an increase in shoreline park area and public access to the shoreline. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: A special Shoreline Mixed Use Area would be tailored to special opportunities and constraints of the high bluff shoreline. Development which endangers the stability of the bluff or the function of the Tracyton Beach Natural System would be discouraged or prohibited. Transportation, Publio Servioes and Utilities 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? A somewhat higher development intensity (discussed in section 1, above) would result in increased use of cedain streets. Demands on public services and utilities could also be correspondingly increased. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: A more efficient circulation system should reduce demands on remaining streets, including residential streets, and concentrate resources on maintaining designated routes to city standards. Higher intensity development, where permitted, should increase the efficiency of public services and utilities to those areas. Draft Harrison District Plan 8- 19 7/25/96 Confli=ts with Environmental Proteotion Laws or Requirements 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Where possible, the Harrison District Plan has been designed to decrease impacts on, and increase protections for, the environment. There are no known conflicts with local, state or federal laws or requirements for protection of the environment. Responsible Official's Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge, I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: Draft Harrison District Plan 8 - 20 7/25196 APPLICABLE STA TE REQUIREMENTS FOR INTEGRA TED GMA/SEPA PEANS (SUMMARY) ri) Int~graled Non.ElS Documents (a). Ifa proposed GMA '~ctiOn is not likely to'have a significant adverse en¢iro~m~htal impact,: bn.integrated GMA document shall be prepared that COmbines the formal SEPA ddcument (such as an environmental Checklis~/DNS~ a notice Of adoption or addendum) with the GMA document. The provisionS of WAC 197-11~235 (.1) and (2) [(1).'Integrating Documents" and(2) "DoCument Format"] apply to these i/~tegrated documents (b~ It~:ah en~ironmenta~ Ch:ecklis:t iS USe~I and a DNs issued, only Pads A (which serves as a fact~sheeO,:;.C (~esponsible'effiCial's signatui~e)/: and D (nonprojectcheckliSt) need be prepared, plus an: environmental summary as : p~C!t~d:!¢:.:WAC :~9:7~!.~-235(5):¢En:v~Qnmental Summary and/:act Sheeny. Pa~t D.~nd th~:Su~ ma~/ be ~mbk~ed. (5) Environmental SUmmary. and Fact Sheet (a) The environment~l summary i .... ncludes the contents required tn WAC f97~'11-440(4): '(b) Concise analysis df alternatives; (C) Cdmments and responses; and (d) Appropriate technical and other materials.] It should emphasize ti~e major cbnclusio~s bignifiCan~: areas O-f controversy 'and un~ertaintY; ifa, ny, a~d the issues to b'e r~9olved, including the ' envir°nmbnial ~hoic~s to be made and the effectiveness of mitigation measureS.: The summary is not to be a summary of the GMA action. (b,, The summary should highlight from an environmental perspective the main options that would be preserved Or foreclosed by the ro : ' p posed GMA. action. It should reflect SEPA s substantive poi/c/es and focus On any significant irreversible ;Or irretrievable cOmmit~nts of natural resources that would be likely to harm long-term environmental productivity, taking into account:Cumulative impacts... (C) The somm~ry should: be' nO longer than ~ecessary . and include tables :o/' graphics'toi a, Ssist readability (d) : Ai ~ ~ini~Um the i~8~'~hee~ ghall contain the informatiOn roq~eh~:!~. ;,Wr ~ ~!~Z,I. ~40(2):[::~-IS CO~(~t~: Fact:Sheet'']. ;~ ' p ~ ' 7,1¢-235 ' Dobu~t~ Wa~fiibgton ~mlnistrative Code (~AC). Draft Hardson District Plan 8-21 7/25/96 Draff Hardson District Plan 8 - 22 /~_~ 7/'25/96 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: An ordinance amending Chapter 2.88, Disability Action Committee, of the Bremerton Municipal Code. FOR AGENDA OF: Sept. 25, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT: Human Resources ORIGINATOR: Jim Meith DATE SUBMITTED: Sept. 11, 1996 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) CITY ATTORNEY 3. EXHIBITS: Existing chapter and proposed ordinance. ENDORSEMENT ~' INFORMATION [ ] APPROVED BY COUNCIL/4~IDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: 4. BUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ~C~ION. There is a need to revise the terminology used in the current Chapter and give greater flexibility in selecting members for the committee. Also, the requirement to meet once a month has proved unrealistic. These changes are recommended by the Disability Action Committee. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve on first reading and pass on second reading. Ordinance No. amending Chapter 2.88, Disability Action Committee, of the Bremerton Municipal Code. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Mayor ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Human Resources Manager EXPIRATION DATE: Ongoing REVIEW DATE: Ongoing 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED [] TABLED [] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] DATE: (OVER) 8C 2. CLEAI~,NCE COI~IENTS: 5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: The committee may not be able to function at full strength effective. and would be less 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCR~: None. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: ORDiNANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE reorganizing the Disability Action Committee which will assist the City of Bremerton's implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Amendment. Chapter 2.88.020 of the Bremerton Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 2.88.020 MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF OFFICE. (a) The Committee shall consist of seven (7) members: (1) The Mayor shall appoint ........................... the members of the committee. At least two members shall be persons with a disability. Members may reside outside the City if solicitation procedures fail to generate a qualified candidate who resides in the City_. Section 2. Amendment. Chapter 2.88.070 of the Bremerton Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 2.88.070 MEETiNGS. The Committee shall establish a regular meeting day and time and shall meet at least once every mcrZk quarter. All meetings of the Committee shall be held in accordance of the city and state law regarding public meetings. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective ten (lib) days from passage and publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ,1996. APPROVED THIS JOHN E. LAW, Council President day of ,1996. day of ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY City Clerk LYNN HORTON, Mayor ae agency shall be made a pmty to the proceeding. declare the challenged rule invalid only if it tiolates constitutional provisions or exceeds g agency by City Charter, ordinance was without compliance with procedures red by this chapter and ordinance, shall not decl; because it was without rulemaking procedure rule was filed with the comply with those substantially prejudice review of the of the rule under the the rule, and compliance applicable judgment may be rendered petiti~r has first requested the agency to Jdity of the rule in question. (Ord. 3960 §9, CHAPTER 2.88 or rutemaking applicable rule invalid solely with applicable year of the date the if the agency atXempted to its failure to do so did not of the parties. Judicial limited to an examination provisions authorizing sary to demonstrate The or not the upon the % DISABILITY ACTION COMMITTEE Sections: 2.88.010 2.88.020 2.88.030 2.88.040 2.88.050 2.88.060 2.88.070 2.88.080 2.88.090 Established. Membership and terms of office. Salaries and personal expenses. Officers. Duties and responsibilities. Compliance with code of ethics. Meetings. Removal of members. Vacancies. 2.88.010 ESTABLISHED. There is established a Disability Action Committee which will act solely as an advisory group to the City Council and the Mayor. (Ord. 4390 §1 (in part), 1992). 122-39 2.88.020 MEMBERSHIP AND TERM~ OF OFFICE. (a) The Committee shall consist of seven (7) members: (I) The Mayor shall appoint members to the Committee as follows: i. Two members shall be differently abled and one shall represent an advocacy group for the disabled. These members may reside outside the City if solicitation procedures fail to generate a qualified candidate who resides in the City; ii. Four residem members shall represent the community at large. (2) Two members shall initially be appointed for a term of one year, two members for a term of two years, and three members for a term of three years. The members shall hold office until their successors are appointed. Successors of all members shall be appointed for terms of three years each. (Ord. 4390 §1 (in part), 1992). 2.88.030 SALARIES AND PERSONAL EXPENSES. The members of the Committee shall receive no salaries or other remuneration for their services in such capacity and shall not be entitled to personal expenses incurred by them in the discharge of their official duties, except to the extent and purposes and amounts such expense is first authorized and approved in advance by the Mayor. (Ord. 4390 §1 (in part), 1992). 2.88.040 OFFICERS. The Committee shall elect a chair person and secretary by a simple majority of the members. The vacancy in any position of any officer of the Committee shall be filled by a vote of a simple majority. (Ord. 4390 §1 (in part), 1992). 2.88.050 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. The Committee shall have the following specific functions: (a) The Committee will be the appeal body for the ADA grievance procedure a.s set forth in Resolution No. 2409. Upon review of the grievance, the Committee shall render a written advisory decision to the complainant and the Mayor pursuant to the grievance procedure. Any grievances brought to the 122--40 Committee shall be directed fi3 the ADA Coordinator for initial review. (b) Recommend appropriate modifications to City services, policies and practices to help implement the ADA. (c) Shall report to the ADA Coordinator concerns brought to it by individuals regarding possible non-compliance with the ADA, and the Committee will thereupon make advisory suggestions a.s to any action to be taken. (Ord. 4390 §1 (in part), 1992). 2.88.060 COMPLIANCE WtrH CODE OF ETHICS. The Committee shall comply with the City Code of Ethics ordinance codified as Chapter 2.96. (Ord. 4390 §1 (in part), 1992). 2.88.070 MEETINGS. The Committee shall establish a regular meeting day and time and shall meet at least once every month. All meetings of the Committee shall be held in accordance of the city and state law regarding public meetings. (Ord. 4390 §1 (in part), 1992). 2.88.080 REMOVAL OF MEMBERS. Members of the Committee shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor. A member shall not be absent more than three consecutive meetings. After the absence from three consecutive meetings, the remaining members of the Committee shall vote to retain or recommend to the Mayor that the absentee member be relieved of his duties on the Committee. (Ord. 4390 §1 (in part), 1992). 2.88.090 VACANCIES. Vacancies shall be filled in accordance with Section 2.88.020for the unexpired term of the member affected. If a vacancy exists for more than ninety (90) days, the City Council may appoint a member to fillthe vacancy. (Ord. 4390 §1 (in part), 1992). 12241 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing: FOR AGENDA OF: September 25, 1996 Appeal of Planning CommissionORIGINATING DEPT: Dept. of Comm. Dev./~/~/~/~/~/~/~/~/~ decision denying shoreline permit ORIGINATOR: Jack Allingham, Sr. Pl'anner for private recreational dock at 1542 Madrona Point Dr. DATE SUBMITTED: September 19, 1996 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) Director of C?mm.D~. ~~--- City Attorney.- ~ ...... Operations Comm. 7-I7-96 3. EXHIBITS: I.-Letter of Appeal, II.-Planning Comm. Findings and Conclusions, .~=I~-ng=~Com~iss~on-Minu3&es-~5~25=96~, 5=10 ~6, IV.-Written testimony to the P. C., V.-P.C. Meeting transcripts 5-25-96, 6-18-96, VI.- Written responses to the appeal; Slides will be shown at Closed Hearin§. 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: After a public hearing conducted on May 25, 1996 and June 18, 1996, the Planning Commission overturned a decision by the Director of Community Development, denying a shoreline substantial development permit which would have allowed a private recreational dock to be constructed at 1542 Madrona Point Drive. This decision is being appealed by the proponents for the dock, Don Holtz and Lora Short, on the grounds stated in their written arguments received at the Council's office September 9, 1996. The City Council, when hearing an appeal, shall either: 1) Affirm the decision under review; 2) Reverse the decision under review; 3) Modify in whole or part the decision under review; or 4) Remand the matter back to the approving authority for further consideration. Such action shall be decided by a majority vote of the members present. That vote may be taken at the same or any subsequent meeting. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends upholding the Planning Commission's decision. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Donald Pratt ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Donald Pratt EXPIP~%TION DATE: NA REVIEW DATE: NA PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED ~iEND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL (CONT.) 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: The decision of the Planning commission will be overturned 6e IMPACT ON STAFFINGt BUDGETSt FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Additional staff resource will be required to forward the City's final decision to the Washington Department of Ecology for review. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: Bremerton Shoreline Master Program CITY OF BREMERTON APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPEAL OF: (Your Name) (Your Mailing Address) (Telephone Number) Appellant Please provide a brief statement regarding your legal interest in the action'being appealed. Use additional pages if necessary I am the property owner applying for the substantial develo~nent permit. Please provide a brief statement of the specific erder or action protested, together with material facts claimed to support your contentions. Use additional pages if necessary. The denial of my application for a substantial development permit. The facts are contained in the record of the planning co~ission and will be sumnarized in a brief submitted by my legal counsel. Please provide a brief statement of the relief sought and the reasons why the Planning Commission's decision/action should be reversed, modified or otherwise set aside. Use additional pages if necessary. Appellant's ~ignature FEE: $59.00 (Due with Letter of Appeal) Appeals will be scheduled to be heard before the Bremerton City Council as soon as possible, allowing for adequate preparation and notice. You will receive written notification of the Council hearing date mailed to your address given above. The City Council decision is the final legislative decision. '73 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Bremerton Planninc C~mm~ssio~ Planning Commission Hearing Dates: May 21, 1996 and June 18, 1996 I. SUMMARy A. Applicants: B. Application: Don Holtz/Lora Short 1542 Madrona Point Drive Bremerton Wa 98310 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: Construct a private recreational floating deck accessory to a single family residence. C. Location: 1542 Madrona Point Drive. within the S.W. 1/4 of Sec. 16, T. 24N., R. 1E., W.M. BASED ON THE RECORD DEVELOPED AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDUCTED ON MAY 21, 1996 ;~ND JUNE 18, 1996, THE PLA1FNING COMMISSION ENTERS THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: Ae II. FINDINGS/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Project Description: The applicants request approval of a shoreline permit to construct a private recreational floating dock accessory to a single family residence which will extend 150 feet into the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay. Comprehensive Plan DesiGnation: Low Density Residential: 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre Zoning DesiGnation: Single Family Three (SF-3) Use Location: Bremerton Shoreline Master ProGram (SMP) Map DesiGnation: Urban Residential Environment: R-2, Ostrich Bay West/Oyster Bay west 1 /7¥ Discussion: SMP, Chapter 3, Environment Designations and Requirements provides Shoreline Use/Activity Matrix, Table 3-1 (page 2 of 3) allows the use activities "Water Access and Moorage Facilities: Piers and Docks" as permitted uses within the Urban Residential Shoreline Environment. Criteria for Action: Approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must be based upon compliance with criteria from the following documents: The State Shoreline Manaqement Act (SMA): The Shoreline Management Substantial Development process, including public notification and a 30-day review period, has been processed in conformity with the requirements of the SMA. In general, shoreline permits are reviewed by the City using the same procedures used for zoning permit applications when a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required. The permit application will be reviewed and approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Director of Community Development. Construction of the proposed project is not authorized until thirty days have lapsed from the date the final decision was received by the Department of Ecology, or until any appeal procedures have been completed. 2. The Bremerton Shoreline Master Proqram (SMP): Chapter 3, Environment Designations and Requirements provides Shoreline Use/Activity Matrix, Table 3-1 which permits "water access and moorage facilities" including piers and docks within the Urban Residential Environment shoreline designation. Approval of this application is based on consistency with the following Goal and applicable policies and regulations: (SMP, Chapter 5-29, Water Access and Moorage Facilities) The SMP states the following goal for Water Access and Moorage Facilities: GOAL To assure that adequate water access and moorage faculties are available to the public and individuals, without adversely impacting the natural aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. To guide the decisions in achieving the above-stated goal, the SM~ provides the following policies: POLICIES Community Boating Facilities: Multiple use and expansion of existing consistent piers, wharfs and docks is encouraged (in lieu of the addition and/or proliferation of new facilities) in order to minimize the consumption of limited shoreline resources. Joint-use facilities are preferred over new single use piers, docks and floats. Findinq: The dock will not be a joint-use dock, and will add to the proliferation of new docks, consuming limited shoreline resources. Piers, Docks and Floats: Piers, docks, and recreational floats should be constructed so as to minimize obstruction of navigable waters and not significantly reduce use of the water surface. Finding: The dock will extend approximately 150 feet beyond the ordinary high water mark and have a surface coverage of 648 square feet. Because the dock achieves a usable depth of water, significant obstruction of navigable waters will occur during tides greater than - 2.4 feet below mean lower low water (MLLW - 0 Ft). Piers and Docks: The number, docks should be no more than required service. size, and length of piers and the minimum that provides the Findinq: The size and length of the dock has been designed to provide a stable platform to service a vessel. The dock extends waterward to reach a depth of 5 feet measured at mean low water (MLW). MLW is a tidal elevation of +2.6 feet above mean lower low water (0 Ft.). Piers/Floating Docks: Encourage the use of floats in lieu of piers in those areas where scenic values are high, and where conflicts with recreational boaters and fishers are not greatly increased. Findinq: The proposal utilizes floats anchored by pilings. Piers: Only open pile piers should be permitted where shore trolling is important and/or where there is significant longshore drift. Findinq: The channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay has a relatively low rate of long shore drift due to its relative low energy environment. The city has no 3 documentation as to the importance of shore trolling within this channel. Boat Launching Ramps/Marine Railways: Boat launch ramps and marine railways should be designed so as to minimize detrimental effects to natural shore processes. Findinq: Not Applicable. P%~blic Access: Pier and dock projects are encouraged to provide for public docking, launching and recreational access. Findinq: No public access is proposed. The dock can only be accessed across lots developed as single family dwellings. View Protection: Locate, design and operate piers, wharves, docks and floats so as to be aesthetically compatible with the area visually affected, and protect surrounding properties from undue impairment of views. Findinq: The dock will set a precedent for permitting docks within the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay and other shorelines within Bremerton. The cumulative impact of dock developments could result in significant impairment of views and aesthetic impacts to the shoreline. This channel has no other similar docks. REGULATIONS General Proposals for moorage facilities shall be consistent with State Department of Natural Resources Moorage Design Guidelines. Finding: The dock will not be a "moorage facility". The intent of this regulation is for larger facilities to comply with other State and Federal regulations pertaining to such activities as dredging, sanitation, and fuel storage. Prior to granting a permit for a pier, dock, or float, the effects of the structure upon navigation, recreation, and adjacent shorelines shall be determined, and disposition of the permit by the City shall reflect such determination. Finding: The following effects will occur: Navigation: Near shore navigation will be impacted. Water craft will have to maneuver around 4 /77 Navigation: Near shore navigation will be impacted. Water craft will have to maneuver around the structure. People walking along the beach will have to climb over or duck under the dock. Recreation: Useable water surface area will be reduced. Recreational users and those users with shallow draft vessels will have to stay clear of the dock. Adjacent shorelines: A visual impact to the aesthetic quality of the existing shoreline will occur. Natural views of the water will be replaced by views of a dock and its anchoring pilings. 3 o Water access and moorage facilities shall be located, designed and constructed so as to cause minimum interference with navigation and public use of the water surface and shoreline, and to protect surrounding properties from undue impairment of views. Findinq: The dock has been designed to comply with the maximum permissible length to achieve a 5 Ft. depth of water at mean low water, but does so with significant interference with navigation in the narrow channel. The dock could be constructed with less waterward intrusion at the expense of its ability to function at low tides. 4 o Public Access: Water access and moorage facilities that are accessory to uses requiring public access shall provide public access facilities consistent with the scale of the project. Findinq: The dock is accessory to a single family use which is exempted from public access requirements. Community Boating Facilities~ Subdivisions: New subdivisions with shoreline frontage shall provide community docks if any docks are proposed. (See also: Residential Development) Findinq: This development is not within a new subdivision. 1The terms "CO~T~nity docks", "joint-use moorage facility", "joint-use facility", and "joint-use coe~m~Jnity piers and docks" are used interchangeably. Also see definition of "c~nity ~:~ating facility". 5 Pre-existing Residential Lots: For residential lots existing at the time this program is adopted (2/2/92): No more than one (1) private, noncommercial single-use dock is permitted per platted shoreline lot or unplatted shoreline tract owned for residential or recreational purposes. Findinq: This proposal will provide 1 dock for one platted shoreline lot which was platted prior to 2/22/92. Muttifamily/Commercial Developments: Multi-family residences, hotels, motels, and other commercial developments proposing to provide moorage facilities shall construct a single, joint-use moorage facility: PROVIDED, that the city may authorize more than one joint use moorage facility if a single facility would be inappropriate or undesirable given the specific conditions of the site. Findinq: Not applicable. Commercial/Industrial Developments: Permits for docks or piers serving single commercial or industrial enterprises shall not be granted unless it is determined that adjacent commercial and/or industrial enterprises are not willing to cooperatively develop a joint-use facility. Findinq: Not applicable. Maintenance: Proposals for joint-use community piers and docks shall demonstrate and document that adequate maintenance of the structure and the associated upland area will be provided by identified responsible parties. Finding: Not applicable. Piers and Docks 10. Prohibited: Piers and floating docks shall be prohibited where navigation may be impaired significantly at entrances to bays, channels, or coves. Finding: The dock is located within a relatively narrow channel which has approximately 650 feet of width at the docks location. The dock which projects 150 feet water ward will reduce the channel width to 500 feet at high tide. When the tide ebbs to a low 0 Ft. tidal elevation, the dock will project 40 feet waterward reducing the width of the channel to 337 feet. This reduction with useable channel width is significant. 11. Location: Piers and docks shall project the minimum distance necessary to service the appurtenant vessels and shall not create a hazard to navigation. 6 i77 12. 13. Findinq: The dock extends 150 feet waterward to reach a depth of 5 feet measured at mean low water (MLW). MLW is a tidal elevation of +2.6 feet above mean lower low water (0 Ft.). This dock is in compliance with the maximum permissible length (Regulation No. 14. ao), but creates a hazard to navigation. Inside Harbor Areas: When State harbor lines have been designated, piers and docks shall be located shoreward of the outer harbor line. Findinq: State Harbor Line have not been designated. Outside Harbor Areas: Where State harbor lines do not apply, piers and docks shall project the minimum distance necessary to service the appurtenant vessels and shall not create a hazard to navigation. Findinq: The dock projects 150 ft. to reach a depth of water of 5 feet measured at MLW. The dock has been designed to comply with the maximum permissible length as allowed by Regulation No. 14.a. (5 Ft. depth of at mean low water). The dock could be constructed with less waterward intrusion at the expense of its ability to function at low tides. 14. a. Length: Maximum length of a residential pier or dock shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish moorage for the intended boating uses, and shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of five (5) feet of water as measured at Mean Low Water (MLW) in marine shorelines or as measured at Ordinary High Water (ORe, M) in fresh water shorelines. Findinq: The dock projects 150 ft. to reach a depth of 5 feet of water as measured at MLW. bo Height: Dock shall not exceed three (3) feet in height above OHWM on the landward side, and shall extend above the water surface no more than two (2) feet at all other locations. Findinq: The dock has approximately 1 foot of freeboard above the water line. 7 do Private, l) 3) 2) Single Use Docks: Landing area deck maximu~ length parallel to shore of "T" end: Ten (10) feet; Landing area deck maximum width: Eight (8) feet. Walkway maximum width: Four (4) feet; Finding: The dock as proposed complies with the maximum width and length dimensions. Community Piers and Docks: 1) Maximum Width and Length: To be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis. Finding: Not applicable. 2) Density: No more than one (1) thirty foot (30') moorage space per dwelling unit or lot. Finding: Not applicable. Side Yard Setbacks: 1) Docks shall be set back a minimum of ten (i0) feet from side property lines; 2) EXCEPTION: Community piers and docks may be located adjacent to or upon a side property line when mutually agreed to by contract/covenant with the owners of the adjacent property, a copy of which must be recorded with the County Auditor and filed with the application for permit. Finding: The dock is located so that there is a 10 foot setback from the adjoining property line. III. CONCLUSIONS Because there are no other similar docks design with the channel, this dock will approval of similar future docks. equal in length and set a precedent for This dock will have an aesthetic impact on the natural character of the channel and obstruct views of the water from adjoining residential uses. 8 7 o The dock will set a precedence for similar docks which will have a cumulative aesthetic impact on the natural character of the channel and obstruct views of the water from adjoining residential uses. The length of the dock will reduce the width of the channel, impacting navigation of a variety of types of watercraft. Useable water surface area will be reduced. The length and location of the dock within a narrow channel will create a safety hazard to high speed recreational power boat users with the channel. While there may be inconsistencies between permitting a dock which complies with the regulation to allow docks to extend waterward to reach a depth of 5 feet measured at mean low water and the docks impact on navigation due to its waterward projection of 150 feet, The negative impacts to navigation recreation and aesthetics outweigh the need to allow "useable" docks. The proposed project and application are inconsistent with the State Shoreline Management Act and the Bremerton Shoreline Master Proqram. IV. DECISION OF THE PLA/~NING COMMISSION BASED ON THE RECORD DEVELOPED, THE BREMERTON PLA/~NING COMMISSION OVERTURNS THE DIRECTOR OF CO~94UNITY DEVELOPMENT DECISIONAND DENIES THE APPLICATION FOR A SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Wayne 01sen, Chairmen - Date Bremerton Planning Commission DONALD L. PRATT Executive Secretary cITY OF BREMERTON APPLICATION FOR SHO~Rr. INE MANAGEMENT, SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT, CONDITIONAL USE, P~VISION TO AN EXISTING PER~IT, OR VARIANCE PERMIT TO ~tE APPLICANT: This is an application for a Substantial Development, Conditional Use, Revision to an Existing Permit, or Variance Permit as authorized by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. It is suggested that you check with appropriate local, state, or federal officials to determine whether your project falls within any other permit systems. Additional information may be requested from the applicant as project review proceeds. Check applicable box: Substantial Development U Conditional Use U Revision U Variance Applicant: Don Ho]tx & Lora Short Address: ]542 M~drons Point Dr. City: ~r~m~rton WA zip: Day phone: 478-268] = Owner [] Purchaser [] Lessee [] Other Contact person: SAME (if different than #1) Address: city: Zip: Day phone: Property owner: (If different than #1) Address: city: Day phone: SAME Fair Market Value of Project 25,000.00 zip: · ase list section to~ _ _ro~osed pro]eC.t (P~lne~ range) with streeu . 1 locatiOn, oz -P~on, townshl-P'~' - point Dr. the n ,~.~ ,ddres~ =-- ~ ~h. Ran ' addreSS Section 16 Name of water area and/or wetlands within which development is proposed (within 200 feet): 0 ster Ba 5. ~~ ~0 ~et): ~ isting NOTE: 8. Describe proposed use of the property (be specific): ---------- ITEMS 8, 9 AND 10 ARE TO BE coMPLETED BY LocAL OFFICIALS' Nature of existing shoreline: Type of Shoreline: ~ bog, swamp e--~'~c'~ stream, lake, lagoon, marsh, ' (i.e. marine, ~ Type of MarSh: (i.e. accretion, erO / M~terial(S): ~ (~.e. sand, gravel, /// Bulkl%eading: typ~ (show extent and proposed buildings or structures will the average grade level, indicate.the In the event any of e the 'of residential unitS, 9 __ 35 feet a~?v_ and number bstructed v~eW. · ~ceed. _~_ locatlO~ of . ~ ~11 nave an o ~ ap~rO~lm~ ~otential, tna~ ~ .... 3 10. If the appl: ~tion involves a condition~~ use or variance, set forth in ~1, that portion of the Taster program which provides that proposed use may be a conditional use, or, in the case of a variance, from which the variance is being sought: 11. APPLICATION ATTACHMENTS: NOTE: USE ONLY 11" x 17" OR LA~RGER PAPER. DRAW ALL SITE PLANS AND MAPS TO SCALE, CLEARLY INDICATING SCALE ON LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER. ATTACH ALL PLANS ~_ND MAPS TO THE APPLICATION. A. SITE PLAN (include the following): ~l~'i Site boundary· .2. Property dimensions in vicinity of project. 3. Ordinary high-water mark. Typical cross section or sections showing: a. Existing and proposed ground elevations. b. Height of existing and proposed structures. Where appropriate, proposed land contours using 5' intervals in water area and 10' intervals on areas landward of ordinary high-water mark, if development involves grading, cutting, filling, or other alterations of land contours. Show dimensions and locations of proposed structures and of existing structures which will be maintained. Identify source, composition, and volume of fill material. Identify composition and volume of any extracted materials, and identify proposed disposal area. 9. Location of proposed utilities, such as sewer, septic tanks and drainfields, water, gas, or electricity. 10. If the development proposes ~septic tanks, does the proposed development comply with local health and state regulations? 11. Shoreline designation according to mas~er program. 12. Show which areas are Shorelines and which are shorelines of state-wide significance. 4 VICINi · MAP Indicate site location using natural points of reference (roads, state highways, prominent land marks, etc.) If the development inuo~ves the removal of any soils by dredging or otherwise, please identify the proposed disposal site on the map. If the disposal site is beyond the confines of the vicinity map, provide another vicinity map showing the precise location of the disposal sits and its distance to the nearest city or town. Give a brief narrative description of the general nature of the improvements and land use within one thousand feet in all direction from development site. (i.e., residential to the north, commercial to the south, etc.). I, ~o;J ~oLTL , am the above named applicant for a permit pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and hereby state that the foregoing statements, answers, and information are, in all respects, true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. / 4Date) APPLICATION FEES: Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Permit Variance Permit Revision $500.00 $500.00 $5OO.OO $250.00 5 r~lon of Gnv'[. Lo[ 2 '~on 16, 24 N, R i E, .y of Bre~er~on, KJ~$ap DEED iVURTtt SCALE' i ''= 30' County, Ghort Pl~t for: Don A. Holtz 1544 Hadron~ Point Dr. Bremerton, WA 98312 /F7 56' 209' 197' L~xis~lng ,esid .... L 28' ohw~ / / Oyster Bay 150' 75' Holtz Float Lot Plan scale 1"=40 ft _q50' 11.5 MHHW o, oO ~'~) HOLT- FLOAT SIDE PROFILE pRELIMiNARY DRAWING 6~24~94 Holtz Float Scale 1 =20 ft 115' 150' 35' Madrona Pt El I=RAF'T -STR~CTL.~ I ~; l qO~ Oyster ii Bay POINT CITY OF BREKF~TON APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ( Youi~ Name ) ' / (Your Mailing Address (Telephone Nu~er ) Appellant Please provide a brief statement regarding your legal interest in the action being appealed. Use additional pages if necessary. Please provide a brief statement of the specific order or action protested, together with material facts claimed to support your contentions. Use additional pages if necessary. Please provide a brief statement of the relief sought and the reasons why the Administrative Decision action should be reversed, modified or otherwise set aside. Use additional pages if necessary. Appelkant's Signature FEE: $37.00 (Due with Letter of Appeal) Appeals will be scheduled to be heard before the Bremerton Planning Commission as soon as possible, allowing for adequate preparation and notice. You will receive written notification of the Commission hearing date mailed to your address given above. The Planning Commission decision is the final legislative decision. APPEAL OF ADM/~NISTRATIVE DECISION. APPEAL OF: (Your Mailing Address) (Telephone Number) (Your Name) " .... ~£~Cn..Appellant Please provide a brief statement regarding your legal interest in the action being appealed. Use additional pages if necessary. Please provide a brief statement of the specific protested, together with material facts claimed contentions. Use additional pages if necessary. order or action to support your Please provide a brief statement of the relief sought and the reasons why the Administrative Decision action should be reversed, modified or otherwise set aside. Use additional pages if necessary. FEE: $37.00 (Due with Letter of Appeal) Appeals will be scheduled to be heard before the Bremerton Planning Commission as soon as possible, allowing for adequate preparation and notice. You will receive written notification of the Commission hearing date mailed to your address given above. The Planning Commission decision is the final legislative decision. Bernard Holland 1801 South Marine Drive Suzanne Holland 1801 South Marine Drive APR ] ~ 1996 BR£MER[QN Page 2 1715 South Marine Drive .~/..~.,~--~ S andr a Verhelst 4310 Kitsap Way City of Bremerton Planning Department 286 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Attn: Jack Allingham Subject: Application for 150 foot dock installation at 1542 MadronaPoint Drive We are appealing the approval of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for construction of a floating dock at 1542 Madrona Point Drive for the following reasons: 1. Safety: The boat and jet ski traffic has increased significantly over the past few years. It has reached a point where safety is now an issue. There is no speed limit on this narrow waterway. Every year there are bigger and faster boats that speed into and out of Oyster Bay through this channel. Every year there are more floats and buoys in the channel that act as obstacles. These floats and buoys are moveable as well as removable obstacles. A dock is a solid, fixed structure, especially a dock of this length. People, including children, in small inflatable rafts, canoes and kayaks would be forced out around the end of the dock into the main traffic lanes. These traffic lanes during the summer are heavily used. As any resident of this channel knows, there is a lot of afler-dark, high speed traffic through this area. The installation of additional fixed obstacles protruding into the already narrow channel, further impedes safe boat traffic. This eliminates any safety margin needed particularly for the high-speed watercraft in the area. 2. Recreation: Cutthroat fishermen, who normally hug the shoreline, would be forced out of cutthroat range. A dock of this design restricts beach walkers and virtually cuts them offfrom the other side of the dock. The small children in their inflatable rafts, inner tubes and air mattresses will not be able to fi'eely and safely cruise the shoreline as they do now. They will be stopped by the dock. Don Holtz states in his April, 1996 letter to Jack Allingham, that it is too shallow to come inside these buoys at a partially high tide. We constantly have motor boats and ski boats inside buoys that are 75 feet out from the shoreline. Sgt. Smith of Kitsap County Sheriffs office says WA State waterski regulations state that no waterskiers are allowed 150 feet from shoreline, dock or moored vessel, except for starting and stopping. A 150 foot dock will restrict the waterskiers even more in this narrow waterway. 3. Public Property: Don Holtz and Lora Short do not own the tidelands in from of the property. They are requesting to affix a permanent structure to land owned by the taxpayers. 4: Esthetics and Environmental: With the increased population already here and the projected new growth coming, we are concerned about setting a precedent for more docks lining the channel into Oyster Bay. If there is a dock that far out on the Madrona Point side, that will force boat traffic over onto our side of the channel. There are currently two docks on the channel, the longest is 45 feet long. /q7 Holtz Float Scale 1=20 ft t 115' 150' 35' Bremerton Planning Commission Department of Community Development 286 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 21May1996 Subj: Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit SL-15-94; 1542 Madrona Point Drive. within the S.W. 1/4 of Sec. 16, T.24N., R. 1E, W.M. This letter conveys disapproval of the proposed application for construction of a private floating dock at the subject address. There are three primary concerns that should be considered before approval/disapproval of the shoreline permit be granted. First, the general safety of the channel in terms of narrowing the already narrow channel for navigatable watercraft of all types, personal safety of children as well as adults that utilize these waters for pleasure will be jeopardized by the construction of the floating dock. Second, the environmental impact upon the narrow channel in terms of marine life and the migration of cutthroat, candlefish, and other marine species as well as the marine boat traffic that will be forced to the opposite shoreline, impacting the integrity of existing bulkheads and beach erosion. Third, the precedent this will establish will permit additional docks to be established in the area. If residents on the opposite side of the channel choose to construct floating docks, the channel will be clogged with navigatable hazards just waiting for a boating accident to happen in this area. As a resident of Oyster Bay, I have observed the boat traffic throughout the year on the bay and have witnessed the "high performance" speed boats enter and exit the bay at high rates of speed with disregard to other boaters in the area. This activity causes me to wonder whether or not fostering the installation of this private dock will contribute to being "the hub" for these boaters. If the actions of these boat owners are indeed any indication of what can be expected fi.om the installation of this floating dock, I am adamantly opposed to the approval of this shoreline permit. It will only take one floating dock in a narrow channel and one boating accident to provide the necessary evidence that the approval this shoreline permit is not a wise decision. Please reconsider what the appellants to this shoreline substantial development application are submitting at the May 21, 1996 Bremerton Planning Commission hearing. oodDrivctl Stone ~~ v - - Bremerton, WA 98312 May 16, 1996 We, by our signatures below, state that we are waterfront homeowners in the Marine Drive, Oyster Bay or Madrona Point area. We are familiar with the dock proposed by Don Holtz and Lora Short at 1542 Madrona Point and we support the construction of this proposed dock. May 16, 1996 We, by our signatures below, state that we are waterfront homeowners in the Marine Drive, Oyster Bay or Madrona Point area. We are familiar with the dock proposed by Don Holtz and Lora Short at 1542 Madrona Point and we support the construction of this proposed dock. May 16, 1996 We, by our signatures below, state that we are waterfront homeowners in the Marine Drive, Oyster Bay or Madrona Point area. We are familiar with the dock proposed by Don Holtz and Lora Short at 1542 Madrona Point and we support the construction of this proposed dock. May 16, 1996 We, by our signatures below, state that we are waterfront homeowners in the Marine Drive, Oyster Bay or Madrona Point area. We are familiar with the dock proposed by Don Holtz and Lora Short at 1542 Madrona Point and we support the construction of this proposed dock. N,l~drona Pt D~STANCE5 h~ F~.ST ] i:RAFT 0 CC)~ ?-~- ]-~' I /0-' i _ 80' /C)-- / / D I~0~ ~ lqO' O: attO~ -~' Ovster 3221 Claremore Ave. Long Beach, CA 90808 May 13, 1996 Bremerton Planning Commission Bremerton City Hall 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA Re: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #SL-15-94. Dear Sirs: Although unable to attend the May 21 hearing, my husband and I would like to join Iverson/Gallagher and Holland in their opposition, to Don Holtz's proposed pier. Being only part-time residents (1714 Madrona Point Drive) and i~l'on~-time neighbors of the Holtz family, we were reluctant to Oppose the pier when the notices were first distributed; however. we didn't like the plan. Since there i__s opposition to it, however, we join that opposition. The pier would be much ~oo long. Oyster Bay is a narrow neck of water at the location of the proposed pier. Such a long pier would clearly present a hazard to boats, both yachts visiting the bay and small boats buzzing around. I'm really surprised that the Planning Commission didn't see this on first examination. Also, an attached pier would forever change the appearance and ambience of the beach. When old and covered with barnacles, it would be unsightly. And it would get old and covered with barnacles. It would also serve as a barrier, or at least a partial barrier, to people who have traditionally been free to stroll along the beach at will. It's unfriendly, which we're sure Holtz/Lora do not intend to be. Most of us are. content with floats, which can be pulled out of the water in winter. Sincerely your~, Jack & Joyce Lackman Bremerton Planning Commission May 21, 1996 Public Hearing Chairman Olsen: Appeal of Director's approval-Shoreline Permit-Dock termination appearance of fairness is their anyone from the public or from this commission feel that any commissioner should not be sitting listening to this hearing tonight. Hearing no one. Commission Stone: I think the records should show that I am a resident of South Marine Drive and one of the appellants contacted me after the issue of the Permit and I directed them to Mr. Allingham. Chairman Olsen: Anyone else? Mr. Allingham would you like to make a presentation please. Mr. Allingham: Planning Department this is an appeal of the Director of Community Development decision to approve the construction of the dock. The applicant of the dock is Don Holtz the appellant is Wayne Iverson and Kathy Galligher and Susan Holland the proponents for the dock is Don Holtz and Laura Short and the site is located on the east side of Madrona Point a Peninsula which extends north and south the channel at this location, flows between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay. The dock itself is proposed to extend 150 feet from the shore it is approximately 4 feet wide Chainman Olsen: I am going to have to stop you hear. We are going to have to Exhibit A. If you have any other Exhibits would you please so note it Mr. Allingham: Yes. Ok this Exhibit shows the plan view of the dock 4 foot wide dock extending 150 feet to shore. The dock flares out to an 8 foot by 10 foot tee at the end of the dock. This would be Exhibit B this is a profile view of the dock, shows the dock extending out 150 feet and it is anchored by a serious of piles and it has a ramp which extends out word onto a floating dock and the dock will actually float and rise and fall with the tide. Dock accessory to a single family residence on the Shoreline is normally exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit however if the dock exceeds $2500 fair market value a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required in this case the stock was proposed it exceeds $2500 fair market value, was required to under go a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Shoreline Substantial Development Permit process required a public notice and a public notice is posting the site mailing to family property owners and publishing the notice in the local newspaper for general circulation which is the Sun. While this application was being reviewed the planning staff requested additional information as to what the or with the configuration of what the Channel is. This is a graphic that was prepared by parametrix and provided by Mr. Holtz, which intently shows the location of the mean low water which is a zero foot tide. It shows the approximate depths of the water at different tidal elevation that mean higher high water at 11.7 foot tide and mean low water which is the zero foot tide. The channel is approximately 6 feet deep. Docks are allowed to extend out to reach a depth of water of 5 feet measured at mean low water. Excuse me at mean tide mean tide elevation which is a 2.6 tidal elevation which means essentially if the dock extends out far enough to reach depth of 5 feet of water the dock would be totally dry if the tidal elevation reached a -2.4 foot. The application is being appealed primarily due to the reasons stated in the letter of appeal. These include impacts of navigation, esthetics impacts of the Shoreline and impacts to recreational use along the Shoreline. Essentially that includes my staff report. Chairman Olsen: Jack that is Exhibit C, Thank you. At this time I am going to have to stop you Jack Rom Jack Rom: I just wanted to mention that all the Exhibits Jack has shown on the wall there are obtained in the staff report. I am not sure that we need to assign exhibit numbers to each of those they are already in your packets if anything new comes in we should attach Exhibit numbers. Chairman Olsen: Ok do you want to go ahead and explain to the audience to what this hearing is, this is a new type of hearing. Ron Hough: The procedures for follow up hearings, the city passed an ordinance in compliance with the regulatory reform act of the State which took affect about a year or so ago. We had a requkement to bring our procedures into line with the State requirement which allows one public hearing basically on a appeal. The way the ordinance is the City states that this is the first appeal and this is the public hearing it was appealed further say if they take the hearing to the city council. The council reviews the record in a closed hearing and will view the record of the planning commission and the staff report all the materials is provided at this hearing and make a decision. So there is not another open public hearing. Chairman Olsen: Thank you, yes. Jack Allingham: I do have some slides of the facility that the Planning Commission would like to see those. Chairman Olsen: I believe so. Jack Allingham: Bare with me while I make this slide projector work. This is a view of Oyster Bay looking North word and this is the entrance to the Channel between Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay. Which is located right in this area. This is another view from a little higher elevation that shows the entrance to the Channel from Oyster Bay looking North. This is a view from the site itself from Mr. Holtz house this buoy locates approximately the terminus of the dock when it will be extending outward to shore. This is a little close up view of the location of the dock the dock will not extend any further water word than this marker right here. Another photograph showing approximate of the Channel and the terminus of the dock. This is a slide well the slide is in back words, this is a view to the South looking into Oyster Bay and showing an idea of the width of the channel is and one of the existing floats within the channel. This is a similar view to the North the perspective of the slide is also backwards, shows the location of a buoy line and some of the existing floats with in the channel itself. Commissioner Dingfield: Mr. Olsen I have a question? Chairman Olsen: Yes Joan. Commissioner Joan: On that last slide Mr. Allingham is there a picture of where I mean of the is the proposed dock location can you approximate where that is. Can you tell from here? Mr. Allingham: It would be proposed to extend no further water word than the existing buoy line. Conmaissioner Dingfield: So it is some where along the Shoreline, I can't tell. Mr. Allingham: Ok, yes the dock would extend out from shore in this location. Commissioner Dingfield: So this is the location right here. Mr. Allingham: Yes looking Commissioner Dingfield: As if we are standing on it. Mr. Allingham: Right looking up the channel to the north. Commissioner Joan: Ok. Commissioner Barbara: I have another question. Chairman Olsen: Yes Barbara. Commissioner Barbara: How close will the end of the dock be to the center of the channel? At low tide? Mr. Allingham: Well the tide wouldn't reduce or increase the width of the total Channel. Conunissioner Barbara: How much space is there? Mr. Allhigham: This is a cross section view of the channel it would be about 140 feet from the center of the channel. Conunissioner Barbara: Ok, thank you. Mr. Allingham: presentable order. Chairman Olsen: for the staff report? Ok those are the slides and I'll reorganize them so that they are in a more Thank You, is there anything else that you would like to present at this time 3 Mr. Allingham: No Chairman Olsen: Yes Joan. Commissioner Dingfield: Mr. Allingham, could I just get one point of clarification from you. You were talking I wanted to make sure I understood what is allowed in the Shoreline Management Act as far as it has to be a depth of 5 feet out to the mean tide you said and it can be exposed to, the dock can be totally exposed to a -2.4 you said. Mr. Allingham: Yea but Commissioner Dingfield: If you could just clarify that part for me. Mr. Allingham: Ok docks are allowed to extend to reach a depth of 5 feet of water measured at mean low water. Commissioner Dingfield: Right. Mr. Allingham: And the mean low water is at 2.6 tidal elevation. Conunissioner Dingfield: Ok Mr. Allingham: At a -2.4 tide the dock would be high and dry on the beach. Commissioner Dingfield: Ok I understand, thank you Commissioner Stone: I have another question to Mr. Allingham. Chairman Olsen: Yes Mr. Stone. Commissioner Stone: The picture you showed us taken from the Holtz residence indicated that buoy and the water at approximately at the dock would end. Mr. Allingham: Yes approximately Commissioner Stone: What was the status of the tide in that picture? High, low, medium. Mr. Allingham: I would estimate the tidal elevation to be about a 8 foot tidal elevation. Commissioner Stone: Thank you Chairman Olsen: Any other Commissioner want to question, have a question for Jack? Hearing none does the secretary got any written testimony? Secretary: Yes we have one letter from Michael Stone on Shorewood Drive. This letter conveys 4 disapproval of the proposal proposed application for construction of a private floating dock subject address. There are three primary concerns that should be considered before approval or disapproval of the Shoreline Permit be granted. First the general safety of the Channel in term of narrowing the already narrow channel for navigable water craft of all types, personal safety of children as well as adults that utilize these water for pleasurable beach effervesce by the construction of the floating dock. Second the environmental impact upon the narrow channel in term of marine life and the migration of cut throat candle fish and other marine species as well as the marine boat traffic that would be forced to the opposite Shoreline impacting the integrity of a existing Bulk Head and beach erosion. Third, the presence that this will establish will permit additional dock to be established in the area. If residents on the opposite side of the Channel choose to construct floating docks the Channel will be clogged with navigable hazards just waiting for a boat accident to happen in this area. As a residence of Oyster Bay I have observed the boat traffic throughout the year on the Bay and have wittiness the high performance of the speed boats that enter and exit the Bay at rates of speed with disregard to other boater in the area. This activity causes me to wonder whether or not fostering the installation of the private dock will contribute to being the hub for these boaters. If the action of these boat owners are in deed any indication of what can be expected from the installation of this floating dock. I am admittedly opposed to the approval of this Shoreline Permit. It will only take one floating dock in a narrow channel and one boating accident to provide the necessary evidence that the approval of this Shoreline Permit is not a wise decision. Please reconsider what the appellants to this Shoreline Substantial Development Application are submitting at the May 21 Bremerton Planning Commission Hearing. Chairman Olsen: Who is this letter from? Secretary: Michael Stone. Chairman Olsen: Thank you, I would ask that our Commission Stone is this a relative? Conunissioner Stone: Not that I know of. Chairman Olsen: Not that you know of I just wanted that for the audience. Ok will the appellant if they would like to speak? Do you have another letter to read? Secretary: Well it is a petition, dated May 16th we by our signatures below state that we are waterfront home owners in the Marine Drive and Oyster Bay or Madrona Point area we are familiar with the dock proposed by Don Holtz and Laura Short at 1542 Madrona Point and we support the construction of the proposed dock.. Maybe like 30 signatures do you want me to read the names on the... Chairman Olsen: Yea Yea Yes and the addresses of the Secretary: If I can read it Chairman Olsen: Ok it is pretty bad, Unidentified Commissioners: Are you sure you want to go through that, Conunissioner Dingfield: Why don't we just have them send it down to us. Chairman Olsen: Why don't you make a copy for the Commission to read and put that as an Exhibit B. Secretary: Exhibit B. Chairman Olsen: Yea Coxmuissioner Dingfield: I would like to be able to see that during this hearing. Chairman Olsen: Ok. Unidentified Person: What do ~ve use for reference for today? Chairman Olsen: Well the a what Jack would a Secretary: What Jack is saying we went through A-C so this should be D is we are going to Chairman Olsen: Yes, Is there any other written Unidentified Person: We have a question from the audience Chairman Olsen: I can not accept any questions from the audience at this time. I am going to go ahead and continue the hearing the a 30+ signatures are being passed from commissioner to commissioner and we will read that other testimony is being taken. Commissioner Dingfield: I have a question. Chairman Olsen: Yes, Joan. Commissioner Dingfield: Was that person who got us the appellant actually? I mean was that who Chairman Olsen: I don't know who the gentleman was. He is the opponent in this case. Corn_missioner Dingfield: Are you Mr. Holtz, oh ok than I guess I am confused about at what point in the hearing. Chairman Olsen: No we are not that was just a written to be put into our record. Ok the appellant ah is the appellant or appellants hear tonight and would like to speak? Ok now this is Wayne, Kathy or Susan. 6 Kathy Gallagher: I live at 2002 Madrona Point Dr. waterfront approximately a dozen or houses North of Don Holtz house. Commissioner Dingfield: Would you pull the microphone down a little bit. Kathy Gallagher: Ok, is that better ok, this proposed project if approved would set a precedence for other similar docks, and since this one is probably as long as anyone would want built and also is in an inappropriate location for such a dock not in Oyster Bay but at its entrance. It is likely that others would not be as difficult to get permission to build. That would result in various lengths as piers extending into the channel restricting navigation forcing boats to zigzag between. Common sense does not seem to be a quality that many of the speed boaters poses often now they race to abreast at speeds that if there was a collision would be worthy of the sea fair races. There is a wide variety of boaters from kayak, dinghies, sail boats, inter tubers, skiers and speed boats. Some small some slow some not necessarily traveling in a straight line. This dock could make it a dangerous location for all to safely enjoy there own particular water sport, and if someone is injured and it can be shown that restricting the water wake contributed to the accident who is responsible? The City of Bremerton, Don Holtz the County, I have witnessed near misses and all they have to avoid now are a few floating docks. I am also concerned with the increased number of speed boats more along and at the end of the pear. These would increase the length of the pear and further decrease the available passage way. Night navigation poses another problem is this going to be lit along it's length and will all possible future piers need to be clearly marked for the occasional lunatic who seeks through in the dead of night? Alcohol could be assumed to be a factor at such times. Navigating the channel with piers will be a interesting challenge. Oil and gasoline leaks are inevitable people already use the channel and bay as there yard waste dump and septic are failing on Marine Drive. Why add to more potential pollution. Also will the finished project match the specifications I know of at least one project which was not completed according to the original design does no one check once something is built it seems to be ok whether it complies or not. A project like this adversely affects many people from those who use the waterway to people who live on the channel and appreciate its openness. There are areas where piers have been indiscriminately allowed and once allowed for ever changed the character of an area. No one person should be able to do that other projects which affect no one but an applicant are denied for solely environmental reasons. Even though the denial may mean further environmental or property damage. This project not only has potential environmental concerns but real serious safety concerns which should not be minimized. Only one person stands to benefit from this project. That is not a reason to deny approval consideration of all the other factors is. I also would like to know if, if a slide could be re shown not a slide but a topographical projection. Unidentified Person: Sure Kathy Gallagher: The one that shows Phinney Bay the shape of Phinney Bay. No Phiimey Bay. I am not familiar with the situation of piers on Phinney Bay but it has been brought to my attention, that Phinney Bay has a lot of piers and I would just like to point out that the shape of Phinney Bay does not lend its self to the type of traffic that we get on the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay. People go full throttle through the channel 7 2/¥ end of tape 1 side 2 Kathy Gallagher: in Phinney Bay if there are piers no one is going to go full throttle on a curve. They just are not going to be able to do that and to ugh prepare Phinney Bay to the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay I think is a totally different situation. Thank you very much. Chairman Olsen: Thank you, Ron, Ron, wonld you like to come here for a minute please. Ron Hough: I would also like to mention that this would be Exhibit F if you want to do that Topographical map showing Oyster and Ostrich Bay. Chairman Olsen: No, we have a question to ask you, ah should we then just a the next person the people that were in favor as Susan Unidentified Conunissioners: Discussion Chairman Olsen: Ok, ah, anyone else? Commissioner Dingfield: Do we then hear from the opponent or do we hear from the Chairman Olsen: Well you will hear after everyone testifies. Ok we will hear from anyone else that is support of the applicant which is Wayne or Kathy, or Susan. Unidentified Talking Chairman Olsen: Excuse me, the appellant the role is switched now because I am going to try calling by your first name anyone in favor what she has said. Kathy Gallagher: Unidentified talking Oto mike) Chairman Olsen: Do you want to come forward again. Kathy Gallagher: Yes, Unidentified Person: State your name again. Kathy Gallagher: Ok, my name is Kathy Gallagher and I want to make the point that Wayne Iverson the other appellant on the this project is out of town right now and in fact and out of the country on a business trip and he does agree with everything that I have stated and ah he did sign the form that was submitted to the permit office showing so. Chairman Olsen: Ok, Thank you Kathy. Ok anyone that would like to speak in favor of the appellant Kathy. Commissioner Dingfield: So then you are saying 8 Chairman Olsen: Pardon Unidentified talking Chairman Olsen: Ok I guess the easiest say is against the dock. We will not confuse people. So anyone can get up and come forward at this time. No we want the people just against the dock now to speak. Bernard Holland: I live on South Marine Drive I am about 3 lots North but across the channel. I am looking over at the Holtz residence. I just feel that a Mr. Allingham I believe ah stated what the regulations or requirements were and that's fine except for in this narrow body here I just don't feel that safely you could put a dock that far out into this narrow channel. He stated that it would be 140 feet from the center of the channel ah this is your drag strip area here this is high speed boating area going between the two Bays. This is also the water s-ki heaven cuss when its choppy out there in the big bays the open bays it is nice and glassy because of the close proximity of the land and so ah I think that you are cutting down on this were boats can go and I know that my in the exhibits that were submitted in the planes he shows my shark head buoy and saying is 75 feet out I see lots of boats that come between the shore and my buoy which is half the distance of his proposed dock. There is lots of boats that go in through there. Ah, but it cuts oft' recreation if you live one house north and you wanted to go for a walk on the beach and you wanted to go south you are now cut off because his dock is proposed dock is a floater, so when the tide is out and you are able to walk on the beach you would be cut off because you would have to crawl over his dock in order to walk. If the kids a dock of this design restricts beach walkers and vertically cuts them off from the other side of the dock ah, the small children in their inflatable rafts and inter tubes and air mattresses will be won't be free to safely cruse the Shoreline as they now do. Rowers, kayakers, cut throat fisherman which normally hug the Shoreline will be forced out of cut throat range they will be out into the high speed channel no,v, just to get around the dock. I don't know for a fact but I don't think the Holtz own their tidelands so this their asking to affix piles onto public property. Ah, I don't see how you can permit ah, grant a permit to build a permanent structure on land that isn't owned by them. The esthetics of it this land here or this water way has existed this long without docks on them. Ah, in one of the pictures that was shown there, there's two docks on the channel right now and one of those slides showed one it is about 30 40 feet long i would estimate ah but it was pictured in there and you saw it there is one more and its about 50 feet long and its probably about less than l0 years old. It offers no problem to boaters but I just don't feel that a 150 foot dock in this area is appropriate. Chairman Olsen: Thank you. Is their anyone else? Dick Wright: My family been on Marine Drive for 40 years. I was just pursuing the paperwork that we received in the back and I note that the a criteria for action is the SMP states the following goal for water access and ownership facilities and the criteria for approval is based on the SMP as well as the State Shoreline Management Act and it says that the goal is a to provide for the availability without adversely impacting the Natural Esthetics quality of the Shoreline. Number 1 talking about community boating facilities says in lieu of the addition and or proliferation of new facilities it is best to have community but this one it isn't community so it's kinda in a gray area with regard to that. Number 2 piers docks and floats, piers docks and recreational floats should be constructed so as to minimize obstruction of navigable waters and not significantly reduce use of the water surface. Now it says that is doesn't reduce much use of the water service because it only covers 648 square feet but in fact what it does is as it encroaches on the channel if you look at the picture of the channel as it encroaches on the channel from one side 125 feet into the channel at high tide is 23.1% of the water surface. That is a quarter of it fellows, gals now that is to my looking at it significant obstruction of the channel all right. So number 2 it doesn't pass, all fight the finding and then it says the dock will stick out it says the obstruction of the navigable water will occur during tides greater than -2.4 feet. The minute the tide is starts to come up to the mean low the obstruction begins and it continues until flood tide. Number 3 piers docks when the city presented the maps for B and C there was a comment made about will the final thing be the same as that, that was approved? Those two maps do not jive, if you would like to put them back up there very briefly I'll show you the difference. One of them shows the plat form of approximately 40 feet and the other one shows the plat form. Can you bring that one down just a little please. Bring that one down just a little please. Bring the first one down please. Notice the one has a 40 foot end dock on it and the other one has a 8 by 10 end dock on it so you need to get that kind of thing together before you approve it. All right when we start talking about the a the number 4 piers floats it says those areas where scenic values are high all right all waterfront is scenery, but in a tight channel you don't have a far span of view, your view from your property is up and down the channel. You are going to stick pilings I don't 'know exactly how high they are they are going to be drilled out below the mean Iow they are going to be drilled in the land that goes beyond that of ownership of the tidelands. That's if the person constructing it owns this tidelands and as I understand the present owner of the land does not own the tidelands so he can't drill on his own ground at any time he's got to drill on the land that belongs to somebody else and I'm not sure who. It says that the a let me go on just on moment ali right with regard to the fishing in there it talks about a were trolling on shore trolling is available will in the finding the city says that it has no documentation as to the importance of shore trolling with in the channel I don't know whether there meaning commercial or whether they are meaning residential but the residential shore trolling any time any man women or child gets in a boat and wants to go out and troll down the wake its got it's advantages, and they do. Well this is gonna be a obstruction for it so all of a sudden number 5 what with the fact that we see one that is the possibility that he doesn't own his tidelands. That the city says they don't know about trolling, they do troll there. So that says they are not real high on number 5 so we say number 4 doesn't pass number 3 doesn't pass number 2 certainly doesn't pass and we jump into number 23 % of the tidelands being gone, 6 and 7 are not applicable in 8 when we talk about view protection it says in the second line says to be aesthetically compatible with the area of visually effected there is nothing more apparent than a bunch of creosote sticking out of your tide fiats. Know if we could go back to a tight view of the channel have you got one of the slides of the tight view of the channel? Please bare with me just a minute, you'll note in number 8 while he is finding that am I to understand that at one time there was an application applied for with the city and it was turned down by this same individual for similar or the same pier, and ah it says that ok. Can we get one that shows the run of the channel, there was one in there, no, no, yea alright that's close enough. Now can you visualize that with every other neighbor having a 150 toot pier. The one thing about it is folks when you sit and you own a piece of property on both bays 10 Chairman Olsen: Do you want to take the mike with you please. Dick Wright: All right I'll stand at the mike, in most areas this what were doing is were trying to tie in an unique situation which that channel is. There are very few channels like that in the Puget Sound it's very tight. What were trying to do here is were trying to take a law that says you can go 5 feet below mean low so that you can more your boat on the bay. We are trying to make that applicable to a channel well if you make that applicable to the channel everybody on the channel wants to build one can, because you this one then you got to give the rest of them I believe. If half of the people in the next 15 years or 20 years decide they want one all your going to be looking at from one side to the other that is or try to look down at your not gonna get to look down at the channel, you wont look up the channel. Cause your gonna have nothing but a mass of creosote timbers sticking out the top and that's were the problem lies. The problem lies were your trying to take a law that covers all water and put it in a very small restricted place. That's the basic premise I needed ifI could get jnst a moment more of your time. Ah and maybe a light so that I could see what I am trying to find. All right it says in number 8 pardon me lets go to the findings it says the dock will continue a precedence for permitting docks within the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay that's true it will permit that it continues the precedence. Go to the bottom line this channel has no other similar docks. It has no piers, there have never been any people who said go ahead and that they shouldn't be now. The precedence has never been set to put them in there, except for people who have boat houses, who have small rail runs that run down those use to exist most of those are gone now. All right, in the regulations portion ah it says in number 2 prior to granting a permit for a pier, dock or float the affects of the structure upon navigation, recreation, and adjacent shoreline shall be determined and this position of the permit by the city shall reflect such determination. Then right underneath it, it says the following affects will occur, near shore navigation will be impacted, you can't walk it, you can't boat it and we know by the fact that it takes up 23 % of the channel that you can't drive it in a big boat unless your paying close attention to staying on the center line. You get two big boats here's an example you got this one lets say there is 640 feet there in front of those two places you got one guy out 150 feet you got this guy over here he get to put one out 150 feet you got water skier coming down the bay he is skiing on a boat that's got a 75 toot rope you got another boat going out the bay he's skiing behind that boat with a 75 foot rope, he pulls hard to the center the other guy going the other way pulls hard to the center and all of a sudden we have taken up another 150 feet. We have 450 feet out of 600+ feet taken up that means that we got approximately 150 feet for those boats to figure out were to go and that is if there is only two of them. Now when I grew up on that bay the boats went at the top speed 35 mph today they go 90. Now you take a 35 foot boat or a 30 foot boat and you crank it up to 90 mph and you break the steering I guarantee you that there is not one place on Marine Drive in that channel that boat wont go to the beach. He is going so fast he's got so much lift that if he breaks and veers off he is going to go to the beach, well if he doesn't have to get to the beach because he wipes out a big pier all he's got to do it turn over and look at his girlfriend just like in a car. I am admit and I think you should make a real wise decision here and if you have never been down the channel in a boat you should go down once this is important enough you guys all got to get together I'm sure there is somebody on probable on both sides of the issue give you a boat to go down there in, go down once at flood tide and go down once when its empty and realize that what your setting up right here is a situation where you could be looking at pier after pier after pier after pier it will look like Lake Washington. Well the thing is on Lake Washington you look 3 miles across the mile and a half here you look 600 feet. I think that's all I needed to say, I hope that Chairman Olsen: Ok, thank you very much. Is their anyone else opposed to the dock. Maynard Hoffman: Dick Wright has covered practically all the points that I would like to bring up so I don't want to be repetitious but I urge you to consider very carefully the precedence factor of pier after pier. I have heard rumors and I repeat rumors that if this dock is approved there are 3 or 4 will be will apply for a 3 more people will apply for the same type of a dock. Ah the other thing I would like to bring you in that it has been mentioned several times here there is a speed factor now your not to interested in the speed factor of these hydros these __ with 200 horse power motors on them. But a guarantee you that they do tie into this dock. Ah, the risk factor is terrible but we can't do anything about that. The speed is worse yet, they oppose a terrific danger for all boating on the channel. Two years ago I was crossing the channel with my 5 year old grandson and my son Eric in a 12 foot row boat with a 3 quarter horse power motor on it and one of them washed us down and almost capsized us, and when I shouted at them he gave me the familiar salute. Ah I have talked to 2 of these ski artiest and asked them why do you assist on skiing through the channel why not go out into __ where there is plenty of room. Well they like the channel because of the calm water. I have asked them 2 of them now not to travel at these high speeds and 1 has agreed and he doesn't and the other one says we can go as fast as we want to and you can't of a thing about it. And he's right, I wrote the sheriff and the sheriff has never answered my letter. So they can go 90 to 100 mph if they want to. But they pose a danger and if you allow this dock to be built it will be a greater danger. Thank you. Chairman Olsen: Thank you, is anyone else opposed. Suzanne Holland: I live on South Marine Drive right across the channel from tbe Holtz dock.. And I believe that the channel into Oyster Bay is a very unique situation in itself its as you can see from the slides that it is a very quiet peaceful serene area. During the summer time this all changes. The boat traffic there in the nearly 15 years that we have lived there has increased by fold it is incredible the amount of traffic, different types of boats that travel through that channel and the speeds they travel at. Yet still people who live on tbe beach would like to have their own inner tubes and life rafts and that in that's been impact by just the boat traffic itself. The kayakers the water skiers everyone has been impacted by that. I am concerned about the precedence that would be set by building one dock like this there is many other people in there who I'd like to have a dock myself I don't feel it's appropriate for that area because of the narrowness of the channel feel that the dock will have a significant impact on the general public as a hole, but will benefit very few people. I would like the commission to take some extra time to study this issue, study the sight during the summer time on the weekends when the full foot impact of the volume of traffic and the type of traffic we're talking about is apparent. I would like to invite anyone from the commission to our property to personally view this during the summer time. Because you would be amazed. Thank you. Chairman Olsen: Thank you, anyone else? 12 Paul Sch~yer: I live at 2111 Madrona Point Drive and the design of this dock is unsatisfactory. The long floating dock is an obstruction for peddlers and fisherlnen. The way it's designed it's got apparently it is set up so supposedly the fish can swim underneath it, but somebody would have to maintain the fish passages. That is a problem it will probably plug up from debris and sea growth and that type of thing so it would really be nonexistent. And the dock would really place a restriction on if people follow the rules you really can't go by a dock very fast when a boat other wise you would damage it. You're responsible for the damage and so there would be a big enforcement situation to take care of too. Probably protect who ever is on the floating dock. So this design is very unsatisfactory and if you're going to have a dock the minimum it should be a fixed dock with basically no float, and you have either hydraulic or a mechanical devise to lower and raise the a vessel so its out of the wave action. So who ever got their boat can't complain about somebody going by and this won't restrict the kayakers or the they could go underneath the dock. Should be adequate head room so people can pass by it. It would be like the Delta Pier at Banker, put it way out so people could get around it. That's and its really gray area whether you can get a permit and it would appear to me if you don't own the tidelands and I don't think there's been enough discussion of the Army Corp. permit process here. I am familiar with that process and usually you have to have very detailed plans and that type of thing. I just wonder if we're on the Army Corp. process or when that takes into effect. There is a lot of maybe misunderstanding on what's going on here. I would like to get explain to the if we're in the Army Corp. Permit process and how is all fits together it seems to be very unclear. Thank you. Chairman Olsen: Thank you is their anyone else that would like to speak. Rick Verhelst: I live on Oyster Bay on the south end: Dicks got us beat by a little bit, we have only been there for 35 years so. Up through the years we've watched the boat traffic increase and increase until a until a point in time now that on a busy weekend snnny day in the summer its going to count it up to 20 to 25 power boats on the bay at one time maybe half a dozen cruiser in there and then added to that in the last couple of years now is we have personal water craft the a jet ski and my concern is I can see going through the channel now you might have two three ski boats with skiers on the back and Dick's correct in the rope length and I mean you get situation where you got a minimum area. And if you get one or two cruisers coming down the channel at the same time so now you got two ski boats and one or two cruisers now they have a path in which to avoid each other. I mean normally they don't go between the buoys but at least now they have a path to take that safety route to get away from each other. You put a dock on one side and a dock on the other side and pretty soon all the way down the channel your going to have a situation where somebody is going to get into trouble out there and these are not experienced boaters. I mean a lot of these people are out there for the weekend and they are having a good time they are maybe not paying attention to exactly what'3 going on and ah and maybe a few of them are having a couple of beers here and there I mean its the weekend so you know maybe there wits aren't completely sharp. You get into a trouble situation out there and these boats don't have craft throttles. These boats are normally set up with a throttle that if you put it down and you can jump out of a boat if yon wanted to and that boats going to keep going. And so now you get somebody out of control and someone's going to get hurt on in this situation and if they're lucky they are only going to be hurt and not killed. I just really want to reiterate that you shonld come out and spend the time, come out and take a look for yourselves at the boat traffic in this channel 13 for that factor. And I think you would make a decision that this is not a good idea and in this narrow of navigable water. Thank you. Chaiman Olsen: Thank you is their any one else that would like to speak Dawn Dressier: I live directly across from Don Holtz and I don't want to reiterate what everyone else has said here tonight either but there are a couple of points that haven't been brought up that I feel because I live directly across and own the property across from him that I need to bring up. And one of those it that right now I do not have a bulkhead and I am probably one of the few people along that bay who do not have a bulkhead. And as it is at high tide in the summer time with some mass boat traffic that comes through there I get a lot of beach erosion. If there is a dock that forces even more boat traffic to my side I am gonna get even more beach erosion than what I am getting now. And I find that to not be a very pitiable idea. The other issue that I wanted to bring up and hit on a little bit more is on the impeding of the navigational waterways and for people who try to kayak or if you want to take an inner tube out in the summer time and just hang out there you want to be close to shore. You want to be close to shore because you want to be out of boat traffic you don't want to have to go 150 feet out in order to go around the dock. And as far as the other point that I wanted to make, there is actually two other points, as one is that you are effectively eliminating water skiing through that channel, if you will start to allow docks. If Don Holtz is allowed a dock of 150 feet which according to the City's own documentation will then stick out into the channel 40 feet of navigable water effectively eliminating it down to something like 337 feet I believe, i lice directly across i could build a dock also and there would be effectively no rules or regulations that say I can't because of precedence has been set that says I can. If I build a dock of equal size to Don Holtz dock you have now narrowed the navigable water way of that channel to 297 feet. According to state regulations you have to have 150 feet from any dock or structure to pass with a water skier, well if there's a 150 feet they have to be away from his dock and 150 feet away from my dock they can't pass through there because they need 300 feet of passable area basically. So imagine that multiplied about 20 or 30 times over. Because that's what you are going to be doing is allowing every land owner through there to construct a dock if they so choose on their land. The other issue is that the land that issue has been brought up about the tidelamds, he does not own that property I did check with the a county it is state owned tidelands which I also checked with the leasing area of a the state and he has not applied for a lease for that however the other issue that kinda is an aside is that by coming here tonight and asking that you deny him the right for this dock 1 am also asking agreeing and asking that you deny me the right for a dock. And I am asking that based on the tact that I simply do not think it is a prudent thing to allow. And by saying you know please do not allow him to have a dock I am also saying agreeing and saying no I will never be able to have a dock, there either. But I think that, that is the right choice. Chairman Olsen: Thank you is their anyone else? Dick Wright: If you have a little boy that lives on one side of the pier and he is a casual swimmer and he wants to go see his buddy and he get into his little dinghy or the rubber raft and he goes out and around the end of the pier cause he can't get down the beach and his buddy only lives 4 door down the way and he falls out of the rubber raft whose fault is it? The kid has the 14 right to be able to play on the Shoreline. Chairman Olsen: Thank you is their anyone else that would like to speak? Well now then go to the people in favor of this dock. Don Holtz: I am the applicant for this dock 1542 Madrona Point Drive. I would like to address the concerns that have been presented by the appellants, Wayne Iverson, Kathy Gallagher, Bernard and Suzanne Holland, Maynard Hoffman and Sandy Verheltz, I have lived on Oyster Bay on this exact property for 32 years. My family has lived on this exact property for 6 years I have spent my entire life boating, fishing, water skiing on Oyster Bay. The last thing that i would ever do is build a dock that would diminish the excellent fishing or obstruct the boating traffic I enjoy so much. I have spent several thousand dollars on professional surveys, maps other research to insure that this project meets all building codes and requirements. I am not asking for a variance, a Special Use Permit or the waving of any rules and regulations in the construction of this dock. This dock will be a professionally built concrete float there will be a 40 foot ramp connecting the float to the bulkhead. This ramp will allow free access for beach owners, cut through fishermen that need to be close to the Shoreline, and kayakers can and any other persons enjoying the beach. My impression to the letters written against this dock is that the opponents visualize this dock projecting out further than it actually will. The end of this dock will be right in line with the existing floats and buoys and in the channel. The end of the dock does not protrude out beyond the buoy line established by my neighbors that has been in place for 10 or more years. At high or low tide there is nearly 300 feet of navigable water way between the end of my dock and the buoy across the channel which extends 200 feet out so if that buoy if somebody put a dock across the channel that extended 150 feet out the channel is 637 feet wide that would still leave 337 feet over a foot ball field of navigable water way at low or high tide. The dock sight is at one of the widest areas of the channel and will in no way create a navigational hazard. There are existing buoys and rafts north of my property that close the channel down to 190 feet of navigable water way. After this appeal was filed and preparation for this hearing I went out and talked to as many of my neighbors who are horne owners there are many renters on Madrona Point at this time on Madrona Point and Marine Drive as I could. I asked them how they felt about my proposed dock and as you can see from what was passed around earlier I believe exhibit D or E as you can see I have gathered the signatures of my neighbors who support my project these signatures represent 82%, 82% of the people that I was able to contact that was a home owner. I hope that you will see fit to make my dream come true and let me proceed to put my dock project. I would like to address a couple of things at this time at this point and time if the dock was allowed or not allowed the actual regulation for this 150 feet need to be 150 feet from a dock is already in effect. Any time a boat is moored on a buoy or that there is a float existing there needs to be a no wake zone. This comes from Gary Simpson of the Kitsap County Sheriffs Department it is already in affect. The dock will have nothing else no other impact as far as the rules and regulations that are already in affect. Also the dock at Iow tide will have no impact if somebody needs to get to the other side of the dock they can walk underneath the 40 foot ramp which will be 10 or 11 feet high coming off of the embankment they will be able to walk under that below tide or high tide no impact what's so ever. At low tide the dock is going to be high and dry so if tbey need to get around the dock and they are swimming they are gonna need to swim in the water. Thank you very much. 15 Chainman Olsen: Thank you is their anyone else that would like to speak in favor. Terry Skelley: I am speaking in favor of the dock. My husband and I and our friend water ski and boat in everything from ski boats to 40 foot pleasure boats we go in and out of Oyster Bay on a regular basis we spend a lot of time there in the summer. When we heard about this dock we were curious as to how it would impact our access to the bay we went out and measured the channel and the existing buoys and we are satisfied that this dock does not present a navigational hazard. It does stay in line with the existing buoy line there are buoys and floats out there that are very difficult to see and I think a dock would be much more visible and easier to avoid and probably prevent people from hitting floats and docks that they can't see or floats wooden floats that aren't attached to anything but a anchor. We currently live between two docks our neighbors on either side of us have 220 foot docks we have good relationships with our neighbors and we have been able enjoy the benefit of using those docks we can fish off the end of those docks we have been able to tie our boat up to those docks We also live within a 150 feet of the Bremerton Yacht Club and we have enjoyed the boat traffic. We have not had any negative experience from the Yacht Club docks or neighbors docks. They talked about boat traffic and gasoline and those types of things and I just don't think those are valid concerns. We have not seen any determent to the marine live or the water fowls. We have eagles and geese blue herring, king fishers. We have also sorts of marine life things that are attached to the dock, sea enemies and clams and mussels and those kinds of things. The people who have spoke against the dock talked about the speed of the boats in there. Mr. Holtz is not responsible for how people drive their boats in that channel. It sounds like there is an enforcement problem and it sound like they're more unhappy about the speed of the boats and the boat traffic than this dock. He is also not responsible for peoples alcohol abuse. There is laws against that and they should be enforced. The docks that are next to us were built by Mr. McCongee they're good looking docks. They are very sound they look good, they are well built and Mr. McCongee, I understand, is also building Mr. Holtz dock, would have the same type of medal ramps on our neighboring docks and I have no problem walking underneath those docks, I am 5 foot 7 and I can walk under those ramps without any problem at all. We did mention tbat channel and it is 630+ feet wide and there is almost 300 feet and will be 300 feet of navigable water if this dock is built between those neighbors or the people across the channel, that float and Mr. Holtz dock. We boat a 40 foot Chris Craft at 16 feet wide and another 16 foot wide boat can pass with no problem. $ foot cars drive down 10 foot lanes of highway at 65 mph and do fine, I don't see a navigational hazard. Thank you. Chairman Olsen: Thank you Conunissloner Stone: I have a qoestion for the lady are these the figures that you Terry Skelley: Yes Commissioner Stone: Thank you very much. Chairman Olsen: Any one else. Jhn Skelley: That is not my wife there, she is sitting back there. My wife and I are here this 16 evening to speak for the installation of the Holtz dock. We recently installed a dock of the same construction at our home surveying the approval process our neighbors were concerned about the length and the appearance, but after completion they were very satisfied with the project. We have a good relationship with those neighbors and they have all enjoyed the benefits and the convenience of the dock. I am very familiar with the Oyster Bay Channel and have measured and mapped the area of Holtz Dock and I find it to be more than adequate to operating any size boat safely. I am also a licensed float plane pilot and I have landed and taken off in the channel several times and I see no hazard of the proposed 150 foot dock. And I think that the water front dock is a great asset to the home owner and my wife and I support it. Thank you. Chairman Olsen: Thank you Dave Barcelon: 945 Oyster Bay Court and I am very much for the dock. I think Mr. Holtz has done his homework. Dock is definitely safer than a bunch of floats down the water that you can not see when you are cruising through there. I just think that if properly done it will be just fine. I am all for it. Chairman Olsen: Thank you any one else like to speak Roger Bance: My wife and I reside at 1440 Madrona Point which is the channel side. And I am here to support the installation of the dock and the facts the Department of Fisheries, Army Corp. of Engineers have approved it, and those gentlemen are in those positions or women are in those positions for a reason. Also we didn't purchase our home I have only been there as of January of this year, but we did not purchase out home under the guides of living in a home owners division or under the guides of the CCNR certain restrictions. What I feel, the opposers they aren't presenting any tangible evidence, it is all what its. And I feel that with the information that Mr. Holtz has provided in the documentation that, that should support your decision for you approval. Thank you. Chairman Olsen: Is their anyone else that would like to speak if favor. John Green: My address is 1515 South Marine we are directly across the channel and south of the proposed dock. I support it I have concerns most of this concerns that I have heard here tonight and I am sensitive to this issue I got a lot of friends on both sides. So you know you just don't want to I don't want to be a part of any being controversial with anybody. But my concerns have been answered. We have gone out personally, I have gone out and measured the float and we were within a few feet of the surveyor came out he had a laser beam situation and it was over 640 feet is what we came up to. As far as passing underneath the dock, we have just mentioned a little bit, I am convinced that you will be able to pass underneath it float fishing. And I should also say that I am a personal friend of Don's. That makes me kinda a personal witness to what he is about, he likes to go fast in boats but he is very concerned about the enviromnent and the Oyster Bay area there. Just about every time a boat goes down the channel if I am in my office or any where around he will call me and talk about the boats and fishing and what not. Nobody is more interested in fishing 17 end of tape 2 side Roger Nance: admit fisher man as well as a boater. He i~ the one that introduced my son to cut throat fishing and he taught me to go within 20 or 25 feet of the Shoreline. It is my understanding that Frank Kiterick taught him how to do that, we live just a few homes down from him. This won't be the dock won't inhibit that at a high tide mark. Normally you go cutthroat fishing at a high tide and you can still pass underneath the dock that point is my understanding. A couple of other points, I guess the speed limit I see that as a separate issue and this business of running through the channel at speed. Nobody like to go fast more than I do, I suppose, but I am concerned about speed as well. So if that were a different issue, if that was brought up at a different time, I would be interested in talking about that, that might put me at the opposite side of where I am now with some of my friends. I have a 15 year old son or a soon to be 15 year old and I encourage him to take his little boat out, a little 8 foot pram, that we got and row around and he takes the dog out so I feel those concerns, but I am convinced that it is not a navigational hazard. You know that this speed issue is a different thing as far as the liability. It seem to me that the liability for the existing floats would be about the same as the dock. Don's float that he has now is I think 150 some feet out it is marked on that sheet and as I understand it, it was shown a little differently on the sheet there but the dock is to be 110 feet, the ramp is 40 feet, and there is some overlap there where you loose some of that footage he is going to have a couple of feet of the dock or the ramp rather that has lost up on the bulk head and there is a 6 or 8 feet of overlap at high tide mark. So that the dock doesn't really end up sticMng out quite as far as the float he has now. And I just don't see that as a navigational hazard just down the channel more directly across for his float that has been there for years, we have been there for about 5 years. And if we went out there again the other day and I wanted to double check that and the a the existing float sticks out far beyond where Don's proposed dock would be. So I gness that's the short story and I go down and support this. Chairman Olsen: Thank you is their anyone else. Ron Turner: I am a Seattle resident but I have owned waterfront property on Sandy Hook by the Agate Pass Bridge for over 25 years. I have boated in Oyster Bay and the channel for the last 20+ years, stayed many nights over night in the channel and I don't see anything wrong with the proposed 150 foot dock and I don't see a navigational hazard you know I think it is you know lot of people brought issues on both sides but I think if you look at it logically there is no reason not to approve this. Thank you. Chairman Olsen: Thank you Keith Tweedy: I live on 1900 Madrona Point. My wife and I have talked about this and we are for it. The concerns of speed I have gone up and down the channel quite a bit water skiing. There doesn't seem it be a problem. There is a set channel because of the buoys going down the channels. Right now when you look down the channel it looks fairly open. There is a possibility that as some docks where built out there maybe it wouldn't look as open and might slow speeds down. So I am kinda for it. Thank you. 18 Chairman Olsen: Thank you any one else. Scott McBride: I live at the very South end of Oyster Bay and I have been a resident for 35 years.. I do extensive Kayaking and I also rowed all over the world and I have spent a lot of time on the channel and in my opinion there is no way that this dock will impose any sort of navigation hazard to a rower of kayaker. Thank you. Chairman Olsen: Thank you Jhn Reed: I reside at 2000 Madrona Point Drive approximately i2 houses to the north of Mr. Holtz's proposed dock maybe 1200 or maybe 1150 feet. There is one thing that I would like to add to the record if a may. I have three more signatures for the approval. Navigation seems to quite a point here do all the commissioners have this copy have a copy of this? It is clear to see that there is a buoy line well established and those buoys are also in many cases floats. With respect to everybody's opinion on this for safety and navigational issues what the channel extensively and rarely see anyone travel inside the buoy line that is existing. That the dock does not proceed farther out then, I think that points been made fairly clear. As far as a few of the issues here that are in question tidelands are a big issue as a phone conversation I had with a Army Corp. of Engineer as of 5/20/96, a Troy Mantell, all tidelands nationwide are regulated by the Army Corp. if they receive a permit application regarding such as this personal use dock permit tidelands are an issue in the permit approval process. If they approve the use of the dock the tide land required for this dock at that time are included in there approval, that is that issue. The question that the gentleman here had on the design of the dock was changed from the proposed construction of it was the first one which was the long skinny one different from the approved design. That was not what the city allowed being the second design where had a lowed the smaller end was what the city had approved so there is no discrepancy there regarding what is going to be approved or not. The issue as tar as everyone in on the channel wanting a dock there is approximately 50+ homes on the channel there is 25 or more on my side. Several as Mr. Holtz has stated are rentals which I would like to see something done about but nevertheless. Many people are elderly, many are older. There are some younger residents there. I can not imagine even though the state, federal and the city ordinance allow docks no one has wanted one to this degree in the past and even if this isn't approval position at this time I can't imagine everyone wanting to run out put one in. There are many reasons involved. A lot of people don't use their waterfront very much. John Green probably uses his waterfront more than anybody there, I use my considerably, Mr. Holtz uses his. There is another thing the cost involved. I can't imagine everybody wanting everybody when I say everybody wanting to spend the money if some people want to put a dock in it is well within their rights as a land owner in the city and in the city and in under federal and state jurisdiction. The laws allow it. There is no breach of law or any discrepancy what so ever here that are being challenged this is a fully legally addresses issue. The biggest problem I think that I have is a neighborhood issue. There is a lot of my friends on both sides of the issue I don't really like to see the divisiou over it. I am very proponent for the dock but the problem is I don't see it a win loose situation. I feel that the commission votes it down everyone in this room including the commission loose a piece of their rights as a land owner. If it is a pro vote I don't think it a applicant wins and the opposes loose I think everybody wins bemuse too many land rights it doesn't matter if you own land in the city or in the county to many 19 people are having their rights taken away regarding whether its land or other thing that the city and county control. So I think it more of a right issue more than it is a speeding issue or any of these other things. I think that even the people that are opposing it will want to use their land in a way in the future that establishing the rights of use are definitely necessary. Thank you for considering my stand. Chairman Olsen: Thank You Unidentified Person: I just want to mention that Mr. Reed entered an Exhibit into the record exhibit G it is a petition with 3 names on it Wells, Wells, and Garcia. Chairman Olsen: Thank you is there anyone else who would like to speak. Don Holtz: I would like to add this map I think that it has already been brought in but I would like to actually include this and show a pictare of what kinda paint a picture of what Oyster Bay the channel Oyster Bay really looks like in the channel, if that's ok. Chairman Olsen: Ron is this Ron Hough: Do you want to put it on the overhead? Don Holtz: Yes, Unidentified Person: Mr. Chairman we have this. Chairman Olsen: Yes a we have this already in our packet Jim Reed: Ok, what I would like to paint as far as on this is on this last Sunday I went out and took more measurements I also took a video tape. But at that point we had a minus 0/0 tide. At the entrance to Oyster Bay on a 0/0 tide there is only a 1 I0 feet of navigable water way and most of that 110 feet is between 1 and 3 feet deep. At that point and time the entrance to Oyster Bay is always high tide or low tide always less than navigable than it would be in front of my house. The picture that I would like to paint is imagine this a 90 degree weekend and everyone of the home owners on Oyster Bay on Madrona Point and South Marine Drive having a 25 foot a 17 foot a 16 a 40 foot boat tide up to their buoy. This dock will not have any where near the impact of 50 boats tide up to their buoys and floats. Thank you. Unidentifiable talking Jhn Reed: There is a video that was taken that is a big issue come out and see the channel, there was a video taken Sunday from a boats point of view of the channel heading I:'rom north to south we have that with us we have facility to show it if the commission would like to take the time to see it, its about 6 or 7 minutes long its water level it shows fairly clear it is the lowest tide. Chairman Olsen: Ron 2o Ron Hough: The video you would have to bring the Don Holtz: No I have the television I'm ready, it would take me 4 minutes to maybe get to gear Ron Hough: We have another letter to read into the record as well. You might Mr. Chairman you might want to put a limit on repeat testimony. No we don't want to go through all this again. Chairman Olsen: Yea that's right. Ron Hough: If you want to see the video we can set it up and show it Chairman Olsen: I'm gonna ask the Commissioners Joan Commissioner Dingfield: No Bill: I don't think I need to see the video because we have I think we have adequate dimensions on the scope of the passage of the wet and the various areas and the buoy lines and so on that's really all that's heard tonight. Chairman Olsen: Larry Larry: No I think the slides presented were adequate to my stand point. Chairman Olsen: Barbara Barbara: Unidentified talking Terry Skelley: We would have to say one more thing that in talking about a precedence Mr. Reed testified on this and you may or may not be aware this but when someone requests a building permit for a dock and the city of Bremerton or the county of Kitsap, they are required to give their neighbors their adjoining neighbors the option to build that dock on the property line and share it and own it jointly. So talking about the number of home owners on that channel you are not talking about a dock at every home necessarily and if everyone decided to go out and spend the $35,000 that it costs to build a dock, you could probably cut that in half, because they are required to offer that to their adjoining neighbors. Chairman Olsen: Would you like to identify yourself please. Thank you. And the person who spoke before that, would you like to identify yourself again because I am not to snre that. Jim Reed thank you very much. One moment please we are getting to the repeat testimony we can not have that only if it is adding to your own testimony and you forgot it would be fine but we do not want to kinda rehash things out. John Green: And I won't rehash, just a simple point about the difference between buoys and floats. We got a float that is out and shown on the map you'd have to have about we got nearly 30 feet of scope you'd have to make tip a difference between about a plus 14 foot tide and a -3 21 something. We got between 25 and 30 feet of scope what happens and I don't know how to control it except that we ran to anchor lines off of our buoy to try to keep it from swinging to far in the channel and in a lot of ways we got a couple boats out there on this one buoy right now even. But we use it a lot and in a lot of ways the buoy is a worse situation because what happens with ours is that on one of these severe minus tides the boat signaler usually is just barely in the water but it swings way wide way out into the ehannei you know it is shown at 160 feet of something, but it swing out quite a bit farther because of you got this loose scope here on you have that loose line. The dock being fixed of course, a course you can not have a boat on a minus tide it would be high and dry but if you know obvious point it won't ever be stand up past that buoys and floats. Chairman Olsen: Thank you is their anyone else that would like to testify that has not testified before? Victor Target: I am a property owner on Madrona Point and on the channel side. I want to say that I support the dock Mr. Holtz dock and the constant with all the city regulations. Local, fisheries, except it is safe and I support it. Chairman Olsen: Thank you is their anyone else that has not testified before you would. Commissioners: Unidentifiable talking Chairman Olsen: Ok is their anyone else? Bob McConkey: I lived on Oyster Bay also my folks have been over there for about 20 years. About a year and a half Don came to me and I have helped him with some of the permits and some of the process on this dock. I think is consistent with what's happening in other areas and the concerns that have been addressed tonight some of the concerns about fisheries resources and navigable water are usually addressed by the fisheries permit and the Corp. of Engineers. Chairman Olsen: Thank you any one else. ls their anyone else? Closed public testimony is closed. I would like to explain to the people of the audience that the commission now will discuss it among themselves as ask questions but we can not ask the audience can not ask us can't come back battery back and forth because we would be here all night long and we are not trying to be mean but. Unidentified Person: There is one more letter that was submitted here that hasn't been read into the record. Chairman Olsen: Ok would the secretary please read that letter. Secretary: We are going to call this Exhibit I. It is from Jack and Joyce Lackman, although unable to attend the May 21 hearing my husband and I would like to join Iverson Gallagher and Holland in their opposition to Don Holtz proposed pier. We are a part time residence 1714 Madrona Point Drive and a long time neighbors of the Holtz family we were reluctant to oppose 22 the pier when the notices were first distributed however we didn't like the plan since there is opposition to it however, we join that opposition. The pier would be much to long Oyster Bay is a narrow neck of water of the location of the proposed pier such a long pier would clearly present a hazard to both the oz visiting the bay and small boats busing around. I am really surprised that the planning commission didn't see this on first examination also an attached pier would forever change the appearance an __ of the beach. When old and covered with barnacles it would be unsightly and it would get old and covered with barnacles. It would also serve as a barrier or at least a partial barrier to people who have traditionally been free to stroll along the beach at will. It is unfriendly which we're sure Holtz Laura do not intend to be. Most of us are content with floats which can be pulled out of the water in winter. Chairman Olsen: Ok thank you, is that it Secretary: yes Chain'nan Olsen: Thank you, Joan do you have any question. Conunissioner Dingfield: No how about comments. Chairman Olsen: Comments Commissioner Dingfield: We'll I would just like to say this has been a very interesting public hearing tonight I've appreciated hearing from both sides of this I know that some people come in here with the idea that we have already made our determination before we even here both sides of the issue and I can guarantee you that non of us have. And I have speaking for myself here but we don't come in with any frequency ideas we certainly have a staff report but it is very important for us to hear both sides of the issue and I think both sides of this presented them selves very well. That is my initial comments thank you all for coming I appreciate you participation on the process. Chainnan Olsen: John Commissioner John: No comment Chairman Olsen: Barbara Commissioner Adams: I would like to thank everybody as well and I just am wondering about he dock being something that might slow that speeding traffic. I don't know if that would act as a speed bump of sort of that's my comment. Chairman Olsen: Bill Commissioner Robinson: Well indeed it has been interesting and we have heard a lot of I think very well reasoned and well thought out positions here tonight both for and against the proposal. I guess I personal have some concerns I guess on the issues of presence but precedence is always 23 an if situation its not a given. I don't know that I can base my decisional vote tonight on that issue along. The length of the dock really doesn't bother me because it does fit within the existing buoy line. It seem to me all the criteria of the Shoreline requirements of the Shoreline Substantial Development Plan and the Shoreline Master Program it appears to be legal. It is legal and its allowable and I to vote against this issue I would be hard pressed to find a way to do it I certainly can't be influenced by the traffic n Oyster Bay the number of boats how fast they go or whether they don't go if they are skiing to a breast of three a breast if there is any fuel spills how much noise there is, it has nothing to do with the dock. That situation isn't going to change one way or another. It does not bare on this issue it is not pertinent to it. I think that the tidelands issue had been addressed to my satisfaction assuming that the all the permits are in placed with the Corp. of Engineers and the Fisheries and what ever else is required I know it fits the city requirements for this proposal and I am not a boater while I may think that a 150 foot dock sticking out from somebodies property might be an abomination that's a personal opinion and I don't think I could vote against this cause I may not like docks and I guess my feeling is that suppose I am in favor of the approving this that this dock issue and that's all I Chairman Olsen: Thank you, Larry. Commissioner Stone: As usual I have questions which will perceive my remarks I am a little confused on the tideland issue thing I have heard comments that the tideland lease has not been applied for and I have heard comments that tidelands hasn't been taken care of I have heard comments that the tidelands issue is a moot issue. I have also heard recomrnendation that the Department of Fisheries who have already signed on that the Army Corp. of Engineers is signed on. Mr. Allingham maybe you could help tile with this. Jack Allingham: I think that I am gonna let the applicant explain the tideland issue the city of Bremerton doesn't verify the location of the property lines, property is recorded with the Kitsap County assessors office and the Kitsap County Assessors maps do show some indication of ownership of tidelands out infront of their I can't answer the tidelands issue we do have a copy of the department of fish and wildlife hydraulic project approval for the dock. Although they have approved it subject to conditions and mediations of fishery impacts the a Corp. of Engineers permitting process as I understand Corp. does not review applications for the docks of this sort until the local jurisdiction local jurisdiction has issued a final decision. So it may have made an application force policy is they wont touch it until it is setded locally. Connnissioner Stone: Those issues really aren't an isstte for us to consider. Fisheries have been taken care of Army Corp. of Engineers will do something after we get the final action by the city. Tidelands is his problem not ours. Is that correct'?. Thank you, I do have a couple of comments I look at this issue and I can see the regulations I can read the regulations and that they might grasp the english languages quite compatible to everyone else. I have always had a difficulty however when regulatory dichotomies as tile fact that lie can go so many feet to so many feet to thing of this nature because it reads right doesn't necessarily make it right because we live in a society of extremely diverse morays as circumstances. I do have a hang up at this point with the cumulative impact says to me that the Shoreline Management Act specifically addresses the issue of cumulative impact. Mr. Holtz has done a beautiful job having this thing engineered but my 24 concern is that he is in the largest or the widest part of the channel. And Clyde McCloud living $ 100 foot products down may choose and he may someday be affected enough to also build a dock. My concern is that the accurnulative I don't know if that really has been addressed or is addressed in the departments handling the situation. Just because it fits the terms I don't think necessarily makes it a good issue although I envy them some of the boats I see and I haven't even a dock. That's a concern that I have to work out for my vote. Chairman Olsen: Is that it? Conunissioner Stone: That's enough Chairman Olsen: That's enough, thank you Larry. Barbara Commissioner Boyd: I do have a concern about the breaking of the custom of not having a large moveable docks it does change the charter of the neighborhood. On the other hand I recognize that, that is not really an illegal issue for us if it meets all the legal requirements. I think it may be a change that we have to accept. Chairman Olsen: Thank you Commissioner Stone: I do have another question Mr. Chairman. Chairman Olsen: Yes Larry. Commissioner Stone: My concern also is at this point we are looking at and we aren't looking at that stable map at this point. I do have a concero about what really is the entrance to this bay and the channel itself can see to be the entrance at one end coming in from Ostrich Bay where as __ from Oyster Bay the Southern end then becomes the entrance to the channel I just feel that there is a potential and it made some good issues that we ought to try and look at this thing but I am not going to delay it for that reason my concern again is becanse of proliferation that is going to take place and the I think the potential impact. Unidentified talking Chairman Olsen: Ok, Donna. Commissioner Adam: Ok in response to legal aspects what the gentleman I'm sorry before me in the Chairman Olsen: Mr. Wright Commissioner Adams: Mr. Wright pointed out the goals and polices the city, state and in number 1, about the joint use facilities that are preferred and i did speak to the director about that earlier and he mentioned that if that word was required that the permit would have never been issued, regardless of any water cables or any technical discussion would have taken place about 25 the dock. It just wouldn't have been a permit issue and so that is a mandate to look at, and also number 7 and 8 talk about the public access which is the same here is dock project are encouraged to provide public docking and that was something that I was wondering to testimony that was for the dock about the neighbors state law requiring access and I would be interested in hearing or knowing more about that because that is public access and that would make that more of a mandate. So that is my comment or go along with the mandate. Chainman Olsen: Do you have another qnestion. Commissioner Dingfield: Yea well I have a comment I don't know if we're looking for answers like that but I assume in this a process of applying for since it is a mandate that they do ask neighbors of Mr. Holtz did ask his neighbors if they wanted to participate in this dock also. Don Holtz: My neighbors to the north are have been for sale ill the past and I understand are gonna be for sale in the next month or so they are in their upper 80's or early 90's as tar as in age, and have no use for it they has also objected to it. What we are not a good relationship and they would object if I was painting my house red. The neighbor to the south of me, my sister has a first right of refusal on that house and is planning on purchasing that house in the next 12 months. I will be granting a easement for her to joint use. And if there is any other neighbors on Madrona Point that would like to participate I am more than happy and I am gonna treat the situation as I did when other people did as I was a kid to were the brought me in and taught me how to fish and that's what I would like to do with the neighbor kids and anyone else who would want to participle so yes I am more than willthg to open this up to any of the neighbors who wouId like to participate. Thank you. Chairman Olsen: Thank you, I have one question Mr. McBride would you like to step forward you mentioned in your testimony that you acted is this something that you do as a sport or Mr. McBride: Correct I kayak as a recreational sport I also participated in rowing and that was inactivate and then also on a national level so I both you know for recreation for both of them. Chairman Olsen: Your credentials you feel are pretty good that you can answer a qnestion, you stated that you didn't think it would interfere. Mr. McBride: Correct l think I could answer that question and I do not think it would interfere. I've a rode on narrow bodies of water in Seattle, the Ship Canal, the Run Locks Area which is substantially narrower than the channel with much larger boat traffic barges and larger ships. We have not had any problem there. I do not ever remember a accident rowing or kayaking in narrow bodies of water. Either by myself or by other individuals that I have known. Chairman Olsen: Ok thank yon. Commissioner Stone: I have a question for Mr. McBride, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Olsen: Yes 26 Commissioner Stone: Are you a competitive kayaker Mr. McBride: No I was a competitive rower just a recreational kayaker. Commissioner Stone: The reason I was asking I watched these guys in the kayaks they go down how do they keep from turning over. Mr. McBride: I've dumped a boat before but it wasn't on purpose. Cormnissioner Stone: Ok thank you. Chairman Olsen: Ok is their anyone else. Is there a motion then. Unidentified talking Chairman Olsen: Again the audience can not participate, we have closed the discussion I am sorry Conunissioner Dingfield: I would like to make one more comment if I could. Chairman Olsen: Yes Commissioner Dingfield: Yes this is clearly a struggle I think for all of us, as I think we have feelings both ways on this. It's my experience though this area I have not lived here that long, but it is my experience that it is my understanding that this area has gone though, this area meaning Kitsap County and the Bremerton Area, has gone through significant change. I mean obviously population is growing and the pressure on the waterways are going to be growing where a very water oriented county and a very water oriented area and we are going to continue to be that way. However we are also an urban environment here and we should plan on the fact that this area is going to grow and we ought to plan on it for a city and we want all of our residences to have the access to water that is allowed to them under the laws of the area, both state and local. So in that regard I think you know while certainly aesthetically it would be nice to say this area should not have docks, this area should have dock I think that we need to follow the laws that area in place for the area and governing this in more of an urban environment that we actually are becoming in that regards. Chairman Olsen: I am ready for a vote Conunissioner Stone: I have one more question Mr. Chairman Chairman Olsen: Yes, Larry. Commissioner Stone: I would like to ask Mr. Holtz if you don't mind coming forward. At one point one of the people testifying questioning why we didn't end up with a fizzed level dock you know a hydraulic lift. You see one of the objections that we seem to be running into is the length 27 of the thing. Did you investigate that as a feasible and I don't know what I am talking about economically at all. Don Holtz: Ok another Commissioner Stone: But a shorter and instead of a floating pier or dock a fixed height dock with hydraulic lift and that sort of thing. Don Holtz: Yes I understand. What I understand is what fisheries would like to see, is as few of pilings as possible Conunissioner Stone: Ugh Ha Don Holtz: And as once you go to a fixed type dock there is need for more pilings because there is no floatation so there are pilings that are gonna start at the beginning of the dock and continue all the way out. I am assuming that we are talking about 2 or 3 or 4 times as many pilings as the minimal amount that are required on this dock. I have also talked to Mr. McConkey about having the dock re-engineered to see if we could do this with less pilings. If I could do it with 2 pilings or 3 I want to do it with as few as possible to keep the neighbors happy and also to keep the cost down. So it came down to a what I would like to reiterate on as far as that when I went to apply for this I looked at everything I went over it with Bob McConkey I went over with it with Jack Allingham several times I submitted a plan they said this one wouldn't work it needs to be this way or you can appeal it, I said no I'1l do it exactly the way you want to do it. I had it re drawn re-engineered they said that's the right way and that's where we came up with this application. Commissioner Stone: So you did with an alternative. Don Holtz: Yes I did Commissioner Stone: Now that's the only tiling that I was looking for. Don Holtz: Ok Commissioner Stone: It appears to me that tile length of the pier is what all the concern is about. Everything else is jazz. I just wanted to be sure you looked at alternatives. Don Holtz: I did Conunissioner Stone: Thank you Don Holtz: Thank you. Chairman Olsen: Thank you is there a motion Commissioner Robinson: Yes Mr. Chairman I would make a motion I guess before I make the 28 motion I need to tell the audience that I really have mixed emotions about this issue, like the guy who watched his mother in law drive off the cliff in his cadillac I guess. Having said that I am going to move that the Bremerton Planning Commission uphold the Directors decision regarding the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit SL15-94 and thereby approve the constructions of this dock under the plans that Mr. Holtz has submitted. Unidentified Talking End of hearing 29 Bremerton Planning Commission June 18, 1996 Public Hearing Chairman Olsen: Holtz Dock-Appeal of Approval of Shoreline Developmem Permit. The persons who will be allowed to talk tonight are Bernard Holland, Suzanne Holland, Sandra Verhelst, Maynard Hoffman, Wayne Iverson and Cathy Gallagher. In a letter sent out or given to individuals, we did leave off - or some people are misinterpreting - that the rebuttal tonight that anyone could speak in that form, up to a half an hour total. We've been informed we can only keep it to the people who signed the appeal of administration decision. The names I read are the ones that signed the appeal and so they will have up to half an hour for the rebuttal. They can divide that into any shape, way or form, but only be given a ball an hour. Also, it only can be to the - what was talked about at our last meeting. We will not introduce any new evidence and we'll have to stop you if you accidentally start putting new evidence into the record. We did allow the persons to review the tapes if they wanted to or our drafted minutes, which were not approved. We'll be using these minutes now as what was said - Mr. Holtz and people - I'm going to say people for the dock as to what the testified at our last meeting. We made a clerical error in that meeting, and we bad to then allow the rebuttal for tonight. In essence you Dave to kind of look at this meeting - for the rebut- - what people do in the rebuttal is to - there's a continuation of that same meeting So that is why there is no new evidence being allo*ved, any of the letters, editorials, or anything else like that cannot be put into evidence because that wasn't done at our last meeting. It's almost like we're saying we had a five minute break and we are now going to start up again But because we did have a little longer beak than five minutes I will ask the appearance of fairness Does any member of the Commission have a potential conflict of interest? Does any of the member of the public object to the participation by any member of this Commission? Hearing none we *vill go to the rebuttal. Time is at 6:15 Unidentified Person: Mr. Olsen, I just xvanted to point out that Mr. Wayne Iverson was not present at the last meeting. 1 Chairman Olsen: He was - did sign - appeal and under attorney's opinion, he's allowed to speak. Unidentified Person: That's not the opinion that Mr. Sievers gave me sir. Mr. Olsen: Oh. Unidentified Person: He said those that were in attendance at the hearing - just like you say, ~t was a continuation - Chairman Olsen: That's the one who gave us - I'll refer this really to Director o£Community Development Mr. Don Pratt. Donald Pratt: The Chairman has been advised by counsel and by me that, that is the appropriate way to conduct it and he agreed that it would be a good method to use and that's what is being used. The chairman is in charge of the meeting and can adopt those rules. Unidentified Person: Oh. Chairman Olsen: Okay, we'll now go to the rebuttal at 6: 16. Wayne Iverson: I'm Wayne Iverson whose question is about value. Mr. Wright, he was here at the meeting and spoke previously, which means that he should have more right? Chairman Olsen: No. Our attorneys have so - Wayne Iverson: But could he - he did speak - he was at the original meeting. Chairman Olsen: I'm sorry our attorney said only the people allowed will be the people that signed the appeal. We have to go by our attorney's advice, and counsel advice. Time is now 6: 17. 2 Bernard Holland: My name is Bernard Holland and I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak. The criteria for action states approval of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must be based upon compliance with the criteria for the State Shoreline Management Act and the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. The SMP was adopted in 1971. We are appealing this Shoreline Substantial Development Permit based on the Shoreline Master Program, chapter 7, sectionF, subsection 8. No Building Permit, Septic Tank Permit or other development permit shall be issued for any parcel of land developed or divided in violation of this Master Program. Please look at short plat drawing. Near the center by the words Oyster Bay, the word shoreline has been crossed out. It is not crossed out on the original. Do you see a bulkhead? Unidentified Person: I am going to have to object. This is not - Bernard Holland: Who is this person? Unidentified Person: Ma'am, you are not allowed to object or anything else. Bernard Holland: This is cutting into my time. Chairman Olsen: Can you please sit down or you will have to be removed from the meeting. Bernard Holland: Can anyone find the bulkhead? The answer is no you won't because it was not there in -88. Something else you xvont find is the permit on file for the bulkhead at that address. Nor will you find a permit allowing the land grab that resulted from the back fill of the bulkhead. These are gross violations of the Shoreline Master Program. For this matter not only Mr. Holtz, but the City as well are in violation of the Shoreline Master Program. From your department files, I have here a letter from the City's Building Department to Don Holtz. The letter is dated October 30th. I can submit this right? It's it against the rebuttal? Commissioner Dingfield: Ifxve didn't see it last time, we don't see it this time. 3 Bernard Holland: Okay, well anyway, it's from the City on your paper and it states in here - it's stating that they've received correspondence from the State Department of Ecology that you have - that Mr. Holtz has constructed a rock bulkhead. Jack Allingham, Senior Planner, has stated that he spoke to Holtz about the project several months ago and requested that he make applications for - Chairman Olsen: One moment. Okay, this is ali new evidence and is not prior to any discussion of this bulkhead. So that has to be all - Will the minutes show that, that has to be removed from the official minutes. Bernard Holland: This is rebuttal toxvards what was handed out. This is the lot map and the plans. Chairman Olsen: I am going to look to Mr. Pratt for a decision. Donald Pratt: A rebuttal is a response to the testimony that was directly given in the previous meeting. Bernard Holland: Okay. Donald Pratt: It needs to be limited to correcting what you believe are really statements by the other side previously, rather than introducing nex~ issues Bernard Holland: Well the City has been aware of the violations, but has not acted on them. The lot plan drawings they show no bulkhead, or excuse me, they do show the bulkhead, but the bulkhead curves in the wrong direction. The bulkhead does not curve towards land on the Northend, but curves towards the water. What curved back was the shoreline. Commissioner Dingfield: Mr. Chairman I ~vould like to make a point of order that this was not - this was not presented in the last hearing, this is not rebuttal to what was presented in the last hearing, this is new information and we will not consider it. 4 Commission Members Discussion ~unidentifiable) Bernard Holland: Well in the prewous meeting Mr. Allingham stated that he had made site visits. He's visited the lot, he's seen it, he should know about the violations. He's written many of the violations himsel£ Chairman Olsen: That is to be stricken from the record. Bernard Holland: Well I guess you've pretty much tied my hands then. This was all evidence that was presented. The fact that xve were wanted to see what they had to say and then go with the evidence that was - that was on the table that was handed out that night, handed out again tonight. I'd like to speak to it. This is the plans that this man has submitted. They're erroneous. He's very legal. That's right. He's in violation oftlae very program that you say is the criteria for judging. By - for allowing the permit, for granting the permit. Chairman Olsen: One moment please. Council Members Discussion: Otnidenti. fiable....mumble) Chairman Olseu: I believe he is referring to exhibit, to one of the exhibits. Mr. Pratt. Donald Pratt: Yes? Chairman Olsen: Is this gonna be - should we dismiss this from the record? He is actually referring - what we're now looking at - he's referring to a drawing that was submitted to us in the packet Unidentified Person: The issue is - The drawing is accurate. The bulkhead is in place. The question is whether or not the bulkhead is illegal You've asked for additional committee information to be presented to you after the rebuttal. We're prepared to give you what we have on the legality 5 or illegality of that bulkhead, but the reported illegality of the bulkhead was not introduced as evidence to the first hearing and as such, and as a matter of fact, is not germaine to the issue before you and will be dealt with in a separate process Bernard Holland: Thank you. The Shoreline Master Program, I believe in Chapter 5, are the Planning Department did their study and findings. Once again in the hand-out that they were spoken to in the original meeting. One by one these are all negatives. The Community Boating Facility finding that the dock will be a joint - will not be a joint use dock, and will add to the proliferation of new docks consuming limited shoreline recourse. Does that sound positive? When asked if- when asked, Mr. Holtz replied, if- would he be used - about if he would be joining with his neighbors. He made reference to his neighbors to the north being elderly and not using their beach, that has nothing to do with, I mean if they just glance at the beach that's their right. He erroneously stated that his neighbors to the south, his sisters, had right of first refusal and would be purchasing the home within a year. Mrs. Downey, that neighbor, was quite surprised to hear that she was moving out. The second piers, docks and floats, the findings, the dock will extend approximately 150 feet beyond the ordinary high water mark and have a surface coverage of 648 feet because the dock achieves the usable depth of obstruction of navigable waters will occur during tides greater than -24 feet below mean. This is an intrusion onto the channel navigable waters A Environmental Impact Statement should of been required on this. A Determination of Non-Significance had been issued, then rescinded, it was withdrawn. That should of sparked an EIS. I haven't been able to locate one. Was there one? Was there a ElS submitted? Donald Pratt: No, it was a Declaration of Non-Significance. The second Declaration was issued, but was improved over the first. Bernard Holland: That's on file also? Donald Pratt: It was- public notice was given and it is on file 6 ¢,3-- Bernard Holland: So you make a declaration, change your mind and declare it again? Donald Pratt: Um-hmm Bernard Holland: In the last year, this permit was denied. Chairman Olsen: We cannot bring that up, it wasn't discussed. Bernard Holland: On the third, the size and length of the dock. It has been designed to provide a stable platform to service a vessel. The dock extends waterward to reach a depth of 5 feet. The channel is but 6 to 8 feet deep at a low tide anywhere in the channel. So, basically, you're saying that he can have the channel. One lot takes axvay from all of the public, the entire public. Number 5 says only open pile piers should be permitted xvhere short trolling is important. Defining the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay has a relativity low rate of long shore drift due to its relative low energy enviromnent. The City has no documentation as to the importance of shore trolling with this channel. Perhaps the City should of made some studies, perhaps they should of come down and asked people. Mr. Holtz stated that fishermen - cut-throat fishermen would be able to pass under his gang plank. His bulkhead is only 5 feet high with a 40 foot ramp coming offof5 feet I don't see how you are going to get under that. It's sloping down to a float that is only gonna be 1 to 2 to feet above the water level. If there's a structure on top of the bulkhead, the illegal bulkhead, that's not shown on the plans. There's no dimensions given, it doesn't speak to what it's made of, so basically you've granted a permit for something you don't even know what's going to happen on. You don't know what's going to be built. AIl you have is his testimony Number 8, it says that the dock will continue a precedence over permitting docks within the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay and the other shorelines within Bremerton. The cumulative impact of the dock development could result in significant impairment of views and aesthetic impact of the shoreline. This channel has no other similar docks. So the first sentence it says this dock will continue a precedence. No, it will be setting a precedence. This channel has no other similar docks That is the last line. There is a reason for that good sense is one of them Thank God that our former City father saw the good sense in 7 preventing docks in the channel. The Shoreline Master Program speaks to docks in narrow channels. Mr. Holtz has had - on his garage alone - has had three Stop Work Notices and four citations. Chairman Olsen: Now that's not in the record. Please refrain Bernard Holland: Everything about this dock has been pushed to the maximum. He's maximizing everything he can get in there. Chapter 4 of Shoreline Management, it speaks to minimizing whenever possible preserving the shorelines for future generations, that's Page 19 in Chapter 4. For example, actions that would convert resources into irreversible uses or detrimentally alter natural conditions characteristic of shorelines of State-wide significance should be severely limited. You say a Determination of Non-Significance was - once again raised its ugly head. It says here on page 18 of the 4th Chapter that - should recognize and protect the State-wide interests over local interests. Solicit comments, opinions and advise from individuals with expertise in ecology, oceanography, geology, aquaculture and other scientific fields pertinent to shoreline management. Does it sound like the City has done that? This is the Planning Department, Building Department - we have State agencies, fisheries, ecologies. This is their expertise, but "No" We get a letter - a Declaration of Non-Significance, we don't ever get to people who we're already paying for - the State tax payers are paying for. This is what they do. Do we call them in, ~'No". Donald Pratt: Excuse me Mr. Chairmm~, 15 minutes have expired for the first appellant's time. The second 15 minutes belongs to the second appellants so that they can choose to have other appellants speak on their behal£ Bernard Holland: Is he running this or are you? Chairman Olsen: He is our counsel to us Bernard Holland: Is he running it or is you? 8 Chairman Olsen: I'm running it, but I listen to my counsel when he speaks. Bernard Holland: I mean I've been interrupted several times here. Chairman Oisen: I'm sorry sir if you do not like how we run our meetings, but we do it as best as possible. Bernard Holland: Thank you. Chairman Olsen: Now you can continue speaking, but you are going to use up the half an hour and that's the only reason that Mr. Pratt mentioned that - you only have a half an hour and you've gone past your - Unidentifiable Tallring Chairman Olsen: Do you want to put the mike down a little bit, Thank you Cathy Gallagher: My name is Cathy Gallagher. I live on Madrona Point. Also, - Donald Pratt: Excuse me maam, could you pull the mike closer so that people could hear you? Cathy Gallagher: Like that? Donald Pratt: Speak up a little bit too Cathy Gallagher: Okay. Don Holtz states that it has been his dream to have }lis own dock. A lot of people have things they dream for, a new car, a boat, a vacation, etcetera, but tile difYerence is that his dream becomes other peoples bad dream. He states in the Kitsap Reporter of May 25th that if he new so many people were in opposition, he wouldn't have continued. He certainly new of several 9 people in opposition from the very beginning people like Bert Wallic, whose view has been severely compromised by the house alone, and who also has encouraged considerable expense in the retaining of a lawyer to contest this construction. A short walk down Madrona Point would probably have revealed much fewer than 82% in favor as this very unscientific poll concluded. He also says that he has lived here all his life. People who have lived here a long time have undoubtedly seen many changes. Unavoidable as this becomes a much more populated area and businesses expand to meet the demand. Kitsap County is in transition now, still considered rural, but becoming more urban every day. It is a serious and difficult challenge to retain some of the areas rural character and beauty while economic growth is needed and more and more people move in, often from areas much more urban seeking a somewhat rural life, but unfortunately urban life style and desires move right along with them. And this inevitable will be what will change Kitsap County forever. It is in your power to save a small portion of Kitsap County from being becoming just another statistic in the continuing urbanization. The channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay is unlike any other, perhaps in the whole of Puget Sound. There are not many other places that remain unchanged in peoples' minds long after they are developed and altered Few can say they will miss the lot and derelict barn at the site of the new Wal-mart. The channel and bay are two of the rare places which for many years had been a destination for people who appreciate its relativity undeveloped beauty. 1 believe that the lack of even short piers, other than a couple, is a testament to the way the majority of people who o~,vn, not rent, on the channel would like to see that the channel remain. We are definitely not in such small numbers as Don Holtz would like you to believe. Thank you very much Chairman Olsen: Thank you very much Suzanne Holland: My name is Suzanne Holland. I'm one of the appellants. I'd like to correct a term that has been used many times the location of the proposed dock is not in Oyster Bay. It is located in the narrow channel going into Oyster Bay. This is a significant thing to remember. It's hard to visualize this situation from the slides we've seen, but the area looks so much larger in photos, than when you're actually looking down into the channel. This dock will take up 25% of that channel. Long term residents of the channel remember the Coast Guard coming in and periodically 10 removing the unpermitted and obstructing buoys and floats. The proponents are using the current unpermitted and illegally buoys to justify the length of this dock. Will the construction of the dock then mean that it will become the new standard? There is no speed limit in the channel now, so nothing can be done about the speed safety issue by this panel. Growth has happened and is going to continue to happen. The Commission has no control over the speed nor the amount of growth, but you can control the direction of that growth. Your job is to look into the future and protect that future. That's what planning is all about. Two docks, one on each side of the channel, would cut nearly in half of the available right of way for the boat. Compare this to a narrow street heavily traveled with no speed limit. Now park cars on both sides, add some jet skis and water skiers and a few children in boats, its an accident waiting to happen To understand the volume of this traffic you must view it on a sunny summer afternoon The proponents have stated that docks in Phinney Bay and the north end of Marine Drive don't present hazards on either Phinney Bay or Mud Bay. These situations are completely different. Look at the map and you'll see what I mean. The distance between the shores on Phinney Bay is far greater than in our 637 foot wide channel. They don't have boats passing each other through a narruw water way. Our little channel is called the strip, because of the volume of boats going into and out of Oyster Bay. One speaker stated that his neighbors fought his dock and now they love it His side of Marine Drive faces Rocky Point and is on Mud Bay. Mud Bay is a shallow dead end water way, the situations do not compare The water ski regulations were addressed earlier, I have a statement from Sergeant Dave Smith who is one of the Sheriff's Department who patrol this waterway He states, 150 feet from shoreline dock or moored vessel, construction of this dock would make it illegal to ~vater ski in the channel. Scott McBride testified that the dock would not affect his rowing or kayaking in any way Scott is an athlete challenging himself ro~ving down the center of the channel where the water runs fast and hard. Because of the volume of water running into and out of Oyster Bay, the channel is like a river. The average rower or kayaker is out for a peaceful relaxing ride, many times with their children and pets in the boats with them. These people hug the shoreline inside the buoy line to stay out of the main traffic lanes and out of the fast current. Mr Holtz's gathering of 32 signatures in favor of the dock is not an impressive statistic. We have pages of signatures, over 400 signatures of people in opposition to this dock. This is not a popularity contest to see how many signatures we can collect, 11 but it is and indication of the overwhelming opposition to this dock. The dock design meets the maximum legal specifications for size under the Shoreline Master Program, but conflicts with nearly all other Shoreline Master Program requirements. It adversely affects the near shore recreation, navigation and the natural aesthetics of the area. What does upholding this permit say about the values of this City and its commitment to its own shoreline rules? Your property can't always be everything you want it to be. The proponents say we're are trying to take away their property rights by stopping construction of this dock. Whose property rights are being taken away? This is a public water way that he is infringing upon. In order for his desires to be satisfied, he will be stepping on the property rights of thousand of tax payers. This water way is public use land. He addressed the Army Corp of Engineers Permit. It was stated three different times in testimony last time, as well as the CK Reporter Article, that the Army Corp had given permission on this dock This is not true and we have a letter stating that from the Army Corp of Engineers and we can introduce that as testimony if that would be allowed. Chairman Olsen: Mr. Pratt? It would not be allowed? Donald Pratt: No fiartber evidence is allowed Chairman Olsen: No further evidence, I'm sorry. Suzanne Holland: Okay, thank you. Maynard Hoffman: My name is Maynard Hoft'man, 1715 South Marine Drive and my comments will be bfie£ In the last meeting, it was stated that the proposed dock had been granted a permit by the Army Corp of Engineers Mr Olsen am I allowed to rebuke that statement? Chairman Olsen: One moment i- Donald Pratt: Would you repeat that please? 12 Chairman Olsen: Would you go ahead and repeat it. Maynard Hoffman: In the last meeting it was stated that the proposed dock had been granted a permit by the Army Corp of Engineers. Am I allowed to rebuke that statement? I can only do so by introducing a letter from the Army Corp of Engineers. It is dated June 10th, addressed to me, signed by Claudia Quate, Project Manager, Processing Section, Regulatory Branch, Department of the Army Seattle Corp of Engineers. Dear Mr. Hoffman, we have received your letter of June 3rd regarding the above referenced application for a US Army Corp of Engineers Permit. The May 25, 1996, Article in the Kitsap Reporter was indeed erroneous in its reference to the US Army Corp of Engineers' decision for this project. I will turn a copy of this letter over to the clerk Chairman Olsen: This is - May I interrupt you just for a second here? Maynard Hoffinan: Yes. Chairman Olsen: Was this in the testimony taken last month, at this hearing? Unidentified People: Yes. Chairman Olsen: Cause I am quickly reading that Jack stated that the Corp of Army Engineers does not review applications for a dock of this type until the local jurisdiction has issued its decision. Now I do remember that, I don't remember - Maynard Hoffinan: I remember him making a statement that he did have a permit from the Army Corp of Engineers. Bernard Holland: No. In my hand note 1 have here- I don't have, I don't have- Unidentified Person: I don't see that in the minutes. 13 Suzanne Holland: Ot~able to clctri, f)') Chairman Olsen: Okay. That isn't being recorded and that is the only reason - we'll have to go to counsel. Mr. Pratt? Donald Pratt: You are the arbiter of what the minutes say, the minutes have not been formally adopted yet. They are draft minutes that guide your direction you are the arbiter of whether or not - Chairman Olsen: You're the person who wrote the minutes do you remember anything being mentioned of'the Corp of Army Engineers, other than Jack mentioning it? Unidentified Person: No. Unidentified Person: We'll we do! Chairman Olsen: You were at the last meeting? Maynard Hoffman: Yes. Chairman Olsen: We are going to stop your time right now for a second so we can talk. Maynard Hoffman: Go ahead. Commissioner Dingfield: Point of order here Mr. Chair? Chairman Olsen: Okay. Commissioner Dingfield: I do have in my hand-written notes that a question came up, whether the Army Corp of Engineers had permitted this and I'm - maybe ifI look this up. It was a Mr. Paul 14 Shires or somebody who raised that question and that could be where Mr. Allingham stated that the Corp of Engineers does not review applications until the local jurisdiction has issued its decision. That's what I am showing in my hand written notes here. Donald Pratt: I just looked at the minutes and Mr. Shire, a Mr. Paul Shire of 1511 Madrona Point Drive addressed the Army permit process, the Corp of Engineers permit process. It was raised at the first hearing, according to the draft minutes. Chairman Olsen: Which would alloxv him to continue then. Donald Pratt: Yes, Yes. Unidentified Person: I just wanted to make your point. Chairman Olsen: Okay your time's started again Sir. Thank you. Maynard Hoffman: I'll star~ with another question Mr. Olsen Last month Mr. Holtz brought up his neighbor to the north, Mr. Bert Wallick. Now will I be allowed to comment on the determine of the non significance of last year? He opened the door, I feel I have the right to comment on it. Chairman Olsen: I'll turn to counsel again. Maynard Hoffman: He referred to his neighbor to the south and to his neighbor to the north Donald Pratt: The issue is whether or not - Maynard Hoffman: Pardon? Donald Pratt: The issue is whether or not a Declaration of Non-Significance was or was not an 15 issue and I don't recall that being in the minutes. So as far as addressing the issue, 1: don't think the rebuttal can speak to that. Maynard Hoffman: In other words we cannot comment on the fact that the dock was denied last year? Chairman Olsen: No, it wasn't brought up at our- at the last meeting. Maynard Hoffman: And that's way I'm asking ifI can bring it up now. Donald Pratt: No. Chairman Oisen: No, Maynard Hoffman: Although Mr. Holtz did comment on the neighbor to the north, Mr Wallic? True? Chairman Olsen: He just said he ,,vas not - I can not put words in Mr. Holtz's mouth, but he wasn't good friends with one neighbor and the other neighbor was going to be his sisters in time, and that is the only thing he said about the neighbor So I can't - I would say that we can't bring up something.just he said I wasn't a good friend. I don't think at the time the conversation was a- Maynard Hoffman: Well, as long as he brought him up, Mr. Wallace, and you admit it, I think I should be allowed to talk about him. And if you say no, I'll sit down, but I think you are making a wrong decision. Chairman Olsen: Okay, thank you Bernard Holland: Bernard Holland once again. It is your obligation to suppo~ compliance with the 16 Shoreline Master Program and vote against this approval. You should vote against it because in the fact finding sale on every point, the policy points 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8, are all negative. They're written down, Mr. Allingham filed a report. They're all negative, they all point to turning down this request. The findings fail on Regulations, on 2A, B, C, 3, 10, 11, 13, 14B, 5, 7. The conclusion statement only addresses the dock dimensions and it must on all other points. Consequently, it should fail It fails to satisfy the conditions required to be generally consistent with the State plan and the Shoreline Master Plan. It appears though that your minds' are made, that the public is going to loose out on this in favor of one lot. Chairman Olsen: Okay, we're going to call a recess right - Donald Pratt: There is two more minutes. Chairman Olsen: There is two more minutes? Okay. Jerry Perett: To address the issue, which I think is most - Chairman Olsen: Mare Donald Pratt: Excuse me mam, would you please identify yoursel£ Jerry Perett: I'm sorry, Jerry Perett, 2145 - Chairman Olsen: We can not take any testimony from you. This is a rebuttal only. Jerry Perett: All right. Chairman Olsen: I'm sorry. 17 Chairman Olsen: We have 2 minutes left. I'll stop the clock right now. If there is any one else? Wayne Iverson: Hello, my name is Wayne Iverson. Comments have been made about what this application has cost Mr. Holtz, as if it was relevant to the decision, it is not. This issue has cost people, on both sides, time and money. Myself I'm hesitant to speak here because last time I spoke at a planning meeting someone that disagreed with my position poured paint remover over my cars, something which cost me thousands of dollars But I Think this is very important to speak out about. I think probably my main point is that it is not his property and I know people have said that, this is a public water way. I am a bit frazzled here tonight because I was working with Mr. Wright and we were trying not to be redundant and I'm trying to sort through his notes and it is - unfortunately I can't read his writing very well, but I'll try and sort through a little bit of his - Mr. Chairman and Commission Members, prior to your vote on May 21st confirming the approval of Permit SL15-94 for Mr. Holtz, there were comments regarding the right of property owners, regarding shoreline development. The City's policy favoring the individual property owners dates back to the public hearing in 1992 when, considering amendments to the draft form. At that time council members of the prevailing side of the amendment voiced their positions supporting the concept of that it ~vas a long standing practice that the shoreline oxvners could develop their own frontage This policy carries over to today and the Planning Department's approval of this application reflects this policy. In the face of conflict within the SMP, the Planning Department's actions have historically favored property owners as per the policy of the council, Commission, and mayor. Consequently the Planning Department, in an attempt to comply with that general policy, has in this particular case been obligated to approve permit SL 15-94 contrary to their own findings Chairman Olsen: May I stop you just for a minute9 Catch your breath. As chair, I am going to allow Wayne to keep on speaking over his allotted time due to the one of two things One he was not prepared, he was hoping to let somebody else speak for him and our letter was - Wayne Iverson: It wasn't very clear 18 Chairman Olsen: Very clear and therefore, under that rule, I will allow him to have until seven o'clock. So, take your time. Wayne Iverson: You've been informed by the Department that if you overturned their approval, you need to provide them with a new policy directive to - in line with your actions. The requirements for Commission actions states, the policy Commission must determine if the director's decision is in compliance with the goals, policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. That is the directive placed upon you. You have no latitude to include any unwritten policy as per the City Attorney as your criteria is only to be the SMP. We have findings - with the findings of the Planning Commission a vote to approve the director's decision, which is contrary to those findings, will not stand at a court test. The findings point to compliance's deficiencies in nearly every reliant category. The drawings, and they are only drawings not plans as required, show gross deficiencies to comply with the SMP requirements. The pilings are planned to be approximately 20 feet out of the water at mean high water. In business with the director, he acknowledged conflicts with findings and compliance with the SMP, but ruled as to policy No where in City Government could I get a person to quote a definition of navigable water US Coast Guard quotes the federal definition of navigable water as, all internal water subject to tidal t~o,,v, reference 33, Code of Federal Regulations Section 2.05. Basically, I guess this is all he has here, but it seems to me that the whole discussion of point by point here a lot of this is subject to opinion You know, what is navigable water and I think really it's your decision to make to determine what growth in our area is going to be like. I mean do we, as a society, want growth - this kind of obstruction of water ways and stuff'to continue without a check? I grew up in Edmonds and when I was a kid I played on the water front there, I'd fish and swim. Now Edmonds has no long standing beach any more. It's all condominiums and marinas, it's gone. Here we have a chance to decide what the fate of this water way is going to be and I hope we make the right decision. That is all I have to say Chairman Olsen: Thank You, Wayne Chairman Olsen: Is there any one of the other persons, that signed the appeal on the administration 19 decision, that would like to speak? Hearing none, this meeting is closed to the Commission Oh excuse me, we'll go back until - will the and xvill the staffmake a final report? Jack Allingham: Yeah. Jack Allingham, Planning Department. I understand that at the hearing the Planning Commission was wondering what type of permits were required for this dock local, State and Federal Permits. The local permit is a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and the criteria for approval is the compliance with the goals, policies and regulations. End of Tape Side 1 Jack Allingham: (continuatiotO those of the Shoreline Management Act. The State of Washington State Department offish and Wild Life Administers the State's Hydraulic Code, RCW 75.20. A Hydraulic Project Approval has been issued by the Department offish and Wildlife. The criteria for issuing that permit is primarily limited to the adequacy of the means proposed for protection offish life. And then finally the federal permit that is required for this application or for this proposal is a Section 10 of the River and Harbors Act, administered by the United States Army Corp of Engineers, and the criteria for issuance of that permit is impact, including cumulative impacts on the public interests, protection and utilization of resources of national importance, the balance of benefits against responsible foreseeable detriments, all relevant factors, including accumulative affects, considering conservation, economics, esthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion, and excretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, consideration of property ownership, and the general needs and welfare of the people. The Army Corp of Engineers, as I understand, the Army Corp of Engineers I understand does not review an application until it has received final local approval and the City has not received a notice of an application for a corp permit. Finally the Department of Natural Resources I contacted the Department of Natnral Resources and their policy is that they permit private recreational docks, adjoining water front properties, without aquatic land leases and on an individual case by case, they determine who has what right along the tidelands. Generally, the 20 State owns to the mean lower low tide, but sometimes they own up to the mean tide elevation. But it seeded like a moot point with my conversation because they generally accept permit the construction of private recreational docks on the shoreline. And, finally I guess they-the City has received a complaint on Holtz's bulkhead and we are currently investigating that right now. Chairman Olsen: And that is your report for this evening- Jack Allingham: Yes. Chairman Olsen: On this subject? Unidentified Person: Chairman, I have a question Mr. Allingham I didn't quite catch your comments about DNR activity ~vith their involvement or non involvement or xvhat? JackAllingham: It was expressed to me, by contacting the Department of Natural Resources, that they do not peruse aquatic land leases for private recreational floats adjacent to shoreline properties. Unidentified Person: Okay, so they are not involved in this issue at all? Is that what I hear? Jack Allingham: That's what they indicated, yes. Unidentified Person: Okay. Chairman Olsen: Hearing no other comments The meeting is close to the Commission. For a person that don't know what this means, is xve can no longer take any type of testimony. The Commission though may ask questions of persons who have testified that clarify in their mind they will want to vote. I'll start with Joan. Commissioner Dingfield: Some how I knew you would Thank you Mr. Chairman As I was 21 getting ready for work and the day today I looked at my ... Unidentified Person: Can you speak into the mike so we can hear you please?. Commissioner Dingfield: Sure. As I was getting ready for work today I was looking at my little calendar that has all these wonderful sayings on it people gave me and I will say that today's saying I found particular appropriate because it said that no joy can equal the joy of serving others. And I thought it's going to be a very joyful day today. This has been a very difficult decision on all of our parts I think. I know we found that last time we were as we took that vote we were very divided about it because we've all come from different perspectives and we ali try and look at it-we bring our own experience to it and we listen very carefully to the testimony. What I based my last opinion on was the fact that certainly there were long term residents on both sides of the issue who spoke to it. I appreciate the change that the area has gone through. I can see that both sides have experienced the fact that there has been a lot of growth there, there's been a lot of change in the type of traffic and the speed of traffic. I know we kept hearing about safety issues which, in this particular case, you know really ought to be-the safety issues are occurring there, whether this dock were there or not,- and I had to think very carefully about that I still f'eel very strongly that this is an-Bremerton is an urban area. We have been defined as an urban area and even Kitsap County has defined urban areas within their Growth Management Plan that they are going through. It's been a very difficult decision for me, but I would-Obviously Mr Holtz has gone through a significant process in going through the permitting process to date, he still has many roads yet to hoe, it sounds like He still has a lot of permits, to a lot of steps to go through after this, but in this particular case I am feeling like I'm going to have to keep the vote, keep my vote the way I had the last time and support to uphold the Planning Department's decision. Chairman Olsen: Thank you, Larry. Commissioner Stone: Mr. Chairman, not xvithstanding the inconvenience the process has caused all the parties involved, I think I've some what benefited form it, because f had the opportunity to go 22 back through and really study the issues. I am going through the staff report and a great deal more of what I am going to mention at this point is probably somewhat redundant. But in going through the staffreport, the staffdoes say that the dock will not be a joint-use dock and will add proliferation of new docks, while the boating policy-the community goal policy indicate that they would prefer a multiple joint use facilities to avoid that sort of thing. Number two on the policies it indicates that such a dock would every dock should be constructed to minimize the obstruction of the equitable water is not to reduce the use of the water surface. The staff findings state that because the dock depth of water obstruction ofnavlgable water will occur. I am being to get confused to read through this thing, look at number 8 The View Protections. Stafffindings indicate that the dock will set a present for permitting dock within the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay and those shorelines. Other shorelines within Bremerton the cumulative impact of dock developments could result in significant and imperative views and in the impact of the shoreline. This channel has no other similar docks so we are talking about setting a precedence My concern is we are talking about setting a precedence admittedly the widest point in that channel. If we look at the regulations they clearly state the priority of granting a permit we should determine the effect of navigation recreation adjacent shoreline. Navigation near shore navigation will be impacted I am reading the staffwords. Water crat~ will have to maneuver around the structures people walking along the beach will have to climb over or under the dock. Keep in mind i haven't done these things I am simply reading the staffreport. Recreation usable water sun'ace will be reduced Recreation users know who's shallow draft vessels will have to stay clear of the dock, if we look at adjacent shorelines a visual impact the ascetic quality of the position shoreline will occur Natural views of the water will be replaced by views of the dock and its anchoring pile. Mr Holtz I am sure will be a great house keeper and a good house keeper on this issue. At the same time we can ride around the water and look at a awful lot of piling sticking up from docks that a one time we probably jewels. Item ten under Regulation Piers prohibited if significantly impair navigation and interests at buoy, bays, channels, or coves. The staff findings is that the docks are relativity in a relativity narrow channel 650 feet at high tide 150 Foot dock will reduce the channel to 400 feet at high tide and that is a miracle in math. At zero tide the dock will project 40 feet water word reducing the channel to 337 feet and again I have some difficulty with the math but though it would appear to be 39% impairment at high tide, 49% impairment at low 23 tide. To me that is significant impairment. Recognizably with the exception of the noted findings the dock is properly engineered. It meets all requirements of law, and all the regulations except number 2 and number 10 as I have noted. Recognizably all the negative findings are quantity even vastly subject to opinion. However everyone is still puzzled by the granting of the permit for the following reasons. Were being asked to make a decision a precedence setting the decision on a facility that is minimally the most favorable point in the whole channel. Two is acknowledged the permit will establish a president this allowing the proliferation of docks that less favorable points in the channel and undiversible result according to the Shoreline Management Plan. Three is to acknowledge the accumulative impact the dock could be negative none of us knows that is going to be negative. Thus justifying refi~sal as clearly established in case law in the state of Washington, and in the case of Hayze vs Yelton 1976 in Sharget County vs The Departlnent of Ecology in 1980. The Washington Administrative Code 173 14 150 percent 4 says in the granting of all variance permits the shoreline cases consideration shall be the accumulative impact of addiction request for like actions in the area. The final point is this, there has been a great deal of discussion about the amendment property rights and I am sure you are all familiar with the 1st amendment free speech rights. The courts have repeatedly established the fact that you can't exercise the first amendment free speech right by yelling fire in a theater that sort of thing. You can exercise that right to judgment of others when we talked about the property rights of the property owner on waterfront I don't know and I am not a lawyer but the question in my mind is rather substantial is what is their right relative to the water It seems to me that we are talking about a water way that is a public right, its a public issue, its a public thing. I don't know who's right so I am going to surpass here but I have talked about this situation and believe me it has become complex. This stands to revolve around the right of nearly the waterfront property owners. It seems to me there are a great many citizens in the city of Bremerton who also have fights on that water. Who use that channel even though they don't live on the waterfront So I have a great concern about the impact the docks as they relate to other uses. There are other uses and other right involved also. I have talked to three members of the Bremerton Yacht Club who have expressed some concern about utilizing that channel for their Christmas Parade. I don't know where these right are. I do know that on accumulative basis I can do nothing other than to vote as I did last time to over ride the directors decision. 24 Chairman Olsen: Bill. Commissioner Robinson: We'll, Mr. Chairman Thank you. This is a complex issue of course at even scattering that is the very hostile issue. The motions haven't subsisted any since that meeting a month ago, I have read and re-read the staffreport I have looked at the minutes, I have looked at my hand written notes to see ifI had missed anything or anything jumped out at me and might be in this proposal. Listen very carefully tonight I've heard the same thing I guess that I would have to say I haven't heard enough to influence me to change my vote from the way I voted last month. The very emotional issues of the boat traffic and the double water skiers and the speed and the possible use of alcohol of this boating has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not this dock is there or not. I could probable give you a ve~T good argument though I am sure a lot of you would will to argue back that a dock of this dimension which admittedly is the maximum size allowed. Would have some what ora restrictive presence in that particular area. If I were a boater which I am not and I saw that thing sticking up the front of me I was doing 40 mph I would probably throttle back. Not knowing ifI has any clear height or not I would probably want to go around it, that's only a personal opinion. I gave the issue of pl'ecedence some ve~ waited consideration this test was one ofmy big hang ups. Yes, there are no other docks on either side of that and a yes if we approve this my definition we established a precedence. Let me assure you remind you which I am sure you pretty well know that establishing a precedence it doesn't necessarily follow that precedence is going to continue. If another dock is proposed by anyone of any dimension of any size that wilt come before the Planning Department of Planning. It will come before they commissioned it can be appealed to the City Council or want to appeal somewhat at one time. So the fact that one dock is being built doesn't mean that there is going to be a couple of dozen docks out there in the next five or ten years and I would guess that some where up to 35 to 40 thousand dollars a pop there might not be very many docks. So not being a boater I don't think I would invest my money in that, but that's neither here nor there. I understand the emotions of the issue 1 understand some of the concerns but I haven't heard a resound argument that is going to cause me to change my vote which is to support and be in favor of this dock being built. Thank You, Mr. Chairman 25 Mr. Chairman: John Commissioner Hancock: I hadn't anticipated that a __ speech. The thing that gets me about this dock is that its precedence setting. It's like Mr. Stone mentioned, and I disagree with Bill within 6 months to a year there will probably be three or four other docks out there. I won't take up anybody else's time but I won't change my vote from last time which was the disapproval. Thank you Mr. Chairman: Is there any other comments do I here a motion. And the Motion: will be to uphold the Directors Approval. Do we understand that, is this what we Unidentified People: Motion to the contrary Unidentified Person: I would like to make that motion Mr. Chairman Chairman Olsen: Ok. Don Pratt: Excuse me Mr. Chairman just for clarification you had three options: to uphold the Directors decision, to over turn the Directors decision, or to remand the Directors decision, Chairman Olsen: Mum, understood. Unidentified Person: You also changed the Directors decision. Chairman Olsem Right. Unidentified Person: Modified it. Unidentified Person: Right. 26 Unidentified Person: They are all valid actions on your part this evening. Chairman Olsen: Ok I'll speak a little bit about remanding or back to the Director, I think we have a lot of the public here tonight. I think we have heard a lot of testimony last month. I don't believe though it will do very much good this is a very emotional but for me know has become quite a safety concern in the channel. I think this has to be addressed some where along the lines. The Corp of the Army Engineers may or may not take that position. They will not guarantee that, that they run their own essence ship. I would like to noxv have a member call for a vote. Unidentified Person: I will make a motion. Unidentified Person: Seconded. Unidentified Person: Chairman I move that we overturn the directors decision Unidentified Person: Is there a second? Chairman Olsen: I'll second, ok a motion has been maae to over turn the directors decision it has been seconded. Any questions? Unidentified Person: Yes. Robinson no, Hancock approved, Dingfield no, Olsen yes, The motion passes. Chairman Olsen: I would like the people to stay a little longer to than just this meeting. Unidentified Person: Mr. Chairman 27 Chairman Olsen: I'm looking at the rest of my commissioner members Donald Pratt: May I advise the public of the next process. Chairman Olsen: Ok the next process please. Donald Pratt: The decision by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the city council. The decision by the Planning Commission may be appeal by the city council, such an appeal must be made within 14 days that appeal to according to new state law will be held on the record. No new evidence may be introduced in other ~vords the decision is made by the city council on their review of the record which was created this evening. In order to make such an appeal please contact the Department o£Community Development. We can help facility you actions. Chairman Olsen: Is there any questions to tbe process of the appeal. Dick Wright: My question is with regard to Mr. Pratt's determination as to what would be allowed before the city council. You implied that it was only that information that was developed this evening is it not the testimony that came before the committee through out. Donald Pratt: Through out your correct. Dick Wright: Thank you. Chairman Olsen: Any other question9 We recess for 5 minutes. Unidentified Person: 5 minutes. - End of Transcript- 28 CEIVED CITY COUNCIL OFFICE". ' DATE BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL In Re: The approval of a shoreline substantial development permit for Don Holtz and Lora Short at 1542 Madrona Pt. Drive MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Approximately twvo years ago, Don Holtz and Lora Short applied for a shoreline substantial development permit to construct a private recreational floating dock accessory to their single family residence at 1542 Madrona Point Drive. In review of the initial application, the Director of the Planning Department, Don Pratt, issued a determination of non-significance having determined that there were no significant environmental impacts as a result of this proposal. This initial DNS was appealed by Bert Wallach and Robert Hunter. Those appeals raised enviromnentaI issues and also challenged the appropriateness of this dock based upon channel width dimensions that the appellants provided to the Planning Department. As a result of those earlier appeals, the Planning Department ;vithdrew its original determination of non-significance and asked Mr. Holtz to provide additional information to the City. The City wanted more information on the width and depth of the channel near his proposed dock location and some other environmental issues. Mr. Holtz commissioned the engineering MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -1- firm of Parametrix in Bremerton to do a shoreline survey on each side of the channel, 700 feet on each side of the area proposed for the siting of the dock. This shoreline survey established a sufficient channel width for the dock as originally proposed by Mr. Holtz. This information took approximately 6-8 months to compile. The Planning Department then reissued its determination of non-significance based upon the additional information provided by Mr. Holtz. The Planning Department then did a complete review of the proposal and Planning Director Don Pratt issued a shoreline substantial development permit for Mr. Holtz' project, finding that the requirements of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) had been met. The approval of the shoreline substantial development permit by Mr. Pratt was on March 28, 1996. After Mr. Pratt approved the project, there were several appeals filed to the Planning Commission. The appellants were Suzanne and Bernard Holland, Wayne Iverson, Cathy Gallagher, Sandy Verhelst and Maynard Hoffman. Pursuant to these appeals, the Bremerton Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on Tuesday, May 21, 1996 at the Bremerton City Council Chambers. At this hearing, there were a substantial number of people who testified in support of Mr. Pratt's decision to approve the shoreline substantial development permit. There were approximately half as many people opposing Mr. Pratt's decision to issue the permit. After considering all of the testimony by all of the witnesses, the Planning Commission affirmed the Planning Director's decision and voted to again approve the shoreline substantial development permit. Apparently after this approval, one of the appellants, Suzanne Holland, argued to the Planning Commission Chairman that she had not been provided an opportunity to rebut the MEMORANDUM OF -2- AUTHORITIES evidence presented in support of Mr. Pratt's decision to approve the shoreline substantial development permit. The Planning Commission Chair, Wayne Olsen, indicated that he would call Don Pratt at home and ask him for direction. This was done and Mr. Olsen indicated that he would provide Suzarme Holland and the other appellant, Kathy Gallagher, an oppommity to rebut the facts presented and that the Planning Commission would then take another vote. Apparently, Kathy Gallagher had gone home and did not return. As a result, the Planning Commission set its hearing over an additional month to allow for rebuttal. On June 18, 1996, the Planning Commission reconvened and considered the rebuttal testimony of Holland and Gallagher. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission also allowed testimony of other persons who were not present at the original meeting and allowed testimony to go beyond rebuttal of previous testimony into new areas and new issues. A second unfortunate event that occurred was that at the June 18 meeting, the Planning Commission only had five members instead of the seven that xvere present on the May 21 meeting. Ultimately, the Chairman of the Planning Commission changed his vote and the Planning Cormmission disapproved Mr. Pratt's decision by a three to t~vo vote. This appeal follows. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The City Council must determine if the Planning Commission eh:ed in reversing the original decision of the Planning Director. More succinctly stated, the test is whether the Director's decision to approve the shoreline substantial development permit was in compliance MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -3- with the goals, policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program) After hearing this appeal, the City Council may take any of the following actions: 1. Uphold the Director's decision and reverse the Planning Commission. 2. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to overturn the decision. 3. Modify the decision. 4. Remand to the Planning Commission for further consideration (the City Council should include the specific issues to be considered upon remand). HI. LEGAL ANALYSIS Proiect Description: The applicants request approval of a shoreline permit to construct a private recreational floating dock accessory to a single family residence which will extend 142 feet from the shoreline in the area between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential: 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre Zonin~ Designation: Single Family Three (SF-3) Use Location: 1. Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Map Designation: Urban Residential Environment: R-2, Ostrich Bay West IThe record on appeal was not made available to Mr. Holtz until the day after the due date for this memorandum. Mr. Holtz reserves the right to supplement his rebuttal brief with record citations as necessary. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -4- Discussion: The Shoreline Master Program at Chapter 3 provides a Shoreline Use/Activity Matrix, Table 3-1 allows piers and docks as permitted uses within the Urban Residential Shoreline Environment. Criteria for Action: In determining that a shoreline substantial development permit should be approved, Mr. Pratt found compliance with criteria from the following documents: The State Shoreline Management Act (SMA): The Shoreline Management Substantial Development process, including public notification and a 30~day review period, has been followed. Construction of the proposed project is not authorized until 30 days have lapsed from the date the final decision was received by the Department of Ecology or until any appeal procedures have been completed. The Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP): Chapter 3, Environmental Designations and Requirements provides Shoreline Use/Activity Matrix, Table 3-1 which permits "water access and moorage facilities" including piers and docks within the Urban Residential Environment shoreline designation. The Planning Director found in his initial approval of the application that the following goals and applicable policies and regulations were to be considered: SMPGOAL: To ensure that adequate ~vater access and moorage facilities are available to the public and individuals, without adversely impacting the natural aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. To provide the decisions in achieving the above stated goal, the SMP provides the following policies: POLICIES Community Boating Facilities: Multiple use and expansion of existing consistent piers, wharfs and docks is encouraged (in lieu of the addition and/or proliferation of new facilities) in order to minimize the consumption of limited shoreline resources. Joint-use facilities are preferred over new single use piers, docks and floats. Proposed City Council Finding: The dock will be a joint-use dock. The applicants have stated that they will make their dock available to neighboring properties. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -5- Piers, Docks and Floats: Piers, docks and recreational floats should be constructed so as to minimize obstruction of navigable waters and not significantly reduce use of the water surface. Proposed Cit'v Council Finding: The dock will extend approximately 142 feet beyond the ordinary high water mark and have a surface coverage of 608 square feet. Because the dock achieves a usable depth of water, obstruction of navigable waters w/Il only rarely occur. Piers and Docks: The number, size and length of piers and docks should be no more than the minimum that provides the required service. Proposed City Council Finding: The size and length of the dock has been designed to provide a stable platform to service a vessel. The dock extends waterward to reach a depth of 5 feet measured at mean low water (MLW). It is the intent of the Shoreline Master Program to allow "useable" docks. Having a dock with less size and length will not make it useable in most circumstances. Piers/Floating Docks: Encourage the use of floats in lieu of piers in those areas where scenic values are high, and where conflicts with recreational boaters and fishers are not greatly increased. Proposed City Council Finding: The proposal utilizes floats anchored by pilings. Piers: Only open pile piers should be permitted where shore trolling is important and/or where there is significant longshore drift. Proposed Citw Council Finding: The channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay has a relatively low rate of long shore drift due to its relative low energy environment. There is no documentation sho~ving that shore trolling within this channel is of any importance. Not applicable. Not applicable. View Protection: Locate, design and operate piers, wharves, docks and floats so as to be aesthetically compatible with the area visually affected, and protect surrounding properties from undue impairment of views. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -6- .2_70 Proposed City Council Finding: The majority of the neighboring property owners support this dock. The dock will not unduly impair views because of the existing floats and buoys. Similar docks are found in the immediate vicinity of the channel in Oyster Bay. REGULATIONS General 1. Not applicable. Prior to granting a permit for a pier, dock or float, the effects of the structure upon navigation, recreation and adjacent shorelines shall be determined and disposition of the permit by the City shall reflect such determination. Proposed City Council Finding: The following effects will occur: Navigation: Near shore navigation will be somewhat impacted. Water craft will need to maneuver around the structure at higher tides only. Recreation: Useable water surface area will be reduced. People walking along the beach will climb over the float or go underneath the ramp. Adjacent Shorelines: A visual impact to the aesthetic quality of the existing shoreline will occur. Natural views of the water will be replaced by views of a dock and its anchored pilings. The applicant has reduced the scope and design of the dock to reduce diminution of natural views. Water access and moorage facilities shall be located, designed and constructed so as to cause minimum interference with navigation and public use of the xvater surface and the shoreline and to protect surrounding properties from undue impairment of views. Proposed CiW Council Finding: The dock has been designed to comply with a maximum permissible length to achieve a 5 foot depth of water at mean low water. If the dock is reduced in size or length, its ability to function at low tides will be impaired in violation of the intent of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Plan to allow for "useable" docks. 4. Not applicable. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -7- 5. Not applicable. Pre-existing residential lots: For residential lots existing at the time this program is adopted (2/2/92): No more than one private, noncommercial single-use dock is permitted per platted shoreline lot or unplatted shoreline tract owned for residential or recreational purposes. Proposed City Council Finding: This proposal will provide one dock for one platted shoreline lot which was platted prior to 2/22/92. 7. Not applicable. 8. Not applicable. 9. Not applicable. Piers and Docks 10. Prohibited: Piers and floating docks shall be prohibited where navigation may be impaired significantly at entrances to bays, channels or coves. Proposed CiW Council Finding: This dock is not at an entrance to a channel but along the widest par~ of the channel between Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay. This charmel has a width of approximately 650 feet at the dock's location. The dock will project 142 feet waterward thus reducing the charmel width to 508 feet at high tide. When the tide ebbs to a zero foot tidal elevation, the dock will be unusable and will not impact charmel width. If there is navigational impairment, the United States Army Corps of Engineers will not allow the dock to be constructed. 11. Location: Piers and docks shall project the minimum distance necessary to service the appurtenant vessels and shall not create a hazard to navigation. Proposed City Council Finding: The dock extends 142 feet waterward to reach a depth of 5 feet measured at mean low water. Mean low water is a tidal elevation of +2.6 feet above mean lower Iow water which is 0 feet. This dock is in compliance with the maximum permissible length set forth by Regulation No. 14 (a). 12. Not applicable. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -8- 13. 14. Outside Harbor Areas: Where State harbor lines do not apply, piers and docks shall project the minimum distance necessary to service the appurtenant vessels and shall not create a hazard to navigation. Proposed City Council Finding: The dock projects 142 feet to reach a depth of water of 5 feet measured at mean low water. The dock has been designed to comply with the maximum permissible length as allowed by Regulation No. 14 (a). Size: (a) Length: Maximum length of residential pier or dock shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish moorage for the intended boating uses, and shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of 5 feet of water as measured at mean low water in marine shorelines or as measured at Ordinary High Water and fresh water shorelines. Proposed City Council Finding: The dock projects 142 feet to reach a depth of 5 feet of water as measured at mean low water thus is in compliance with this length requirement. (b) Height: The dock shall not exceed 3 feet in height above Ordinary High Water on the landward side and shall extend above the water surface no more than 2 feet at all other locations. Proposed Citw Council Finding: The dock has approximately 1 foot of freeboard above the water line and thus complies with this requirement. (c) Private/Single Use Docks: Landing area deck maximum length parallel to shore of "T" end: 10 feet; 2. Walkway maximum width: 4 feet; 3. Landing area deck maximum width: 8 feet. Proposed City Council Finding: The dock as proposed complies with width and length dimensions. (d) Not applicable. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -9- (e) Side Yard Setbacks: Docks shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from side property lines. Proposed City Council Finding: The dock is located so that there is a 10 foot setback from the adjoining property line. Director's Decision: Based upon an analysis of the above enumerated criteria, the Planning Director concluded that the project and the application are generally consistent with the State Shoreline Management Act and the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. As the intent of the Shoreline Master Program generally is to allow for "useable" docks and because this dock specifically is in compliance with the length regulations of the Shoreline Management Plan, the Director concluded that a substantial development permit should be granted. To have shortened the length of the dock would have made it unusable a majority of the time. It is unclear as to why the Planning Commission ultimately reversed the decision of the Planning Director on this project after initially approving it. However, as the following arguments point out, there is no legal basis upon which to deny the substantial development permit and the decision of the Director should be upheld by this City Council. IV. DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS UPON WHICH A SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SHOULD BE DENIED MR. HOLTZ AS HIS APPLICATION MEETS EVERY REQUIREMENT OF THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT AND THE CITY OF BREMERTON SHORELINE MASTER PLAN. Opponents Argue That Annrovinff This Dock Will Set a Precedent. Arguments were made before the Planning Commission that the approval of this shoreline substantial development permit would set a precedent for the City of Bremerton. In fact, the opposite is true. Denying this shoreline substantial development permit would set a precedent. We have found no evidence of any previous denials of a shoreline substantial development permit for a dock in the City of Bremerton for the last twenty years. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -10- The denial of tiffs shoreline substantial development permit would certainly be determined by a reviewing body to be an arbitrary and capricious action. Over the last 20 years, the City of Bremerton has encouraged waterfront property owners to obtain shoreline substantial This activity has been encouraged development permits to construct docks on their properties. by the City for several reasons: (a) It allows waterfront property owners to better enjoy the shoreline and the waterways for boating and recreation activities. (b) It increases the value of waterfront properties an average of $70,000.00 per residence which increases the tax base for the City. (c) Modem docks constructed in accordance with fisheries requirements enhance rather than detract from the aesthetics and environmental quality of the shoreline. (d) The size and shape of docks is regulated by the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. In reviewing previous decisions of the City on this issue, there are numerous examples of shoreline substantial development permits being granted for docks which are much larger in scale than the one proposed by Mr. Holtz. For example, last year the City approved a dock in Oyster Bay which is not only a 150 feet long which also contains a 5-1/2 foot wide walkway to an 8 foot by 20 foot float or tee. On Oyster Bay alone, there are 11 docks in existence. In fact, there are docks in the immediate vicinity of Mr. Holtz property constructed within the last 3 years, the largest of which are over 220 feet in length. It is important to remember that the applicant in the instant case redesigned and downsized his dock to accommodate not only his neighbors but concerns raised by Planning staff. The original dock designed by Mr. Holtz had a 40 foot by 8 foot finger at the end of the walkway. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -11- This has been downsized to now have only an 8 foot by 10 foot tee at the end of the walkway. In addition, this dock has been designed so that it will accommodate pedestrians on the beach areas at lower tides. There is a ramp which is 40 feet long and 6 feet high. This allows for people to walk under the ramp, thus presenting no beach obstruction. In addition, the float has been designed so that it is only 2 feet high when it is laying on the beach. This allows for anyone to cross the float at any point at low tide. More important, this dock will be completely out of the water at Iow tide. Persons who argue that this dock is a threat to navigation have obviously not reviewed the surveys performed by Parametrix or talked to the Army Corps of Engineers. At zero or minus tide, this dock is completely out of the water. As a result, this dock will never be a full-time moorage facility. A dock which is completely out of the water at low tide obviously will not adversely affect navigation. Before the tide is completely out, boats will still need to stay in the middle of the channel to avoid running aground. In summary, it would be precedent setting and in all probability illegal for the City not to grant this permit. This dock specifically falls within the size requirements of the Bremerton SMP. (See Section 14 attached as Exhibit "A"). B. THE PRESENCE OF THIS DOCK WILL NOT PRESENT A HAZARD FOR OTHER BOATERS. Opponents to this permit argue that the establishment of this dock will be dangerous, forcing smaller boaters and kayaks into the navigation channel where high speed power boats are "zooming in and out of Oyster Bay". It is important to remember that this dock will not protrude into Oyster Bay any farther than existing floats, buoys and moored boats. These floats, buoys and moored boats have existed MEMORANDUM OF -12- AUTHORITIES in the Oyster Bay channel for 20 years or more. What the opponents do not tell you is that there is a 7 knot speed limit in the channel. Attached as Exhibit "B" to this memorandum and incorporated by reference is the Kitsap County Ordinance specifically showing a 7 knot speed limit in this area. As previously mentioned, at low tide Mr. Holtz dock as well as the existing floats and buoys are not even floating. All boating traffic needs to go through the center of the channel because the tideland areas adjoining it are out of the water. You will also note from the testimony presented by Mr. Holtz and others who live on the channel, small boats, rowers and kayaks presently navigate the center of the channel. To suggest that small boaters and kayaks hug the shoreline continuously when they are out in their water craft ignores the reality of what people like to do. This evidence was presented to the Planning Commission and, in fact, an attempt ~vas made to introduce a video tape documenting the existing behavior of rowers and kayakers in the Oyster Bay charmel. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission did not desire to view the video tape. However, because the video tape was submitted to the Planning Commission, it is appropriate for the City Council to review this videotape as part of the record should it so desire. This videotape ~vill provide uncontroverted, demonstrative evidence that this dock will have no impact on the behavior of small boaters and kayakers in the Oyster Bay channel. It is also important to remember that there are presently existing moored boats and floats which extend farther into the channel than the end of Mr. Holtz proposed dock. While the float on the end of Mr. Holtz' proposed dock is only 10 feet wide, existing floats and moored boats are significantly larger in size extending up to 30 feet in width. Kayakers and small boaters MEMORANDUM OF - 13- AUTHORITIES proceeding through tiffs charmel will necessarily navigate the middle of the channel to avoid existing structures and boats. The existing practice of kayakers and small boaters when confronted with a larger boat coming toward them is to turn to th~ east or west within the channel to allow the larger boat to pass. As a result, the addition of the dock in front of the Holtz property will not change the pattern presently utilized for small boaters and kayakers at all. Finally, the Parametrix survey clearly demonstrated that the area where the Holtz dock is to be constructed represents the widest part of the charmel between Oyster Bay and Ostricl~ Bay. Even with the construction of the dock as proposed, there will still be more room in the channel by the Holtz property than anywhere else between those two bodies of water. C. THIS DOCK IS SUPPORTED BY A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE AREA. Opponents argue that the/ have petitions signed by hundreds of people who are in opposition to the dock. It will not take much analysis for the City Council to see that most of the signators to the opponent's petition are people who do not live on the channel and upon which this dock xvill have no impact whatsoever. This tactic is typically seen used by opponents to projects where they simply ask people to sign petitions. People are frequently afraid to say no to such a request and go ahead and sign. The petitions submitted by the opponents need to be judged in this light. Conversely, the 32 signors of the petition in support of the project are all neighbors and users of the Oyster Bay channel. In fact, 82% of the property owners adjoining the Oyster Bay channel on Madrona Point have signed petitions supporting this project. In addition, several of Mr. Holtz neighbors testified before the Plarming Commission and transcripts are available of their testimony for your review. These witnesses should be given considerably more weight than MEMORANDUM OF -14- AUTHORITIES those who are not property owners or even users in many instances. D. ~ ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES HAVE BEEN FAVORABLY RESOLVED. ODnonents argue that the presence of this dock will have detrimental environmental impact on the shoreline environment. As has been pointed out in our procedural summary, the environmental issues in this case have already been resolved. The City has issued a determination of non-significance. This determination of non-significance (DNS) has not been appealed. The opponents are now precluded from arguing that there are adverse environmental consequences as procedurally, all State Environmental Policy issues have been resolved in favor of Mr. Holtz. ~ E. THE OPPONENTS ARGUE THAT THIS SHOULD BE A SHARED OR JOINT DOCK. Opponents argue to the Planning Commission that this dock should be a shared or ioint dock. As Mr. Holtz testified, the neighbors on each side of his current residence are in their eighties. One of their houses is presently for sale. Mr. Holtz has extended the invitation to his neighbors that they are welcome to use his dock at no expense. This will be a shared or joint dock at some point in the future. This fact can be included as a condition of approval. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -15- V. CONCLUSION As you can see from the record presented to the Planning Commission, none of the arguments presented by the opponents has provided any legal basis upon which to reverse the decision of the Planning Department to approve the shoreline substantial development permit. In fact, when you analyze each of these arguments that are made, you can see that none of them are appropriately raised within the shoreline substantial development permit approval process as previously explained in this Memorandum. The present situation in the Oyster Bay channel is that during the summertime, boats of up to 30 feet in length are tied up at existing buoys which extend farther into the channel than the dock proposed by Mr. Holtz. Clearly, a 30 foot boat tied up to a buoy with a 30 foot swing in all directions from the buoy presents a much greater potential problem for other boaters and water users than a dock which is fixed in place and closer to the shoreline than these existing floats and buoys. Finally, the opponents argue that this dock will be a threat to navigation of the Oyster Bay channel. It is important to remember that the issue of whether this dock presents any hazard to navieation is a determination solely within the province of the United States Army Corps of Eneineers. Once a permit is granted by the City., the next step will be for the Army Corps of Engineers to determine whether any navigational hazards are presented to the boating public as a result of the granting of this permit. If the Corps determines that there is a navigational problem, it will deal with that in its permitting process. It is a "red herring" for the opponents to argue impacts of navigation as there is no evidence in the record providing navigational analysis. It is also misleading for the opponents to argue safety issues. As has been pointed out, MEMORANDUM OF - 16- AUTHORITIES there is a 7 knot speed limit throughout the channel because of existing floats and buoys. If people are currently "zooming in and out" of the channel, there is an enforcement problem which will exist whether Mr. Holtz has a dock or not. It is clear that the decision of the Director to approve this permit was the correct decision. It is also clear that the initial vote of the Planrfing Commission to uphold this decision was the correct vote. The City Council should approve this permit. DATED this 9th day of September, 1996. Respectfully submitted, WSBA #8858 Attorney for Holtz/Short D:\WPDOCSkHOLTZhMEMORAND MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -17- 13. Findinq: State Harbor Line have not been designated. outside Harbor Areas: Where State harbor lines do not apply, piers and docks shall project the minimum distance necessary to service the appurtenant vessels and shall not create a hazard to navigation. Findinq: The dock projects 150 ft. to reach a depth of water of 5 feet measured at MLW. The dock has been designed to comply with the maximum permissible length as allowed by Regulation No. 14.a. (5 Ft. depth of at mean low water). The dock could be constructed with less waterward intrusion at the expense of its ability to func~ ~ ]ow ~ides. 14. Size: a. Length: Maximum length of a residential pier or dock shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish moorage for the intended boating uses, and shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of five (5) feet of water as measured at Mean Low Water (MLW) in marine shorelines or as measured at Ordinary High Water (OHWM) in fresh water shorelines. Findinq: The dock projects 150 ft. to reach a depth of 5 feet of water as measured at MLW. Height: Dock shall not exceed three (3) feet in height above OHWM on the landward side, and shall extend above the water surface no more than two (2) feet at all other locations. Findinq: The dock has approximately 1 foot of freeboard above the water line. Private, Single Use Docks: 1) Landing area deck maximum length parallel to of "T" end: Ten (10) feet; shore 3) Landing area deck maximum width: Eight (8) feet. 2) Walkway maximum width: Four (4) feet; Findinq: The dock as proposed complies with the maximum ~ width and length dimensions. Community Piers and Docks: EXHIBIT "A" 46.61.506; or (2) The person has 0.i0 percent or mom by weight of alcohol in the person's blood as shown by analysis of the person's blood in tile Sanle m~rnnt~ as 1~'o ~i~ in RCW 46.61.506; or (3) The person is under the influence of or affectexl by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or (4) The person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug. Co) The fact that any person charged with a violation of the section is or has been entitled to use such drag under the laws of this slate shall not constitute a defense against any charge of violating this section. (c) AIl teste for alcohol or drag of any person's blocxl or breath shall be subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.506. (d) Penalties. (1) The penalty for operating a vessel under the imqu- ence of alcohol and/or drags shallbe punished by imPriSon- ment for not less than twenty-four consecutive houm nor more than one year, and by a fine of not less than twO hundred fifty dollars, and not more than one thousand dollars. Unless the court fads a violator to be indigent, two hundred fifty dollars of the fine shall not be suspended or deferred. Twenty-four consecutive hours of any jail sentence shall not be suspended or deferred, unless the court fads that the imposition of the jail sentence will pose a risk to the violator's physical or mental well-being. Whenever the mandatory jail sentence is suspended or deferred, thc court shall state in writing the mason for granting the suspension or deferral, and the facts upon which the suspension or deferral is granted. (2) On a second or subsequent conviction for operating a vessel while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs within a five-year period, or when the violator has been convicted of driving or being in physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating I/quor and/or drugs within a five-year period, the violator shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than seven days nor more than one year and by a fine of not less than five hundred doll~m and not more than two thousand dollars. Unless the court fads a violator to be indigent, five hundred dollars of the frae shall not be suspended or deferred. The jail sentence shall not be suspended or deferred, unless the court finds that the imposition of the jail sentence will pose a risk to the violator's physical or mental well-being. Whenever the mandatory jail sentence is suspended or deferred, the court shall stete in writing the reason for grunting the suspension or deferral, and the facts upon which the suspension or deferral is granted. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 9, 1992) 10-36.100 Incapacity of operator. It is unlawful for any person who owns or is in control of any vessel to authorize or knowingly pen~t the same to be operated by any pemon who by rea.son of physical or mental disability, incapacity or immaturity is incapable of operating such vessel under the prevailing cinznm~tance& includihg the type, size and motive power of the vessel, and the weather and water conditions. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 10, 1992) 10.36.110 Underage operator. It is unlawful for any minor under thc age of sixteen years to operate or be permitled, by the owner or person having charge of a motorboat, to operate a motorboat powered by a motor of ten horsepower or more unless accompanied by a person who is over the age of eighteen. Provided that supervision by an adult is not requked of a minor under the age of sixteen who has completed the U.S. Coast Guard Basic Boating Safety Course, Power Squadron Boatmg comz, e or other recognized boating safety course, and has received a certificate therefor. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 11, 1992) 10~36.120 Steering and sailing. Except as provided elsewhere herein, all vessels using the waters of Kitsap County shall comply with the steering and sailing roles contained in the International Regulations For Preventing Collksions At Sea, 1972, also known as the 72 COLREGS (Cedified by Tire 33, CF~ Part 81 and Appendix A thereof). (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 12, 1992) 10.36.130 Speed Emit. Except as perm/tied hi Section I0.36.270, it ks unlawful for any person to operate a vessel at a speed sufficient to create a wake or in excess of seven nautical miles per hour, whichever is less, within one hundred fifty feet of any shoreline, i~..~., breakwater or restricted area. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 13, 1992) 10.36.140 Interference with navigation. No person shall operate a vessel in a manner which unre~onably or mmecessanly interferes with the operation of another vessel or the launching of any vessel at any public boat launching ramp. Anchoring or mooting under abridge or in a channel or in an approach to a public boat Iiantol~lg ramp ~hall COnstiPdte interference with navigation. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 14, 1992) 10.36.150 Mooring at private docks without permission. No person shall moor a vessel to a private seawall or pier unless licensed, invited or otherwise privileged to do so, or beach a vessel upon private property il-notice agaLnst 242 10.36.020 (6) "Personal flotation device" means life preservers, buoyant vests, special-purpose water safety devices, buoyant cushions, ring buoys, and work vnsks. (7) "Pier" means any co.,mmercial, public, or private pier, wbaff,~doc_k, float, gridiron or other sa'uctm-e intended to provide for the loading or unloading or other discharge of vessels or for thek service or repair, or to provide access for persons to the water from the shore for fishing, swim- ming or any other water-related activity. (8) "Resu'icted area" means an area that has been des- ignated to be used for, or closed to, certain purposes such as swimming, underwater diving and competitions or exhibitions. (9) "Swimming" means floating on an air maaxess, innermbe or other similar inflahable device (not including inflahable rafts) as well as propelling or floating oneseff in die water. (I0) "Underwater diving" means the activity of submerg- ing in water while equipped with snorkeling, hard hat, or scuba diving equipment. (11) "vesser' means any contrivance used or designed for navigation or as a means of transportation on water. (12) "Wa~m" means ail navigable waters, salt and fresh, in Kitsap County. (13) "Water skier" meats a person m tow from a vessel riding on water skis, aquapla~e, surfboard, or other similar device. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 2, 1992) 10.36.030 Numbering required. All vessels used on ',he waters of thi~ county shall be numbered or designated in accordance with any applicable United S hates or Washington S hate law as now or hereafter amended. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 3, 1992) 10.36.040 Equipment A vessel shall carry and use in the manner prescribed that equipment, including personal flotation devices, visual distress signals, means of ventilation, navigation lights, ftre extinguishing equipment, and b~kflre flame control devices required for such vessel by WAC Chapter 352-60 (Exhibit A, attached to the ordinance codified in tiffs chapter) as now or hereafter amended. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 4, 1992) 10.36.050 Whistles and lights. Except when necessary as a wamiag or in an emergency it is unlawful for any perth to blow or sound a whistle or bom of any vessel or shine a searchlight or other bright light onto any houseboat or other residence, or orrto the bridge or into the pilothouse or any other area of any vessel under way in a manner likely to reduce the vision of the operator. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 5, 1992) 10..36.060 Mufflers. (a) It is unlawful for any person to operate any vessel, except aircraft, which is not equipped with a functioning underwater exhaust or a properly insmiled and adequately maintained muffler. Any of the following defects in the muffling system shall constitute a violation of tiffs secilon: (1) The absence of a muffie~, (2) The presence of a muffler cut-out, bypass, or similar device; (3) Defects in the exhaust system, including, but not limited to pinched outlets, holes, or rusted-through areas of the muffler or pipes; (4) The presence of equipment which will produce excessive or unusual noise from the exhaust system; (5) Dry shacks or water-injected stacks not containing a series of chambers or mechanical designs effective in reducing sound. Co) Regardless of the type of exhaust system or mulfler used, no motorboat shall exceed any noise requirements set forth ia Chapter 10.28 of this code, as now or hereafter amended. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 6, 1992) 10.36.070 Negligent operation. It is unlawful for any person to operate a vessel in a negligent mmmer. For the purpose of this section, to "pper- ate in a negligent manner" shall be construed to mean the operation of a vessel in such manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property. (ord. 133-A (1992) § 7, 1992) 10.36.080 Reckless operation. It is unlawful for any person to operate a vessel in a reckless manner. For the purpose of this section, to "operate in a reckless manner" shall be consirued to mean the operation of a vessel ia wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. Reckless operation is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars and not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment ia the county jail for a period not to exceed ninety days, or by both such time and imprisonment. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 8, 1992) 10.36.090 Operation while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. It is unlawful for any person to operate a vessel while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. (a) A person is gnilty o f operating a vessel while under the influence of alcohol or any drag if the person operates a vessel while: (I) The person has 0.10 grams or more of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath; as shown by analysis of 241 DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES R.C.W. 75 .20 · 100 Genera[ Administration BLdg. R.C.W. 75 · 2 0 · 103 0lTmpia, Washington 98504 ~ May 19, 1995 (206) 753-6650 (appLicant should refer to this date in all corresf~ence) PAGE 1 OF 3 PAGES ~]LAST NAME FIRST Holtz, Don r~l STREET OR RURAL R~TE ,-i 1542 Madrona Point Drive CITY Bremerton ~ATERoyster Bay 13~UARTER SECTION SECTION 16 i~CONtACT PHONE(S) CONTROL NUMBER (206) 478-2681 ~1 00-A4237~03 15. MAR I ~TE 98312ZIP [] [] TRISUTA Y TYPE OF PROJEC Pugg~ T~ound ~] New 150 fool Ramp, T(7~NSH IP RANGE(E'W) COUNTY 24N 0iE Kitsap and Float ~ THIS PROJECT MAY BEGIN J ~ AND MUST SE COMPLETED BY TTME T,I~IITATI OIq8 : June 15, 1995 J ~ March 14, 1999 THIS APPROVAL IS TO BE AVAILABLE ON THE JOB SITE AT ALt TIMES AND ITS PROVISIONS FOLL~ED BY THE PERMITTEE AND OPERATOR PERFORMING THE ~RK. S££1~ANTG~NR~I, PROVISIOHSONREYE~£SIDROFAPPROVA). NOTE: The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed your plans received on November 1, 1994, and inspected the site ~or the second time on March 17, 1995. WDFW applauds your efforts to avoid the use of creosote pilings for this project. In generalF WDFW discourages the use of pilings, lumber, and.other materials treated with creosote and other wood preservatives and recommends instead the use of steel, concrete, or recycled plastic. 1. This project is approved as il%ustrated in your Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) application subject to the following provisions. 2. Work below the ordinary high water line (OHWL) shall not occur from March 15 through.June 14 of any year for the protection of migrating juvenile sa±monios. 3. Due to the lengthy spawning period of surf smelt in this portion of Puget Sound, construction during the period from September 1 through December 31( and January 1 through March 31 of any ~ear may be acceptable ifa WDFW representative confirms a lack of spawn during a si~e inspection. Arrangements for a site inspection shall be made with the Area Habitat Biologist listed on this HPA. Construction shall commence within 48 hours of notification by WDFW and shall be completed within 14 days of project commencement. SEPA: DNS, City of Bremerton, Final May 20, 1995 REGIONAL HABITAT MANAGER - John Boettner (360) 895-4757 PATROL- Charron 172 [P3] APPLICANT - WILDLIFE ' READER ' PATROL - RAB. MGR. - WRIA EXHIBIT "C" DIRECTOR RESPONSES TO APPEAL PAUL GRANT PO BOX 437 BREiXERTON WA 98337 16, 1996 Bremerton City Council 239 4th Street Bremerton WA 98337 Dear Council Members~ "RECEIVED. CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" Re: Attorney W. 6roughton's ~<emorandum of Authorities dated 9/9/96: Page 10 Sect. IV: Perhaps after twenty 'fears city encouraging shoreline development it .ts t~me consider the benefits of exercizinq more control. The Msdrona ~:oint neiqhborhood is a hodae-podge of small and large homes squeezed onto too small lots with cars, trucks~ boats and motorhomes forming the most visible landscape. This is not a formula for increasing property values. 1 don't see how further development on the water portion of this neighborhood can offer any enhancement. There are currently no floating piers in this channel which is a unique waterway compared to most of Bremerton's mor~ open bays. Allowing this dock, in my opinion, would be a detriment to safety and ~esthet]cs. Paul Grant 1418 ~qadrona ,~'oi~t Drive cc: A1 Colvzn/. David Fart Sherril Huff-Yenees . Carlos Montgomery . Richard Neville Bob W.inters . I,on Overson John Law . Cecil McConnell. g7 "RECEIVED CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" "RECEIVED C,. COUNCIL OFFICE" To the Honorable Lynn Hutton, Nayor DATE ~-/~.f~ l,'~ ~9L15-96 and the Honorable Hembers off the Bremerton City Council Subject: Shoreline sgbstantial development permit for Don Holtz and Lora Short at 1542 Madrona Pt. Dr. Request that you either affirm the last decision of the Planning Commission regarding said permit request, or dismis the upcoming closed record hearing. Don Holtz and Lora Short have engaged William H. Broughton, Attorney at Law, to prepare a several page written arguement stating why their permit application should be approved and the latesbt action of the Planning Commission regarding same should be overridden. Judging by the length of Mr. Broughton's disertation it is very app- arent that he hopes that you people will grow weary of attempting to wade through it and will not question the frequent erronious inform- ation contained therein. There is an old saying that'goes "if you can't dazzle them with bri- lliance- blast them with b ...... t. Mr. Broughton has certainly done that. I am including a copy of Mr. Broughton's disertation and will address those points that I feel need addressing page by page. You will find some penciled notations on some of the pages that were written there by Mr. Paul Scheyer,who provided me with copy. Please disregard them as they appear on the copy he submitted. The information contained in Mr. Broughton's appeal was obviously provided to him by the applicants who would say anything whether it was true or not in order to gain approval of their application. All of the points that I take issue with will be marked in red and numbered. Please see item 1 on page 2. I wasn't present at the 5-21-96 hearing, but I was told that the number of people opposing the permit outnumbered the supporters by approximately two to one. There is an obvious difference of oppinion so without an actual count that point is mute. Point #2 On page two and three. Before the hearing began the ground- rules were set down by the commission. When the commission Failed to give the oponents their second rebuttal as previously agreed to Suzanne Holland appealed their decision and the remaining action was taken as stated in the memo. I do not know what constitutes a quorum For the planning commission but I don't believe the second action denying the requested permit would have been taken if a quorum was not present. Item 4 on page 3: It is my understanding that the Planning Commission has the authority to overide decisions made by the Planning Director, when he has made an obvious error as was the case here. Item 6, Page 4: Obviously the action we ask the council circled item 2. to take is Item 7, page 4: The original permit request says 150 feet. Are they suggesting that the eight foot difference from the original request would have the effect of mitigating their request. Just how naive do they think we are? Item 8, Page 5: No matter how carefully written any rule or lam is it ~s impossible to cover every coneeiYable sitwation or circumstance and that is why it is necessary to have judges or arbiters to inter- pret and make wise decisions. We do not consider it Wise to permlt the placement of a 150' floating, concrete dock out into the narrow channelthe South.~~--runninn- hpf~een O~rich..Ba¥ to. --~,the North__and Oyster~ay to seven Knots. ~bv~ously says it i~-~ someone doesn't know what they are talking about. Regardless of what the speed limit is no one pays any attent- ion to it and the boats roar through the channel at speeds in excess of fifty miles per hour· A tew weeks ago we saw on the TV news a boat lose its stearing cable and careen into a crowd on the shore where several people were seriously injured.~Can you visualize the same thing happening and a boat running into a fixed concrete dock running 150 feet into the channel. The Bremerton Police Department and the Kltsap County Sherrifs Department do not have the personnel or boat facilities to adequately patrol all of the waters surroundino Bremer_ ton and Kltsap County. Item 9, page 5: Another self serving assurance. I live t~;c doors South ofr~the proposed dock site and I don't know a single person alon~ Our ~.. ~_.~9~,h~mrh ~hn anp~nve of this ,equest.~- · .~ oint use dock" baloney! Item 10, page 6: Any dock that prevents the free passage of boat traffic For its entire length is a restriction of navigable waters at all times when the tide ls in beyond its outer end in addition is a restriction to pedestrian traffic at all times when the tide is out. ~hen the tide is out it would be resting oq public tidelands which do not belong to the applicants. item 5, page 6: See underlined portion. How m~ch docum{~ntation is ece.,.,ary. ! frequently fish along the stretch off beacl~ where the dock ~ould be located. Anyone who knows anything about I [sb~ng for culLhroat knows that you troll within 15 or 20 feel ol t m shord. I:VQlyl Jrl](? I wOIJ]d gO by t.~e['r~ I ~ou]d be lo[('r~j LO (]O ()~ll b,:yond the end of the dock thus exposing myself to the hazard of being run into by one ot the many high speed boats that frequent the channel. I certainly have as much right to free passage over navigable maters as does the applicants. Incidentally, the trout fishing in the channel and Oyster bay is excellent at various times off the year. Item 8, page 6: The proposed dock would definitely not meet this requirement. The property owners on both sides of the channel enjoy the view the may it is now. We don't want or need this proposed dock. Page 10-circled paragraph at bottom of page: The channel which runs between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay is unique. There is no other sim- ilar body of water in the Bremerton area. Approval ot this application would certainly be setting a precedent. Page 11- circled letter (o): I fail to comprehend how the placement of a dock three lots away from my property would increase my property value, and even if it did, mhy would I want my property value to be increased by something from which I derive no benefit? Quite the con- trary, I pay enough property tax on my waterfront property now with- out wanting this very undesireable, hazardous, eyesore pushing it higher. Page 11, Lg circled paragraph: The placement or' docks in Oyster Bay is an entirely different proposition. The big bay is large enough that the docks that are there do not constitute near the hazard that a dock in the channel mould. Page 13: Please read the circled portions of page 13. The statements are simpy not true and I invite any or all of the council to come have a look for yourselves. Small boaters, kayakers, and small sail- Ooats tend to remain close to shore mhere they are out of the flow of the big speedboats that roar through the channel at speeds in excess of fifty and more miles per hour. It is possible to selectively video tape almost any circumstance you wish in order to support an arguement if you wait long enough, and on different days depending on the weather, et6. Page 14: Circled statement simply not true. Mr. Holtz one who hap. d~ps the truth in center of page (C) This statement is has a reputation in the neighborhood as carelessly. Again this is a typical ploy to accuse someone else of doing something that you are doing yourself to make a point I submit that most of the homeomners on the opposite side of the channel feel just as strongly in opposition to it as do the homeowners on our side. It would be very interesting to know how they arrived at the 82% fig= ute that they quote. Even people living south of the channel on the big bay have to use the channel to get their boats in and out of Oyster 5ay. His proposed dock could even be a hazard to the Christmas Ships when they make their annual cruise throug the channel. Would the navigational regulations require Lhat such a dock be lighted? How about a Fog horn when the channel is so foggy that you can't see your hand in front of' your face. I wonder if the video that Lhey want to show you has footage of those conditions. Page 15: Letter A: Not true. It was appealed and was recinded. When it was reinstated it was done so without givin~ the previous objec- tors an opportunity to appeal. The entire project was appealed and presently stands denied. That is the way it should remain! Page 15, Letter E: Mr Holtz states that the neighbors on either side of him are in their eighties. This is true. Page 16: Letter A: Just plain common sense dictates that you don't allow the placement of an obstruction of any kind that projects out into a busy thorofare where it places life and limb in jeopardy just so Don Holtz and Lora Sharp have easy access to their pleasure boat. If you passed a house that was on fire and you knew that there were people inside you wouldn't need a "legal basis" for entering that house to render assistance in allerting the occupants or helping them out. Page 16: Letter 8: This example is an extremely raze occurence. Even in those rare occurences when this happens a boat tethered to a buoy allows ample room for other boats to maneuver around. Even if one of them should be run into they would not begin to do the damage that a fixed, concrete, floating dock would do. Why take a chance? This is a selfish bid and should not be allowed. At the bottom of page 16 and the top of page 17 Mr. Bzoughton acknom- ledges the existance of a seven knot speed limit throughout the channel. I submit that until the county law enforcement department is able to enforce the existing lam every effort should be made to ensure the safety of everyone using the channel by denying the placement of any additional obstructions to the ones that are already there. There are no other docks of any significance within the channel. If it was reas- onable I would like to see the few existing floats either removed or brought into the high tide line. You are invited to come have a look for yourselves. The attached pages are Respectfully necessary information to assist you submitted to provide you with the in making the correct decision. E. Frank Kidrick 1530 Madrona Pt. Dr. 8remerton, Washington, 98312 Ph. 373-6382 EmmeLt Frank Kidrick Born: Bremerton WA. Oec.1, ExcepL for one year that I Hospital Corpsman attached 1923 spent on Guam in the So. Pacific as a Navy to the 3rd. Marine Division, I have lived my entire life in Bremerton and I have only its best interest at heart. Retired Superintendent Woodworker, PSNS You have my permission to investigate any facet of my background. I have lived at my present address since Sept. Ist. 1972 (24 years) Thank you very much for your time and indulgence. '; CEIVED. CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL In Re: The approval of a shoreline substantial development permit for Don Holtz and Lorn Short at 1542 Madrona Pt. Drive ) ) ) .) ) ) MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Approximately two years ago, Don Holtz and Lora Short applied for a shoreline substantial development permit to construct a private recreational floating dock accessory to their single family residence at 1542 Madrona Point Drive. In review of the initial application, the Director of the Planning Department, Don Pratt, issued a determination of non-significance having determined that there were no significant environmental impacts as a result of this proposal. This ihitial DNS was appealed by Bert Wallach and Robert Hunter. Those appeals raised environmental issues and also challenged the appropriateness of this dock based upon channel width dimensions that the appellants provided to the Planning Deparunent. As a result of those earlier appeals, the Planning Department withdrew its original determination of non-significance and asked Mr. Holtz to provide additional information to the City. The City wanted more information on the width and dep~ of the channel near his proposed dock location and some other environmental issues. Mr. Holtz commissioned the engineering MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -1- firm of Parametrix in Bremerton to do a shoreline survey on each side of the charmel, 700 feet on each side of the area pr~}posed for the siting of the dock. This shoreline survey established a sufficient channel width for the dock as originally proposed by Mr. Holtz. Th/s information took approximately 6-8 months to compile. The Pierre/rig Department then reissued its determination of non-significance based upon the additional information provided by Mr: Holt7. The Planning Department then did a complete review of the proposal and Planning Director Don Pratt issued a shoreline substantial development permit for Mr. Holtz' project, f'mding that the requirements of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Plan (SNIP) and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) had been met. The approval of the shoreline substantial development permit by Mr. Pratt was on March 28, 1996. After Mr. Pratt approved the project, there were several appeals filed to the Planning Commission. The appellants were SuTarme and Bernard Holland, Wayne Iverson, Cathy Gallagher, Sandy Verhelst and Maynard Hoffman. ~ Pursuant to these appeals, the Bremerton Planning Commission held an initial public hearing oia Tuesday, May 21, 1996 at the Bremerton City Council Chambers. At this hearing, there were a substantial number of people who testified in support of Mr. Pratt's decision to approve the shoreline substantial development permit. There were approximately half as many ,people op?osing Mr. Pratt's d~cision to issue the hermit After considering all of the testimony by all of the witnesses, the Planning Commission affirmed the Planning Director's decision and voted to again approve the shoreline substantial development p, ermit. ~ Apparently after this approval, one of the appellants, SuTanne Holland, argued to the Planning Commission Chairman that she had not been provided an oppommity to rebut the MEMORANDUM OF -2- AUTHORITIES evidence presented in support of Mr. Pratt's decision to approve the shoreline substantial development permit. The P. la~ning Commission Chair, Wayne Olsen, indicated that he would call Don Pratt at home and ask him for direction. This was done and Mr. Olsen indicated that he would provide Sn?arlne Holland and the other appellant, Kathy Gallagher, an oppommity to rebut the facts presented and that the Planning Commission would then take another vote.. Apparently, Kathy Gallagher had gone kome and did not return. As a result, the Planning Commission set its hearing over an additional month to allow for rebuttal. On June 18, 1996, the Planning Commission reconvened and considered the rebuttal testimony of Holland and Gallagher. Unfortunately, the Plarming Commission also allowed testimony of other persons who were not present at the original meeting and allowed testimony to go beyond rebuttal of previous testimony into new areas and new issues. A second unfortunate event that occurred was that at the June 18 meeting, the Planning Commission only had five members instead of the seven that were present on the May 21 meeting. Ultimately, the Chairman of the Planning CommSssion changed his vote and the Planning Commission disapptoved Mr. Pratt's decision by a three to two vote. Tiffs appeal follows. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW ,~ The City Council must determine if the Planning Commission erred in reversing the original decision of the Planning Director. More succinctly stated, the test is whether the Director's decision to approye the shoreline substantial development permit was in compliance MEMORANDUM OF -3- AUTHORITIES with the goals, policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master ProgramJ After hearing this appeal, the City Council may take any of the following actions: I. Uphold the Director's decision and reverse the Planv2ng Commission. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to overturn the decision. 3. Modify the decision. 4. Remand to the Planning C~mm~ssion for further consideration (the City Council should include the specific issues to be considered upon remand). III. LEGAL ANALYSIS Project Description: The applicants request approval of a shoreline permit to construct a private recreational floating dock accessory to a single family residence wkich will extend 142 feet from the shoreline in the area between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay. ~ Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential: 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre Zoning Designation: Single Family Three (SF-3) Use Location: 1. Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Map Designation: Urban Residential Environment: R-2, Ostrich Bay West ~The record on appeal was not made available to Mr. Holtz until the day after the due date for this memorandum. Mr. Holtz reserves the right to supplement his rebuttal brief with record citations as necessary. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORiTIES -4- mo Discussion: The Shoreline Master Program at Chapter 3 provides a Shoreline Use/Activity Matrix, Table 3-1 allows piers and docks as permitted uses within the Urban Residential Shoreline Environment. Criteria for Action: In determining that a shoreline substantial development permit should be approved, Mr. Pratt found compliance with criteria from the following documents: The State Shoreline Management Act (SMA): The Shoreline Management, Substantial Development process, including public notification and a 30-day review period, has been followed. Construction of the proposed project is not authorized until 30 days have lapsed from the date the final decision was received by the Department of Ecology or until any appeal procedures have been completed. SMp GOAL: The Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP): Chapter 3, Environmental Designations and Requirements provides Shoreline Use/Activity Matrix, Table 3-1 which permits "water access and moorage facilities" including pk::'3 and docks within the Urban Residential Environment shoreline designation. The Plarming Director found in his initial ~.pproval of the application that the following goals and applicable policies and regulations were to be considered: To ensure that adequate water access and moorage facilities are available to the public and individuals, without adversely impacting the natural aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. 'To provide the decisions in achieving the above stated goal, the SIVIP provides ~e following policies: 1. Community Boating Facilities: Multiple use and expansion of ex/sting consistent piers, wharfs and docl~ is encouraged (in lieu of the addition anddor proliferation of new facilities) in order to minimize the consumption of limited shoreline resources. Joint-use facilities are preferred over new single use piers, docks and C~ floats. ] applicants have stated that they will make their dock available to ]~ L neighboring properties. Piers, Docks and Floats: Piers, docks and recreational floats should be constructed so as to minimize obstruction of navigable waters and not sigrfificantly reduce use of the water surface. o Proposed City Council Finding: The dock will extend approximately 142 feet beyond the ordinary high water mark and have iX surface coverage of 608 square feet. Because the dock achieves a usable depth of water, obstruction of navigable waters will only rarely occur. Piers and Docks: The ninon, ber, size and length of piers and docks should be no more than the minimum that provides the required service. 0 been designed to provide a stable platform to service a vessel. The dock extends waterward to reach a depth of 5 feet measured at mean low water (MLW). It is the intent of the Shoreline Master Program to allow d "useable" docks. Having a dock with less size and length will not make ~b,~l~t useable in most circmnstances. Piers/Floating Docks: Encourage the use of floats in lieu of piers in th;si areas where scenic values are high, and where conflicts with recreational boaters and '~fishers are not greatly increased. posed Ciw Corn ing: The proposal utilizes floats anchored by pilings. 4~,,~, ~1~ ~ln,~ ~ n Piers: Only open pile piers should be permitted where shore trolling is important and/or where there is significant longshore drift. Proposed City Council Finding: The channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay has a relatively low rate of long shore drift due to its relative trolling with/n this channel- ~s ot any importanc~e. .,6~.~ . --------l°w energy __envir°nment' There is no documentation showing, that shore Not applicable. Not applicable. View Protection: Locate, design and operate p!ers, wharves, d_oc_ks and floats so as to be aesthetically compatible with the area visually affected, and protect surrounding properties from undue impairment of views. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -6- Propo,ed City Council Finding: The majority of the neighboring property owners support this dock. The dock will not unduly impair views because of the existing floats and buoys. Similar docks are found in the immediate vicirfity of the channel in Oyster Bay. REGULATIONS General Not applicable. Prior to granting a permit for a pier, dock or float, the effects of the structure upon navigation, recreation and adjacent shorelines shall be deterrnlned and disposition of the permit by the City shall reflect such determination. proposed City Council Finding: The following effects will occur: a. Navigation: Near shore navigation will be.somewhat impacted. Water craft will need to maneuver around the structure at higher tides only. 1) O '~ ~ I,~ mO 1~ ~ ~.-- Recreation: Useable water surface area Wall be reduced. People I _' _. t _ I1,~--I [ walking along the beach will climb over the float or go underneath ·, .* , aa ,~ 1~ ~ J~ J~;~ ~ ' : A visual impact to the aesthetic quality of · ~1/' ~' ~' trt ~'" ' ' the existing shoreline Wall occur. Natural v~ews' of the water Wall' be replaced by views of a dock and its anchored pilings. The applicant has reduced the scope and design of the dock to reduce diminution of natural views. Water access and moorage facilities shall be located, designed and constructed so as to cause minimum interference with navigation and public use of the water surface and the shoreline and to protect surrounding properties from undue impairment of views. Proposed Citw Council Finding: The dock has been designed to comply with a maximum permissible length to ach/eve a 5 foot depth or__water _at mean low water. If the dock is reduced in siz~-'~gqlr,, xts abt~ty to function at low tides will be impaired ia violation of the intent of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Plan to allow for "useable" docks. 4. Not applicable. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -7- 5. Not applicable. Pre-existing residential lots: For residential lots existing at the time thi~ program is adopted (2/2/92): No more than one private, noncommercial single-use dock is permitted per platted shoreline lot or unplatted shoreline tract owned for residential or recreational purposes. Proposed City Council Finding: This proposal will provide one dock for. one platted shoreline lot which was platted prior to 2/22/92. 7. Not applicable. 8. Not applicable. 9. Not applicable. Piers and Docks 10. Prohibited: Piers and floating docks shall be prohibited where navigation may be impaired significantly at entrances to bays, channels or coves. Proposed City Council Finding: Tiffs dock is not at an entrance to a channel but along the widest part of the channel between Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay. This channel has a width of approximately 650 feet at the dock's location. The dock will project 142 feet waterward thus reducing the channel width to 508 feet at high tide. When the tide ebbs to a zero foot tidal elevation, the dock will be unusable and will not impact channel width. If there is navigational impairment, the United States Army Corps of Engineers will not allow the dock to be constructed. Location: Piers and docks shall project the minimum distance necessary to service the appurtenant vessels and shall not Create a hazard to navigation. Proposed City Council Finding: The dock extends 142 feet waterward to reach a depth of 5 feet measured at mean low water. Mean low water is a tidal elevation of +2.6 feet above mean lower Iow w~e41,which is 0 feet. This dock is in compliance with the maximum permissible length set forth by Regulation No. 14 (a). 12. Not applicable. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -8- 13. 14. Outside Harbor Areas: Where State harbor lines .do not apply, piers and docks shall project the minimum distance necessary to service the appurtenant vessels and shall not create a ba?ard to navigation. Proposed City Council Finding: The dock projects 142 feet to reach a depth of water of 5 feet measured at mean low water. The dgck has been designed to comply with the maximum permissible length a~ allowed by Regulation No. 14 (a). Size: (a) Length: Maximum length of residential pier or dock shall be the mirfimum necessary to accomplish moorage for the intended boating uses, and shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of 5 feet of water as measured at mean low water in marine shorelines or as measured at Ordinary High Water and fresh water shorelines. Proposed City Council Finding: The dock projects 142 feet to reach a depth of 5 feet of.water as measured at mean low water thus is in compliance with this length requirement. (b) Height: The dock shall not exceed 3 feet in height above Ordinary High Water on the landward side and shall extend above the water surface no more than 2 feet at all other locations. Proposed City Council Finding: The dock has approximately 1 foot of freeboard above the water line and thus complies with this requirement. (c) Private/Single Use Docks: Landing area deck maximum length parallel to shore of "T" end: I0 feet; 2. Walkway maximum width: 4 feet; 3. Landing area deck maximum width: 8 feet. Proposed City Council Finding: The dock as proposed complies with width and length dimensions. (d) Not applicable. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -9- Fo (e) Side Yard Setbacks: Docks shall be setback a minimum of I0 feet from side property lines. Proposed City Council Finding: The dock is located so that there is a 10 foot setback from the adjoining property line. Director's Decision: Based upon an analysis of the abo~e enumerated cr/teria, the Planning Director concluded that the project and the application are generally consistent with the State Shoreline Management Act and the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. As the intent of the Shoreline Master Program generally is to allow for "useable" docks and because this dock specifically is in compliance with the.length regulations of the Shorelino Management Plan, the Director concluded that a substantial development permit should be granted. To have shortened the length of the dock would have made it unusable a majority of the time. It is unclear as to why the Planning'Commission ultimately reversed the decision of the Planning Dkector on th/s project after initially approving it. However, as the following arguments point out, there is no legal basis upon which to deny the substantial development permit and the decision of the Director should be upheld by fids City Council. IV. DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS A. TIq[ERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS UPON WHICH A SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SHOULD BE DENIED MR. HOLTZ AS HIS APPLICATION MEETS EVERY REQUIKEMENT OF THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT AND THE CITY OF BREMERTON SHORELINE MASTER PLAN. Opponents Argue That Approving This Dock Will Set a Precedent. '~ Arguments were made before the Planning Commission that the approval of fids shoreline substantial development permit would set a precedent for the.City of Bremerton. In fact, the opposite is true. Denying fids shoreline substantial development permit would set a precedent. We have found no evidence of any previous denials of a shoreline substantial development permit for a dock in the City of Bremerton for the last twenty years. J lVlEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -10- The denial of th. is shoreline substantial development permit would certainly be determined by a reviewing body to be an arbitrary and capricious action. Over the last 20 years, the City of Bremerton has encouraged waterfront property owners to obtain shoreline substantial development Permits to construct docks on their properties. by the City for several reasons: Tiffs activity has been encouraged (a) It allows waterfront prope~d owners to better enjoy the shoreline and the waterways for boating and recreation activities. (c) Modem docks constructed in accordance with fisheries requirements enhance rather than detract from the aesthetics and environmental quality of the shoreline. (d) The size and shape of do'ks is regulated by the Bremerlon Shoreline Master Program. ,~, In reviewing previous decisions of the City on this issue, there are numerous exampleJ of shoreline substantial development permits being granted for docks which are much larger in scale ~an the one proposed by Mr. Holm. For example, last year the City approved a dock in Oyster Bay which is not only a 150 feet long which also contains a 5-1/2 foot wide walkway to an 8 foot by 20 foot float or tee. On Oyster Bay alone, there are 11 docks in existence. In fact, there are docks in the immediate vicirdty of Mr. Holtz property constructed within ~he last 3 //o607 ~,~ears, the largest of which are over 220 feet in length. It is important to remember that the applicant in the instant case redesigned and downsized his dock to accommodate not only his neighbors but concern~ raised by Planning staff. The original dock designed by Mr. Holtz had a 40 foot by 8 foot finger at the end of the walkway. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -I1- Tiffs has been downsized to now have only an 8 foot by I0 foot tee at the end of the walkway. In addition, this dock has been designed so that it will accommodate pedestrians on the beach areas at lower tides. There is a ramp wh/ch is 40 feet long and 6 feet high. This allows for people to walk under the ramp, thus presenting no beach obstruction. In addition, the float has been designed so that it is only 2 feet high when it is laying on the beach,f Th/s allows for' anyone to cross the float at any point at l~w tide. More important, th/s dock will be completely out of the water at low tide. Persons who argue that tiffs dock is a tlxreat to navigation have obviously not reviewed the surveys performed by Parametrix or talked to the Army Corps of Engineers. At zero or minus tide, th/s dock is completely out of the water. As a result, this dock will never be a full-time moorage facility. A dock which is completely out of the water at low tide obviously will not adversely affect navigation. Before the tide is completely out, boats will still need to stay in the middle of the channel to avoid running aground. In sum_mary, it would be precedent setting and in all probability illegal for the City not to grant tiffs permit. This dock specifically falls within the size requirements of the Bremerton SMP. (See Section 14 attached as Exh/bit "A"). B. THE 'PRESENCE OF THIS DOCK WILL NOT PRESENT A HAZARD FOR OTHER BOATERS. Opponents to this permit argue that the establishment of this dock will be dangerous, forcing smaller boaters and kayaks into the navigation channel where high speed power boats are "zooming in and out of Oyster Bay". It is important to remember that tiffs dock will not protrude into Oyster Bay any farther than existing floats, buoys and moored boats. These floats, buoys and moored boats have existed IvIEMORANDUM OF -12- AUTHORITIES in the Oyster Bay channel for 20 years or more. What the opponents do not tell you is that there is a 7 knot speed limit in the channel. Attached as Exhibit "B" to this memorandum and incorporated by reference is the Kitsap County Ordinance specifically snowing a 7 knot ~peed limit in this area. As previously mentioned, at low t/de Mr. Holtz dock as well as the existing floats and' buoys are not even floating. All boating,traffic needs to go through the center of the charmel because the tideland areas adjoining it are out of the water. You will also note from the testimony presented by Mr. Holtz and others who live on the channel, small boats, rowers and kayaks presently navigate the center of the channel. To suggest that small boaters and kayaks hug the shoreline continuously when they are out in their water craft ignores the reality of what people like to do. This evidence was presented to the Planning Commission and, in fact, an attempt was made to introduce a video tape documenting the existing behavior of rowers and kayakers in the Oyster Bay channel. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission did not desire to view the video tape. However, because the video tape was submitted to the Planning Commission, it is appropriate for the City Council to review this videotape as part of the record should it so desire. This videotape will provide uncontroverted, demonstrative evidence that this dock wilt have no impact on the behavior of small boaters and kayakers in the Oyster Bay channel. It is also important to remember that there are presently existing moored boats and ilo}ts which extend farther into the channel than the end of Mr. Holtz proposed dock. While the float on the end of Mr. Holm' proposed dock is only I0 feet wide, existing floats and moored boats are significantly larger in size extending up to 30 feet in width. Kayakers and small boaters M]EMORANDUM OF -13- ff AUTHORITIES proceeding through this channel will necessarily navigate the mi~t~tle of the charmel to avoid existing structures and boats. The existing practice of kayakers and small boaters when confronted with a larger boat coming toward them is to mm to the east or west within the channel to allow the larger boat to pass. As a result, the addition of the dock in front of the Holtz property will not change the pattern presently utilized for small boaters and kayakers at Finally, the Parametrix survey clearly demonstrated that the area where the Holtz dock is to be constructed represents the widest part of the channel between Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay. Even with the construction of the dock as proposed, there wilt still be more room in the channel by the Holtz property than anywhere else between those two bodies of water. PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE AREA. Opl~onents argue that they have I~etitions si~ned by hundreds of people who are in opposition to the dock. It will not take much analysis for the City Council to see that most of the signators to the opponent's petition are people who do not live on the channel and upon which tiffs dock will have no impact whatsoever. This tactic is typically seen used by opponents to projects where they simply ask people to sign petitions. People are frequently afraid to say no to such a request and go ahead and sign. The petitions submitted by the opponents need to be judged in th/s light. Conversely, the 32 signors of the petition in support of the project are all neighbors and users of the Oyster Bay channel. In fact, 82% of the property owners adjoining the Oyster Bay channel on Madrona Point have signed petitions supporting this project. In addition, several of Mr. Holtz neighbors testified before the Planning Commission and transcripts are available of their testimony for your review. These witnesses should be given considerably more weight than MEMORANDUM OF -14' AUTHORITIES those who are not property owners or even users in many instances. D. TI~ ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES HAVE BF.I~N FAVORABLY RESOLVED. Opponents argue that the presence of this dock will have detrimental environmental impact on the shoreline environment. : As has been pointed out in our procedural summary, the environmental issues in tiffs case have already been resolved. The City has issued a determination of non-significance.[~This~ d~ermi~ation of non-significance (DNS) has not been appealed. ~ The opponents are now precluded from arguing that there are adverse environmental consequences as procedurally, all State Environmental Policy issues have been resolved in favor of Mr. Holtz. Incidentally, the Council might want to review Exhibit "C" which is the letter from the Depa~tanent of Fisher/es. You will see that Mr. Holtz is applauded by.the Department of Fisheries for the environmentally sensitive design of his system. There is a minimal anchoring system which reduces any environmental or visual impact of the dock. No creosote pilings are used. Fish relief is provided as previ~, y discussed. ~E.' ) THE OPPONENTS ARGUE THAT THIS SHOULD BE A ~ SHARED OR JOINT DOCK. Opponents argue to the Planning Commission that this dock should be a shared or ioint dock. As Mr. Holtz testified, the neighbors on each side of his current residence are in their eighties. One of their houses is presently for sale. Mr. Holtz has extended the invitation to his neighbors that they are welcome to use his dock at no expense. This will be a shared or joint dock at some point in the future. This fact can be included a~ a condition of approval. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -15- V. CONCLUSION gAs you can see from the record presented to the Planning Commission, none of the ents presented by the opponents has provided any legal basis upon which to reverse the decision of the Planning Department to approve the shoreline substantial development permit.. In fact, when you analyze each of these arguments that are made, you can see that none of them are appropriately raised within the shoreline substantial development permit approval process as previously explained in this Memorandum. up The present situation in the Oyster Bay channel is that during the summertime, boats of to 30 feet in length are tied up at existing buoys which extend farther into the channel than the dock proposed by Mr. Holtz. Clearly, a 30 foot boat tied up to a buoy with a 30 foot swing in all directions from the buoy presents a much greater potential problem for other boaters and water users than a dock which is fixed in place and closer to the shoreline than these existing floats and buoys. Finally, the opponents argue that this dock will be a threat to navigation of the Oyster Bay channel. It is important to remember that the issue of whether this dock presents any hazard to navigation is a determination solely within the province of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Once a permit is granted by the City, the next step will be for the Army Corps of Engineers to determine whether any navigational b~?~rds are presented to the boating public as a result of the granting of tiffs permit. If the Corps determines that there is a navigational problem, it will deal with that in its permitting process. It is a. "red herring" for the opponents to argue impacts of navigation as there is no evidence in the record providing navigational analysis. It is also misleading for the opponents to argue safety issues. As has been pointed out, MEMORANDUM OF -16- AUTHORITIES there is a 7 knot speed limit throughout the channel because of existing floats and buoys. If people are currently "zooming in and out" of the channel, there is an enforcement problem which will exist whether Mx. Holtz has a dock or not. It is clear that the decision of the Dixector to approve this permit was the correct decision. It is also clear that the initial vote of the Planning Commission to uphold this decision was tho correct vote. The City Council should aRprove this permit. DATED tiffs 9th day of September, 1996. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM H. BROUGHTON(-_,/ ~'~ WSBA' #8858 Attorney for Holtz/Short MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES -17- 13. 14. FiDd~nq: State Harbor Line have not been designated. Outside Harbor Areas: Where State harbor lines do not apply, piers and docks shall project the minimum distance necessary to service the appurtenant vessels and shall not create a hazard to navigation. Findinq: The dock projects 150 ft. to reach a depth of water of 5 feet measured at MLW. The dock has been designed to comply with the maximum pez-missible length as allowed by Regulation No. 14.a. (5 Ft. depth of at mea~ low water). The dock could be constructed with less waterward intrusioD at the expense of its ability to funcg~J~ ~ ]nw tides. Size: Length: Maximum length of a residential pier or dock shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish moorage for the~intended boating uses, and shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of five (5) feet of water as measured at Mean Low Water (MLW) in marine shorelines or as measured at Ordinary High Water (O}rWM) in fresh water shorelines. Findinq: The dock project l~--ft~, to reach a depth of 5 feet of water as measured~t MLW._~ Height: Dock shall not exceed three (3) feet in height above OHWM on the landward side, and shall extend above the water surface no more than two (2) feet at all other locations. Findinq: The dock has approximately 1 foot of freeboard above the water line. c.. Private, Single Use Docks: 1) Landing area de~ maximum length 'parallel to shore of "T" end: Ten (10) feet; 3) Landing area deck maximum width: Eight (8) feet. 2) Walkway maximum width: Four (4) feet; Findinq: The dock as proposed complies with the maximum width and length dimensions. d. Connmunity Piers and Docks: 7 EXHIBIT "A" (6) "Personal flotation device" me~n~ life preservers, buoyant vests, xpecial-p~ ~ safety dev/ce.s, buoyant cushions, ring buoys, and work vests. (7) "Pier" means an,/com, r~ercial, public, or privam pier, wharf, dock, float, gridiron or other structure intended to provide for the loading or unloading or other di~:hargn of ve&~is or for their service or repair, or m provide access for persons m the water from the shoro for fi~hln§, swim- ming or any other water-reined activity. (8) "Restricted area" means an area trial: has been des- ignated m be used for, or closed to, certain purposes such 83 swimming, underwater diving and compet/tious or exhibitions. '* (9) "Swimming" mea~s floating ou an air maaxess, innermbe or other similar inflatable device (not including inflatable rat't~) as well as propelling or floating oneself in the water. (1.0) "Uudezwal~ diving" rne'anq the activity of submerg- ing in water while equipped with snorkeling, hard hat, or scuba diving equipment. (11) "Vessel" means any contrivance used or designed for navigation or as a means of transpormtioa on water. (12) "Watem" means all navigable wal~s, salt and .fresh, ia Irdtsap County. (13) "Water skier" means a p~soa in mw from a vessel riding on warn' skis, aquaplane, $~ or other similar device. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 2, 1992) 10.36.030 Numbering required. All vessels used on the wa~rs of this county shall be numbered or de~ig~a~ed in accordance with any appl/cable United $ tate~ or Waqhingmn State law as now or hercMter amended. (Ch'd. 133-A (1992) § 3, 1992) 10.36.040 Equipment. A vessel shall carry and use in the manner prescri'~,Xl that equipment, including personal flotation devices, vksual distress sign. als, means of ventilation, navigation lights, .... ftrc extinguishing equipment, and b__afikfirc flame control devices required for such vessel by WAC Chapter 352-60 (Exhibit A, attached to thc ordinance codified in this chapter) as now or hereafter amended. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 4, 1992) 241 10.36.050 Whistles and light& Except when nece&sary as a warning or in an emergemcy it is unlawful for any person m blow or sound a whisde or horn of any vessel or shine a searchlight or other bright light oum any houseboat or other residence, or omo the · bridge or into the pilothou.~ or any other ama of any ye&scl under way in a manner likely to reduce the vision of the operator. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 5, 1992) 10.36.020 ~O0.~.O~T Mumem ,~ % (a) It is unlawful for any person to operate any vessel, except aircraft, which is not equipped with a functioning underwater exhaust or a properly installed and adequately maintained muffler. Any of the following defects in the muffling system nhall constitllte a viola~on of this section: (1) Thc absence of a muffler; (2) Thc l:rce~nc~ of a m.ffie-r cut-out, bypass, or simi~ lcvice; (3) Defects in the exhaust system, including, bt~t not imited to pinched outlets, holes, or rusted-through areas of thc muffler or pipes; (4) Thc presence of equipment which will produce excessive or unusual noise from the exhaust system; (5) Dry stack~ or water-injectod stza:ks not contaiuing a series of chambers or mechanical designs effective in reducing sound. Co) Regardle&~ of the type o f exhaust system or muffler used, no motorboat shall exceed any noise requirements set forth in Chapter 10.28 of tl~ code, as now or hereafter amended. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 6, 1992) ~/ 10.36.070 Negligent operation. It is nnlawflll for any person to operam a vessel in a negllgunt manner. For the porpos¢ of this section, m %per- ate in a negligent manner" shall be construed to mean the Operation Of a v~s.~l ill SUch manqer as to endanger or be likely to endanger an), person or property. (Ord. 133 -A (1992) § 7, 1992) 10.36.080 Reckless operation. It is unlawful for any person to operate a vessel in a reckless m~nner. FOr the pu~ Of thiq section, lid "operate in a reckless rnanB~l~' sb~ll b~ consixucd ~ mean the operation of a vessel in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. Recldes~ otm'ation is a misdemenaor punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dolla~ and not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed ninety days, or by both such fmc and imprisonment (ord. 133-A (1992) § 8, 1992) 10.34.090 Operation while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. It ia unlawful for any person to operate a vessel while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. (a) A permn i~ guilty of operaling a vessel while under thc influence of alcohol or any drug if the person operates a vc.sscl while: (1) Thc pcmon haq 0.10 gram~ or more Of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath; as shown by a-n~ys~s of the person's hn*a~h in the same m,nn~r as lxovided in RCW 46.61.506; or (2) The person has 0.10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the penman's blood as show~ by am~ysis of the person's blood in the s2ane uaa~ner as provided in RCW 46.61.506; or (3) The person is under the intluence of or affected by iatoxicat~g liquor c~ any drug; or (4) The person is under the combined influence of ca' affected by intox/t'ating liquor and any d.nlg. (b) The fact tha~ any lX:X~ou charged w/th a violation of the section is or has been entitled to use such drug under the laws of this sta~e shall not constitute a defense against any charge of violating this section. (c) All test~ for alcohol or drug of any person's blood or breath shall be subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.506. (d) Penalties. (1) The penalty for operaling a vessel under the kdlu- eoce of alcohol and/or dxllg$ Rhall be p, mi~hed by knpfisoo- meat for not less than twenty-four cons*.cudve hours nor more than one year, and by a fine of not less than two hundred fifty dollars, and not more ~han one thousand dollars. Unless the court finds a violator to be indigent, two hundml fifty dollars of the fine shall not be suspended or deferred. Twenty-futtr consecutive hours of any jail sentence shall not be suspended Or deferred, unless the courtTmds mat the imlx~ition of the jail sentence will ix)se a risk to the violator's physical or'mental well-being. Whenever the mandatory jail sentence is suspended or deterred, the court shall state in writing the reason for granting the suspension or deferral, and the facts upon which the suspension or deferral is granted. (2) au a second Or subsequent conviction for crperamag a venal while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs within a five-ye, ar pea-led, or when the violator has been convicted of driving or being in physical conu~ol o f a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or drugs within a five-year period, the violator shall be punished by imprisonment for not le~s than seven 6ays nor more than one year and by a fine of not less than five hundred dollam and not more than two thousand dollar~. Unle.~ the court finds a violator to be indigent, five hundred dollars of the t'me shall not be suspended or deferred. The jail sentence shall not be suspended or deferred, unless the court finda that the imposition of the jail sentence will pose a risk to the violator' s physical or mental well-being. Whenever the mandatory jail sentence is suspended or deterred, the court shall state in writing the reason for granting the suspension or deferral, and the facts upon which the suspension or deferral is granted. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 9, 1992) 10.3~.100 Incapacity of operator.' It is unlawful for any pecan who owns or is in control of any vessel to authorize or knowingly permit thc ~ame to be operated by any person who by reason of physical Or mental di.gability, incapacity or ~m m ar~l~[~ is ~napable ofc~g s~ch vet~ ,ma~- the prevail~n§ c~:um~tanca% including the type, size and motive power of the ve~el, and the weather and wa~r conditions. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 10, 1992) 10..36.110 Underage operator. It is unlawful for any minor under the age of sixteen year~ to opera~ or be permitted, by thc owner or person having charge of a motofooat, to operate a motorboat IX)Wear. Al by a motor of trna hoFoq~ower or more tmless accompanied by a person who is over the age of eighteen. Provided that supervision by an adult is not required of a minor under the age of sLxteen who has completed the U.S. Coast Guard Basic Boating Safety Course, Power Squadron Boating cour~ or other recognized boating safety cotu~, and has received a certificate therefor. ((3rd- 133-A (1992) § 11, 1992) 10.36.120 Steering and sailing. Except as provided eisewbere herein, all v~.~els using the waters of l~dt~ap County shall comply with the steering and sailing rule.~ contained in the International Regulaliom; For Preventing Collisions At Sea, 1972, also known the 72 COLREGS (Codified by Tide 33, CFR, Pan 81-72 and Appendix A thexeo0. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 12, 1992) 10.36.130 Speed limit. Except as permitted in Section 10.36.270, it is ~ml~wful for any person to operate a vessel at a speed s'ufficient to cream a wake or in excess of seven nautical miles p!:_r hour, whichever is less, within one hundred rift)' feet of any shoreline, ~_~, breakwater or restricted area. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 13, 1992) 10.36,140 Interference with navigation. No person shall operate a vessel in a manner which unreasonably or unn~ly hntefferea with the operation of another vessel or the launching of any vessel at any public boat launching ramp. Anchoring or moorkng under a bridge or in a channel or ia an approach to a public boat 13nndling t~'lp qh~ll coustitote iaterfererac~ with navigation. (Ord. 133-A (1992) § 14, 1992) 10.36.150 Mooring at private docks without permission. No person shall moor a ve&sel to a private seawall or pier unin~ licensed, invited or otherwise !:n'ivileged to do $o, or b~m-h a V~-"I ~O priVAte property i/notice ago/rat 242 WAYNE IVERSEN 2002 MADRONA POINT DRIVE BREMERTON, WASHINGTON 98312 'RECEIVED. COUNCIL OFFICE" CONTRARY TO MR. WILLIAM H. BROUGHTON'S OPINION THERE DEFINITELY IS A SOLID LEGAL BASIS UPON WHICH A SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SHOULD BE DENIED MR. HOLTZ AS IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT: 1 PIERS AND DOCKS ARE PROHIBITED "AT ENTRANCES TO BAYS OR COVES." 2 NAVIGATION WILL BE GREATLY IMPACTED (THE IDEA THAT THIS IS SOLELY THE CONCERN OF THE ARMY CORP. OF ENGINEERS IS A FALLACY OTHERWISE IT WOULD NOT BE LISTED AS A CRITERIA IN THE SMA . DO WE TRULY WANT TO GIVE UP LOCAL CONTROL TO A FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY ?). THE ALREADY SOMETIMES CONGESTED FLOW OF TRAFFIC WILL RESTRICTED TO A SMALLER AREA. ROWBOATS WILL BE FORCED TO THE CENTER OF THE CHANNEL WHERE THE CURRENTS ARE DIFFICULT TO ROW AGAINST AND SAILBOATS WILL FIND IT DIFFICULT SAIL ( TACKING IN A NARROW POWERBOAT FILLED LANE). THE CONGESTION WILL ONLY INCREASE AS MORE DOCKS ARE BUILT. 3 THE DOCK WILL SET A PRECEDENT IN AN AREA WHERE THERE IS NOTHING SIMILAR THERE ARE NO DOCKS OR I BELIEVE EVEN LEGAL FLOATS IN THE CHANNEL. IF THIS IS BUILT THERE WILL BE MORE (EVEN I WILL APPLY FOR ONE, AFTER ALL I WILL BE LIVING ON A MARINA AND WILL WANT TO PROTECT "MY" PROPERTY RIGHTS). SOME DOCKS MAY REQUIRE TO BE LONGER THAN 150 FEET TO ARRIVE AT THE ALLOWABLE DEPTH. THE DOCKS WILL RESULT IN A CHANGE OF CHARACTER IN THE AREA WHICH ONCE LOST CANNOT BE REGAINED (PERHAPS THE CHRISTMAS PARADE OF BOATS WILL END). WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW THIS TO A PUBLIC WATERWAY. WE WOULD NOT LET ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS CONSTRICT KITSAP WAY TO ONE LANE WHY HERE? 4 "A VISUAL IMPACT TO THE AESTHETIC QUALITY OF THE EXISTING SHORELINE WILL OCCUR. THE NATURAL VIEWS OF WATER WILL BE REPLACED BY VIEWS OF A DOCK AND ITS ANCHORING PILINGS." IN CLOSING I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE SUGGESTION THAT "82%" SUPPORT THE PROJECT. THIS FIGURE HAS NO BASIS IN FACT. IT COMES FROM MR. HOLTZ'S ASSERTION THAT 82% OF THE HOME OWNERS HE SPOKE TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT. 100 % OF THE HOMEOWNERS I CONTACTED ARE AGAINST IT. MY FIGURE IS JUST AS MEANINGLESS AS HIS. THIS IS A PUBLIC WATERWAY EVERYONE, NOT JUST THOSE ADJACENT TO IT ARE ENTITLED TO COMMENT. AS FOR INTIMIDATION THIS AREA HAS MANY ELDERLY AND SOME HAVE BEEN "CONVINCED" NOT TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE PROJECT. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO PUT ON THE PUBLIC RECORD THAT AGAIN A CAR IN MY DRIVEWAY WAS VANDALIZED THE TOP WAS SLASHED. ONLY AT MY HOUSE, NOT THE CONVERTIBLE AT THE NEXT HOUSE, JIM REEDS A SUPPORTER OF THE DOCK. COINCIDENCE PERHAPS. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY COMMENTS. ~~; ~/~ %~za '~[CEIVEO CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" :.)ATE ~'-[~.'~ ~;~/~ ~ : ~7 16 September 1996 City of Bremerton Bremerton City Council 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 CEIVEO CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" Subj: Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit SL-15-94; 1542 Madrona Point Drive. within the SW 1/4 of Sec. 16, T.24N., R. 1E, W.M., Appeal of Bremerton Planning Commission Decision Attn: All Members, Bremerton City Council It is my understanding that an appeal to the Bremerton Planning Commissions' opposition of the application for a shoreline development permit for the subject property will be coming before the Bremerton City Council in the near future. As a resident of the Oyster Bay area, I have registered my concerns regarding this issue, which have been primarily safety oriented with concerns of short term and long term environmental impacts. It is my recommendation to the Bremerton City Council, to let "cooler heads prevail" and r/se above the personalities involved in this issue and uphold the Bremerton Plarufing Commissions' position of denying the shoreline development permit. This is based on valid concerns of many citizens opposed to the construction of this dock. concerns including safety, long term environmental issues and the setting of an undesirable precedent for future applications. As you recall, these concerns were reiterated to the Planning Commission after the first vote was taken on this matter. The Commission reversed itself only aider hearing both sides of public comment, as required, and then took the matter to vote again. Although the applicant has completed the process and has obtained legal counsel, this should not result in an automatic, procedural granting of his/her shoreline development application. Please uphold the Planning Commission's opposition of the installation of this dock in the channel at Oyster Bay. If the installation of this dock is approved, the entire process that authorizes the approval will be questioned, and the public servants that are entrusted with these decisions will have to be held accountable. Bremerton, WA 98312 gECEIVED CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" DATE Bremerton City Council City Hall 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 14 September, 1996 Subject:: The appeal of the decision rendered by the Planning Commission in their denial of the Substantial Development Permit # SL-15- 94, for 1542 Madrona Point Drive. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Bremerton City Council, We never seem to have time tdra thing right, but we always find time to do it over. This entire action is bordering on farcical. A tempest in a channel, brought about by one man who doesn't want to get his shoes muddy - getting to a 'friends' boat; and who continually confuses the Channel with the Bay. The paper trail left by the development of Short property at 1542 could easily be attributed to the actions of a person acting with impunity, and showing a total lack of regard for neighbors, community, or regulations; with aid and comfort offered by the Bremerton Community Development offices. There is some talk in the neighborhoods, on both sides of the channel, betting that if the Pier Permit is approved by you - that the structure will end up as a Bridge to Marine Drive; and that the Planning Department - responding to this latest excess, will meet in Emergency Executive Session - to determine how much TOLL Mr. Holtz would be allowed to charge. Hopefully, Sept. 13, 1996 ~[CEIVEb. L~ITY COUNCIL OFFICE" Bremerton City Council Bremerton Wa, 98310 Dear Council Members I write with regard to the Holtz floating Dock proposal, ur~ng you to support the decision of the Planning Commission's disapproval. We, m the Pacific Northwest, live on one of the most beautiful and unique bodies of water m the United States. Please do not despoil the aesthetic value of the Oyster Bay channel with the construction of this deck and/or others that will fellow. The Shorelines Management Act of 1971, provides detailed information (see Chapter 4 pages 18 & 19~ Shorelines of State-wide Significance) which just/ties, in my opinion, rejection of the proposed dock I refer specifically to that which reads, "designate and administer shoreline environments and use regulations to minimize man-made intrusions on shorelines." Also, "preserve the shorelines for future generations." It is hoped that the Council members will study the aforementioned pages and concur with me that construction of the proposed dock would be m violation of the Shorelines Management Act. Respectfully yours, 17~5 South Marine Dr. Bremerton, Wa 98312 Sept 15, 1996 Bremerton City Council 239 4th Street Bremertorg Wa 98337 "RmlV£D CITY COUNCIL DATE__ Re: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit SL-15-94 Issuance of a permit for the requested dock in the channel between Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay constitutes a direct violation of The City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Chapter 7 Section F Sub-section 8: No building permit, septic tank permit, or other development perrmt shall be issued for any parcel of land developed or divided in violation of this Master Program. The facts I wish to present were denied at the Planning Commission Hearing on June 18, 1996, due to repeated Point of Orders by Commissioner Joan Dingfield, insisting I was trying to present new reformation not previously heard by the Commission. Such is not the case. My information relates to the Bulkhead clearly indicated on Exhibit A, the Lot Plan and Exhibit B, the Side Profile drawings. These exhibits show the bulkhead as the anchoring structure for the dock. These are copies of the original staff report of Mr. Allmgham, submitted to the Commission in the May Hearing. Following the May hearing, research of the Deparmaent of Community Development's files clearly established the fact that the property at 1542 Madrona Point Rd. is the site of repeated violations of the SMP, as outlined in the attached copies of deparmaent file documents, Exhibits C, D, E & F. Exhibit F is an admission by the Dock Applicant, Mr. Holtz, of the construction of the illegal,bulkhead and a land grab that resulted from it s construction. Unfortunately, this reformation was apparently considered irrelevant to the issue and was not part of the packet issued to the Commission. But it is extremely relevant if Chapter 7 Section F Sub-section 8 of the SMP is to be considered. Had Chapter 7 not been overlooked, I am confident the permit would never have been issued. The land grab is further evidenced by Exhibit G, the Short Plat drawing. On this exhibit, 1542 is depicted as Lot B. The drawing, dated 9/20/88, shows near the center, by the words Oyster Bay, the word SHORELINE has been crossed out. Note there is no bulkhead and the shoreline slants back toward land at the northern boundary. The location of this proposed dock is into the narrow channel between Ostrich & Oyster Bay. This stretch of water currently has no docks of this nature protruding into it. The granting of a shoreline substantial development permit for the construction of a private recreational floating dock would be precedence setting. It would add to the proliferation of new docks, consuming limited shoreline resources. The Shoreline Master Program Chapter 4 pages 18 & 19 (Exhibit K) addresses SHORELINES OF STATE- WIDE SIGNIFICANCE?Please take heed of these two important pages It could not be better stated. The dock would benefit but a few while negatively impacting many. Another department of this city has printed on it's vehicles TO SERVE & PROTECT. Isn't that the job of all city employees, .the Dept. of Community Development, the Planning Commission, the City CouncilT/ '! A dock at this location would stand ~- a monument to the bending and breaking of the regulations this council is obligated to uvhold. Thc 13remerton plarmmg Commission displayed tremendous wisdom m denying a shoreline substantial development permit (SL-15-94). The Bremcrton City Council should display like wisdom by upholding the Planning Commission's decision. Enforce the SMP. Preserve the shorelines for furore generations. Respectfully yours, Bernard Holland 1801 S. Marine Dr. Bremerton, Wa 98312 Law~, Dressler 1707 S. Marine Dr. 3remerton, 98312 "RECEIVED CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" DATE This letter is to oppose construction of a 150-foot dock in the channel between Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay. Proponents of the dock are Don Holtz and Laura Short, residents of 1542 Madrona Point Drive. The basis for this opposition is as follows: Based on Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) goal, its policy and intent, and using the city's own findings about this proposed dock, it is appar- ent the dock violates and undercuts the SMP at every level. Neither the SMP's primary goal (to permit water access to the public and individuals "without adversely impacting the natural aesthetic qualities of the shoreline") nor its overall policy (mini- mal impact, prevent navigable obstruction, prevent proliferation of new docks) is met with any satisfaction. The real question based on these findings isn't why should the dock be denied, but why should it be allowed? Allowing such a dock falls woefully short of meeting even the most basic requirements of the SMP. More importantly, should the city council allow this dock, it will be a clear violation of the city's own stated goal. That goal, as outlined in the Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is: To assure that adequate water access and moorage faculties are available to the public and indi- qduals, without adversely impacting the natural aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In the Cormmunity Development report compiled by city staff, the city's findings repeatedly show allowing construction of this dock is inconsistent with the goals of the SMP and also repeatedly violate the policies of the SMP. SMP policy, which is supposed to be the criteria under which permits are issued, states: 1) Multiple use and expansion of existing piers, wharfs and docks is encouraged (in lieu of the addition and or proliferation of new facilities) in order to minimize the consumption of limited shoreline resources. Joint use facilities are pre- ferred over new single use piers, docks and floats. The city's findings: The dock will not be a Joint-use dock and will add to the pro- liferation of new docks, consuming limited shoreline resources. Mr. Holtz's assertion that "adjoining neighbors will be able to use the dock" is a mute and undefendable point because both his adjoining neighbors have 1) consistently opposed construction of the dock 2) are elderly and will never use such a dock 3) the southerrfly neighbor has sought a restraining order in court against him and as such is quite unlikely to set foot on Mr. Holtz's dock or property. .') SMP Policy states: Piers, docks and recreational floats should be constructed so as to minimize obstruc- tion of navigable waters and not significantly reduce use of the water surface. Mr. Holtz's dock will take 150 -feet of a 650-foot w~de channel, or slightly more than 23 percent of the channel's width. Such a percentage clearly does not reflect a mitt- mai obstruction. Should dock~ of this size be allowed, it is reasonaL.~ to believe neigh- bors on the opposite side of the channel may also desffe a 160-foot dock. Permitting 'hese oversized docks will eliminate over 300 feet of usable channel area -- over half .he width of the channel at high tide. Such a reduction in channel width is clearly not a minimal impact. Despite Mr. Holtz's assertion that only the Army Corp of Engineers can determine if navigable waters have been obstructed, it is clear from the stated policy of the SMP that others may judge obstruction and that the goal is minimal obstruction. Simply because waters are not completely or mostly obstructed is not to be the crlte- rla nor the guiding factor under the SMP. Minimal obstruction is the stated objective of the SMP. Clearly a 150-foot dock is not minimal; additionally, in its report, city staff repeatedly classify the dock as being the maximum size allowed. 3) SMP Policy states: Piers: Only open pile piers should be permitted where shore trolling is important and/or where there is significant longshore drift. The city's findings state a lack of knowledge and documentation related to the impor- tance of shore trolling within this channel. The city failed to fulfill its duty to investigate this concern of the SMP. 4) SMP Policy states: View Protection: Locate, design and operate piers, wharves, docks and floats so as to be aesthetically compatible with the area visually affected, and protect sur- rounding properties from undue impalment of views. The city's f'mdings state:the dock will continue a precedence for permitting docks with- in the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay and other shorelines within Bremerton. The cumulative impact of dock developments could result in SIGNIFICANT impairment of views and aesthetic impacts to the shoreline. This channel has no similar docks. *It should be noted city staff incorrectly state the dock will "continue" a precedence. The dock will in fact set a precedence, because as the staff report later correctly states: this channel has no similar docks. Mr. Holtz's assertion that the channel has 11 other docks of this nature is incorrect. The channel of Oyster Bay, where Mr. Holtz lives, only has one other dock . The other docks Mr. Holtz refers to are IN Oyster Bay, an expansive area of water; the docks referred to are NOT in the narrow channel leading to the bay. Under general SMP regulations, policy~States: 5) Prior to granting a permit for a pier, dock or float, the effects of the structure upon navigation, recreation and adjacent shorelines shall be determined and disposition o£ the permit by the city shall reflect such determination. 6) Water access and moorage facilities shall be located, designed and constructed so as o cause raJrdmum interference with navigation and public use of the. water surface and shoreline and to protect surrounding properties from undue impairment of views. In regard to the above SMP regulations, the city staff report finds the following will Navigation: Near shore navigation will be impacted. Water craft will have to maneuver around the structure. People walking along the beach will have to climb over or duck under the dock. 'It should also be noted small, human-powered watercraft will be forced into the raid- die of the channel and near-shore trolling will be hnpossible, as well as beach walking. Recreation: Usable water surface area will be reduced. Recreational users and those users with shallow draft ves~els will have to stay clear of the dock. These findings do not show a minimal impact to navigation for either water or beach users, a clear violation of the policy, regulations and intent of the SMP. Adjacent shorelines: A visual impact to the aesthetic quality of the existing shoreline will occur. Nature views of the water will be replaced by views of a dock and its anchor pilings. It should be particularly noted that the city's l'mdings clearly indicate the visual impact of the dock i~ in flagrant violation of the goal of the SMP which states development should be '~eithout adversely impacting the natural aesthetic qualities of the shoreline". SMP policy also states: Piers and docks are prohibited where n,,wlgatlon may be Impaired slgrlflcantly at entrances to bays, channels or co~'es. The city findings state: The dock is located within a relatively narrow channel which .~as approximately 650 feet of width at the dock's location. The dock projects 150 feet waterward and will reduce the channel width to 400 feet at high tide. When the tide ebbs to a low 0 feet tidal elevation, the dock will project 40 feet waterward, reducing the width of the channel to 337 feet. Clearly, allowing this dock violates the SMP by both significantly reducing the usa- ble space of the channel and by setting a precedence that will allow well over half of the channel area to be consumed when additional docks are built. Both effects are in violation of both the SMP goals and policy. Additionally, the proposed dock is located near the entrance of the channel, and will impair navigation into and out of Oyster Bay. Based on the SMP's goal, its policy and intent, and using the city's own £mdings about this proposed dock, it is clearly apparent the dock violates and undercuts the SMP at every level. Neither the SMP's primary goal (to permit water access to the public and individuals "without adversely impacting the natural aesthetic qualities of the shoreline") nor its ovexall policy (minimal impact, prevent navigable obstruction, prevent proliferation of new docks) is met with any satisfaction. The real question based on these findings isn't why should the dock be denied, but why should it be allowed? It falls woefully short of meeting even the most basic requirements of the SMP and, more importantly, should the city council allow this dock, it will be clearly in violation of the city's own stated goal. Also, Mr. Holtz's assertion that safety is not an issue surrounding his dock because Oyster Bay and its channel have a 7-mph speed limit is a complete falsehood. There is no state law that sets a speed limit for recreational boaters on all state waters. (See attached) State law does allow local governments to regulate speed limits on waters within its jurisdiction. RCW 88.02 Vessel Registration, RCW 8~A 2 Regulation of recreational vessels and WAC 352-60 recreational vessel equipment ,and operation. .towever, the City of Bremerton is the local government in this case and the city has no speed limit on ~ body of water. Although the county sheriff patrols this water, (and the county has a 7-mph speed limit in certain county waters) there is no inter- goverrauental cooperation agreement or authority between the city and the county. Therefore, should a speed limit be enforced by the county deputies in the Oyster Bay channel and surrounding area, they must follow state guidelines (no stated speed limit) -- not those of the county. RCW 35A.35.010; RCW 35A.21.090 and RCW 35A21.161. Additionally, granting a permit for this dock can be viewed as a violation of property rights -- but not the property rights belonging to Mr. Holtz. Since he owns neither the tidelands in front of his property, nor thc area of the channel his dock will consume, the "property rights" in question are those of state taxpayers. Adherence to the SMP is designed to protect the rights of all parties involved. Should the city allow this dock, council members will be ignoring the rights of thousands of taxpayers who have an interest in this channel (which is considered a waterway of statewide significance) and more importantiy, council members will be violating the city's o~ SMP goal and policy. ~707 S. Marine Dr. Bremerton, WA. 98312 "RECEIVED CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" DATE__~-/&_?G ~..olW.~x' 3221 Claremore Ave. ,~. ~/~,~Long Beach, CA 90808 September 9, 1996 Bremerton City Council City Hall 4th St. Bremerton, WA 98310 Re: Appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit ~SL-15-94 Dear Sirs: Reluctant as we are to disagree with a neighbor of long standing, my husband and I must reiterate our opposition to Don Holtz's proposal to build a super-long pier into Oyster Bay. My father built our house (1714 Madrona Point Drive) in 1951, when the Point and the opposite shore were much more rural than they are now. Many changes have taken place through the years, but the change that Donny is now proposing, one that would be copied by others across the bay, is designed to destroy, not just change, the ambience of the bay and beach. As a neighbor has said, with this and subsequent piers, we might as well shut off the bay and make it a marina. Perhaps more important than rural atmosphere is hazard. A pier protruding so deeply into this narrow neck of the bay would create a clear hazard to boaters and skiers. And who would be liable in case of accident? Holtz, the owner of the pier, or the owner of the tidelands upon which it is built? With all good will to Don Holtz, the building of this pier. we can see no justification for Sincerely y~ours,~ Jack & Joyc~e Lackma, 'RECEIVED CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" )ATE TO: Bremerton City Council RE: Holtz/Short Appeal ~ Dock at 1542 Madrona Point FROM: Terre Skelly ~ DATE: September 17, 1996 The purpose of this letter will be to attempt to rebut and clarify the issues before the Council in the above referenced matter. The relevant issues before the Council in making their decision in this appeal are: 1) Does the proposed dock comply with the applicable rules and laws governing the construction of such structures in the City of Bremerton? Yes. It was determined by the Bremerton Planning Department that the modified design of the proposed Holtz dock did meet the laws in effect governing the construction of docks. Mr. Holtz made numerous revisions to the dock design, at the request of the Planning Department, to meet the requirements as given to him by Jack Allingham, Senior Planner in the Bremerton Planning Department. 2) Did the Planninq Commission err in withdrawing their original decision to approve the dock and changinq their decision to not allow the dock in the subseauent hearing? Yes. The Planning Commission did not follow their own Rules of Procedure in conducting the hearing on May 21, 1996, and therefore rescinded their approval of the dock and continued the hearing to June 18, 1996. it was stated by the Chairman Wayne Olson, that the June hearing would be a continuation of the May hearing to allow rebuttal by Sue Holland and KathyGallagher. The purpose of the hearing was not to present new speakers not in attendance at the first hearing or new testimony. The Planning Commission allowed additional information and new speakers. At the June hearing, one of speakers attempted to blame an alcohol related boating accident that occurred after the first hearing on the narrowness of the channel. The accident occurred after 10:00 p.m. between two boats driven by teenagers who collided in front of the Oyster Bay Inn. The location of the accident was as far away from the Holtz dock location as you can be in Oyster Bay. Don Pratt attempted to limit the testimony presented to rebuttal, but the Planning Commission Chairman allowed several new items into the record. Although the Planning Commission allowed new speakers and testimony at the second hearing, no new issues were brought before the Planning Commission. It is apparent that the Planning Commission Chairman had made his decision to change his vote prior to the June hearing. Therefore, the Planning Commission or Planning Commission Chairman erred in changing his vote. 3) Should the Bremerton City Council uphold, reverse or modifyinq the decision of the PlanninQ Commission to deny the construction of the pro~)osed dock? The Bremerton City Council should grant the appeal of Don Holtz and allow him to build this dock, subject to compliance with all applicable rules and regulations. Mr. Holtz has attempted, at every turn, to meet the requests made by the City of Bremerton. He has modified his dock plans numerous times at the request of the Senior Planner, Jack Allingham. He spent several thousand dollars to get an engineered survey of the channel at the request of the Senior Planner, Jack Allingham. This engineered survey proved to be consistent with the information previously provided to the City by Mr. Holtz. Opponents of the dock attempt to use the various modifications to the plans against Mr. Holtz, alleging it shows he is attempting some sort of switch and bait. The truth is, those changes were all made at the request of Jack Allingham to comply with his interpretation of the rules and laws governing the construction of the dock. 4) Should the issue of speed limit enforcement be a consideration in the grantinq of the permit to construct this dock? No. It is obvious that there are different interpretations as to what the speed limit in the channel to Oyster should be. The one thing that is agreed by all of the parties is that there is a speed limit, it is not enforced, and boats travel at a high rate of speed through the channel. Mr. Holtzis not responsible for the CI1 COUNCIL OH-ILb 12 September 1996 TO: COMMITTEE DETERMINING MR. DON HOLTZ DOCK APPROVAL FROM: ROGER NANCE 1440 Madrona Pt. Dr. Bremerton, WA 98312 Dear Committee Members, As a neighbor of Mr. Holtz and Ms. Lora Short I am greatly concerned with your handling of the permit process. The questions and answers must be simplified. The opponents to the dock have clouded the primary issue with their personal feelings and irrelevant gobbledygook. These "feelings" were enough to alter your decision albeit their were five and not seven committee members present during voting. ls and has Mr. Holtz complied with the city's process for obtaining this permit? YES! The opponents have turned generations of personal issues (which one becomes privy to as you ride in the elevator to the hearings) into an assault on the dock. Why hasn't a discussion taken place as to what are acceptable parameters for a dock (ie. size, length)? Roger Nance Jr. A Concerned Citizen September 14, 1996 Bremerton City Council 239 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 "RECEIVED CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" DATE (-/-/a,, - Re: Appeal of the decision rendered by the Planning Commission denying Substantial development Permit #SL-15-94, for 1542 Madrona Point Drive Dear Council Members: You will be receiving several letters from residents of both sides of the channel into Oyster Bay regarding the proposed 150 foot dock. In the interest of keeping the volume of paper you must go through to a minimum we, the opponents, are attempting to not all tackle the same issues. I would like to address parts of the appeal prepared by Mr. Broughton for Don Holtz and Lora Short. On page 2 of the "Memorandum of Authorities," it states that there were "a substantial number of people who testified in support of" approving the permit and "approximately half as many people opposing" the approval. This statement is misleading in the fact that not everyone at the hearing nnnn~ina the permit cot un anH ~nnk~. Many of the elderly people are intimidated and afraid to- publicly testify against this project. The majority of the people speaking in favor of the dock are personal friends of Don Holtz. This is not a popularity contest. The side with the most people testifying doesn't win. · ne ~x~ ~eneral Requirements 4-18 (Exhibit B) states Kin the City of Bremerton, Puget Sound, exclusive of tidelands, is a shoreline of statewide significance." Many of the people opposing the dock are not residents, but are still boaters and are most definitely impacted by a possible dock taking up 25% of this channel. Why should their signatures be judged in a different light as Mr. Broughton suggests? Why would they be more afraid to not sign a petition opposing the dock than someone approached to sign in favor of this dock? It's not a popularity contest, but what these signatures show is the overwhelming public opposition to this dock. On page 5, Section E, it states that "Mr. Pratt found compliance with criteria from The State Shoreline Management Act and the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program." If you look at the findings of the Department of Community Development, you will notice that the dock meets the maximum legal specifications for size under the SMP, but conflicts with nearly all other SMP requirements. It adversely affects the near shore recreational navigation and the natural esthetics of the area. What does granting this permit say about the values of this "most livable city" and its commitment to its own shoreline rules? On page 8, I the width of According to Holtz/Short, 650 feet. again question the statistics. This time it is the channel and the length of the dock. the Parametrix drawing submitted by (Exhibit C) the channel width is 637 feet, not According to the latest Float Plan (Exhibit E) that was attached to the June 18, 1996, Planning Commission Agenda packet, the dock length is clearly 150 feet, not 142 feet. These discrepancies are misleading. On page 15, "Mr. Holtz has extended the invitation to his neighbors that they are welcome to use his proposed dock at no expense, and that it will be a shared or joint dock at some point in the future. This fact can be included as a condition of approval." Does this mean a legal right of way, and that the neighbors will be permitted to walk across his property to use the dock since it will not be on the property line. How legally enforceable is this? This channel is a public waterway that the dock would be infringing upon. In order for their desires to be satisfied, they will be stepping on the property rights of thousands of taxpayers. Please make the right choice to protect this unique and special area by upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny this permit. Respectfully, Suzanne Holland 1801 South Marine Drive Bremerton, WA 98312 REBUTTAL TO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION LETTERS OF SUPPORT *KECEIVED CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL In Re: The approval of a shoreline substantial development permit for Don Holtz and Lora Short at 1542 Madrona Pt. Drive REBUTTAL MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES OF APPELLANTS HOLTZ & SHORT I. INTRODUCTION This Rebuttal Memorandum responds to the various submissions opposing the Appellants' request for issuance of a substantial development permit. A. This is a closed record appeal and written submissions are required by State Statute, City Ordinance and City Council Rule 12 to be confined to the evidence presented to the Planning Commission. The evidence submitted to the Plannine Commission consists of the testimony and documents which comprise the record to be made available to this Council to make its decision. Most of the information now being submitted bv the opponents is not contained within the record made by the Planning Commission and cannot legally be considered. This is the second attempt made by opponents of this permit to introduce additional evidence after the Appellants have been precluded from an opportunity to respond. The Council will note in the Planning Commission record that after the Planning Commission initially approved this matter, rebuttal was requested by the opponents. During rebuttal, the opponents repeatedly attempted to go beyond the evidence presented at the initial hearing and raised new REBUTTAL MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES OF APPELLANTS HOLTZ & SHORT - 1 issues. These attempts were overruled by the Planning Commission as being improper and unfair to Mr. Holtz and Ms. Short. Unfortunately, the same tactic is again being employed by the opponents. Much of the information now being submitted is not properly part of the record and is legally required to be disregarded. As Mr. Holtz does not have the ability to present evidence, the opponents of his permit should be bound by the same prohibition. Undoubtedly, this requirement has already been pointed out to the Council members by City staff. II. REBUTTAL ARGUMENT A. When you consider the issues raised by the opponents of this project, they continue to fail to address the fact that this dock as designed meets the design and size criteria as set forth in the City's Shoreline Master Plan. It is the Shoreline Master Plan itself that the opponents do not like. Mr. Holtz' Substantial Development Permit application fails directly within the parameters allowed by the Plan.t This was recognized by your Planning Director. when he initially issued the Substantial Development Permit. As was stated in our initial Memorandum, the Shoreline Master Plan specifically allows for and encourages construction of floating docks on Bremerton shorelines. As the Plan indicates, these docks are to be "useable" and are specifically permitted to a length necessary to achieve a 5 foot depth of water at mean low water. If the opponents do not like these specifications found in the Shoreline Master Plan, the opponents should lobby the Planning Commission and the ~This fact was recognized by the Planning Commission which is now reviewing the Shoreline Master Plan. REBUTTAL MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES OF APPELLANTS HOLTZ & SHORT - 2 elected officials to change the Shoreline Master Plan. ~Iowever, arguments that the Plan is too permissive should not be allowed to defeat a permit which is specifically allowed by the Plan. This was clearly understood by your Planning Director at the time the permit was initially issued and was understood by the Planning Commission initially when it voted to approve this permit. B. There has been no credible evidence presented to the Planning Commission that approval of this permit ~vili have any detrimental impact on navigation. As was explained to the Planning Commission, the issuance of this Substantial Development Permit is the first step in the permitting and approval process. The United States Army Corps of Engineers then reviews the construction plan to determine whether there is any significant detrimental impact to navigation or navigable waters as a result of the proposed construction. As the record reflects, the area where the dock is to be constructed has very shallow water at any time other than high tide and has no water and is dry at lower tides. As a result, we are confident that the Corps of Engineers, which is comprised of trained experts, will find that this proposed construction will pose no hazard or threat to navigation. If these experts decide that a navigation hazard exists, the Corps can deny the construction or require Mr. Holtz to shorten the length of the dock. As was pointed out in our initial Memorandum, the survey performed by Parametrix of the area where this dock is to be constructed indicates that the total width of the shoreline is 637 feet. If Mr. Holtz is allowed to construct his dock and one were constructed directly opposite his of the same length, this would still leave a navigable channel of 337 feet for boaters to use. This is a width greater than a football field. If a boater is having difficulty navigating a channel REBUTTAL MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES OF APPELLANTS HOLTZ & SHORT - 3 the width of a football field, one has to question whether that person should be driving a boat at all. Clearly, the issue of navigation is a "red herring" and one that is properly decided by the Corps. C. In an effort to resolve and compromise this matter for all parties involved, the appellants are agreeable to accepting a 25 foot reduction in the length of their dock. As you will see from the record, this process has been extremely frustrating for Mr. Holtz and Ms. Short. The initial design of the dock was substantially different from the present design. This is because of concerns raised by your Planning staff and the Department of Fisheries with regard to the project. As a result, my clients have expended over $10,000.00 in engineering and redesign fees to ensure that this dock is acceptable to the experts. Now, the opponents are arguing that the dock is too long and should be eliminated. This leaves one to wonder whether the opponents are legitimately concerned about the scope and size of the project or whether they simply are opposed to construction of docks on waterfront properties. A 25 foot reduction of the size of this dock will put it substantially inside the existing buoy line and float line. In fact, a dock sized at 150 feet is inside the existing buoy line and float line. As we pointed out in our initial Memorandum, the boats tied to the buoy lines and the existing float line already define the navigational boundary for the channel. A 25 foot reduction in this dock will make it a non-factor with regard to the arguments raised by the opposition. It is my clients' intent to offer this reduction in size in an effort to once again accommodate the concerns raised by others. By reducing the size of this dock by 25 feet, the City Council can allow for the issuance of a permit and allay any legitimate concerns that have REBUTTAL MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORiTIES OF APPELLANTS HOLTZ & SHORT - 4 been raised by opponents. In addition, this will resolve the issue once and for all and will allow for all people involved to make more productive use of their time. D. Granting of this permit sets no precedent. There have been repeated arguments that the issuance of this permit will set a "precedent" for other docks in the area. Unfortunately, tiffs argument ignores the fact that the Shoreline Master Plan specifically allows for this type of structure to be built. As was mentioned earlier in this Rebuttal Memorandum, the argument should not be that a precedent is set. If people are concerned that the existing Plan allows docks which are larger than they should be, the solution is to revise the Shoreline Master Plan. As a practical matter, docks have been encouraged and permitted by the City of Bremerton since the passage of the Shoreline Management Act. Before passage of the Shoreline Management Act, no permit ~vas required to construct a dock. Mr. Holtz submits that there are not more docks on shoreline areas in the City of Bremerton because of considerations other than permits. Having a dock is a question of choice. The other shoreline residents in the area where Mr. Holtz lives have decided for their own reasons, financial or otherwise, that they do not care to have a dock in front of their property. Whether Mr. Holtz' permit is approved will not change the decision making process for others as to whether they should construct a dock. There will be no proliferation of docks as a result REBUTTAL MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES OF APPELLANTS HOLTZ & SHORT - 5 of issuance of this permit. DATED this 18th day of September, 1996. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM H. BROUGH~N WSBA #8858 Attorney for Holtz/Short D:\WP DOCSkHO LT2%M EM ORA ND REB REBUTTAL MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES OF APPELLANTS HOLTZ & SHORT ~ 6 gECEIVED CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" TO: Breme~on City Council ~. ~ RE: Holtz/Short Appeal - Dock at 1542 Madrona Point FROM: Terre SkeEy ~ DATE: September 17, 1996 The purpose of this letter will be to attempt to rebut and clarify the issues before the Council in the above referenced matter. The relevant issues before the Council in making their decision in this appeal are: 1) Does the orooosed dock comply with the applicable rules and laws governing the construction of such structures in the City of Bremerton? Yes. It was determined by the Bremerton Planning Department that the modified design of the proposed Holtz dock did meet the laws in effect governing the construction of docks. Mr. Holtz made numerous revisions to the dock design, at the request of the Planning Department, to meet the requirements as given to him by Jack Allingham, Senior Planner in the Bremerton Planning Department. 2) Did the Planning Commission err in withdrawing their original decision to aoprove the dock and changing their decision to not allow the dock in the subseauent hearinq? Yes. The Planning Commission did not follow their own Rules of Procedure in conducting the hearing on May 21, 1996, and therefore rescinded their approval of the dock and continued the hearing to June 18, 1996. It was stated by the Chairman Wayne Olson, that the June hearing would be a continuation of the May hearing to allow rebuttal by Sue Holland and Kathy Gallagher. The purpose of the hearing was not to present new speakers not in attendance at the first hearing or new testimony. The Planning Commission allowed additional information and new speakers. At the June hearing, one of speakers attempted to blame an alcohol related boating accident that occurred after the first hearing on the narrowness of the channel. The accident occurred after 10:00 p.m. between two boats driven by teenagers who collided in front of the Oyster Bay Inn. The location of the accident was as far away from the Holtz dock location as you can be in Oyster Bay. Don Pratt attempted to limit the testimony presented to rebuttal, but the Planning Commission Chairman allowed several new items into the record. Subsequent to the June hearing in which the Chairman Wayne OIson changed his vote and therefore changed the decision of the Commission and denied the dock. After the June hearing and denial of the dock, I was informed that, prior to the June hearing, Wayne Olson contacted several people not involved in the hearing process to discuss the dock. Apparently, these people convinced him that he should vote against the dock. He then contacted a former Planning Commission member to find out what he had to do to change his vote. This is a blatant violation of the Appearance of Fairness and RCW 42.36.060 regarding ex parte communications not being placed on the record. Wayne ©lson did ask the Appearance of Fairness question, but did not disclose his ex parte communications on the record. The Planning Commission Chairman did not explain why he changed his vote other than he thought the dock would be a navigational hazard. Although the PIanning Commission allowed new speakers and testimony at the second hearing, no new issues were brought before the Planning Commission. It is apparent that the Planning Commission Chairman had made his decision to change his vote prior to the June hearing. Therefore, the Planning Commission or Planning Commission Chairman erred in changing his vote. 3) Should the Bremerton City Council uphold, reverse or modifying the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the construction of the proposed dock? The Bremerton City Council should grant the appeal of Don Holtz and allow him to build this dock, subject to compliance with all applicable rules and regulations. Mr. Holtz has attempted, at every turn, to meet the requests made by the City of Bremerton. He has modified his dock plans numerous times at the request of the Senior Planner, JackAIlingham. He spent several thousand dollars to get an engineered survey of the channel at the request of the Senior Planner, Jack Allingham. This engineered survey proved to be consistent with the information previously provided to the City by Mr. Holtz. Opponents of the dock attempt to use the various modifications to the plans against Mr. Holtz, alleging it shows he is attempting some sort of switch and bait. The truth is, those changes were all made at the request of Jack Allingham to comply with his interpretation of the rules and laws governing the construction of the dock. 4) Should the issue of speed limit enforcement be a consideration in the Qranting of the oermit to construct this do6k? No. It is obvious that there are different interpretations as to what the speed limit in the channel to Oyster should be. The one thing that is agreed by all of the parties is that there is a speed limit, it is not enforced, and boats travel at a high rate of speed through the channel. Mr. Holtz is not responsible for the enforcement of a speed limit through the channel. The proper policing agencies include the Coast Guard, Kitsap County Sheriff and Bremerton Police. The opponents of the dock have attempted to use the lack of enforcement of the speed timit to their benefit by alleging the dock is a hazard. In actuality, they should be complaining to the police agencies to enforce the speed limit. They have not done so because they believe it bolsters their case against the dock_ The opponents of the dock have complained about everything that Mr. Holtz does at his home from the draining of his swimming pool to having a fegal beach fire, yet they fail to complain about speeding boats because they perceive it helps their case against the dock. The opponents of the dock each have their own personal reasons for not wanting Mr. Holtz to construct this dock. That is exactly what they are -- personal reasons, not valid legal reasons. Some don't want any development, such as Kathy Gallagher and Wayne Iverson who admit they have attempted to stop other docks in the area. Other opponents have stated they just don't want a dock. They have alt attempted to allege reasons which have proved not valid and exaggerate the size of the dock as it relates the channel, but they have yet to prove that this dock is not legal and does not comply with the laws governing construction of this dock. I support this dock because it is regal and complies with all of the appropriate laws and regulations. I am opposed to allowing people who are jealous or vindictive or opposed to any construction to step a homeowner from developing his own property within his legal rights. i :ECEIVED CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" September 18, 1996 TO: BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL FROM: VICTOR TARGETT RE: HOLTZ DOCK APPLICATION I'm writing this letter to express my concern with the way the city has handled the Holtz dock application package, and entire situation. After review of the entire package at the Planning Dept., it's obvious to me that the applicant did everything requested by the City to achieve approval of his request, and now it has been denied. Is this a new process for the City and the Planning Dept.??? I'm concerned about the inconsistencies. I'm aware of the situation the council is in. On one side - a legitimate request meeting all requirements, on the other side - a small group of people clearly with a personal vendetta towards the applicant. I hope you are able to clearly see through the smoke, and approve this dock. As it's consistent with what more than the majority desires. I'm a neighbor of the applicant and would be more than happy to be involved in this as a joint use dock. "RECEIVED CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" gATE September 18, 1996 Bremerton City Council 239 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98310 Dear Council Members, As a waterfront homeowner and active boater we feel the need to write to the council on the proposed construction of the Holtz dock. We view the proposal to be a positive addition for the homeowner and the neighboring channel. The construction will be professional and aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. Its location in the widest part of the channel will not restrict the existing boat traffic nor create a navigable hazard. The legal hurdles of permits required by the city have been met by the owner. The opposition seems to have a personal problem with the homeowner rather than with the legal construction of the dock. Please consider the individual property rights of those who strive to improve their homes and neighborhood. Very Respectfully, Ji Joan Skelly r~ 12 September 1996 TO: COMMITTEE DETERMINING MR. DON HOLTZ DOCK APPROVAL FROM: ROGER NANCE 1440 Madrona Pt. Dr. Bremerton, WA 98312 Dear Committee Members, As a neighbor of Mr. Holtz and Ms. Lora Short 1 am greatly concerned with your handling of the permit process. The questions and answers must be simplified. The opponents to the dock have clouded the primary issue with their personal feelings and irrelevant gobbledygook. These "feelings" were enough to alter your decision albeit their were five and not seven committee members present during voting. Is and has Mr. Holtz complied with the city's process for obtaining this permit? YES! I suggest you consider what the opponents aren't informing you. Years ago there were several docks on the channel. Why aren't the opponents concerned about the dilapidated condition of these structures and the rusted tracks which protrude into the channel. The opponents have turned generations of personal issues (which one becomes privy to as you ride in the elevator to the hearings) into an assault on the dock. Why hasn't a discussion taken place as to what are acceptable parameters for a dock (ie. size, length)? Respectfully, Roger Nance r. A Concerned Citizen