HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/05/95TAPE #1276
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
COUNCIL
PROVED
MAY .' 3 1995
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 5, 1995
#0066
#0083
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, April 5, 1995, at 5:30 P.M., with
Council President Sherril Huff-Menees presiding. Council members
present were Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Morrie Dawkins, Carlos
Montgomery, John Law, David Farr and Lon Overson. Councilman
Richard Neville was absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian
Sievers and City Clerk Kathy McCluskey.
The.meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President Huff-Menees and Invocation given by Chaplain Bob Miles of
Belmont Terrace Convalescent Center.
President Huff-Menees announced Agenda Item 9A had been pulled from
the Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - March 15, 1995
#AB95-064
B. Bid Award Recommendation -- 4-Wheel Drive Tractor #AB95-065
at Gold Mountain Golf Course
C. Bid Award Recommendation -- Vehicle Replacement #AB95-066
Versalift Model vo-39 MHI Material Handling Aerial Manlift
M/S/C/U(Overson/Farr) to approve Consent Agenda as presented.
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required
by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified
as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that
had been made available to the Council.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) on April 5, 1995, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: Regular Payroll for the period ending March 31, 1995,
in the amount of $712,886.17
President Huff-Menees made the following announcement:
(1) An Executive Session is scheduled for Wednesday, April 12,
1995, 5:00 - 5:20 P.M., in the Council Conference Room. Topic to
be discussed: "Labor Negotiations".
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORT8
TAPE #1276
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 2 of 44
Mr. Winters announced volunteers wanting to help on the 50th
Anniversary of WWII celebration can contact Jim Wooley at (360)
895-1980. Also, the Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association will meet
Thursday, April 13, at the Cascade Natural Gas building. The guest
speaker at that meeting will be Russ Hartman, who will talk about
the upcoming School Levy ballot measure.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
De1 Knauss referenced Council's own rules and regulations, adopted
7-27-1994, Rule 9 (3) which states: "Any member of the public
shall have the right to address the Council and Mayor on issues not
on the Agenda..". In his opinion, he felt the City Council
President's actions, at the March 29th Council meeting, were
inappropriate in not letting the public comment on the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which was not on that meeting's
Agenda. When he pointed out that fact to the Council President, in
his opinion, she treated him in an unprofessional manner and
interpreted the rules in her own favor. He believes when the rules
are a little "fuzzy", all interpretations should go in favor of the
public as a matter of courtesy by the Council. He hoped that in the
future the public would be treated with the same respect that
Council asks from the public. He reminded the Council they were
elected to serve the people, not dictate to them.
John R. Thomas expressed his concern over the City's proposal to
either make repairs to the City's fire boat so that it works
properly and on a consistent basis, or to do away with it all
together. He was before Council as a citizen to demand that the
fire/rescue boat be returned to service as quickly as possible. In
addition, he wants the City to insure funding so that the boat can
be properly maintained. He emphasized the importance of having a
fire/rescue boat available to cover Rich Passage, Sinclair Inlet,
Port Washington Narrows, etc. He found it totally unconscionable
that the Mayor's office informed the City Council only two weeks
ago that the fire boat was out of service when it was found
unserviceable in August of 1994, nearly seven months ago. Maybe
the Mayor can find monies for the repair from the same source that
financed the "Public Works" facility after the voters of the City
said no to that bond issue, but was financed through other sources.
Public safety should be the priority, not a park that can only be
utilized by a select few, monies to remodel the Admiral Theater,
monies to remodel the white elephant next door to City Hall or
beautifying 4th Street. In closing, he asked Mayor Horton to put
herself in Mr. Farr's shoes for a minute, ask yourself what would
your feeling be if your daughter became involved in some incident
on the waters around Bremerton and Bremerton's fire/rescue boat was
the only one that could come to the rescue, but because she didn't
support the "stupid boat", Bremerton's boat was not there to effect
a rescue.
TAPE #1276
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 3 of 44
Cecil McConne11 referenced the previous Council meeting and the
response by President Huff-Menees to not allow public testimony on
the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan during Public
Recognition. He was not sure how that incident appeared in the
Council Chambers, but what was televised over Channel 12 showed the
Council President exhibiting a bad attitude toward a citizen, who
was speaking to Council about one of their regulations. He would
not argue the point whether or not the speaker was in error as to
th~ regulations, but even though the Council President is from
another Council District, he felt the City Council President
represents every person in the City and as a favor to him and other
citizens he asked that if an attitude such as that is taken, please
take it after the meeting is adjourned and no longer televised.
Ryan Gutwell, Skateboarder, asked where can a skateboarder go in
the City of Bremerton? Local shopping areas and the boardwalk
areas are off limits to skateboarders. It concerned him that
football players, baseball players, and basketball players all have
special places to enjoy their sport, but there is no one place that
is acceptable for skateboarders. He believes there are at least
two ways to fund a skateboard park: (1) matching funds; (2)
partnership where one entity provides the land and the other entity
builds the park. He understands that the biggest problem at the
present time is insurance, however, the cities of Seattle and
Bellevue found a way to build a facility. He is serious about
working with the City to come up with a solution to the need for a
skateboard park.
Mayor Horton stated in response to the earlier comments on the
City's fire boat, yes, she did call it a stupid boat, however, she
was not talking about fire boats in general because she believes
they do serve a purpose. She was talking specific to a particular
boat, which she suspects should have been returned to the builder
a few months after the City took ownership because she believes it
was a problem all along. That action was not taken and now the City
is having to make the best of the situation. She recognized the
voters approved purchasing a fire boat and that we are a water
dependent community and have lots of need for a fire boat, but we
have a lot of other needs for public safety throughout our
community that isn't attainable due to lack of funds. The City is
looking at ways to repair the boat and she hopes it will not cost
a great deal of money to keep in operative condition. Her comment
about a "stupid boat" came more out of frustration in dealing with
this issue than anything else. She has received numerous comments
that boats are expensive to maintain, but she does Value the rescue
aspects of having a boat available.
Mayor Horton lead off a special recognition for members of the
Citizens Advisory Committee, who worked on the City's updated
TAPE #1276
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 4 of 44
Comprehensive Plan. This committee spent two years and 28 meetings
of devoted service to the community, and deserve to be recognized
for that effort. Kay Wilson, Senior Planner and Ron Hough, Planning
Manager are to be recognized for doing an exemplary job as well.
Recognition plaques were presented to Harry Wilson, Sandy Perkins,
Jack Lefcoski, Carlos Montgomery, Russ Nickerson, Barbara Gray
Boyd, Sherman Roy Runyan, Del Knauss, Doug Berry, Richard Goetz,
and Wayne Olsen.
Don Atkinson, formerly of the Bremerton Main Street Association,
introduced Carol Atkinson, the newly appointed Director of the
Bremerton Main Street Association. Carol Atkinson stated she is
looking forward to continue working with the City of Bremerton.
Don Larson, President Washington Scuba Alliance, announced an Earth
Day event to be held April 22, "Clean Up Of Sinclair Inlet". On
that day, the U.S. Coast Guard will host tours aboard a 41 foot
patrol boat, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will host tours
of a floating crane that is used to pick out debris throughout the
Puget Sound region. Approximately 60 students have been organized
to clean up the Port Orchard side of Sinclair Inlet, while
volunteers will be cleaning up the Bremerton side. Divers will be
displaying touching tanks with marine life. Events of the day kick
off at 2:00 P.M., at the First Street Dock. Refreshments will be
available for the volunteers at the end of the clean up effort.
He learned recently that the Naval Undersea Museum Foundation is
having an Earth Day event, a down-link with Key Largo, Florida,
where four teachers from this area, who are certified divers, will
work at an underwater park. The satellite link will be shown at
12:00 noon, 1:30 P.M., and 3:00 P.M. Additional marine
interpretative signs are being installed along Hood Canal and his
group received an Environmental Education Achievement Award from
the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. On April 27th two members of
their Sinclair Inlet Clean Up Committee, Leslie Vannegan and Vicki
Lott, will be honored at the YWCA Women Of Achievement Award
luncheon, which will be held at the Bremerton Golf and Country
Club. The public is welcome to attend that event.
7A - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM,
#AB95-067
Wellhead protection programs are required by Federal and State
regulations to prevent contamination of groundwater used for
drinking water and to protect human health through the development
of management zones around public wells. On an annual average, 40%
of the City's drinking water comes from wells.
Bremerton's Wellhead Protection Program will have three basic
components:
#0840
TAPE #1276
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 5 of 44
The delineation of the wellhead protection areas(WHPAs);
As inventory of the potential contaminant sources within
the WHPAs; and
The management plan to reduce risk of contamination.
A professional services agreement has been negotiated with AGI
Technologies for $35,122.
Ka~hleen Cahi11, Water Resources Manager, stated the Wellhead
Protection Plan is a proactive approach to safeguarding the City's
groundwater supplies. All water systems will be developing
Wellhead Plans over the next several years and the City will be
coordinating their plan with other plans in surrounding
communities. The proposed firm, AGI, is currently working on the
City's Gorst Basin Study and also preparing Wellhead Plans for some
other water systems adjacent to the City.
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Overson/Farr) to approve the professional services
agreement with AGI Technologies and authorize the Mayor to execute
the same, subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures.
7B -WHEATON WAY SEWER EXTENSION L.I.D., CONTRACT AWARD/LOW BIDDER,
OLSEN'8 LAND DEVELOPMENT, #AB95-068
Bids were opened for the Wheaton Way Sewer Extension L.I.D. Project
on February 27, 1995. Seven bids for this project were received.
The low bidder is Olsen's Land Development in the amount of
$108,559.37, not including sales tax. The construction cost was
estimated at $70,560 when the L.I.D. was established in April 1994·
On completion of the design, the engineers cost estimate was
$94,700. A summary of the project costs is attached. The action
before the City Council is approval of a contract for construction
of this project.
Randy Witt, City Engineer, stated this item has been before Council
in several different forms, most notably when the formation of the
Local Improvement District (L.I.D.) was approved. After bids were
received on the project, the City met with the property owners
within the L.I.D. area. Two letters were received from property
owners supporting the project, and two other property owners were
at the meeting and also voiced their approval. He noted the
figures provided are based on actual construction costs, not the
earlier estimates. He believes the City is receiving a good
contract. Also, past experience with the contractor has proven to
be very positive.
Public comment - none.
#0907
#0978
TAPE #1276
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 6 of 44
Mr. Law stated he also attended the post bidder's meeting and even
though the bid was higher than the estimate, the indication he
received from the two property owners present was they were pleased
with the final price.
M/S/C/U(Law/Montgomery) to approve a contract for $108,559.37 with
Olsen's Land Development for construction of the Wheaton Way Sewer
Extension L.I.D. Project, and authorize the Mayor to execute the
sa~e subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures.
7C - SINGLE SOURCE PURCHASE -- GOLF COURSE HAINTENANCE EOUIPMENT,
CUSHMAN TURF TRUCKSTER, #AB95-069
In accordance with accepted City Procurement Policy and Procedures,
City Council can waive Call for Bid procedures when the purchase of
equipment is sought that: (1) Specifies a brand or specialized
equipment that is not available on the general market; (2) That is
sold by a distributor who is the sole authorized representative of
the manufacturer in the region; and (3) To maintain standardization
and compatibility with existing equipment.
The golf course has, over the years, purchased Cushman equipment,
and currently owns all necessary attachments, designed specifically
for Cushman. In this case, the equipment being considered is a
Cushman Turf Truckster for golf course maintenance. This purchase
qualifies for waiver of call for bids based on the three elements
previously cited. Equipment requested: Cushman Turf Truckster 4-
Wheel Drive Flatbed, $14,134.17, including tax.
John Alexander, Gold Mountain Golf Course Superintendent, stated he
would standby for any questions Council might have.
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) to approve the waiver of a Call for Bids
and approve purchase of equipment from Wester Equipment
Distributors.
7D - SINGLE SOURCE PURCHASE -- GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE EOUIPMENT,
LASTIC ARTICULATOR, #AB95-070
John Alexander, Greens Superintendent at Gold Mountain Golf Course,
has requested the purchase of a Lastic Articulator. This is a
machine that is a mower/thatcher that will improve the quality of
the turf. The purchase price is $16,228.92 including sales tax, an
amount which is in excess of the threshold $10,000 required for
Call for Bid. There is only one authorized distributor of the
equipment in the Northwest and this is a one of a kind machine. So
this mower/fairway dethatcher would be categorized as a sole source
purchase.
#1016
TAPE #1276
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 7 of 44
John Alexander, Gold Mountain Golf Course Superintendent, stated he
would standby for any questions Council might have.
Public comment - None.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Winters) to approve the waiver of a Call for Bid
procedure and purchase of a Lastic Articulator be authorized as a
sole source available item from Superior Turf Equipment.
7E - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE JOINT USE OF FACILITIES BY CITY
OF BREMERTON AND BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, #AB95-071
One of the Mayor's high priority target issues for 1994 was the
establishment of a joint use agreement with the Bremerton School
District and the Bremerton Parks and Recreation Department. A
joint agreement benefits both organizations as it creates an
environment of cooperation and it assists each organization in
avoiding duplication of facilities and services. It also maximizes
the use of existing buildings and athletic fields for each
organization. The recently completed Parks and Recreation
Comprehensive Plan advocates strategic planning with the County,
the YMCA, and the Bremerton School District so that the
recreational needs of Kitsap County and Bremerton citizens are met
with the resources available to each organization. The Parks and
Recreation Commission have reviewed and approved the interlocal
agreement with the Bremerton School District. The staff believes
that this interlocal agreement will allow the City expand
programming opportunities because of the increased access to the
school district properties.
Pat Harris, Director Of Parks And Recreation, stated he felt it was
important to outline the work that had gone into this proposal and
some of the thought and value of developing an interlocal agreement
with the Bremerton School District. This proposal is simply an
agreement between the City and Bremerton School District to share
facilities in the future. We are agreeing in essence to follow the
rules and regulations established by each agency, and that the
class of maintenance of those facilities will be borne by each
agency and not shared at this point. It gives each organization
the right to assess fees to the other organization for the use of
facilities and it also addresses damage and liability issues. The
agreement does not enable either agency to purchase property from
the other organization nor does it enable an agency to pay for
improvements on the other agency's property. As part of the
Comprehensive Plan that was recently approved by Council, this is
one step in reaching out and working with other agencies, including
Kitsap County. This is an important aspect since the City does not
have unlimited resources and we don't want to duplicate our
resources and facilities; and it will allow the City to use school
properties when they are not in use by schools. Ultimately, over
TAPE #1276
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 8 of 44
the long term it should allow the Parks Department to expand
programming opportunities without incurring additional cost to the
City by developing new parks or providing new buildings.
Andy Parypa stated he is not against the concept of this agreement,
however, he had great concern on the way it is being handled. He
agreed with Mr. Harris that it does not speak to purchases,
improving school fields, nor expenditure of money, however, it does
sa~ "present and future recreation facilities", which kind of ties
it in to the one million dollar plus bond idea. He suggested this
item be tabled and reworded so any reference to actions "in the
future" be deleted. He felt Council action should be taken only
when specific properties/facilities and programs as listed so that
thepublic knows exactly what is being agreed to. As far as he is
concerned, a precedent was set by this Council when a former
Department Head orally promised $500,000 to apply to an L.I.D.,
even though Randy Witt, City Engineer, did not support that action.
The City Council felt it would be dishonorable not to go along with
that oral promise. He questioned who gave Mr. Harris the authority
to sign the proposed agreement? This agreement and paragraph 12
tells him there is no reason for Council to vote on it because it
is already in effect: "This agreement shall be effective upon the
signing by the last party to sign. The term of the agreement shall
be indefinite until one party or the other provides a written
notice of termination. Termination shall be effective 90 days
after delivery of notice unless the parties agree otherwise in
writing". He asked why was this item on the Agenda since both
parties signed the agreement? He requested the agreement be
written to reflect what is actually being requested -- covering
present facilities in their current conditions. However, when the
million dollar bond issue comes up for approval and the expenditure
of those funds, then bring that up as a separate issue and clearly
identify what the public will be receiving. Lets not say that
"tomorrow" we'll come up with the rules and regulations and pick
out what facilities will be used. The reason he made that
statement is that it takes a long time to do those "after whiles".
In 1989 the City Council directed the Parks Department to come up
with a Master Tree Plan, which hasn't, as of this date, been
brought before Council for approval. If the proposed agreement is
approved and put into effect, one day later the School District can
submit a termination notice, in writing, and 90 days later they are
out of the agreement and the City would be without playing fields,
courts, etc.
C. R. "Tiny" Collins pointed out the issue here is'replacement for
Roosevelt Field. He was part of the City's negotiating team with
Olympic College Board trying to come up with a solution to a rather
difficult problem. In the course of trying to come up with that
solution, they researched into cohabiting school property and it
TAPE #1276
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 9 of 44
became an exceptional "bag of worms". He questioned who will
maintain it, who will do all the little parts, what are the hours
of usage, etc.? At that time, the City representatives backed away
from such a proposal. He believes in using public grounds for
everything possible, but let's know specifically who is doing what,
and when, and have a contract instead of a "it would be nice" type
of thing. Roosevelt Field was built on an old garbage dump - the
old Hadden School site was also built over an old garbage dump. He
ca~tioned the City Council to look at the Hadden site closely
before buying a property for park usage.
John Thomas noted there was a statement in the agreement that this
does not deal with the sale or transfer of property, but he
questioned why, as a taxpayer, should he have to pay twice for a
piece of property such as the old Hadden School site?
Cecil MoConnell referenced a newspaper article that delineates what
the agreement is suppose to cover once it is signed. While all the
things listed are nice, they are not a replacement for Roosevelt
Field. When Roosevelt Field was sold, it was to be replaced with
like amount or as close as possible in the core area of Bremerton.
If this is the core area of Bremerton, it has expanded
considerably. He is opposed to any agreement that could lead to
taxpayer money going into a taxpayer's subsidized and paid for
entity, like the school, without the taxpayers having ownership.
The School District can sell the old East High School site any time
they desire and if the City invests $190,000 into it one and once
it becomes private property the City will be out those dollars. He
did not agree with signing agreements until both sides know what
they will get and what each side will give up.
Andv PazTpa raised a point of the possibility of a conflict of
interest where Mariwyn Tinsley serves on the Parks Commission and
is an Assistant Superintendent for the Bremerton School District.
Ian Slevers, City Attorney, stated appearance of fairness doctrine
is not implicated in this kind of action because it is not a quasi-
judicial action. It is a policy matter and strictly legislative in
content. There is also not any financial interest for Ms. Tinsley,
since she is not actually letting the contract, but only made
recommendations to the Council, who are the enacting body. Even if
she sat on the City Council as a member, her interest as a salaried
employee of the School District would be too far removed for a
financial conflict of interest. Pat Harris stated unfortunately
there appears to be some confusion about what this interlocal
agreement says and does and what the newspaper article in The Sun
alluded to, which were a number of properties that may be looked at
by Council as replacement for Roosevelt Field. This interlocal
agreement simply addresses the Parks and Recreation Department's
ability to get onto school properties and for a nominal fee use
TAPE #1276
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 10 of 44
those facilities. The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and
determined that it does not obligate the City at all financially
and is strictly programming decisions. The Bremerton School
District rents their fields and buildings to the PeeWees, YMCA,
Boys & Girls Club, etc., and all this agreement is saying is that
the City wants to be included with other groups so that they have
access to those fields and gyms. The agreement does not address
property issues nor does it address land swaps or covering
maintenance costs. Based on some of the comments, he feels there
is some confusion about Roosevelt Field. This proposal and
replacement of Roosevelt Field are two distinct and separate
issues.
Rov.Mclnnis stated he disagreed with Mr. Harris's comments. He
listened carefully to what was stated and read into the record, and
he believes the proposed agreement would "lock" the City into
something. He echoed "where did the authority come from for
someone to sign that type of agreement?" Mr. Harris stated the
contract states that each party will maintain and take care of
their own facility. In his opinion, it did not obligate the City
for maintenance costs for School District properties. What it does
say is that if damage occurred when the City had possession, then
the City would be responsible, and the same would go for School
District use of City property. If the City does not want to use
the School District's facilities, we are not paying programming
costs or rental fees. The City is already using School District
properties and this proposed agreement formalizes that arrangement.
Rick Smith stated for approximately 12 years he has coached youth
sports and has been active in the PeeWee organizations. The School
District's facilities have been used as contemplated in this
agreement for all those 12-13 years and probably many years before
that time. He did not think the proposed agreement changed the
status quo custom and usage of the public facilities. He pointed
out the children of Bremerton have very few facilities, and those
available to them are mostly on school property. He believes there
is some confusion over replacement of Roosevelt Field and that
needs to be kept separate.
Mayor Lynn Hotton stated the intent of this document is as outlined
by Mr. Harris, however, because of the timing and recommendation of
the Park Commission with this issue, the two have become a little
clouded. Some of the points raised by the community are well taken
and as such she would not be opposed to making the document more
clear as to the City's intention so that the public feels more at
ease about its content. The recommendations that were in Mr.
Baker's newspaper article were the recommendations of the Park
Commission. The Administration will be making its own
recommendation to Council within the next couple of weeks.
#2051
TAPE #1276
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 11 of 44
Mr. Mievers stated both Mr. Parypa and Mr. McInnis made good points
and it was really an oversight not to include a signature for the
Mayor on the agreement. Department Heads can't obligate the City,
as they are not a separate legal entity for making contracts. He
intended to include the Mayor's signature on the document. It is
before Council for their legal action and would not be in effect
until they gave their approval.
Mr~ Law stated to go along with the other comments that were made
about the contract being signed prior to Council approval, he felt
strongly Council should disavow this document as signed by Mr.
Harris. He was not suggesting that as something personal against
Mr. Harris, but the fact that it would be setting a precedent by
keeping it as a quasi-accepted document for the City. He felt the
example cited about a past L.I.D. issue was a good point as to what
can happen in such instances.
Mr. Colvin thanked Mr. Harris for his desire to minimize expense to
the City, however, he agreed with Councilman Law that the document
should be rewritten, publicized and brought back to Council.
M/S/C(Overson/Colvin) that Council disapprove this contract and
remand the item back to staff to be rewritten and represented.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor:
Opposed:
Winters, Overson, Farr, Law,
Montgomery, Colvin,
Dawkins, Huff-Menees
President Huff-Menees announced Agenda Items 7F and 7G will be
continued to the April 12 City Council meeting.
9B - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON BREMERTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN --
(1) TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT (CONTINUED FROM 3/22/95; AND {2) ALL
ELEMENTS, #AB95-052
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1995-1 proposes amendments to
the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan to bring it into compliance with
the Growth Management Act (GMA). This Public Hearing has been
continued from March 15, 22, and March 29, 1995 to provide an
opportunity for interested citizens to comment on all elements of
the Plan. Proposed revisions to the draft plan are attached as
exhibits.
If the Council is ready to take action on the proposed amendments,
the they may close the hearing to the public and vote separately on
proposed revision to each element (Exhibits I - V). Additional
proposals by members of the public or Council members should also
be considered for approval at this time. Once all proposed
revisions are approved, the Council will be ready to pass a
TAPE #1276
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 12 of 44
resolution to adoption.
Randy Witt, City Engineer, stated as outlined above, this is a
continuation of the hearing held two weeks ago on the
Transportation Element. At that hearing, the public was walked
through the Transportation Element in detail and got to what is the
central issue to the City Council and City on how to handle
congestion on the Wheaton/Warren Corridor, however, there was very
little discussion on the other corridors. To get back on that
issue, Mr. Witt introduced John Perlic, from Parametrix, Inc., who
would carry on with the presentation. Mr. Perlie, Parametrix Inc.,
started out with a brief reminder that the Transportation Element
addresses: (1) roadway improvements primarily in the Cambrian/
Burwell/Kitsap Way and Warren/Wheaton corridors, and contains
facilities improvements and service recommendations for transit,
ferries, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and sections on
transportation demand management and system management. He went on
to outline the remaining portions of the Transportation Element.
Mr. Overson stated it is an easy analysis to demonstrate that the
primary adverse impact on the City's level-of-service, particularly
in the bridge area, is a result of the County's rampant,
uncontrolled, and unplanned development on the north side of the
Washington Narrows. He questioned to what degree is the County
going to have to come back and participate in the development of a
third bridge to resolve the problem they have essentially created?
Mr. Perlie stated the measure of that study would include a
partnership between the County and the City, and the Federal
requirements for a major investment actually requires that type of
coordination; and Kitsap Transit would also have to be involved.
Mr. Witt stated that is one of the key elements in the Major
Investment Study the City is proposing. Such studies are very new
and the City has had little experience with them, however, they
force people to come together to work cooperatively on very large
projects. One of the key elements that is not required in Major
Investment Studies, but is critical from the City's perspective in
answering the question do we need a bridge, how big a bridge, etc.,
is do we want to adjust the land use.
Jack Lefcoski stated it is true that the Citizens Action Committee
voted for 1.06 in which to panic as to the need for the third
bridge. The vote on that issue was 5 to 6, and was a controversial
vote. In subsequent conversations with many of the members of that
committee, if that vote was held today it would not pass at 1.06.
He proposed Council think real hard that if the LOS right now is
"99 something" -- that is not totally true. The figure of "99
something" was three years ago and no one knows what it is today.
He has requested new car counts be taken, but there has been no
action by the City. In a recent newspaper article, it stated
TAPE
#1277
TAPE #1276
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 13 of 44
Bremerton is projected to get 20,000 new people and he would guess
that means another 4-5,000 vehicles. In another recent newspaper
article the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard talked about home porting an
additional 14,000 people, which to him means another 3-4,000
vehicles. The Warren/Wheaton corridor is at capacity, which is LOS
1 - he questioned why would the City settle for LOS 1.06 thinking
that when it gets to be 1.06 we have another six years to get a
drawing on the board for a new bridge; and after it is drawn it
will take another six years to get the funding together. He
suggested the 1.06 be reduced to 1.01 and get on to the plan. To
get on with the plan does not mean pouring concrete or buying up
any houses, it means we will establish 1-2-3 corridors for further
study. His second point is the Comprehensive Plan will tell you
that the City's consultants are recommending scenario #3, which he
totally disagrees with in light of what he just stated. Scenario
#3 does a lot of good things, but scenario #6 does all those good
things and a bridge. The City's consultants are saying that we're
going to be way over capacity if we aren't there now and why would
the City turn its back on a 4.5 million dollar bridge. If Council
does not go along with the 4.5 million dollar bridge proposal, he
believes they are remiss and letting the town down just like City
leaders let the town down when Don Ross tried to build it up 20
years ago. Mr. Witt stated for clarification if you go back and
look at the technical discussions strictly on scenarios #3 and #6
that is a correct statement. The recommendation from staff and
what Council what has seen presented is scenario #3 with the Major
Investment Study for the bridge, which is the first step in making
the determination of a third bridge.
C. R. "Tiny" Collins stated he remembers the early discussions
between the City and public about the need for the Warren Avenue
Bridge, but the point was "what do we need a bridge for and what
will happen to it". Yes, it would be nice to have another bridge,
but the whole thought process that went into building the Warren
Avenue Bridge, was that we had people living in Manette who
couldn't get across the Manette bridge, so the City talked the
State into building the Warren Avenue bridge. Wheaton Way was
chosen, probably for good reasons, however, there was no thought
given to what was going to happen. There were only a few
businesses out there at that time and look at Wheaton Way today.
As an example, let's say the City decided to put in a third bridge
from Snyder to Pine Road, with the thought process that goes in,
which is we need a road to move those people across, we can widen
roads and we can build a bridge. But, that is not the answer to
the question. The question really is, do you want those roads to
end up likeWheaton Way? The City had a very "far-thinking" planner
at that time, who had a plan of what the City should do for the
three blocks on each side of Wheaton Way at the entrance and the
exit. It was given up, and now the City is living with those
TAPE #1277
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 14 of 44
consequences. If the City decides to build a third bridge! a very
strict plan must be in place. Serious thought must be given to:
(1) what are we going to do with the land? (2) What are the people
going to do, where do the people want to go? (3) Would we be
destroying a whole section of the City from the standpoint of high
livability? (4) Would we be enhancing livability? (5) Would we be
increasing business? There must be a very determined thought
process to this whole idea. Two years is a very short time to
study and consider all the long-term ramifications. I envision
Jack's $4 million bridge is probably a $400 million bridge when you
start thinking of the impact on all the land on the other side of
the Port Washington Narrows. Let's THINK about it and know what we
are going to do, and where our money is going to come from, not
just "it would be nice".
Del Knauss told about a meeting held last Saturday where at least
4 hours was spent talking about a third bridge and level of
service. He calls the $45 million discussed earlier "funny money"
because the federal government is going broke, the state is hurting
for money, the City is hurting for money, and no one can guarantee
anything, let alone $45 million. If Jack Lefcoski wants to get a
study going, let him do it. Let him be a consultant at large,
free, for the City. If we do not know what the County is doing on
the other side, we can't plan anything. Also, the County needs to
know what the City is doing. Because the County has driven the
growth so bad out to the north, we have to deal with the problems
on the Warren Avenue bridge.
Mr. Colvin pointed out according to the presentation on the limited
level-of-service, Warren Avenue Bridge will reach the projected
level-of-service by the year 2000, which is not that far in the
future. He questioned what would happen if the Manette Bridge was
damaged due to an earthquake? John Perlie, Parametrix, stated the
Manette Bridge is already carrying a high volume of traffic, which
would then all have to shift to the Warren Avenue Bridge. You
would probably then see ratios maybe off of the chart in the 1.03
or 1.04 range. Mr. Colvin asked if the long-range projection was
for three bridges. Mr. Perlie, stated possibly, but that the
decision of whether there would be a third bridge, and the location
will be determined from this Major Investment Study.
Mr. Farr, stated he wasn't on the Citizen's Advisory Committee, and
could only imagine all the work they did, and commended those who
served on it. But, as he understands the level-of-service figure,
the City gets to decide what is recommended for the Warren/Wheaton
and Kitsap Way/Manette Bridge corridors, and 1.06 is only about 6%
greater than what we say it is now. Also, it has been suggested
that the ratios used were obtained during peak, rush-hour times of
the day, and doesn't have much to do with the traffic on those
TAPE #1277
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 15 of 44
roadways during the majority part of the day. A comment was made
earlier that maybe we should reduce that figure down to a
significantly lower level.
He commented, however, that he has not seen any input from
citizen's to show that they want millions of dollars spent for new
roadways to improve traffic on only two sections affected during
rush-hour. He questions the wisdom of having that level-of-service
set so low on those two roadways that would forced the City to take
extensive action in just a short amount of time. He wondered if it
would be more realistic to raise those levels-of-service up, say
10% tolerance, to offer a little bit of latitude. There is nothing
to say that the City can't take action before getting to that
level-of-service, say in response to numerous citizen complaints or
a lot of other things which would indicate it is time to take
action. On the other hand, he feels if we lock-in with a level-of-
service that is low, we set in motion the trigger that forces us to
take action at a time that is not appropriate. Mr. Perlie felt Mr.
Farr had a very accurate picture of what is going on, however, the
Warren Avenue/Wheaton Way corridor is a State highway and a
threshold needs to be set because the State will not allow an open-
ended level-of-service. Mr. Farr stated he understood the need to
set a threshold, he just questioned the need to set it quite so
close to what current levels. Mr. Perlie wanted to rephrase the
answer differently. He pointed out that there are really two
separate questions here: (1) what do you want the level-of-service
trigger to be? In other words, when do you want to say it's time
to do something about this roadway? Recommendations were made in
this report based upon the Citizens's Advisory Committee, Planning
Commission, and Study Session input; (2) Do you want to say you
recognize that even with a level-of-service of 1.06, or whatever
number, you need to start thinking about the Warren Avenue/Wheaton
Way corridor, and do you want to direct staff to pursue getting a
Major Investment Study underway? From their perspective, this
means getting a grant. Do you want that to be in the plan, and do
you want to set aside money in the budget to be able to provide
matching funds? Another issue is the money for the projects, its
source and how it was projected. In the scenarios shown earlier,
figures were arrived at by taking averages over the past years, and
the other column primarily showed the ability to get grants. As
far as the grant figures, those are expected to remain the same.
It is getting tougher to get the grants as other cities are
competing State-wide. No one can guarantee that matching monies
will continue to come in as they have, but he has no better formula
to use than averages from the way it has been to give an idea of
what can be attained in the future.
Mayor Hotton commented that the third bridge issue was one, very
small item in the whole Bremerton Comprehensive Plan/Transportation
#0512
TAPE #1277
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 16 of 44
Element, and she did not want Council to lose sight of that. The
City's level-of-service at the present time, indicates that the
City will reach a congestion point in a relatively short time,
however, she commented that compared to other cities, Bremerton has
it pretty good. She feels currently that the bridge does have
capacity, and is more concerned about the corridor further up the
road between the bridge and Riddell Road, and beyond, which she
feels is questionable. She feels more concentration should be put
into the reasons for the congestion. Bremerton has not had any
major growth in the last 20 years, rather the impact is caused from
major growth taking place in the County. She warned that a third
bridge project would compete with all the City's other
transportation projects, and did not want anyone to lose sight that
there are a lot of other issues that need to be taken into
consideration.
Mr. Dawkins brought up the issue of the Manette Bridge, and the
plans for improving it 9-10 years down the road. Mr. Witt stated
that they have been working with the state to move up the time-
frame for the scheduled work on the Manette Bridge, but he does not
feel they have had great success with those plans. Also, there are
more detailed plans for the bridge that are not included in the
Transportation Element, however, their suggestions have been to
keep the bridge in the same spot, and they assume once the work is
completed on the bridge, more cars will be able to get across than
there are currently.
M/S/C(Law/Farr) to accept the concept for the No. 3 proposal, and
change the level-of-service factor to 1.08.
Mr. Montgomery pointed out congestion problems in Seattle,
specifically the Aurora Avenue corridor. According to Seattle's
plan, some areas have an LOS of 1.05, and they have no plans to
improve the ability for cars to get in and out. The rationale for
that is to encourage transit ridership, pedestrian activity and
bicycle use, and to promote growth in urban areas. He reiterated
that a third bridge in Bremerton would destroy a whole community.
Mr. Overson asked if Bremerton calculated its level-of-service the
same as Seattle and Kitsap County? Mr. Perlie stated Seattle used
a somewhat different calculation methodology. The Growth
Management Act did not specify how to measure the level-of-service,
so different communities are adopting different ways of doing it.
Also, the County uses a slightly different methodology, as do many
other jurisdictions. Mr. Overson asked which community is getting
the most funding based on the way their level-of-service is
designed? He does not agree with the way Bremerton has calculated
level of service. He asked if Council should "re-visit" the level-
of-service definition, particularly because the City needs to be
TAPE #1277
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 17 of 44
somewhat compatible with the County? Jeff Peacock, Transportation
Division Manager, Parametrix, stated the level-of-service standard
used by Kitsap County is somewhat different, but when you look at
the big picture it is almost identical. The methodology that they
are using for counting their vehicles is based on a 24-hour period.
They then use what is called a "peak-hour factor" to come up with
what the standard would be and when a given threshold would be
reached. When we compare that methodology to the methodology the
City is using, which is pretty much a national standard, the
difference in when that threshold would be reached is almost
imperceptible. In other words, you can take issue with the details
on how its done, but there is little difference in the end results.
Mr.,Law pointed out the need to look at the cost-benefit factor.
He also questioned who will benefit from a third bridge since the
City is not looking at a significant increase in the population?
He is not interested in taxing the citizens of Bremerton to give a
better transportation mode to those passing through, but not
stopping in Bremerton.
Mr. Overson wanted to clarify the discussion on the 1.08 rating,
and what changing that figure might do. It is his understanding
that when a 1.06 level is reached, it automatically kicks in a
Major Investment Study that then determines who pays for the
bridge, or whatever else is determined to alleviate the problem.
Mr. Witt paraphrased the question, "what would happen if we set the
level-of-service at 1.08". What that does is move up, and move out
the level of congestion we are willing to tolerate before we decide
to do something different to bring this congestion back down to
tolerable levels... this is called the "trigger point". He
emphasized the City needs to have a plan in place to bring the
congestion down within 6 years, either on the original 1.06 or
1.01. You also have to implement the plan. In six years you have
to be done with whatever it is your going to do to bring the level-
of-service down. One idea that has been discussed already is a
third bridge, which is a drastic example. He cautioned to keep in
mind the following two points: (1) The,population increase in the
City of Bremerton is expected to be 20,000, which roughly amounts
to a 50% increase in population; (2) the City and the Council does
have the ability to change the level-of-service on different
roadways in the future.
Mr. Montgomery commented on the Major Improvement Study, which is
a study to determine between the City, County, and State, if there
is a problem, and if there is a problem, where that problem is, and
how to solve it. It doesn't necessarily mean that a third bridge
will be built since there may be other solutions, but that won't be
known until the Major Investment Study is completed. Mr. Witt
TAPE #1277
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 18 of 44
stated that is correct. Mr. Montgomery stated the City can
seriously impact any decisions to build a third bridge by using the
"Land Element Usage". Also, Mr. Montgomery did not understand how
Commissioner Matt Ryan came to the conclusion that the County was
helping the City by bringing in a third bridge to bring all
traffic North of the Riddell Road area into Bremerton. How is
bringing in traffic to Bremerton going to help Bremerton? There
are obviously different opinion on the Growth Management Act
between the City and the County.
Mr. Farr stated after all is discussed, the decision was made to
raise the level-of-service to 1.08 from 1.06, and he wondered if
that was intended to apply to the other thoroughfare that is near
capacity, or just to the Warren Avenue/Wheaton Way corridor? Mr.
Law stated he was only referring to the Warren Avenue/Wheaton Way
corridor. Mr. Wltt also clarified that this corridor is the only
one at 1.06 level-of-service now.
Vote on motion:
In Favor: Farr, Law, Colvin, Winters, Huff-
Menees
Motion carried.
Opposed:
Overson, Montgomery, Dawkins
Ron Hough, Planning Manager, stated he was now ready to discuss the
April 5, 1995 Public Hearing, which is the last Council hearing on
the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. This hearing is open for
discussion on all the elements. He presented an overview of the
whole process of the Plan, and pointed out new additions and slight
modifications that were made after receiving comments from the
State. Handouts with summaries of each of the Plan Elements and
Proposed Revisions were made available at the meeting, and copies
are still available through the Planning Department.
The following is a summary of the Proposed Revisions for Exhibit I:
Exhibit I, "Element E - Land Use" (4/5/95 Council packet, page 87):
1)
Correction of the City Limits and Urban Growth Boundary
maps of Watershed/Utility Lands;
2)
Revise Land Use Plan Map (apply "MDR" designation west of
Warren to Chester;
3)
To add "Anderson Creek Corporate Campus" Special Area
Plan;
4)
Revise West Bremerton Land Use Map (to change "HDR" to
"C-G" north of Bayview Inn Hotel);
TAPE #1277
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 19 of 44
5)
Revise East Bremerton Land Use Map (to change "C-P" to
"C-G" on former Olympic View School site); and
6)
Revise East Bremerton Land Use Map (to change "LDR" to
"MDR" on eight lots on Ivy Road).
KaY Wilson, Senior Planner, reviewed the
Revisions for Exhibits II, III, and IV:
Exhibit II, "Element G - Housing" (page 93):
following
Proposed
1) Low Income Housing
The, recommended "Option 2" proposal states that the City will
accommodate it's fair share of the low income housing that will be
needed over the next 20 years, but wants to make sure the City's
existing low income housing stock is factored into the equation, so
the City does not end up maintaining more than its fair share.
Exhibit III, "Element H - Capital Facilities" (page 95):
1)
A number of refinements, rather than changes, to the
Capital Facilities Policies;
2)
Format, to divide the Element into 2 parts (the PLAN and
the PROGRAM);
3)
To add a Flow Chart to describe how the Capital
Facilities Plan will relate to the other Elements; and
Adding a 6-year finance plan for the following services (page 100):
4)
5)
6)
7)
S)
9)
10)
Fire & Emergency Medical Services;
Law Enforcement;
Parks;
Sanitary Sewer;
Stormwater;
Transportation; and
Water.
Exhibit IV, "Element I - Utilities" (page 129):
1)
Utilities Revisions to refine and clarify some of the
text of the Plan;
2) Adding a Table summarizing all of the Utilities; and
3)
Make all proposed "refinements to text" suggested in the
Puget Power letter written to Richard Goetz.
TAPE #1277
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 21 of 44
There are a few areas that do need a little work, such as the
population allocation issue. Hopefully, this issue can be sorted
out shortly and resolved. Also, there are inconsistencies
throughout the Plan in the use of different types of population
methodologies, and hopefully that can be resolved over time.
He commented on the Critical Area maps, which are in the large
scale format now, but will be reduced and added to the plan. The
State feels it is important to identify and show environmental
sensitive areas, so a reader can see which are the critical areas,
and which areas can be developed.
A brief comment was made on open space corridors, which really
relates more to fish and wildlife habitat concerns. What the State
looks for are contiguous lands that will provide corridors for
habitat to move through, to and from Bremerton, and believes
Bremerton has a number of provisions already in the Plan to
accommodate that process.
Some on-going discussions have taken place with staff members on
adding funding data from stormwater, schools, and transportation in
the Capital Facilities Element, and doesn't see that as being a
problem.
Finally, the State is looking for assurance that there will be
protection of water quality and the water supply sources, and that
those strategies and policies are incorporated within the Plan.
His agency looks forward, with the other State agencies, in helping
the City move beyond the planning stage onto the longer journey of
implementation.
Mr. Colvin asked Mr. Grady if he had reviewed the County's Plan,
and if so, what were his comments? Mr. Gradv reluctantly stated
yes, and his name is probably well known to the local newspaper due
to comments he made about their Comprehensive Plan. He did make it
clear that his comments are part of the public record and did not
elaborate further. Mr. Colvin asked about his experience in
dealing with other counties and cities throughout the State, as far
as the cooperation received from them. M~. Gradv stated that by
and large, the cooperation has been very good because everyone is
under the same amount of pressure, in terms of staff, resources,
and time-lines. He also clarified that he included utilities along
with counties and cities. M~. Colvin stated he enjoyed the remarks
made by Mr. Grady, and hopes that he can help bring the differences
between Kitsap County and the City out in the open and on the table
for discussion.
Ms. Wilson, Senior Planner, returned to discuss "Exhibit VIII,
Additional Proposed Revisions", which are revisions primarily in
TAPE #1277
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 22 of 44
direct response to comments from the State CTED review.
Exhibit VIII - ,,Element H - Capital Facilities"
1)
Added a timeline along the side to show that Policy Plans
are reviewed from January to March; Programs from April
to July; and the Budget Process from August to December.
Regarding ,,Transportation", a summary was presented of the
Inventory of Existing Transportation Facilities, and the
recommended Existing Levels of Service on the Streets that are
overloaded, or near to being overloaded. This is where one change
will need to happen, changing the LOS threshold of 1.06 on the
Wheaton/Warren Corridor to 1.08. Also, the Six-Year Financial
Plan, which transfers those costs out of the "Transportation
Element" into the "Capital Facilities Element Six-Year Funding and
Projects" format. There are no changes in content in any of these
changes.
The final change in response to the States comments, was that they
were concerned with the water quality, and knew that some water
quality provisions were not mentioned. Text has now been added
regarding meeting strict water quality standards which states this
is a primary objective of the City, and that drinking water is
regularly tested at the sources and in the distribution system.
Also, groundwater well's water quality will be ensured through a
Wellhead Protection Program to be implemented in 1995.
Mr. Hough stated the next step in this process is to open it up for
public testimony, and pointed out that this is an open hearing on
all the Elements.
Nick Penovich, Anderson Hill resident, stated his comments would
have to do with the Anderson Hill watershed property . He had no
problem with the fact that the City of Bremerton wanted to build an
Industrial Park, but it would be NICE if the City didn't plan to
put it in a watershed. He questioned why not put it out near the
airport? He has concerns about runoff that is going to go right
into the bay and chemicals that will be used for the landscaping
that could go into their water system. He thinks the plan is
"idiotic" if it passes.
C.R. ,,Tiny" Collins, a former Council member, stated he has been
able to stay away for a year and a half, but now in one night, many
things are being introduced that concern him. He gave a little of
his background in regard to comprehensive plans, including working
on a comprehensive plan with the "118 Committee" (formed around
1972); spending 6 years on the Planning Commission; and 8 years as
a Councilman. During this time, he believes he helped establish
TAPE
#1278
TAPE #1277
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 23 of 44
the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan we are looking at today. In his
opinion, a Comprehensive Plan is like a "four legged stool" -- the
seat, or the top, is land use, and the four supporting legs
represent the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Map, the Zoning
Map, and the Zoning Ordinance. This Comprehensive Plan is only one
piece. His main concern is "what is the City doing with Anderson
Creek and why? The Water Utility currently owns and manages
approximately 340 acres of the Anderson Creek Watershed, which
has been an important part of the water system since the early
1900's. Anderson Creek was used for surface water as late as 1985,
however State requirements prevented its use without further
treatment. The City has water rights to the creek and the Anderson
Creek Watershed is the only water making piece of property, totally
self contained, left in Kitsap County. Anderson Creek is listed
with the Department of Health as an emergency water supply. A
mechanism needs to be established to ensure continued protection of
Anderson Creek water quality, both for water supply and for
wildlife habitat.
Mr. Collins went on to say he believes the City was sold "a bill of
goods". Anderson Creek is "money in the bank". If growth is as
great as projected for the City of Bremerton, where are you going
to get the water? He urged the City to think about those who
originally bought the property back in the early 1900's. We have
a luxury of good water, and good planning for our water. I would
hate to see us cut off our nose to spite our face because of
possible monetary gains today. Lets lock up our water and save it.
There are 11 wells at the Anderson Creek area, and we use only
four. He concluded with a plea to leave Anderson Creek alone, and
that the best use for it is the one God made it for, making water.
Bruce Morris, Anderson Hill resident, wished to address the issue
of soil around the Anderson Creek watershed site, and gave a
lengthy overview of various types of soils found in the Anderson
Creek watershed area and possible hazards that may occur as a
result of disturbing the natural setting that currently exists.
He urged Council to keep the City's watershed land in its present
state, preserve the water resource and salmon spawning stream. Mr.
Montgomez-; stated from Mr. Morris's description of soils, it
sounded like he described most of Kitsap County. Mr. Morris stated
that was correct.
0liver Nordby, resident of Anderson Hill since 1968, referenced the
City's Planning guide and its identifying the need for planning.
Prior to 1990, planning in Washington was sporadic and non-
existent. There were no guidelines for effective city and county
planning and urban sprawl was eating into quiet, rural areas.
Natural resources and environmental sensitive areas weren't being
TAPE #1278
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 24 of 44
effectively protected. The growth of special purpose districts was
out-of-control and there was very little overall coordination. It
was time to gain control and start managing growth. He felt this
was a critical point in the Anderson Hill area. The City's
Planning Guide states: "Planning must be done in the open and with
public notice of what is taking place. Bremerton's program has
been totally open and public from the beginning. All meetings have
encouraged participation". He has resided on Anderson Hill Road
sihce 1968 and never received any formal notice of land issues
affecting the Anderson Hill Watershed area. He cautioned the City
that whatever is written in the Planning guide, the City should
live up to it.
Mike Brown, 1904 Marine Drive, stated he has been working a little
over a year on aggregating some property in the City limits of
Bremerton for a residential housing project. It came to his
attention that part of the processes he would get to at the end of
his project might be in jeopardy by the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan. Since the previous Council meeting, he has
worked with the Planning Department to try and solve his problem,
and be grandfathered under the same rules that were in place at the
time he started the initial process, and made those applications.
He thanked the Planning Department for working with him and getting
to a conclusion that would allow him to go forward without a loss
of time and energy.
David Cunningham, Vice President of Land Use for Pope Resources,
Poulsbo, stated he wanted to correct what he believes to be an
oversight in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map relative to the
West Bremerton area. Five or six years ago when the City was faced
with a choice of either building a very expensive water filtration
plant or acquiring all of the lands within its watershed in order
to get land use under control for the purposes of water quality,
Pope owned quite a lot of land in the watershed and worked a very
agreeable trade with the City and traded out of that property. In
the course of that trade, Pope Resources acquired 250 acres located
west of Loxie Egans Interchange and south of Werner Road. At the
time that property was acquired, the City designated in the
Comprehensive Plan for both mixed residential and industrial
purposes. He read the following letter into the record:
"Reiterating that in 1991 Pope Resources assisted the City in
gaining control of all land use within its Bremerton watershed in
order to assure long term domestic water quality, in an exchange
for property we owned in the watershed they acquired tracks of City
owned land west of Loxie Egans, south of the new regional park.
Since that time of the trade the subject parcel was designed for a
combination of residential and industrial uses. We respectfully
request that your Council designate in its new Comprehensive Plan
the continuation of that possibility of providing both employment
TAPE #1278
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 25 of 44
center and residential uses as portrayed on the attached map with
this letter". Their last reading of what the Planning staff wrote
on the West Bremerton area was good and it talked about what kinds
of industrial lands were available (something like 143 acres). Of
those 143 acres, the analysis went on to say many of those acres
are in Auto Center Way and have been developed as commercial
property, some being mineral lands and probably won't be used for
industrial purposes. And, it went on to say that a lot of the
industrial opportunities that appear in the West Bremerton area
west of Loxie Egans might not materialize. At the end of the staff
analysis, in preparation of the Comprehensive Plan, there is
actually specific reference to the property and a PUD that was
contemplated back when the property was traded and suggested the
property was indeed a mix of residential and industrial. Pope
Resources would like to see that designation continue in the
Comprehensive Plan. The last opportunity they had to see the Land
Use Plan For West Bremerton instead designated all of that property
low density residential, so the map he offered to Council suggests
that part of the property still be low density residential and part
of it be industrial park or campus type facility. Admittedly
Wright Creek and its small canyon together with some wetlands more
or less bisect the part that he has shown as the industrial park
area, which could be a little smaller than what is shown on his
map.
John Thomas stated as a rebuttal to Mr. Montgomery's statement that
the makeup of the land is the same as Kitsap County is very true,
but we don't get our water from any place else. He wants to
continue to drink clean water, which was one of the reasons why he
moved back to this area. Secondly, it seemed to him the night the
City Council declared the Anderson Hill watershed property surplus,
was also the same night the offer of purchase was accepted, which
precluded any pubic hearing.
~elen Havens, Anderson Hill Road resident, stated her family has
lived across the road from the Anderson Hill watershed property for
the last 32 years and they have known it as a valuable and fragile
water and wildlife resource. She related a neighbor's problem with
earth slippage at the back of his property, which he believed to be
caused from clear cutting on the City's watershed property; and he
is very concerned about any commercial development in the
watershed. He shared with Ms. Havens his excitement about the
salmon coming back to Anderson Creek to spawn and did not want to
see anything happen that could damage the creek. He also had
concern that any stormwater increase will devastate the salmon run,
stream and his home. Ms. Havens also talked with a number of
people, some City residents, who shared their concern over what was,
being proposed for the Anderson Creek watershed property. After a
previous Council meeting, she spoke with Mayor Horton about her
TAPE #1278
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 26 of 44
concern that the City had sidestepped the public hearing process
relating to the watershed property, and the Mayor's response was
"sometimes a wonderful opportunity comes along and you just have to
grab it". Ms. Havens' response to Mayor Horton was "it appeared to
be expedience and felt that was wrong". She emphasized there will
be appeals on zoning and annexation actions relating to the
Anderson Hill area. The first time their neighborhood was given
notice of a change within the watershed came as a surplusing notice
fr6m the City in early December 1994. She learned many Anderson
Hill Road residents had not received that notice. She referenced
the City's Surplusing Ordinance 2.78.020: "In addition to
publication, the notice of hearing shall be posted conspicuously on
the property and notification mailed to all property owners within
300feet at least 10 days prior to the public hearing". She
received her notice, which was addressed to her father, on December
1. Ms. Havens displayed a map and pointed out an area that was
suppose to be kept by the City as discussed by the City at that
hearing. Se has not been able to get a list of names and addresses
used for notification of that hearing even though she contacted the
City Attorney's office three times. However, it appears an old map
was used that listed people as property owners who had been dead
for 10 years, her mother was one of them. Despite very little and
fragmented notice, quite a few of the neighbors attended the public
hearing and many of them asked the City to stop and think over the
proposal, but were not heeded. Ms. Havens displayed various maps
showing different configurations of the surplused watershed
property, including a map showing ownership of land by people who
had been dead for at least 10 years. Those maps were all part of
the City's various presentations made during the surplusing,
purchase option and annexation activity on the Anderson Hill
watershed property. The emphasized strip of land along Anderson
Hill Road that the City chose to not keep is pretty important and
she wondered how that evolution happened without more hearings.
She questioned where was that issue discussed? At the December 7
public hearing (Micron hearing), the City Attorney, in response to
public complaint about the hearing notice being inadequate, stated:
"The points were well made by Mr. Kulman, the decision before
Council deals with a narrow issue and that is transference of
ownership of this parcel (76 acres) and does not approve any
particular zoning and it does not approve any actual land
development. Those hearings will occur probably within the next
few months on zoning and development after the purchase option is
exercised and ownership is put into private hands and those
applications are submitted to the City. There may be additional
review processes curtailed with approval of those applications".
And, Mr. Nordby stated: "he felt more public hearings should be
held on this issue". Mr. Sievers then stated in response to Ms.
Havens questions: "There will be.an environmental review that will
be done before the property is rezoned from Forest Management and
TAPE #1278
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 27 of 44
again when any substantial building permit goes through, and those
hearings will be conducted by the City, therefore, those issues are
not addressed in this transfer of ownership". Ms. Havens then
pointed out the option to purchase unimproved property, which was
signed later that month, includes the following wording:
"Immediately upon execution hereof, the grantor shall initiate (1)
the fair market value appraisal required above; (2) a rezone
application for the option property; (3) a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment consistent with the land use provisions of this agreement
for the option property and for grantees adjoining property as
described in Exhibit C and for pre-annexation zoning for the
grantee's adjoining property consistent with that proposed herein
for the option property. The applications will propose and the
City Administration will support zoning for both properties of
mixed General Business (GB) 15%; Mixed Use (MX) 15%, and General
Industry (IG) 70% according to the Land Use Table in B.M.C.
21.02.340 with the required development of 10% of the combined
properties to have a use consistent with the General Industry (IG)
land use prior to or concurrently with the development of uses
consistent with that of a General Business or mixed use". Ms.
Havens stressed to her that means the zoning was already set and
when they said it was two separate issues she has a hard time
believing it. The wording of those two statements seem to her to
be seriously at odds. The Comprehensive Plan was prepared with a
Citizens Advisory Committee, but this amendment sidestepped that
process entirely violating the Growth Management Act guidelines for
early and continuous public participation to adopt to City Code.
Your own City staffers were concerned that the Wellhead Protection
Study, scheduled for this year, should be considered in those plans
and the neighborhood association comments on the DNS asked that it
be done before any zoning changes. Anderson Creek boasts the
cleanest surface water of the City's supply and is designated by
Department Of Health as Bremerton's emergency water supply. The
City of Bremerton is planning for a Wellhead Protection Study and
updating the Utility Land Management Plan for the first time since
1986 and it would make sense to await results of those studies
before any changes in zoning takes place. Residents of Anderson
Hill are concerned that the services provided to this area are
hastily patched together - sewer services possibly coming from City
of Port Orchard, fire protection seems to be coming possibly from
the County and Bremerton, and Bremerton supplying water. She
stressed no one knows how much water will really be needed by
McCormick Woods/Campus Station, and a Micron like business. She
asked if the Capital Project segment of the Comprehensive Plan
addresses these needs adequately? The South Kitsap School District
was not contacted about the DNS, but it did state Bremerton School
District was contacted, which she assumed was in error. The
Planning Department has issued a mitigated DNS for this zoning
change. The Suquamish Tribe has protested that DNS saying
TAPE #1278
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 28 of 44
rezoning and changing the Comprehensive Plan designation for this
site would result in the sort of poor planning the authors of the
State Environmental Policy Act intended to avoid. That DNS has
already been appealed by a group of neighbors of the watershed.
The Environmental Check List was extremely sketchy and their appeal
will probably have a good chance to be upheld. The default
administrative zoning of Industrial Park for Mr. Sciepko's
adjoining parcel has been remanded back to the Department Of
Co~%munity Development by the Bremerton Planning Commission for
another look because citizens commented that it was more permissive
than the County's zoning on that parcel. The BoundaryReview Board
has been requested by Kitsap County to review this related
annexation. The Growth Management Act states that private land may
not.be designated Forest Management without an Ordinance that
provides for TBR's for development credits being passed, therefore
you cannot undo this kind of zoning and have it Forest Management
again without a great deal of legal pain involving the Growth
Management Act. The State and Federal Agencies you may rely on to
watchdog this process are under attack and losing funding. The
legislation being discussed in Olympia, would make overly
permissive zoning an extremely expensive and dangerous thing to do.
The City's own Critical Areas Ordinance has a special exemption
that specifically exempts aquifers from some protection. She
referenced Critical Areas Ordinance No. 4422: "Standards for
development in aquifer recharge area shall be those adopted in the
Kitsap County Groundwater Management Plan except for those areas
designated in the Bremerton Area Comprehensive Plan for high
density residential, commercial, central business district and
industrial land uses". In other words, the minute you designate
that area industrial, you take away its protection under the City's
Critical Areas Ordinance.
Ms. Havens extended an invitation to City Council members to visit
the Anderson Hill watershed on Friday, April 7. She stressed if
Council approves the Comprehensive Plan without study and without
input from the citizens, the City will end up in a morass of
appeals and lawsuits, having soiled their Comprehensive Plan at the
last minute and alienating a good portion of the public. If this
zoning is approved, the City will be in court with a class action
lawsuit with quite a few Anderson Hill neighbors. She urged
Council to step back and take another hard look at the whole thing
and the larger community in the process. She invited everyone to
their Neighborhood Association To Protect Anderson Creek meeting on
Thursday, April 13, 6:30 P.M., at the Sunnyslope School. The guest
speaker at that meeting will be Kathleen Cahall, Water Resources
Manger and the County's Watershed Planner Rick McNicholis and Ron
Sciepko, property owner. She asked that the Land Use Element
remain as it was developed by the citizens and the zoning be
considered further and carefully before considering this amendment.
TAPE #1278
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 29 of 44
Mike McCuddin stated he commented on this proposal two weeks ago
and was surprised when he received a large number of calls from
people who viewed the meeting, expressed their support to him for
his position, and offered their monetary support. At that time, he
naively stated they passed a hat and collected $37.00 to appeal the
mitigated Determination Of Non-significance so we don't need any
money. If reason doesn't prevail during this hearing, he can use
some more money! He believed the point of the earlier dissertation
on various kinds of soils was when you have this type of soil on a
steep radiant and it is developed, you run a risk that has been
proven many times in Kitsap County by serious land movement. At
the March 22 City Council meeting Mr. Colvin asked if the
Department Of Fisheries was involved in this process since Anderson
Creek is a salmon stream? At that time, Mr. McCuddin didn't know
the answer, so he contacted Mr. Pratt and asked him if the
Department of Fisheries was notified of the mitigated Determination
of Nonsignificance and he replied everyone that was suppose to be
notified were notified. He then asked Mr. Pratt if a response had
been received from the Department Of Fisheries? Mr. Pratt replied
no, which was self-explanatory to him that they did not have any
objection. Mr. McCuddin talked directly to the Department Of
Ecology and Department of Fisheries and found staff at the
Department of Fisheries that indicated they were suppose to respond
to the notice from Mr. Pratt, however, they had only one day to
respond before the date of closing to receive comments and were so
overloaded with work that they could not submit an appeal in a
timely manner. Mr. McCuddin told that staff person that the City
of Bremerton took a "no response" from Fisheries as a sign that the
Department had no problem with what was being proposed, which
wasn't the case and a letter was faxed, on this date, to the City
noting their concerns. He referenced a letter from the Department
Of Fish and Wildlife, dated March 27, 1995, from Steve
Keller/Habitat Program to the Department of Ecology stating: "Thank
you for this opportunity to review the City of Bremerton
Comprehensive Plan. Overall, the plan appears to meet the
requirements of the Growth Management Act. We wish to compliment
the City for its efforts especially since it was working in
somewhat of a cloud since the Kitsap County plan apparently
constrained its options to prepare a plan in full response to needs
of the City. (further down into the letter) On the downside, we
are saddened the City has decided to liquidate their ownership in
the Anderson Creek watershed, a fairly good producer of Chum and
Coho salmon and Rainbow Trout. This watershed has extremely
erodible soils and a history of sedimentation problems and
stormwater problems in the upper watershed. Further development
will have to be very sensitive to in-stream habitat". Mr. McCuddin
pointed out it appears this letter has not filtered down to the
City yet and again points out the City is moving too fast and needs
TAPE #1278
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 30 of 44
to slow down so the bureaucracy can catch up. It appears the
Anderson Hill Creek issue was tacked on the end and has been pushed
through the system and is not getting the fair analysis everything
else in the plan received. He questioned if the Capital Facilities
proposal addresses making the Anderson Creek watershed industrial?
He believed the answer to that question is no. He read into the
record a petition that was circulated throughout the Anderson Hill
Road neighborhood: "The Anderson Creek Watershed is a critical
natural resource of statewide significance that has been publicly
owned and protected for over 80 years. In light of recent
proposals for the sale and development of the watershed, we the
undersigned petition that decisions regarding the future of this
resource be made only after thorough and careful scientific study
of all of the implications of potential development and/or zoning
changes. We support the appeal of the Mitigated Determination Of
Non Significance issued by the Bremerton Planning Department and
further request that: (1) A complete Environmental Impact Statement
be conducted prior to any sale of the property or change in land
use or zoning; (2) public involvement (including residents of
Bremerton, Port Orchard and Kitsap County) be actively sought and
the public included in the decision making process at all levels;
(3) alternative plans for use of the watershed property or portions
thereof be developed and considered and that identified critical
areas and wildlife habitat should remain publicly owned and
protected for future generations as a nature park and wetland in
perpetuity". Mr. McCuddin provided Council with copies of the
signed petitions, which contained approximately 250 names. He
passed out a copy of a newspaper clipping that advertised the
public notice of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance,
amending the Comprehensive Plan Map for 340 acre site from Forest
Management to Industrial Business Park and rezone from Forest
Management to a mixture of zoning classifications consisting of 70%
General Industries, Mixed Use and General Business. Mr. McCuddin
went on to say you can see already the City's Comprehensive Plan
proposal for the watershed area is Industrial Park, which is the
most permissive zoning and skips over Residential and Business.
The lead agency for this proposal, the City of Bremerton, has
determined it will probably not have a significant adverse impact
on the environment, therefore, there is no need for an
Environmental Impact Study. The main part of their appeal rests on
the fact they believe an Environmental Impact Statement should be
done. Also, he believes the Environmental Checklist completed by
Mr. Sciepko was inaccurate and misleading, and minimized things
like the landslide along Bay Street coming out of Port Orchard. He
also pointed out there is another landslide on Anderson Hill Road,
which was mentioned previously. That Checklist also failed to
state that Anderson Creek does have salmon, however, it did mention
it is a critical geological area and that there is an aquifer. If
the area is to be used as an industrial site, there is a high
TAPE #1278
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 31 of 44
probability that there could be contamination into the creek and/or
water source. The City apparently agrees with that thought because
they say there is a need for a "Contingency Plan" providing
alternate sources of drinking water in the event contamination does
occur.
Mr. McCuddin referenced the option to purchase unimproved property
(3~0 acres), which states: "..the option property purchase price
shall be at the present fair market value for a property with a
land use zoning classification of RU2.5". He is not a realtor, but
that has to be much less expensive than "industrial" zoned
property. He stressed if the property is being zoned "Industrial"
it should be sold at "Industrial" and make the buyer pay the full
price. It is a known fact that Bremerton wants to expand their tax
basis and that is why they want to zone the site "Industrial",
which provides a greater tax base, however, he and others don't
accept that because they feel it is not the right area for such
development.
The next document Mr. McCuddin referenced stated: "The applications
will propose and the City Administration will support a zoning for
both properties (76 acres owned by Mr. Sciepko and the 340 acre
parcel) of General Industry 70%". He reviews that statement to
mean the City is committed to do that as designated by the three
signature - Mr. & Mrs. Sciepko and Mayor Lynn Horton. Obviously,
Mayor Horton wants this site to be industrial. Because she wants
the industrial designation and is committing towards that end, they
feel the process is being biased.
Mr. McCuddin referenced a letter from Phyllis Myers of the
Suquamish Tribe's Fisheries & Environmental Program, and quoted:
"The site for this proposal is a significant portion of the
Anderson Creek Basin Watershed. Anderson Creek is a salmon stream
and one in which the tribe surveys annually for adult returns.
.... The Suquamish Tribe is concerned about this proposal. Rezoning
and changing the Comprehensive Plan designation for this site would
result in the sort of poor planning the authors of the State
Environmental Act intended to avoid. The content of environmental
review is a fundamental step in achieving the SEPA policy mandate,
which is to help everyone make better environmental decisions".
Further into the letter it states: "There is a well documented
history of unstable soils along the highway in a not too distant
location from the site of this proposal and the Ross Creek basin.
In addition, there is a steep and environmentally sensitive
Anderson Creek ravine that would have to have road crossing for
development. The site is above a mapped aquifer and groundwater
recharge and/or contamination issues are likely to arise". The
last paragraph states: "Given the likelihood of environmental
sensitivity, the probably significant impact of vegetation
TAPE #1278
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 32 of 44
clearing, earth work, and introducing contaminants associated with
the land uses, which would be permitted with the rezone and the
fact that the proposal is part of a larger proposal, we request a
revision of the SEPA determination".
Mr. McCuddin referenced the City's Critical Lands Ordinance and
quoted: "The Growth Management Act has mandated that the City
develop regulations protecting the critical areas, which are
defined as aquifer charge areas, fish and wildlife habitat areas,
streams and wetlands, geological hazardous and flood prone areas.
The purpose of the ordinance is to protect the public's health,
safety, and welfare by establishing provisions to classify, protect
and preserve Bremerton's critical areas ..... critical areas serve
many important ecological functions. Many of the critical areas in
Bremerton have been lost or degraded through past development.
Bremerton, as an urban growth area, is experiencing growth and its
land resources diminishing. The increasing growth and diminishing
land recourse is creating pressure for the development of critical
areas. Because of the ecological benefits of critical areas, their
past destruction and increasing pressure to development them, the
intent of this ordinance is to insure the City's remaining critical
areas are preserved and protected". Another important reason for
protecting this area is to provide open space and aesthetic value,
which is important to the residents and one of the draws of Kitsap
County and Bremerton.
Lastly, Mr. McCuddin read into the record a memorandum dated
February 15, 1995 from Ron Hough, Planning Manager, to Don Pratt,
Director Of Community Development (part of the public access
records), with the subject, "Anderson Creek/Industrial Designation"
Starting with the second paragraph, "The draft Comprehensive Plan
currently shows the Anderson Creek property as Industrial Park.
Since there is no proposed development, this designation was
applied because it allows a variety of industrial uses while also
encouraging a campus like configuration of buildings, open spaces,
landscaping, etc. This zone is softer than the Industrial General
zone, which is the City's most intense zone for heavy industry.
(then on the second page) ...the Anderson Creek site is adjacent to
Highway #16 and Sinclair Inlet. It is clearly visible from the
freeway, especially from the north side of the freeway. If cleared
and developed with a combination of the allowed uses listed above,
we could end up with a very unsightly mixture of heavy industry in
a very scenic area. It could be another black eye for the City of
Bremerton if we allow that to happen. The possibility of over
zoning the property that may not be ideally suited to the uses of
that zone, is also a concern. If we give this property the least
restrictive zoning we have it will be very difficult to reduce it
later on if we determine that a mistake had been made. Considering
the talk around Olympia these days, over zoning is probably more
TAPE #1278
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 33 of 44
risky than it has ever been. The City may have other sites within
its Utility land that are more suitable for heavy industry. We
looked at some sites along Old Belfair Highway west of Gorst and
found sites that were relatively flat, have good vehicle truck
access, are close to a rail line and water service and are less
visible to traveling public". Mr. McCuddin agreed with Mr. Hough
that this project would be a black eye for Bremerton. President
Huff-Menees asked Planning staff if Mr. McCuddin was correct in his
representation of the memo just read into the record. Don Pratt,
Director of Community Development, stated yes. Mr. McCuddin did
not share Mr. Overson's comments that there would be many "checks"
along the way through the various processes this project will go
through. He stressed the people in the community are not
optimistic or naive, and are not in favor of making the site an
industrial park. They are not against growth, but are in favor of
planned growth management, however, they are against stupid growth,
urban sprawl, and destruction of wildlife habitat.
Darts11 Dowd stated he and his wife own land that abuts the City's
Anderson Hill Creek watershed property and Mr. Sciepko's property.
They were not notified of the City's plan for annexing the area
into the City of Bremerton. He felt they were the most impacted
because the most logical location for an industrial use would be
placed right in front of them and doubted any type of buffering
would help. He asked if the need is so great for diversifying
business within Kitsap County that we need this diversification at
this point in time? Discussion with the Economic Development
Council also brought out the issue for the need of more business
diversification...more jobs and increase in tax base. He believed
the County's unemployment figures are ok and have been relatively
ok for a long time. He has resided in this area 21 years and there
have been some employment cycles, but it has never been as "rough"
in this County as compared to other areas. He did not support the
idea that business diversification was a top priority to address
the issue of unemployment. A higher priority would be with respect
to increased population that will come in because of the U.S. Navy,
i.e. affordable housing, more open space, and recreation areas.
Mr. Sciepko stated he wants a high-tech, clean business park,
hotel, gas station and restaurant. He only needs Business Park
zoning, not Industrial Park or Industrial General, which are two
higher and heavier types of zoning. He questioned if Mr. Sciepko
is being straight forward with respect to what he says he wants to
develop when perhaps what he is actually asking for is the highest
zoning so he doesn't come under as much public scrutiny when he
applies for a building permit. Under IG zoning, Mr. Sciepko can
request a Building Permit without going through the Special Use
Permit process for most businesses. Under Business Park, he would
have to go through that Special Use Permit process for most of the
uses listed. If Mr. Sciepko or his heirs sells the property to
TAPE #1278
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 34 of 44
another developer, that entity could do just about anything they
would want to under the IG zoning. At a neighborhood meeting, Mr.
Sciepko described how he envisioned developing the City property
and implied he is a conservationist by protecting stream habitat,
create buffer areas and in general do a good job aesthetically, but
Mr. Dowd seriously questioned this. He based that feeling on the
fact that there is quite a nice profit in cutting mature growth
trees for export purposes and estimates Mr. Sciepko has already
cut 1,000 trees in the 8-16 inch categories. He personally
measured stumps that were up to 4 feet in diameter and many over 3
feet and every tree left with an 8-inch top or better is either
crooked or has too many knots for export and there is only a
handful of those, but there are a lot of alders, quite a few maple
trees, scrawny firs and hemlock. He also observed a "cat" track
down a 20 degree hill side, which is about a 45% slope and within
80 feet of a creek. If this is an indication as to how Mr. Sciepko
would treat the City's property, then he is sure no one would want
him to touch it.
Don Pratt, Director of Community Development, stated there are
three actions underway: (1) the smaller 76 acre site is in the
process of being annexed into the City. As part of that process,
there is default zoning, an administrative decision, in which they
are required to find the most similar zone to the County zoning and
assign it, which happens administratively. (2) On the larger site
the City owns, which is already in the City, the proponent has
pursued two concurrent paths that are now on the same track.
Several months ago, Mr. Sciepko applied for an amendment to the
current old Comprehensive Plan and a rezone, which is being
processed. A SEPA decision has been made, which has been appealed.
Mr. Sciepko applied for an Industrial General zoning and related
Comprehensive Planning. (3) At the same time, within the
Comprehensive Plan whole package that is being proposed for
adoption, it was picked up to consider bringing in an industrial
planning designation and that is happening now. The assumption
would be, depending on Council's action, Mr. Sciepko may drop his
amendment request to the Comprehensive Plan and continue with his
zoning or he may continue to pursue it. In any case, that old
action is still alive and will continue to go forward in pieces
regardless of action taken by Council following this hearing.
Ron Sciepko stated he would be speaking on his behalf and his wife
Ellen Lunde as contract holders and developers of the Anderson
Creek Corporate Campus. They respectfully request the City leave
the Industrial Park designation for the corporate campus in the
Comprehensive Plan. Removal of that designation stops the project
that was started in December 1994, and would preclude them from
doing anything for at least one year. They came to the City with
a beautiful vision for the land they own and the 340 City acres
TAPE #1278
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 35 of 44
they asked to be surplused. He believes the City shared their
vision and saw the potential to fill a desperate need within the
community, the creation of jobs and an effort to diversify the
local economy. That vote was the beginning of their project and
Council's vote to designate the land as Industrial Park, in
February, was an initial step in the planning process. The
Comprehensive Plan is a very critical planning document without
which nothing can follow. The City has ordinances and the State
has codes and the Federal government has laws, all of which control
what can and cannot be done. The City's Planning Department, with
Council's direction and approval, controls the requirements for
site specific focus environmental impact statements. City Councils
and County Commissioners throughout the state have had to make
similar planning decisions regarding designation of industrial and
commercial sites. The City Council has a continued on-going vote
in what will be allowed in the Corporate Campus. By law, the
Growth Management Act mandates that industrial sites be designated
in urban areas, not 5-10-15 miles from urban centers, but must be
available to urban services. They are fortunate to have unimproved
land such as this situated where there is water, power, sewer, gas
and a major highway link. This is what growth management is all
about. As he stated in December, 1994, he listened to what the
community was saying to the Kitsap County Planning Commission -
that voice said give us jobs. He also listened to the concerns of
the Suquamish Tribe, the neighbors of Anderson Hill Road and the
citizens in general. He acknowledge and shares their concerns. He
does recognize the rights the Suquamish Tribe has to the territory,
the salmon and the shellfish. Mr. Sciepko displayed a map and
addressed the environmental issues through the identification of a
buffer area/park along Anderson Creek that would maintain the
integrity of the most steep slope areas and development of the
areas that were less likely to have significant impacts on
properties on the down side of the site. As his project develops,
he foresees having a steering committee involved that would include
representatives from those groups that have a concern, such as the
Suquamish Tribe and Anderson Hill Road neighborhood, as well as
those entities that will be providing various services to the site.
Mr. Montqomeryasked Mr. Sciepko's plans for the area just east of
the area designated for a park? Mr. Sciepko stated he is in
negotiation with someone, and not at liberty to say what might be
located on that site. Mr. Law stated for clarification that we are
not talking about changing the designation to Industrial General
but rather Industrial Park, which is a change from the first
request. Mr. 8clepko stated that was correct. Mr. Law questioned
for clarification if the IP designation is approved, the contract
to purchase the property would be modified? Mr. ScieDko stated
yes.
Allen L. Hart, Engineering Geologist, stated he was asked by Mr.
TAPE
#1279
TAPE #1278
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 36 of 44
Sciepko to address the site geology and some of the slopes on the
Anderson Creek Corporate Campus. His comments are based on work he
has done to the north, south and west of the subject parcel and a
brief review of geologic maps of the area. He complimented the
gentlemen who summarized the Soil Conservation Service information
earlier. To take it a step farther, the alderwood, harstein and
McKenna soils are derived from glacial tilt apparent material,
which is typically called "hardpan" or a lean concrete...silty
sand/gravel. The geologic maps indicate through the central
portion of the slopes the soils are comprised mostly of sands and
various amounts of gravel, and these would correlate quite nicely
with the Indianola soil. The Soil Conservation Service uses a
combination name of Indianola/Kitsap Complex for portions of the
contact area between Indianola and the Kitsap soils. Kitsap soils
are identified on geologic maps as the Kitsap formation primarily
as silt and clay. Another type of soil is a kind of pasted on soil
that covers steep slopes that have sloughed or are subject to
sloughing.
Mr. Hart went on to say there is no set soil type or geologic
designation for those materials. The soils on the property are all
competent and suitable for support of structures be it commercial,
residential, or any industrial designation. These soils have
responded favorably to development throughout Kitsap County. One
obvious concern to people regarding this development has to do with
the steep slopes into the drainages. If you were to refer to the
coastal zone analysis for Kitsap County, one would see that they
map inland from the shoreline approximately 1,500 - 2,000 feet, and
it is just a swath that follows all the way through Kitsap County
and around Puget Sound. The slopes overlooking Highway 16 and up
into the Anderson Creek drainage are identified as "unstable". The
designation of "unstable" follows up the drainages, remaining on
the steeper slope areas, while the upland areas have a flatter
slope, and generally are designated as being "stable". The
proposed Industrial Park will incorporate nearly all of the slopes
that would be in question, and they would not be developed upon.
Slopes and soils that are similar to these found on this property
have been developed successfully in Kitsap County and in other
areas. The slope stability issues can be addressed through
planning and design considerations, and the use of slope set-backs.
The designation of "unstable" or the presence of land slides on a
parcel should not deem an entire project area as undevelopable.
These items should be used as guidelines, and as keys to planning
and design, and the identification of areas that may require
additional studies. It is his opinion, if development of this
parcel is approved as proposed, the topographic relief through the
corporate campus area lends itself to minimizing site grading
considerations and would facilitate the geotechnical investigation
on a development by development area, rather than attempting to
TAPE #1279
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 37 of 44
evaluate an entire 340 acre parcel at "one-shot". The topographic
and soil limitations and restrictions are already clearly known and
identified, and drainage and runoff considerations will require
addressing during the planning and design phases of the project.
It was also his opinion that this site, from a technical
standpoint, is suitable for the type of development proposed.
Jon Rose, Civil Engineer, Pak-Tech Engineering, stated he has been
working with and representing Ron Sciepko and Ellen Lunde on the
Anderson Creek Watershed project. He addressed several concerns
that were raised earlier, and also wanted to address some of their
own concerns to Council concerning process issues.
In regard to the question raised by a member of the City's staff as
to whether or not this project should remain with its Industrial
Park designation the way it currently resides on the Comprehensive
Plan, he instead asks, "why would we not keep that designation as
it is?" Concerns raised by Anderson Hill residents are important,
but the question is, are we going to change the designation? Has
anything new been learned as far as the environmental status, that
was not already known? Has anything changed that would cause the
designation to be changed? Everyone is already aware of the steep
slopes, but steep slopes do not cover the entire site, only a
portion. What might be news tonight is that there is going to be
a park, or a preserve area that will isolate most of the steep
slope areas away from the development. What also might be news is
that the development is going to happen on topography that is very
favorable to development, as stated earlier by the geologist.
He stated they have been fully aware of the important stream
resources and the wildlife corridor resources that run through this
property. He also clarified that they are aware of Anderson Creek
being a salmon stream, and they fully understand the concerns of
the local residents. The property has served the City as a
watershed in the past, as it has for decades, but he reminded
everyone that the City is preparing a Wellhead Protection program.
The developer has already agreed in writing that they will comply
with whatever that Wellhead Protection plan says.
Mr. Hart questioned why change the land use designation now? Why
change the commitment that was given in December when it was
decided to surplus the property, giving Ron Sciepko the option to
buy it, with an Industrial Park designation? His only guess was
that there must be a concern that things are moving too fast, and
the City is losing some sort of control over the process to
regulate development actions. He assured the citizens this was not
the case. The Bremerton Comprehensive Plan is a planning document
that is committed to provide a certain type of zoning, but it is a
commitment on paper and does not by itself allow one spadeful of
TAPE #1279
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 38 of 44
dirt to be moved. All of the controls over development that the
City had before the Comprehensive Plan are still in place. He
reminded everyone that the Comprehensive Plan itself designates
this area as a "special study area", stating that no development
will happen until further studies are conducted to ensure that
environmentally and socially responsible development occurs
Last year a Critical Areas Ordinance was adopted to define and
regulate the kind of activities that can and can not happen in
critical areas, which is still in place. There are also numerous
regulations and agency reviews that are already in place that must
also be adhered to. This is the very early stages of a very long
process. This is simply one step, and if the Industrial Park
designation is removed, the project could be halted for at least
one year, and possibly up to five years.
It was.also pointed out that Ron Sciepko and Ellen Lunde reside on
land adjacent to the watershed property. Who would be a better
person to be connected to this project, someone from out of town?
He believes this is an important consideration, someone whom the
City has local access to, and someone who has a local commitment.
He discussed the Growth Management Act, and how growth is
encouraged in urban growth boundaries. This area is not only in
the urban growth boundaries for the City, but also for the County.
It is one of the few areas that the City and the County has in
common. He listed all the other resources that are already
available such as water and sewer.
He told of an annual meeting for the Environmental Development
Council where a message was broadcast that in the past communities
have desired developers to come in, to some degree, and revitalize
the communities, in order to revitalize the job base. But, you
can't invite them in on one hand, and then regulate them out of
existence on the other.
He concluded by saying they were here tonight to ask the City to
take one step, a critical step, but only one step.
Helen Havens corrected Mr. Rose in that it was the "Economic"
Development Council, not the "Environmental" Development Council.
She then reminded everyone that this amendment is a change to
Industrial Park, from Forest Management. Also, what may be planned
for the Anderson Hill watershed property is not the proposal before
Council at this time; and Mr. Sciepko has not made a commitment to
a specific proposal, nor does the zoning reflect this proposal. It
is important for everyone to understand that Mr. Sciepko can afford
a lot of experts, and can paint a "pretty picture", but he is not
committed to this project. This proposal is committing ourselves
TAPE #1279
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 39 of 44
to Industrial zoning. If this Comprehensive Plan amendment is
approved, the special study was written for this particular
project. She believes it was designed to lure away from the need
for an EIS study. She said it was never suggested that development
was not possible on this particular section except for the stream
corridors, and does not deny the possibility that this area can be
broken up into sections for development, but stressed she did not
want to see the zoning changed. She believes the City has the
responsibility to be the stewards of this land with its critical
water and wildlife resource and should not turn it over to a
private owner. She asked that the City take time with this, and
that one years time sounded wonderful to her.
G. Pertin Walker, Attorney at Law with Vandenberg, Johnson, &
Gandara Law Firm of Tacoma, stated for several years his firm has
provided legal council to Ron Sciepko and Ellen Lunde, and at their
request, he came to tonight's hearing to address some legal issues.
He asked that it be noted that no threats are coming from Ron or
Ellen. This has been an expensive effort on their part, even
though it has not been reciprocated. On December 7, 1994, the same
issues that Ms. Havens has addressed TWICE tonight were heard in a
letter. There was notice, if you review the minutes of December 7,
1994, your attorney, not Ron's attorney, advised you repeatedly
that notices had properly been given regarding the December 7th
meeting, and no one challenged the notice following that hearing.
Now here it is four months later, there is now a claim that
something was "defective" at that time. Everything was done
properly, and the decision was made at that time to surplus the
watershed property. Neither Ron Sciepko or Ellen Lunde made that
decision, the City did, and he believes it was a proper decision
based upon the City's staff recommendation. At that time, a
commitment was made that the City would initiate a fair market
value appraisal, which the City has done. Also, a commitment was
made that a rezone application would be initiated for the option
property, which has been done by Mr. Sciepko and is now being
appealed. However, that is not the issue here tonight and will play
itself out in due course. The issue at this meeting is adoption of
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment consistent with the Land Use
provisions of this agreement. The necessary decision tonight is
very direct...is this property going to have an Industrial Park
designation?. The City made that commitment, in writing, as part of
the agreement with Mr. Sciepko in December 1994. In regard to the
discussion about the applications and the mix of zoning, Council
came up with a proper question - "Mr. Sciepko, are you willing to
concede here tonight, in this hearing, 'that you abandoned the
request for 70% IG", and Mr. Sciepko stated yes. He has given up
a very valuable property right. During this hearing, we have seen
the exercise of free speech and the right to petition, and for the
most part people have been understanding and patient with each
TAPE #1279
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 40 of 44
other despite strong feelings. But, part of our American system
includes the right to acquire and own things. No one else tonight,
except Ron Sciepko, has said what they would give up to preserve
these various environmental values. He has already committed to
you that the IG zoning is gone. Fairness requires that the
commitments that were made in December be moved to the next level.
Tonight, you are not being asked to approve a building permit, you
are not being asked to approve a zoning change, only to adopt a
Comprehensive Plan. We invite you to do so, consistent with the
decisions and the commitments that have been made. In good faith,
Ron and Ellen have proceeded, and in good faith, the City has
proceeded, and he asks that the City continue the actions in good
faith.
David Della 'Rovers, Anderson Hill resident, stated that the
proposal shown here tonight with the park, looks really nice, but
what the Comprehensive Plan says is that the whole thing is going
to be Industrial Park. He asked why put in the Comprehensive Plan
that the whole thing is going to be Industrial Park, if part of it
is going to be left as a park? Why is this part not designated as
Open Space to make sure that it is protected? Also, why even sell
that land? Why not keep it public domain? Why would Mr. Sciepko
want to buy that property and not develop it? Mr. Sciepko stated
this is the first visual proposal the residents have seen for the
Campus Business Park. It is still not clear, however, where the
roads are going to come in and out. Also, there is an area at the
top that Mr. Sciepko has stated might be offered to another
developer. Due to these and other unanswered questions, he feels
it is important to be cautious. He stated how he spoke at a
meeting here a few weeks ago and felt good because he thought the
Council members had all listened and paid attention, but the next
day Ms. Haven showed him a set of minutes from the December 7th
City Council meeting showing a letter that Helen had read into the
records, and around six or seven residents who testified, but only
one Council member voted against the proposal. He then wondered,
do Council members really listen to public testimony? He felt
there was not adequate notice to surrounding property owners and
the first he heard about the City taking action was receiving, in
the mail, a notice about the mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance. He received that notice from his mortgage
company, not the City. His next door neighbor did not receive
notice and because his mortgage was sold four times within the past
year, the mail probably hasn't caught up with him yet. He
questioned how difficult would it have been, on such an important
decision, to send someone around and leave a note on peoples'
doors? He has seen signs up in various locations, mostly County
signs, and questioned why wasn't the watershed property posted
along Anderson Hill Road? He used Puget Power as an example for
contacting the residents when they are working in the area and
TAPE #1279
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 41 of 44
desire something from the property owner. Mr. Sciepko's attorney
talked about fairness and that Mr. Sciepko was proceeding in
accordance with his agreement approved in December. He questioned
what about the fairness to the residents, who were not informed.
The City Attorney may have said the public was given proper notice,
but what if he was wrong - maybe someone thought everyone was
informed and now they say "no one challenged that fact that notice
wasn't given". He asked how could they challenge the fact that
notice wasn't given if they didn't even know there was a notice in
the first place. He believes it is fair to slow things down and
asked Council to not change the zoning of the watershed property to
Industrial Park, but leave the land use as it is - Open Space or
Forest Management and look at that issue later or make a motion to
saylets wait until the Wellhead Study is completed or some type of
environmental impact statement is done. He referenced the
signatures on the petition, who are concerned about the loss of
open space, protecting the environment and streams. His fear is as
fast as this process is pushing through and passed the community,
what is going to happen with the building codes? He did not
believe Council has received all the information from the Planning
Department, as the one internal memorandum referenced earlier
noted.
Unidentified speaker stated now the zoning has been changed from
Industrial General (IG) to Industrial Park (IP). He asked if Mr.
Sciepko or the Planning Commission realized they made a mistake or
are they trying to pacify the residents? Maybe the IP zoning might
be a mistake as well. He looked through the Land Use Tables, which
show various types of business and industry that can be operated
under certain types of zoning. It concerned him that someone else
could acquire Mr. Sciepko's property and develop it into a heavier
industrial use than what is being proposed by Mr. Sciepko. He
pointed out there are 105 different land uses under the IG and 73
uses under IP, 58 under BP (36 of those uses need Special Use
Permits). But, on the IG zone there are 84 allowable uses without
any Special Use Permits. He stressed the IP zoning is not much
different from the IG zone and supports the City holding up until
some good decisions can be made that would benefit the public.
Mr. McCuddin referenced the Environmental Check List where Mr. Rose
indicated the presence of salmon, and found that the specific
reference to various types of fish was not marked, but "OTHER" was
circled without comment; and under "THREATENED OR ENDANGERED
SPECIES it reads: "It is unknown if any threatened or endangered
species occur on subject property". He read other items off the
Checklist with various comments noted.
Mr. Hough once again listed the proposed changes under the Land Use
Element as follows:
#1689
TAPE #1279
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 42 of 44
1) Correction of the City Limits and Urban Growth Boundary maps of
Watershed/Utility Lands;
2) Revise land Use Plan map (apply "MDR" designation west of Warren
to Chester;
3) To add "Anderson Creek Corporate Campus" to the Special Area
Plan;
4) Revise West Bremerton Land Use Map (to change "HDR" to "CG"
north of Bayview Inn Hotel);
5) Revise East Bremerton Land Use Map (to change "CP" to "CG" on
former Olympic View School sites); and
6) Revise East Bremerton Land Use Map (to change "LDR" to "MDR" on
eight lots on Ivy Road.
Two additional requests were made: (1) David Cunningham presented
a change for the Pope Resources property near Pendergast Regional
Sports Complex and suggested a map that showed roughly 40%
Industrial. Mr. Hough noted currently that area is zoned for a PUD
with a specific percentage of development opportunities - 70%
single family residential, 20% multiple-family and 10% industrial
park. What they had in mind with the Comprehensive Plan it is
shown as low density residential, which is the primary use of 70%
and with the PUD it would still accommodate that mix of zoning,
therefore they did not anticipate any change in zoning. Mr.
Cunningham is suggesting a different combination of zoning. This
request caught staff off guard and was not expecting to deal with
it due to not having enough background information to give Council
a recommendation on such a change. If Council desires to make a
change for that area, this would be the opportunity to take such
action. (2) Mr. Brown talked about being vested under the old
process of a rezone issue that he is concerned with and staff
supports that position as long as he had his complete application
in prior to adoption of a new plan. And, the Sciepko/Anderson
Creek property is also an issue Council may want to make a decision
on.
M/S/C(Overson/Montgomery) to pass Resolution No. 2508 adopting the
draft Bremerton Comprehensive Plan as revised by Agenda Bill #95-
052, Exhibits I, II, III, IV, V and VI.
Mr. Colvin stated he felt differently than Mr. Overson on this
issue and had many questions that needed answers. He asked if he
understood correctly that a buffer would be extended along Anderson
Creek? Mr. Hough stated he did not know - the City does have a
sensitive areas ordinance, which is intended to prevent sensitive
#1880
TAPE #1279
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 43 of 44
areas from being destroyed. Mr. Colvin stated he did not believe
Mr. Sciepko would build over the creek. He asked if the option to
purchase is implemented will that include purchasing Anderson
Creek? Mr. Hough stated he believed the way it is laid out it
would include Anderson Creek. Mr. Colvin asked why couldn't the
City keep ownership of the creek and sell him the rest of the land?
Mr. Hough pointed out that decision was made back in December 1994.
Mr. Colvin stated he is hearing new information and he was very
concerned about people not getting notification on land use
actions. He felt strongly the City should maintain the land that
supports Anderson Creek in its current state and not sell it to Mr.
Sciepko. Mr. Hough asked if Mr. Colvin desired the Anderson Creek
watershed land remain as Utility Land? Mr. Colvim stated just the
area that supports the stream. Mr. Overson pointed out to Mr.
Colvin that was where the City's Critical Lands Ordinance comes
into play. Mr. Colvin stated he has been around a long time and
heard about lots of critical lands and he had a bad personal
experience over such an issue. He commended the proponents and
opponents of the issue - that's the American Way and those who want
to appeal the issue have the right to do so.
Vote on Motion:
In Favor:
Overson, Farr, Law, Montgomery,
Dawkins, Winters
Opposed:
Colvin, Huff-Menees
Motion carried.
10A - RESOLUTION NO. 2508 ADOPTING REVISED BREMERTON COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, #AB95-074
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1995-1 proposes amendments to
the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan to bring it into compliance with
the Growth Management Act (GMA). The City Council held a continued
Public Hearing to consider public comments on revisions to all the
elements on March 15, March 22, March 29, and April 5, 1995.
After closing the hearing to the public and taking action on
proposed revisions to the Plan, the City Council must pass a
Resolution adopting the revised Plan.
Motion to approve was made under the item directly above this
Agenda item.
8A - ORDINANCE NO. 4511 (SECOND READING) RELATING TO CABLE TV
OCCUPATION TAX AND AMENDING BMC 5.02, #AB95-063
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Overson/Colvin) to pass Ordinance No. 4511 on second
reading, relating to occupation tax for cable television service
#1955
TAPE #1279
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 5, 1995
Page 44 of 44
companies, and amending Chapter 5.02 of the Bremerton Municipal
Code.
10B - RESOLUTION NO. 2507 OPPOSING STATE INITIATIVE #164 -- TAKING
PROPERTY RIGHTS, #AB95-075
Initiative 164, the property rights measure, would devastate
cities' local zoning authority. The Association of Washington
Cities recommends that the issue be given a full public debate and
voee AS WRITTEN in order to advise the public fully about all
aspects of the dramatic changes in public policy proposed by this
initiative.
Mayor Lynn Horton stated this proposal is not taking a pro or con
position on Initiative 164, all it does is ask, by Resolution, to
request the State Legislature to pass this issue on for voter
approval rather than approving it themselves.
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) to pass Resolution No. 2507, regarding
initiative 164: Payment for enforcement zoning regulations.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M.
LEE L City Clerk
T N
City of Bremer/M~
KLM/SH-M/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault