Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/13/95TAPE #1317 UNAPPROVED DRAFT COUNCIL APPROVED OCT 4 1995 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 #0014 #0045 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, September 13, 1995, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Sherril Huff-Menees presiding. Council members present were Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Morrie Dawkins, John Law, David Farr, Richard Neville, and Lon Overson. Councilman Carlos Montgomery 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 Pastor Jay Akkerman of the Central Kitsap Church of the Nazarene. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - August 23, 1995 B. Bid Award for Pendergast Regional Park Playground Equipment to "Pacific Playground" M/S/C/U(Neville/Dawkins) to approve the Consent presented. #AB95-191 #AB95-192 Agenda as CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Neville) on September 13, 1995, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 187833, 187843, 187862-188027 in the amount of $1,625,167.74. President Huff-Menees make the following announcements: (1) Executive Session Wednesday, September 20, 1995, 5:00 -5:20 P.M., in the Council Conference Room. Topic to be discussed: "Labor Negotiations". (2) City Council Study Session, September 20, 1995, immediately following the City Council meeting. Topic to be discussed: "Review of City Charter". (3) City Council Study Session, September 18, 1995, 5:30 P.M., in TAPE #1317 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 2 of 39 Topic of discussion: Public Works the Council Conference Room. and Utilities Issues. (4) City Council Retreat - October 7, 1995, 8:30AM -4:00 P.M., at the Oyster Bay Quality Inn public meeting room. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Winters thanked all the participants in the AIDES WALK held on Sunday; and he was pleased to report that event raised over $10,000. He announced the Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association will meet tonight at 6:30 P.M., and the next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 21, 6:30 P.M., at the Cascade Natural Gas building. The agenda for that meeting will be: (1) approving revised by-laws; (2) nomination of Officers for 1996; (3) open discussion time. Mr. Colvin stated he was fortunate to attend an AWC Legislative meeting this morning. Some of the issues discussed at that meeting were: growth management, water and environment, State/Federal Budget, transportation issues. One issue that should not be forgotten has to do with Referendum #48. According to the committee assembled, they recommend to the citizens to vote "NO" on Referendum #48. Mr. Dawkins reported work is underway on a large lake, approximately 3-4 acres in size, at the new golf course. That reserved water will be used for irrigation if needed during a dry summer. He believes the new course will be one of the finest in the northwest. Mr. Law reminded everyone of the next District #3 Neighborhood Meeting on Tuesday, September 19, 1995, 7:00 P.M., at the Senior Center. The agenda for that meeting will include: (1) Gorst- Bremerton Gateway Project as it affects Bremerton streets; (2) the organization to direct the downtown revitalization; (3)updates, questions answered and any subject or concern including a situation that involves a unique quirk that affects zoning within the district. He also hopes to have present the District #3 Beat Cop and Fire Department representative. Mr. Farr referenced a recent newspaper article reporting Kitsap County's budget woes, flat revenues and increased costs associated with needs. At the Kitsap Regional Planning Council meeting today, some of that became evident and will affect services somewhat on a regional level, i.e., CENCOM and Emergency Planning Program. But, those budget woes are not unique to Kitsap County or the region...this City also has flat revenues and projected increases in spending. Council held a Study Session on Monday evening where there was a brief discussion on the fact we are starting into the TAPE #1317 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 3 of 39 budget season. Now is the time for Bremerton residents to contact their Council representative or the Administration to let themknow their desires as far as where they want the priorities and funding directed. The public will be provided a schedule of Council Study Sessions set for discussion on the 1996 budget and he encouraged the public to attend those meetings. Mr. Neville reminded everyone to exercise their right to vote on Tuesday, September 19. Mr. Overson reported changes were happening with the transformation of the old Elks Building. He complimented BCAT in presenting the candidates for the Bremerton School Board positions. The Neighborhood Information Network meeting held on September 12th was excellent with a good showing of residents and good discussions. He encouraged residents throughout the City to attend the Neighborhood Information Network meetings because they will learn a great deal of information and it is an opportunity to give input to the City administration. Mrs. Huff-Menees reported Council will be holding a Retreat on October 7, to discuss Council's priorities for the 1996 budget. She also encouraged the public to get in touch with their Council representatives and give them their input on services and or emphasis they would like to see in the budget. She also reminded everyone of Election Day - Tuesday September 19. There are some issues that will appear only on the Primary Ballot, so it is important for people to get out and vote in the Primarily Election. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Police Chief Paul Du Fresne stated he wanted to take this opportunity to update the Council and citizens on some changes within his department starting with a special presentation and congratulations to Detective Jon Johnson. For the past four years Jon has been handling a great number of duties within the Police Department: D.A.R.E. Officer/Crime Prevention Officer and Crime Stoppers Program as well as other duties as identified. After four years in that position, Jon has made the decision to return to the Patrol Division so he could work on some skills and look forward to future advancement within the department. Chief Du Frense presented Officer Johnson with a plaque denoting four years of excellent service. Jon has been more than just an asset to the department, he has been very active in his church and the community in a number of ways. Detective Jon Johnson stated it has been a privilege for him to serve over the past four years and he will be taking a lot of what he has learned "back to the road" when he returns to the Patrol Division. He announced the 10th Annual Kitsap County Day of Prayer - Leadership Prayer Breakfast will be held October 12, 6:45 A.M., at The Bayview Inn. Doug Mazza, Chief ) TAPE #1317 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 4 of 39 Operating Officer and Executive Vice President Of Hyundai Motor America, will be the keynote speaker at that event. The purpose of this breakfast and time is designed as a time of prayer for our community, its leaders, and as an individual time to rededicate ourselves to God. Information about this event can be obtained by calling 692-2945. Chief Du Frense introduced Henry Mincey, the City's new Community Resource Division Manager, who in turn introduced the City's new Crime Prevention Officer Kent Boekweg. Officer Boekweg expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to work in the Crime Prevention area, particularly the ability to interact more with the citizens of Bremerton. In looking over some of the statistics, he believes everyone would be pleased to see the work accomplished by Detective Johnson and the great strides made in block watches, which has basically brought down the crime rate helping to make our community safer. Cecil McConne11 related an incident involving his 16-year old grandson and his disabled vehicle and Police Officer Fatt and Reserve Officer Knott. The assistance given by the Police Officers put the young man at ease and greatly impressed him. Mr. McConnell believes those two officers deserve the title of ,'Bremerton's Finest". Evelyn Wallace, Pine Road, announced the tenants at Manette Villa Apartments are sponsoring a free clothing give away - SHARE & WEAR. Donations of clothing are being accepted. This event will be held September 23 and donations can be dropped off at 3280 Pine Road, Apt. 39 between now and September 22. Don Larson, President Washington Scuba Alliance, gave a report on the Sinclair Inlet and Dyes Inlet clean up event for Water weeks '95, sponsored by the Citizen Action Committee, a group of local citizens working to keep the bay clean. Approximately 40 volunteers participated in the clean up event. He acknowledged all of the event sponsors and those who made contributions for the event, including Mayor Horton, Public Works and Utility Department, and Parks Department. President Huff-Menees extended Council's thanks to Mr. Larson for his dedication for making those events take place. Andv ParyDa stated the joke is on him - as the Council is aware, he has raised a lot of cane since 1987 about parking problems. He could say Ms. Goodell taught him a lesson. A parking incident involving his son's girlfriend's daughter, who was illegally parked, resulted in him loaning her the money to bail the vehicle out of impound. On another subject, he would like to see some consideration given to making the City's Zoning Code a bit more oriented toward the public and for a particular case he wished it had been done under a Special Use Permit rather than a Business TAPE #1317 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 5 of 39 Permit. He and the business people in the Manette area learned, for the first time today, that there is a state licensed transient mental health facility (25-35 people), located across the street from the grocery store. It was his understanding that facility will accept people that Kitsap Mental Health KMHwill not take into their program; however, when he checked with KMH he learned that statement was incorrect and that they do accept those types of patients. The clientele using the Manette facility will be both mentally disabled and with criminal backgrounds. Mike Dascenzo, Bremerton business owner and resident, stated on Memorial weekend he walked around the city following the festivities and was embarrassed and ashamed at the deplorable condition of the City - trash was everywhere. He wrote to Mayor Horton and subsequently received a letter that this was a one time only type of situation and caused by a lack of communication. But, as he travels around the City he continues to see trash cans overflowing, trash in the streets and a general lack of attention to detail and deplorable conditions. In fact, prior to coming to this meeting he noticed the trash can outside of the front doors of City Hall was overflowing. Part of the problem is informal signs, such as yard sales. He felt the City could enact some type of ordinance that would require people to remove the signs once the sale or event is over. It also concerned him that people are dumping trash along roadways. He believes if the City starts a clean up campaign, the public will "get on board" and help the cause. He commended the City on their efforts to fight the graffiti problem and there has been a significant decrease in such activities. As a person involved with safety and security issues, he realizes one of the best ways to fight the gangs and territoriality of the gangs is to remove the graffiti as soon as it shows. Roy McInnis expressed his appreciation that Mayor Horton attended and stayed throughout the Mt. Zion Baptist Church Anniversary celebration. He noted he expected Councilman Colvin to stay through that celebration. Recently, he spent a week in Birmingham, Alabama, and while there he was able to park his vehicle at the Civic Center for 10 hours and only paid $1.00. John Steffens, Commissioner/Chairman of the Bremerton Housing Authority, invited City Council members to attend one of their Housing Authority meetings - 4th Monday of each month/5:00 P.M. They have developed communications with Mayor Horton and Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, to work with the City regarding the shrinking federal funds and possible use of CDBG funds. Hopefully, in the near future the Housing Authority can help Bremerton with a project called Sylvan Pines for elderly low income people. #1229 TAPE #1317 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 6 of 39 7A - INTERLOCAL AGREEKENT BETWEEN KITSAP COUNTY ~ CITY OF BREKERTON FOR THE FUNDING OF THE pL~YGROUNDEOUIPMENTAT PENDERGAST REGIONAL PARK, #AB95-193 This agreement provides the mechanism for the disbursement by Kitsap County of $25,000 towards the acquisition of playground equipment at Pendergast Regional Park. The playground equipment has been bid and contracts with the company, Pacific Playground, Inc., are being presented to City Council concurrently. Note that the additional $2,240.00 is accounted for in the Pendergast Construction fund. Jodi Wroblewski, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director, acknowledged the significant contribution made by Kitsap County towards the development of Pendergast Regional Park. Now, the County has come forward with $25,000 to be used towards playground equipment. The site has been developed and ready for placement of the equipment. She pointed out that the park is open to all children and families to utilize. Public comment - none. Mr. Winters asked if there was something similar to the playground equipment located within the City? Ms. Wroblewski explained there are small versions of the same kind of playground equipment at Manette Park and Forest Ridge Park. Mr. Dawkins asked if this equipment would be different than what is being installed at Warren Avenue Park? Ms. Wroblewski stated yes. M/S/C/U(Neville/Colvin) to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with Kitsap County for funding the playground equipment at Pendergast Regional Park. 8A - ORDINANCE (FIR8TREADING) REVISING PROCEDURES FOR JUNKVEHICLE ABATEMENT HEARINGS, #AB95-183 Amendment of ordinance to provide for assessment of costs of abatement of junk vehicles as a garbage lien on property for delinquency in payment of costs. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, explained action on this ordinance was delayed for several weeks and a change was made to Section 9.08.060. In discussion with some of the landlords in the City, new language was added that would allow landlords to provide a concurrent notice to tenants if a vehicle is left as a result of tenant action along with the State required notice to legal and registered owners, which will then allow the property owner to remove the vehicle at his expense. The City would provide the landlord with vehicle ownership and license information as well as TAPE #1317 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 7 of 39 some additional time to see if they can effect the removal of the junk vehicle before the City invokes abatement action. A change came about in Section 9.08,090 in junk vehicles procedures when it became apparent that junk vehicles really equate to garbage and in fact are a significant portion of the garbage problem in the City. Deborah Goodell, Parking Supervisor, stated the pictures in the slide presentation that will be made depicts typical problems encountered with junk vehicles throughout the City. She introduced Stacy Tucker from Chico Towing. Apparently there is some confusion as to how much money can be made from junk vehicles and Ms. Tucker will address that point. Stacv Tucker, Chico Towing, explained they have run a "clunker clean up" program in the City for six years. During 1995 they removed 71 junk vehicles from City streets. For the most part, these vehicles are "hulk" vehicles and often without engines, wheels or in several pieces. Chico Towing must process junk vehicles through a legal process, which are then disposed of at a public auction. An auctioneer receives $15.00 per vehicle through the auction process. The best case scenario brings in $60.00 per vehicle and the worst case scenario brings in $25.00 per vehicle. By the time the vehicle is sold through the public auction process, it has accrued a number of charges against it - equipment/personnel costs, insurance, land fees, etc., related to a business. Many vehicles accrue a balance that is never paid. It is important to their company to provide the clunker clean up service to the City of Bremerton and have opened it up County-wide as well this year and removed 100 vehicles within Kitsap County. They work in and live in the City and they want to make a contribution to the City. The clunker clean up is the way for private property owners to remove junk vehicles without incurring a fee to them; and it should be seen as a community service program. Ms. Goodell proceeded with the slide presentation. When she went through the original list of abatements that the planning/Building Department have already served notice on, it amounts to abut 100 vehicles. She noted there are probably four different properties that have 40-50 junk vehicles stored. Jack Lefcoski related a situation in his neighborhood, which is part City and part County, where a vehicle was abandoned on private property. He asked if that vehicle can be hauled away? Ms. Tucker stated the RCW's states if a vehicle is on public property a law enforcement agency needs to authorize the removal of that vehicle. And, if the vehicle is on private property, the owner of that property may authorize removal of that vehicle, and would be considered a private impound from the property. Mr. Lefcoski noted that the property owner would have to pay the cost of removal. Ms. Tucker stated their firm considers those to be "hulk" TAPE #1317 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 8 of 39 vehicles...without engines, tires, badly damaged and essential scrap metal. It is a very cost prohibitive process to remove vehicles, go through the abandoned vehicle process and auction. To cover a small fraction of that cost most tow companies will charge the property owner a $100.00 fee to remove the hulk vehicle. Under the Clunker Clean Up Program they waive that fee to the property owner and do it as a community service. Ms. Goodell pointed out if the abandoned vehicle is registered and the owner is located, then that person will be charged the removal fee, but if not, then the property owner is charged. Mr. Lef~oski stated the vehicle he referenced was registered in Vermont. Ms. Goodell stated information can be traced, but unfortunately many states do not require transfer of title. Elisabeth Buell asked when the next clunker clean up will be held? Ms. Goods11 stated the City has been discussing the possibility of not holding the clunker clean up in lieu of cleaning up properties that have been placed on abatement. The City does not expect Chico Towing to take all the vehicles as part of the clunker clean up. Neither does the City expect the taxpayers to share the cost in general when it does not affect their property directly. But, if it amounts to 70-100 vehicles then maybe we need to look at the City cleaning up what is currently out there through abatement. Mr. Overson stated he expected to see more opposition from the landlords, but it appears some agreement as to language had been agreed upon. Mr. Farr stated apparently the stage was set so it could be worked out with the attorney, Mr. Colvin asked if someone abandoned a vehicle on someone else property will that property also be incumbered? Mr. Sievers stated yes, the City will first try to collect from the person responsible, but ultimately the City will not condone having the abandoned vehicle remain on the site, whether it is trash or a junk vehicle, and will step in and abate it eventually. The City has provided a defense for the property owner through his ability to request a hearing, if they received notice on the vehicle and not taken any action to remove it. Mr. Winters stated during the committee meeting he asked the City attorney about a situation where he purchased some property in August at 922 15th Street and in looking at the property boundaries there is a vehicle on his property that has no license plate or registration. He did not agree that the landlord should have to pay for the removal of such a vehicle, yet at the same time he questioned why should the taxpayers pay for the removal when the person owning the property, or in his case is purchasing' the property, should clean up the site. He asked the City Attorney if he should stay seated and vote on this issue since it directly affects him? Mr. Sievers stated Mr. Winters could remain seated #1855 TAPE #1317 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 9 of 39 and vote on the issue since there is no conflict of interest on legislation such as this. M/S/C/U(Farr/Dawkins) to approve ordinance on first reading, amending the junk vehicle abatement provisions and amending Section 9.08.090(a) of the Bremerton Municipal Code. 8B - ORDINANCE (FIRST READINg) AMENDMENT TO GARBAGE AND REFUSE ABATEMENT PROVISION8 UNDER B.M.C. CHAPTER 6.04, #AB95-198 The proposed ordinance amends garbage and refuse provisions in BMC Chapter 6.04 to clarify landowner's responsibility for the abatement of refuse upon properties where owner may or may not be a resident. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, explained what is proposed is actually a correction to the language of the current Garbage Abatement Ordinance. As was discussed, the property owner is ultimately responsible, along with the person who puts garbage on the property, and a lien can be filed to be reimbursed for the cost of abating the property. The purpose of this correction is to allow the owner mandatory early notice along with the occupant or person in possession and control of the property that the City is concerned about garbage and is about to commence an abatement action. Alex Roos, representing the Puget Apartment owners' Association (PAOA), stated in regard to this particular amendment members of PAOA believe there are certain clarifications needed and required before adoption and implementation. It was his hope that he and members of PAOA could meet with Mr. Sievers to develop language that clarifies several points. There concern has to do with the following: (1) last sentence on first page of ordinance contained the word "etc.". He did not view that as good language because it can be detrimental to either side because what is "etc."? He urged Council to provide more specific wording and more detail. (2) Section 6.04.062 - REFUSE ABATEMENT -what is meant by the wording ,,...whenever there is on any property in the City any accumulation of refuse.."? Mr. Roos felt that was very vague and questioned if it meant 1 lb., 1 ft., 5 lbs, or 15 ft., and questioned what construes a violation? He asked if this proposal was leaning toward giving Brem-Air the final law to go ahead and lien the garbage. The order in which notification is given is another issue of concern as was the apparent intention to always hold the landlord ultimately responsible for any outstanding charges. Mr. Farr stated he would like to explore the different ways the City would allow the concerns of PAOA to be addressed prior to moving forward on this item. Mr. Sievers stated it would be up to the City Council and the second reading of the ordinance would have TAPE #1317 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 10 of 39 to be delayed an additional week, or delay first reading of the ordinance. The changes brought up by Mr. Roos were not the changes he identified at this point, but that does not say the language shouldn't be cleaned up in a way to make it more clear. He saw no problem with delaying first reading of the ordinance for a couple of weeks. President Huff-Menees stated she recommended delaying the item so that language could be worked out that would be more acceptable. Mr. Winters stated after listening to Councilman Farr in committee and understanding there are costs incurred in all types of business, even as rental owners, he did not feel the taxpayers should be paying for someone's individual investment or burden government with those fees. #2238 #2319 M/S/C(Farr/Colvin) to table this item for two weeks. Vote on motion: In Favor: Overson, Neville, Farr, Law, Huff-Menees, Dawkins, Colvin Opposed: Winters Motion carried. 7B - APPOINTMENT OF RUSS JOHNSON TO THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION, #AB95-194 There are vacancies on the Parks & Recreation Commission. It is recommended Russ Johnson be appointed to this Board. Mayor Lynn Hotton noted Russ Johnson served several terms on the City Council and recently retired from federal service at Keyport. Over the years Mr. Johnson has had a keen interest in the City's parks system. She urged Council to confirmthe appointment of Russ Johnson to the Parks Commission. Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) to confirm the appointment of Russ Johnson to the Parks & Recreation Commission. President Huff-Menees thanked Mr. Johnson for his willingness to serve. 7C - APPOINTMENT OF JASON R. BACHAND TO THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION, #AB95-195 There are vacancies on the Parks & Recreation Commission. It is recommended Jason R. Bachand be appointed to this Board. Mayor Lynn Hotton stated this is the City's first youth appointment for Boards and Commissions. Over the past several months she has been looking for some qualified youth candidates to serve the City. Mr. Bachand is a high school graduate and will be attending Olympic #2402 #2488 TAPE #1317 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 11 of 39 College. He has served as President of the Bremerton Youth Council since its inception and has worked for the Parks Department part time with youth recreation opportunities. She believes Jason will be a wonderful asset to the Parks Commission and bring a fresh perspective. She urged Council confirmation of this appointment. Public comment - none President Huff-Menees stated she is delighted to see the City have a youth representative on that Commission. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Neville) to confirm the appointment of Jason R. Bachand to the Parks & Recreation Commission. 7D - APPOINTMENT OF JIM MARIS TO THEUNIFORM CODES BOARD OF APPEALS COMMITTEE, #AB95-196 There is a vacancy on the Uniform Codes Board of Appeals Committee, and it is recommended Jim Maris be appointed to this Committee. Mayor LYnn Hotton stated she first encountered Mr. Maris as a City Council member when he came before Council with an issue on Shore Drive. Although he did not prevail in that instance, she was very impressed with his knowledge of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Codes. Presently, Mr. Maris is an active Naval Submarine Officer and she sees him as an individual that will sift through the various codes and make a well qualified determination should there be disputes that go before the Code Compliance Commission. She urged Council's confirmation of this appointment. Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Law/Winters) to confirm the appointment of Jim Maris to the Uniform Codes Board of Appeals Committee. 7E - SR3/304 BREMERTON FERRY TERMINAL TO GORST TRAN8PORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT -- SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, #AB95- 183 On August 23, 1995, the City Council held a televised Study Session where staff presented the project alternatives, environmental impacts, and recommended alternative alignment for Council consideration. On August 30, 1995, the City Council took public comments on the project and the recommended alternative. At that meeting, the City Council established this Council Meeting of September 13, 1995 as the time at which the preferred alternative will be selected for inclusion in the Final Environmental Impact statement. After selection of the preferred alternative, a Resolution specifying the preferred alternative will be prepared for approval by the Mayor and Council President. TAPE #1317 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 12 of 39 President Huff-Menees reminded the public a public hearing was held on this issue on which public testimony was taken. Following the staff presentation, which will be a summary, public comment will be taken; however, for those who appeared before Council weeks ago and provided public testimony, she asked that if they desire to comment again that they do so with only new testimony. For anyone who was not able to attend the prior hearing, they are welcome to give testimony and asked that it be concise. Randy Witt, City Engineer, stated a lot of good comments have been given during the public hearing process on this issue. He will start off this hearing by answering some of the questions asked at the August 30th public hearing. Comment - public input was needed on this project at the beginning not this late date. ResPonse - as discussed before and those who are close to the project are aware, there have been numerous meetings at all levels that were open to the public for comments. Again, it was because of public comment given in the early stages that actually changed the direction of the project. Comment - concern that emergency vehicle access on a one-way system will be deteriorated. Response - he spoke with Police and Fire Department representatives about the concern and their general feeling was that once a street change of any kind came into effect, they learn to deal with it and will manage to get to an emergency as quickly as they can. Comment - what is the benefit of the couplet or one-way streets on pacific/First/Washington Avenue near the ferry terminal? Response - the benefit of that configuration ties in with the terminal improvements. Access into the terminal is very difficult. Further discussion will be held when that element is reviewed later in the hearing. Comment - concern that the new one-way couplet on pacific/First/Washington Avenue will facilitate the new Ferry Terminal - the feeling that this is not being done as a stand along item, but to the betterment of the downtown waterfront redevelopment project. Response - this project started well before the Fletcher Wright proposal and redevelopment proposal for the waterfront. The information on this project was given to all candidates interested in submitting a proposal to the City for the waterfront redevelopment for their use with the understanding that it was not an element until Council acted upon it. He raised the question to Council what if the downtown redevelopment doesn't happen for any reason, what do they want the ferry terminal to look like? Comment - there was a feeling that Puget Sound Naval Shipyard had not been involved in the project. Response - the Shipyard was very involved from the very beginning and were aware what was being proposed and seeing that things meshed pretty well with the facilitating of their entrances at Farraqut Street and the Missouri entrance. Comment - one person felt the Montgomery access proposal was still a live consideration. Response -in the original presentation three week ago, a fair amount of time and effort was TAPE #1317 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 13 of 39 spent discussing that proposal and it did have some attractive elements, but they did not consider it as a viable alternative within the context of this project and it needed to be developed as its own project. He emphasized it was not an element for future discussion. Jeff Peacock, Project Manager/Parametix Inc., continued with responses to questions raised at the previous hearing. Comment - the use of llth Street in a one-way couplet system. Response this question came up very early in the process and the project team evaluated it as well as the Project Technical Committee, which consisted of staff from the Public Works Department and Planning Departments of each of the participating agencies, and the consensus was the intent of this project is to improve transportation access from the Gorst area down to the Ferry Terminal and that llth Street was too far north to be included in the set of alternatives that accomplished that goal. Therefore, it was screened from further consideration. Comment - use of a one- way street system in a trial type application. Response - in his professional opinion it was not a good idea. It is relatively costly because of the need to change the signalization system. More importantly, to do a trial test would raise an element of confusion to the traveling public. When one-way streets are implemented, there is always a lot of confusion for the first few weeks. And, to suggested setting up one on a trial basis with the potential to change it later, in his opinion, it would be a detriment to the traveling public safety. Comment - bus access and route on the one-way couplet with people having to walk further depending on the location of the bus stop within the one-way couplet where they are walking to and from the bus stop. Response - that was definitely true. On the one-way couplet suggested for Burwell Street and 6th Street some people would definitely have to walk a little farther to and from bus stops. John Clauson, Service Development Manager for Kitsap Transit, and Richard Hayes Executive Director for Kitsap Transit, recognized that concern and are interested in increasing service to try and overcome some of the inconvenience incurred. Comment - there are only two lanes in each direction in the gateway and Missouri areas. Response - the project consists of three lanes in each direction from the Farragut Gate south. He recognized the artist rendering shows two lanes outbound; however the intent of the rendering was to give people an idea of what it would "feel like" rather than technical details. From the Farragut Gate to Burwell Street it is two lanes in each direction with full access control (no access onto that section of roadway). Comment - this project will promote the use of vehicles rather than expanded use of transit. Response - Mr. Peacock stated he felt strongly that a main driver of this project is to discourage the use of single occupant vehicles (SOY). There is a tremendous amount of capital being put forward toward this project TAPE #1317 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 14 of 39 that discourages SOV's. The proposal from the Farragut Gate all the way to Gorst is for all intents and purposes heavily oriented toward high occupancy vehicle(HOV) use. The expansion of the main base of Kitsap Transit is included in the evaluation of this project to accommodate that growing anticipated increase in the use of transit. TAPE #1318 Comment - SR3 without improvements can handle all traffic going to Belfair if the Sinclair Inlet Bridge was built. ResPonse - in their professional opinion, they feel confident within the 20-year design horizon that even if a Sinclair Inlet bridge was in place the travel demand from west Kitsap County and north and east Mason County would warrant six lanes of traffic on Highway 3 along the water. Mr. Overson questioned if Council would be given the five basic zones and should Council look for input generically now and specifically later or input now or none later? President Huff- Menees explained the alternatives will be presented individually with Council making a decision on each of the recommendations. Mr. Overson asked when would public comment be taken during that process. President Huff-Menees stated public input would be taken at this time. Mr. Overson expressed concern that the public would not have an opportunity to give input after the alternatives were identified. President Huff-Menees explained the public was given the information on the five issues at the previous public hearing. Mr. Colvin asked if Council would vote on the five issues at one time. President Huff-Menees noted Council could vote on each segment individually. She further explained the City Council has been presented the entire recommendations on two occasions. On August 30th a public hearing was held where the public had the opportunity to see all of the recommendations broken down within each section. This evening public comment will be taken one last time from anyone who has not had the opportunity to comment or from anyone having additional comments. Mr. Colvin asked the City Attorney if the public was given the information at the previous hearing that they could not repeat their testimony at this hearing? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated he believed that was the prerogative of the Council chair and as stated that testimony is part of the public record. He could not recall how the meeting was closed at the prior hearing, but he was sure it was not closed to all public comment. president Huff-Menees stated her instructions to the public at the previous hearing was that the hearing was for public input only and in two weeks the issue would come back before Council for a decision. She pointed out the public is being given an opportunity to give input during this hearing as well. Mr. Witt offered a point of clarification that nothing has changed in the TAPE #1318 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 15 of 39 project and there are three segments (A,B, C), working from Gorst to Bremerton. However, they have broken segment "C" into three elements - the gateway section, which goes from the Missouri Gate up to Burwell Street; the Burwell Street/6th Street one-way couplet area; one-way couplet Pacific/First Street/Washington Avenue. Kathleen McCluskev, City Clerk, read the following letter from Patricia E. Miller, President Miller Sheetmetal (1642 Navy Yard Highway W., Bremerton, WA 98312, into the record: As a resident, taxpayer and business owner in the City of Bremerton, I am urging you to consider postponing the SR-304 "Navy Yard Highway" portion of this project from the Missouri Gate to the merging of SR-304 with SR-3 until after SR-3 to Gorst portion has been completed and in-use for a period of time. I am sure, if you think about it, you will come to the same conclusion that all of us who either live, or work or own businesses along the Navy Yard Highway and that is that adding lanes to Navy Yard Highway before any lanes have been added to SR-3 to Gorst portion would not eliminate nor even help the backups that occur during peak traffic periods along this stretch of highway. We all firmly believe that if additional lanes are added to SR-3 to Gorst that this in itself will eliminate the traffic problems along the Navy Yard Highway at peak traffic periods. (Peak traffic periods, about 11/2 hours per day, are the ONLY time there are any problems along this stretch of highway - The rest of the time the traffic flows smoothly.) If you wait and see what the traffic flow is like along the Navy Yard Highway after the additional lanes are added to the SR-3 to Gorst highway (these lanes could be all "regular lanes" for a period of time) you could then make a logical and informed decision at that time as to what improvements are needed along the Navy Yard Highway and if HOV lanes are need to be marked along the Gorst portion. You would also show that your major concern is for the residents and businesses of the Bremerton Urban Area and not for the commuters who just "Dass thru" our community. I urge you to reconsider the construction sequence of the portions of this major project. Mike Dascenzo, member of the Charleston Business Association, stated one of the areas not addressed this evening that was brought up during the August 30th public hearing was the aspect of the one- way couplet system in the Callow Avenue and MontgomeryAvenue area. One of their major stumbling blocks on this is the fact it will impact parking and the ability for the Charleston Business District to do business. They are asking the City Council to consider that impact when voting on a recommendation. Much effort is being given by the local businesses to revitalize the Charleston Business } TAPE #1318 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 16 of 39 District. Now, they need the City Council to get behind them and help them that if this plan goes into affect... they do not want be just "swept under the rug". Specific plans will be needed to address parking in the Charleston District and if the one-way couplet (Burwell Street/6th Street) is approved, those roadways will be taking on the character of a limited access highway. He pointed out a school abuts 6th Street and a City park lies between 6th and Burwell Street and consideration has to be given to the safety of children using those two facilities. He also asked Council to consider that traffic will be a major concern, especially when crossing four lanes of traffic. He is alarmed at the number of people who "blow through red lights" and the dangerous situation that creates. Jack Lefcoski, Bremerton resident, stated he had to rebut Mr. Peacock's earlier comment that if the Sinclair Inlet bridge was in today we would still need the Gorst connector. His response is "you can't believe that", if the bridge were in today we wouldn't be thinking about that connector. It is not a Gorst connection, it is a Bremerton/Belfair connector, if the bridge were in today. Kitsap County is a north/south corridor between Tacoma and Jefferson County, it just happens that there is a town here and there, but the corridor does not go through towns. The corridor should "jump" across the water and he has been a long time advocate of the"bridge" across Sinclair Inlet. In his opinion, there is no need for 6 or 8 lanes between the wastewater treatment facility and Gorst, if a bridge was in place. The bridge is coming and it is just a matter of source of funding, which might even include private funding. He emphasized the State and County and he hasn't talked to anyone in Bremerton that didn't want the bridge, and the only concern is the funding source. Paul Stanberrv, Bremerton resident, stated at the last hearing on this issue he addressed certain questions that concerned him. Now he will address a question that did not get dealt with at that time and that is consideration of business in Bremerton. The tax revenue raised from businesses is not going to be paid by businesses outside of Bremerton that may benefit from through routed traffic that comes into City limits and then leaves City limits. The business owners that have spoken have addressed this problem more completely than he could, but he pointed to Seattle where they developed a Metro Bus Tunnel, which adversely affected a good many shops on 3rd Avenue in the process of its construction. The kind of revenue now coming to the City of Seattle is gradually diminished by the fact many residents have decided, due to expeditious access, to remove themselves to suburban areas and pay taxes to those governments rather than Seattle itself. He did not know what the COMMONS plan will have on the downtown Seattle core, but he did know that simply building access through the town TAPE #1318 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 17 of 39 without consideration of existing healthy businesses could affect the City for a long time to come. Beverly Woods, Executive Director of Bremerton Area Chamber Of Commerce, stated when she was at the public hearing on August 30, she made a statement in support of the Bremerton-Gorst corridor and gateway project and deferred statement on the one-way couplet issue. She polled the Chamber membership on the one-way couplet issue, which resulted in the following response: 17% of the membership responded to the poll as follows - one-way on Burwell from Callow to Pacific Avenue 40% in favor, 34% opposed; one-way on 6th from Washington Avenue to Callow Avenue, 33% in favor, 42% opposed; one-way loop on pacific/6th/lst/Washington 49% in favor, 31% opposed; one-way on Callow Avenue (from 6th to Burwell Street) 40% in favor, 42% opposed; one-way on Montgomery Avenue 42% in favor, 40% opposed. They posed another question to their membership: "would they be in favor or opposed if the Fletcher Wright Group redevelopment project and the new Ferry Terminal were dependent on the one-way couplet in the downtown core? The membership responded as follows: 59% in favor, 14% opposed. They also asked the question "are you in favor of one-way streets"? The response was: 31% opposed. The following comments were approved~bY the Chamber Board today concerning one-way couplets: "The Bremerton Area Chamber Of Commerce feels strongly that the development of the downtown core, including the Fletcher Wright project, (Sinclair Landing), the new Ferry Terminal and increased passenger and car- ferry service, is critical to the overall economic well being of the City of Bremerton and we need to pursue all avenues to support its successful completion. The Chamber wishes to express its support for one-way couplets that loop Pacific Avenue, 1st Street, Washington Avenue and Burwell, if it will ensure that the redevelopment plans for downtown and the waterfront continue to move forward and provide good traffic flow throughout that service area. One-way couplets should be implemented when construction of Sinclair Landing and the Ferry Terminal has been substantially completed. One-way Couplets on Callow and Montgomery needs to be eliminated from the plan at this time. The lack of on-street (and off-street) parking and other problems need to be addressed. These and other critical problems need to be resolved with the local merchants and property owners before the Council reconsiders this proposal. The membership is basically split on the issue of one-way couplets as it relates to 6th Street and on Burwell Street. There is more support from the membership for one-way on Burwell than on 6th Street. We are also finding inconsistencies from planners as to whether these one-way plans would eliminate or add to on-street parking for those areas. These issues need to be addressed before TAPE #1318 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 18 of 39 we proceed. The need for one-way is not perceived as needed at this time and any planning for these one-way streets would need to be long-range. In closing, I would again like to stress the Board's suDport of the downtown one-way loop as it relates to the redevelopment projects. The Chamber would hope that any decision the Council makes on one- way couplets would not take affect until such time as they are needed, but be incorporated into the City's Long Range Growth Management Plan and instituted when the need is there. There should also be provisions to modify one-way couplet plans should development plans for major projects change their scope of work". MS. Woods raised the following two questions: (1) how one-way streets on Montgomery and Callow would affect parking; (2) if Council votes to approve certain one-way streets, is there a way to delay their implementation until the other segments of the project are complete as well as the downtown waterfront redevelopmerit project? Mr. Peacock stated he was also approached with several other questions, which he felt would be interesting to Council as well as the pubic at large. Consistently throughout the last three years and particularly over the past three weeks the questions raised have been very good and either needed further detail work on his part or further clarification, which speaks well of the people and the level of interest they have shown in the project. With respect to Callow Street and as stated at the previous hearing, to implement one-way couplets on 6th and BuNell Street would necessitate one-way couplets on Callow Avenue and Montgomery Avenue. To implement one-way streets on Callow Avenue requires the removal of 6-10 parking stalls. Another question raised if that parking is removed, would the project consider additional right-of- way acquisition to mitigate that parking loss and perhaps even increase the amount of available parking for the Callow Business District. Mr. Peacock stated they have not considered that to date, but is certainly something that could be considered as a caveat if Council chooses to move forward with the one-way recommendation. With respect to a bridge over Sinclair Inlet, he did not recall saying if the bridge was in place today - what he intended to say at that time was if in the 20-year horizon a bridge across Sinclair Inlet was in place by the time it reached that 20- year horizon period the traffic demand from west Kitsap and East/North Mason County would be sufficient to warrant six lanes. Mr. Lefcoski also made the comment "the bridge is coming - it is only the question of the money". He would turn that around and say it is a big question in that is a huge capital intensive project and as everyone is aware, the State is facing serious revenue shortfall even to keep the existing system maintained. The question about whether or not they considered the affect on businesses in general with the recommendations for the alternatives, they did consider that and looked a details as best TAPE #1318 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 19 of 39 they could for the specific impacts to those businesses that were physically being affected either through parking or direct right- of-way acquisition. It is a little more difficult to get a grasp on the affect on business, that is not easily quantified through engineering practices. What they did present to Council was results from nation-wide experiences with implementation of one-way couplets. Council was also addressed by two individuals from comparable type cities, who have one-way couplets in place. With respect to the nation-wide investigation, he prefaced his comments and stated he could not stand before Council and represent the passion of a business owner, who is looking at change and what affect it may have on their business. What he can relate is that repeatedly throughout the county where one-way couplets have been implemented, there has been no significant detrimental affect on businesses and several strong examples have been highlighted where there was improvement to the business climate. Mr. Peacock went on to reference the Chamber Of Commerce survey results - what Ms. Woods recounted was very indicative of what they have been hearing the last two years...it is a very evenly balanced argument within the community. At the August 30th public hearing it was not balanced and a lot of strong feelings of opposition were expressed against the one-way couplet. They held a public meeting to specifically address the issue of one-way couplet (BuNell Street/6th Street) and approximately 150 people attended that meeting and still they did not come away with a heavily weighted consensus in one direction or another. He pointed out the Chamber survey addressed the 6th/Burwell Street one-way couplets and Callow/Montgomery one-way couplet individually. Again, he emphasized they could not consider them exclusively one from another and must be considered as a system in the decision. With respect to the parking on BuNell Street and 6th Street under the one-way couplet situation, which street experiences loss of parking and which street experiences gain in parking. To implement one-way west bound on Burwell would result in the removal of parking along one side of the street. At this level of detail they have looked to date, they have not tired to make the determination of which side of the street makes more sense. That would take a fair amount of detailed investigation. The amount of parking currently available on both sides of the street are comparable. They did not look at 6th Street with respect to the details of increasing parking. Currently, there is no parking on 6th Street. In the 20- year horizon only three lanes would be required, not four. If three lanes were required, there is ample room curb-to-curb. The disposition of that extra lane, which is currently operating as a fourth lane is totally up-in-the-air and would expect to resolve what would happen with that lane in the next stage of the project. Options could include parking, bike lanes, or landscaping. An important question raised if Council voted to move forward with TAPE #1318 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 20 of 39 one-way streets what is the affect on funding if Council chooses not to implement those one-way streets immediately. He believed the staging construction of the project is very much flexible. If Council makes the decision to move forward with one-way streets, an amount of dollars becomes available. Those dollars would only be available to implement one-way streets. However, that does not mean the day after a decision is made that traffic signals are adjusted and one-way streets are put into affect. They would envision that would be staged over a series of months or years and the staging of three lanes in each direction on Burwell Street and 6th Street would probably not happen immediately. It was his feeling that if Burwell was converted to one-way, it would be implemented with two lanes to meet the current traffic demand. As demand increased, parking would be removed and the third lane opened. The same situation would result with the Pacific/lst Street/Washington Avenue one-way couplet. Perhaps it is best to wait for the downtown redevelopment, but if Council chooses not to move forward with that one-way system, money does not become available and if the downtown redevelopment is dependent on that one-way system, that money has to come from somewhere. The one-way question on Pacific/lst Street/Washington is in the order of magnitude of 3/4 of a million dollars, which would involved the triangular block, changing the signal system and some modest traffic changes. The dollar estimate for converting 6th Street/Burwell Street is in the range of one million dollars, which is predominately as a result of cost of revising signalization along both of those streets and the traffic changes required. President Huff-Menees asked Mr. Peacock to clarify the following statement: if Council voted to go ahead with the one-way couplets the funding would be available for an indefinite period of time. Mr. Peacock stated funding would not be available for an indefinitely period of time and he did not know how long it would be available. That discussion would have to be held with the various funding agencies. He sensed it would be about a six-year window. President Huff-Menees asked Mr. Peacock if Council voted to not select the one-way couplet alternative would the funding go away completely for that portion? Mr. Peacock stated the estimated cost of the entire project would drop by that l+million dollar figure. Mr. Neville questioned if the City could reapply for granting funding if they voted against one-way couplets at this time? Mr. Peacock stated he had to draw the line and state what he knew as fact and offer an opinion based on a lot of years of experience. If Council chooses not to move forward with the one- way couplet system and lowered the estimated cost of the project and then two years from now decided to replay for those funds, the funding agencies would probably not receive that request very well. However, 2-6 years out a lot of faces change and memory is no longer there and could be "wide open" again. But, with the TAPE #1318 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 21 of 39 personalities that are currently on the boards he doubted they would want to invest their funds where there are indecisions. Mr. Neville asked Mr. Peacock to address the question raised by Patricia Miller. Mr. Peacock stated the letter received from Miller Sheetmetal was very articulate and raised a good point. The staging scenario he described inside the City limits would in all likelihood be applied in that section of the project as well. He agreed with the point raised about the prudence of putting in an HOV lane from the City limits out to the interchange when there is not a HOV lane from the interchange on into Gorst. He would seriously investigate implementing that section of the project in stages. They feel strongly that there is a traffic hazard currently in place out there. Traffic is moving along that section of SR304 at an average speed of 50-55 MPH range and not uncommon to find people going a lot faster. There have been a number of serious accidents that have resulted inn fatalities. The accident rate compared to similar facilities state-wide is much higher on that section of SR304. As you are aware, the businesses along that section have changed dramatically over the past few years. It is being recommended that access control be implemented on that section of the project when construction is first begun in that area. The alternative would be to implement access control and improve Charleston Beach Road behind those businesses at the same time so reasonably good access would be provided. Ultimately adding a lane for HOV travel may be deferred until the HOV lane is in place on SR-3. Mr. Winters stated he recalled a comment made by Randy McGreal (Fletcher Wright) at the August 30 hearing that there would be no significance in one-way couplets to the Fletcher Wright proposal in the downtown core. President Huff-Menees stated she recalled Mr. McGreal saying they were not taking a position on the one-way couplet proposal. Several Council members and Mr. Peacock commented they did not recall Mr. McGreal's comments as quoted by Mr. Winters. Mr. Peacock stated he would defer to "the record" to make sure there was no misunderstanding. President Huff-Menees pointed out Mr. McGreal commented they had no position on the Burwell Street/6th Street couplet, but specifically to the Pacific/lst Street/Washington Avenue couplet. Mr. Overson stated he believed Mr. McGreal had a position on the Burwell Street/6th Street couplet. Mr. Witt stated the Chamber Of Commerce's poll was indicative to what they have seen. One of the reasons they brought a "not strong" recommendation on the Burwell one-way verses Burwell all traffic, is because they had heard a balanced feeling out of the community and one of the things they were surprised over at the public hearing on August 30 was the one-sidedness of comments. He explained the EIS will be approved in whatever form Council chooses TAPE #1318 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 22 of 39 and is a document that is taken forward to the funding agencies for all elements of the project. Mr. Law asked for clarification that one million dollars was the cost for the Burwell Street/6th Street one-way couplet? Mr. Witt explained there are certain improvements common to both of them - overlaying streets, interconnecting signals, etc., the difference in the cost is essentially turning around the signal and making one-way couplets and that difference is the one million dollars. Mr. Law asked if that million dollars comes 100 cents on the dollar and what is the source? Mr. Witt stated that depends on which grant it is and the amount of City matching funds. The City has been very successful in taking money to leverage money. We have also been given a very large outright grant from the Transportation Improvement Board for over eight million dollars. There is matching fund requirements on other grants that have been identified. The City's share of a 40 million dollar project is between $600-800,000. Mr. Law asked if that grant money was set on a certain percentage basis or on just dollars verses 40 million dollars? Mr. Witt explained some grants are by percentage and some are lump sum dollars and some are local agreements where the City puts up money to help offset the grants so there are just dollars. Mr. Law noted if we had s 38 million dollar cost instead of 40 million dollars, we don't know if we'd get that extra two million or be able to absorb the portion allocated to the City of the 38 million. Mr. Peacock stated right now the grants they have been pursuing are based on a project cost of approximately 45 million dollars. After the decision is made on the EIS, they will re-evaluate the cost and he expects it to drop off to 44 million dollars. They will then pursue outstanding moneys on the project to that 44 million dollar level. With respect to the percentages, as that million dollars drops there is a fair amount of flexibility that the City has with respect to which dollars are used to implement the sections of the project with the City limits. Mr. Law stated he is trying to understand if the one million dollars request is given up for the one-way streets, what would we actually lose in money? Mr. Peacock explained the dollar figure used would be the actual cost of the total project. Mr. Law doubted the project would get 100 cents on the dollar. Mr. Peacock stated Mr. Law was correct. If the decision is made to not pursue the money for the one-way couplets, only the cost to implement the other portions of the project will be pursued. However, if the City chooses at a later date to implement one-way couplets, they would have to look at funding it 100 cents on the dollar or pursue additional grants through a separate application process. Mr. Colvin raised a question about the Chamber poll and if it was directed to the businesses affected? Mr. Peacock stated he recalled that over three years ago when they started their public outreach on this project, they went door-to-door and talked with the businesses along Callow Avenue. At that time, the majority of TAPE #1318 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 23 of 39 the business operators (they did not know if they were talking to the owners of the property or owners of the businesses) were opposed to one-way on Callow Avenue. Gary Garten, property owner on Pacific Avenue, stated he is often overwhelmed that Bremerton seems t be cursed with the ability to think in the negative rather than positive. What he is hearing during this hearing is much the same without considering the positive as well. He referenced earlier comments about transit service and having the public cross a 4-lane street. He stressed we must look at situation with a more positive approach. It is the job of the people and merchants to capture the traffic that flows through Bremerton. The ferry to Seattle is our highway and he believes the Fletcher Wright proposal (Sinclair Landing) would not be considered in Bremerton if it wasn't for the ferry and the fact it is a highway. He is continually amazed that very few people realize the beauty of what we currently have, even in the downtown area. If we don't learn to focus on the good, that vision will yield reality. If we focus on what is, nothing will happen. We must focus on what it will be and the way we want it to be. We have to act as if the future is now. John Moeller, Callow Avenue business owner, stated Callow Avenue suffers greatly from lack of parking and needs improvement. One way that could be done is to block off the west side of Burwell that connects to Wycoff and make it a cul-de-sac into a parking area. He has written on one-way streets for 30 years and he believes that ultimately this is the way Bremerton will go. His opinion of one-way streets is we only have three thoroughfares that go completely through the City - Burwell Street, 6th Street and llth Street. His conception of the way to do one-way streets is to make Burwell Street east bound to the ferry, 6th Street east bound to the ferry and llth Street west bound from the ferry, Washington and Wheaton Way, with a turnaround between 6th Street and llTH Street. Such a proposal would include having all the streets resurfaced and signals redirected. He submitted a drawing of a one-way street concept for Council's review. Del Knauss, Olympic Avenue, stated last week he turned in to the City Council petitions signed by 387 people and most of them were from the affected area and they said "NO" to one-way streets. Those same people did not want parking taken off of Burwell Street. He emphasized until the City makes improvements to alleys they can't take parking off of Burwell. In many instances people living along Burwell Street cannot access their property from alleyways. It concerned him that Council would be voting on an EIS, but there was no detail relating to acquisition of properties and the affect that would have on existing residents and businesses. He asked will the City Council have the final say on such actions or will it TAPE #1318 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 24 of 39 be back to the engineers? He hoped the City Council retained the final say. He asked if the Chamber's poll involved the Chamber's full membership or just the affected area? Mr. Peacock commented what they found three years ago, but Mr. Knauss was interested in what people were saying today. From his personal standpoint, he would like to see a little' scaling back of the grand entry into Bremerton so that not so many residents and businesses have to be lost. Lastly, let's not screw up a neighborhood because it is the neighborhoods that make the City also. Dick Miller, Miller Sheetmetal, noted he was born and raised in Bremerton and a business owner on the SR304. He complimented Mr. Witt and Mr. Peacock for doing an excellent job and he believes Bremerton deserves everything that is being proposed. However, his business on the Navy Yard Highway is one part of the project that could be considered as phase 3. He is concerned the Charleston Beach Road improvement proposal would "wipe out" most of the small houses along it as well as businesses. He was not sure all trucks servicing his business could use that roadway. As Mr. Peacock stated the traffic on that one section of SR-304 does flow and accidents have not been a problem in recent years. He hoped the section of highway from the interchange to GORST would be the first phase. He supports the one-way couplet proposal. Jerry 8oriano, business owner and Bremerton resident, stated after following the recent presentation on this proposal, it is his terminal area is one-way a understanding what is happening in the portion of Pacific Avenue, taking out a portion of a park going behind onto Navy property and the Triangle Cafe and then going to the new Ferry Terminal. If that is the route, then his only question is why are we condemning the triangle area? He questioned why and when would the one-way streets be implemented in that area? He agreed with the Chamber that no change in traffic pattern take place until there is a reason, either a new Ferry Terminal being built or the Fletcher Wright program being built. With regard to the fly-over ramp at the SR-3 and SR-304 interchange, he felt the City should try and say they want it in the project. He felt that was the most important element because what we need is transportation into Bremerton. Dana Schidley referenced a newspaper article and was concerned the City Council will approve everything under a blanket approval. At the public meetings the public was heard to say "don't mess with it there isn't a problem". A question that comes into his mind is what is good for Bremerton - is blocking off Callow Avenue and eliminating parking good, is putting up jersey barriers on Charleston Beach good for business and Bremerton, is eliminating resident parking on Burwell good for Bremerton. From his perspective what is being looked at as good is getting people in TAPE #1318 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 25 of 39 and out of Bremerton as quickly as possible. He is clouded as far as the small details and what is actually being proposed. He owns a small piece of property on Montgomery Avenue and has been trying to find out what might happen to that site through the project as proposed. He did talk with the Engineering Department several times add finally found a drawing that he had not seen before at previous meetings showing the Shipyard Gate located on Montgomery Avenue. He did not support reducing parking on Callow Avenue and felt if it was removed it would turn the Charleston Business District into a ghost town. He had no problem with the proposal to implement a one-way couplet near the Ferry Terminal. He did not support the one-way couplet for Burwell Street/6th Street. Louis 8oriano, Bremerton resident and business owner, stated at the presentation of this proposal two weeks prior, he believed Mr. Peacock and Mr. Witt indicated the cost of one-way streets, if done at a later time, would be nominal and then a figure of $386,000 sticks out in his mind and now it is way over a million dollars. He challenged the Council President on her limiting public input only to the time prior to the alternatives being outlined by staff. And, that Mr. Witt would be showing the approach to the terminal as part of his presentation. He believed that approach was something that has not be shown at the public meetings/hearings and felt strongly that if something new was introduced to the public, they should have the right to comment once it has been identified. President Huff-Menees stated in her conversations with Mr. Witt about what will take place at this hearing, there was nothing new to be presented. If that had been the case, then the public would be given another opportunity for comment. Mr. Sofiario noted that earlier it was stated five issues would be discussed rather than three. Willie Marquina, downtown business owner, stated he has heard a lot of opposition to the one-way streets proposal; however he supports the one-way couplet proposals. He believes Bremerton needs to change and sees the one-way couplets connecting with the new highway as beneficial. Elizabeth Buell, High Avenue, stated so far she is not in favor of one-way streets, but they are something that might be needed in the future. She was interested in knowing how far the City could postpone one-way streets and still get the funding. She was still somewhat confused as to how the downtown one-way couplet would work. Mr. Peacock made the following responses to the questions raised: (1) he agreed that Gary Garten's vision for Bremerton was refreshing. The issue of transit service being closer to some if the one-way couplet was implemented is not the case because TAPE #1318 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 26 of 39 currently there is transit routing on both Burwell Street and 6th Street in both directions. If the one-way streets were implemented, transit would be routing in only one direction. (2) Making 6th Street and Burwell Street east bound one-way add llth Street west bound - in addition to his comments on llth Street earlier he pointed out that would be a reduction in available capacity over what we have today. At the most, that would only accommodate four lanes outbound when we currently have five lanes. (3) Elimination of parking on Burwell Street and poor condition of alleyway - he hesitated getting into the conditions of the alleys and whether or not it should be a part of this project. He did know that there is considerably more parking going on in alleys and residents' back yards than what is available on Burwell Street. (3) What do Callow businesses feel about this proposal - they had to come to a point where they used the information they had to go on with the development of the project. (4) Right turn for access to the Montgomery gate - this has not been considered as part of the project nor to his knowledge has it been suggested to be part of the project. With respect to the question about Montgomery and the Shipyard gate, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard went through a separate project including all the public outreach required under the guidelines and in the Environmental Impact Statement, which gives the public ample opportunity to respond. That new gate at Montgomery Avenue has been shown consistently and is not a new proposal. They dovetailed that proposal in with the planning they had at the time. (5) Center left turn lane on Callow Avenue - they have never suggested a center left turn lane on Callow Avenue and was discounted early in the process. (6) Charleston Beach access - the improvements designed for Charleston Beach Road has been designed to accommodate trucks. Mr. Peacock emphasized what is being heard at this hearing is the strong reason the public outreach does not stop at this hearing. General decisions will be made on the alternatives; however, that does not mean they will stop talking to the public. At this point, it appears that some additional right-of-way will need to be acquired to make Charleston Beach Road able to handle truck traffic. He would respond to the one-way couple in the downtown area and the fly-over access when presenting the alternatives- (7) Five new issues verses three - the issues have always been the same...three segments of the project. Because of the varying perspectives on the segment within the City limits, they suggested that Council consider that segment in three separate sections because a decision can be made exclusive of each other within that segment. (8) Limited availability of detail for a property owned on Montgomery Avenue - he has repeatedly stated that they have an open door policy without exception to try and address concerns and questions throughout this process and would be most happy to meet with individuals on specific issues. TAPE #1318 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 13, 1995 Page 27 of 39 Ken Ackler stated he had the feeling that the majority of the Council will vote for one-way couplet proposal. Two weeks ago there was overwhelming testimony from the audience was totally against that proposal. He was having a hard time wondering why the City Council was wasting their time if they aren't going to vote for it. He did not see the need for the project considering the fact the shipyard is going away as we know it today. He pointed out three years ago a ballot measure was voted down by the public to build a Public Works facilities; however, the City went ahead and build one any way. He did not know why Council listens or takes testimony on issues from citizens if no one listens to them. TAPE #1319 Mr. Colvim stated he was not sure the pubic is aware of how trucks have to enter the Ferry Terminal and why a new entrance is important to handling truck traffic. Mr. Witt explained there has been a lot of discussion about why the one-way couplet is needed near the Ferry Terminal. In his opening comments, he stated that needed to be looked at in conjunction with the Ferry Terminal entrance. Currently, all the ferry traffic enters on the corner of Washington Avenue and First Street. This project will remove the triangular building, currently housing a coffee shop and bar, have the ferry traffic then turn left onto 1st Street (note: no property will be acquired from the Shipyard for this improvement), then make a right hand turn into the Ferry Terminal area. Currently, truck in the existing configuration cannot enter the Ferry Terminal area through the toll booths - they must stop outside to pay and then drive in the EXIT. As stated by Mr. Soriano, the Fletcher Wright proposal builds upon the revised terminal entrance. He cautioned Council to think in the short term that the Fletcher Wright project will not be there and do we want to get those improvements in and clean up that area. President Huff-Menees read into the record a letter submitted by Councilman Carlos Montgomery, who was out-of-town, but had followed this process for several years and artended most of the public meetings held. "Even though I cannot be here tonight, I feel that it is appropriate for me to make the following comments concerning the Gorst to Bremerton project. Having attended numerous meetings on the Gorst to Bremerton project and listened to many comments by the public on this proposal, the message that I perceived was 'PEOPLE WANT THINGS DIFFERENT, BUT DO NOT WANT CHANGE'. In the past month not one constituent from District 8 has talked to me about this project. So I must assume that they either don't care, have no opinion, feel that their opinion doesn't matter or TAPE #1319 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1995 Page 28 of 39 last but not least they trust my judgement on this issue. Prior to the Council meeting two weeks ago, after hearing the City Engineer Randy Witt and Mr. Jeff Peacock from Parametrix latest presentation, I was of the disposition to vote concurrence with their recommendations. However, since the meeting of August 30, I have carefully reviewed the entire plan and all of the public testimony and offer the following: Section A - Gorst to Highways 3: concur but I personally favor the alternate route (two levels) Section B - Highway 3 to Missouri Gate: Concur. Section C - Missouri Gate to Bremerton Ferry Terminal: while I personally concur with the one-way of BuNell and Sixth; concur except for one way of Burwell and 6th between Callow and Pacific at this time. If in the future the need to one way these two streets become a necessity it can be done at that time". President Huff-Menees announced discussion was closed to Council. Mr. Witt identified segment "A" as: SR-3 from the GORST area up to the existing interchange. Two alternatives that had the same project elements for the most part, one went over the hill at a separated grade and one went along the road. The Executive Steering Committee and staff recommended the alternative along the existing road - Alternative A-l, and the elements of that were improving at the existing grade on the existing alignment, four lanes in each direction - two general purpose and two HOV, reconstruct Navy/Burlington Northern railroad bridge, construction of HOV by-pass lane around the SR-3/SR-304 interchange (continues south bound movements off of SR-3 and then extend frontage road to connect with Earhart Street to address the homeowners affected. Mr. Law asked why couldn't there be one HOV lane full time and one HOV lane only during the commute to work hours? Mr. Peacock stated he did not see it as a waste having two HOV lanes, but with respect to 24-hour per day he felt there was a legitimate question. Keep in mind the intent would be to stage this section of the project to construct two additional lanes for the first part of the work, which would be HOV lanes. At such time as the demand on the HOV lane exceeded the capacity for an acceptable level of service, as determined by the State, a second HOV lane would be implemented. The detail of whether or not it was 24-hours per day or to coincide with peak hour travel, is intentionally left uncommitted to provide the maximum level of flexibility. They do, however, have to say they both need to be HOV lanes. Whether or not the pair of last HOV lanes would have to be 24-hours per day is still many years away from a final decision. Mr. Law pointed out funding would TAPE #1319 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1995 Page 29 of 39 only be good for six years. Mr. Peacock explained once the project decision is made on the menu of alternatives, current statutes and precedents would tell us that as long as something is being done at about 3-year intervals, the commitments made in the EIS are still valid. If, however, the EIS was finalized and nothing happened for five years, the legitimacy of that EIS would become highly questionable and in all likelihood the validity would be marginal. Mr. Law pondered that it appeared there would be "x" amount of dollars sitting in the bank. Mr. Peacock stated the money that is currently secured is approximately equal to the amount of financing required to implement the recommendations from the Missouri Gate to the Ferry Terminal. There is a portion of the money required for implementation for segment "B", the Missouri Gate out to the interchange. The State has committed to the SR-3 section, but that money has not been programmed. Mr. Witt stated the project is in the State System Plan, but they program in two year cycles and not programmed at the moment. Regarding the HOV hourly use, the Executive Steering Committee discussed that at great length. The current State policy is HOV lanes should be HOV 24-hours per day. There was a lot of rethought on that issue during this project with people who are very influential in HOV decisions and whether or not it is a good policy. #0435 M/S/C/U(Overson/Colvin) that the resolution reflect the City Council endorses the recommendation of the Executive Steering Committee for Alternative A-1 GORST to SR-3/SR-304 interchange. Mr. Witt identified segment "B" as: From the SR-3/SR-304 interchange into the Farragut Gate area, which is predominately in the County with a portion in the City. Two Alternatives are presented: (1) do nothing alternative; (2) the project as presented. The Executive Steering Committee recommended Alternative B-1 without the flyover ramp. The project elements include: 3-lanes in each direction, one west bound for HOV, to eliminate the direct access to properties along that section, to improve Charleston Beach Road, which provides access to businesses and residents along the highway, and a new signalized intersection at Charleston Beach Road and the Missouri Gate. Mr. Overson asked what if Council recommended Alternative B-1 with the flyover ramp? Mr. Peacock stated the Executive Steering Committee made their recommendation and Council has the prerogative as a partner on the project to make that recommendation. He believed that recommendation would be that the Steering Committee and the Project Team and Technical Advisory Committee reconsider the recommendations. He believed there are some cost implications with such action because the funding bodies have made their position fairly clear to the city Council. The other implication is that his best estimate might be we would not begin to bring in TAPE #1319 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1995 Page 30 of 39 another recommendation for 3-months at a minimum. As the project progressed, it was their assumption the flyover ramp would be part of the project. However, at the Federal level they questioned the need and purpose of the flyover ramp. Following that declaration, they then presented the case why it was necessary to include it in the project and they were not satisfied. They then approached Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, who had been strong advocates of the flyover ramp asking had something changed in their assumptions that would help them with the justification and cost benefit of this flyover ramp, and they were unable to offer anything different than what they had already looked at. With that, they were in a position where they could not build a case strong enough for the Federal Highway Administration to agree that this was a worthwhile expenditure of funds, at the Federal level. The opportunity is always available for local funds to pursue such a project; however, the State Department Of Transportation has indicated this would be extremely low on their priority list. Below that source, there are some opportunities to pursue funds, but from his grant writing experience, that same justification, need and purpose has to be presented to any other granting authority and they have to believe it is warranted before they will award funds. That project would compete against projects state-wide. Mr. Overson stated he suspected the logic would be that the primary purpose for the flyover ramp is the Bremerton Ferry Terminal access and people coming from north could use the Wagga Way route, Kitsap Way route and Loxie Egans route. Mr. Witt added this was very difficult at the Executive Steering Committee level - everyone supported the flyover ramp even though it was controversial for the immediate neighborhood where the ramp would be located and it was a consideration. But, from a logical intuitive complete traffic system it made sense and was very hard to let go of that idea. Peacock noted Mayor Horton stated it most eloquently that this is probably a good idea whose time has not come. Mr. Law asked if any of the construction being done will impede developing the flyover later? Mr. Witt stated no. Mr. Law asked for time frames on Alternatives C and B? Mr. Witt stated that was something that needed to be worked out in more detail. To some extent it ties into how much funding is available. In general, there are sufficient funds, depending on the mix of the project, to get from the Ferry Terminal out to a little ways past the Missouri Gate. There has been discussion about getting started immediately on some of the easier aspects of the project, such as the overlays, signal interconnects, etc., which might be accomplished by summer of 1996/1997. In the meantime, the design needs to be completed and property acquired in the gateway area. Mr. Law expressed a concern that the homeowners and business owners needed some dates so they can keep on living, i.e., refinancing, sell, etc. . Peacock stated that is a crucial question for people direc~ affected by the decision on the project. Their best estimate is #0784 TAPE #1319 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1995 Page 31 of 39 they would be acquiring right-of-way in the 3-4thquarter next year in the gateway area. At this point in time, they anticipate substantial completion of Section C of the project (within the City) before starting construction on Section B. If the acquisition of property moves along in an orderly fashion, it is their estimate that the construction within the City would be complete within two years at the most. Then, they would focus their attention on the segment of SR-3/SR-304. He estimated the earliest they would begin construction on SR-304 would be late 1997, probably by the summer or fall of 1998. Mr. Law asked what was the time frame for Section A? Mr. Peacock stated because the funding has not been specifically programmed for that segment, they have estimated construction would not begin until after the year 2000. He emphasized once the decision is made that has put a tough decision before the property owner whether or not to make improvements or disposition of their home. The Federal mandates allow some hardship cases to acquire right-of-way in a hardship situation where the money may not be available to start construction, but the State has historically provided a pool of funds for hardship cases and that is made available once a binding decision is made and a person can demonstrate a hardship or stress under their specific situation. M/S/C/U(Overson/Dawkins) the resolution reflect that City Council endorse the Executive Steering Committee's recommendation for Alternative B-1 without the flyover for SR-3/SR-304 interchange to Farragut Street. Mr. Witt stated he has had a number of people come to him and ask when will the City come to them about acquiring their property. He wanted to assure the public he will make every effort to meet with them or have his staff meet with them to discuss the issue of property acquisition or any other aspect of this project. He encourages people to contact him in six months so that he can give them an update on the project. President Huff-Menees stated speaking as a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee and then the Executive Steering Committee, over time there have been a wide variety of citizen questions and issues. In all instances the public has been encouraged to meet with the City Engineering Department and Parametrix Inc.. She stressed this project has availed more public opportunity for information and input than any other she has been a part of. Mr. Witt identified segment "C" as: from Farragut Street intersection to the Ferry Terminal. He proposed that this segment be broken down into three sections: (1) Gateway area - Missouri Gate up through the Gateway area connecting into Rodgers Street and Arsenal. The project elements in that section include two lanes in each direction south of Burwell Street, the alignment from Cambrian TAPE #1319 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1995 Page 32 of 39 to Wycoff and Callow Avenue to Burwell Street, the new major intersection at Farragut Avenue, the access limited from the west between 1st Street and Farragut Avenue, the softening of the corner at Rodgers Street and Lafayette Street, the Kitsap Transit base expansion, and Gateway improvements. In this segment it was this alternative or the no-build alternative. President Huff-Menees stated in regard to the issue of displaced businesses and residents in this segment, it was discussed over and over in committee meetings and pubic meetings and the consensus there was far more concern on the residential side that they not be left considering the changes and their properties be taken. They understood that this was a transportation process that would involve them in one way or another and the majority of those people are in her Council District and were far more receptive to having their properties taken. Mr. Witt brought up an element that had not been shown before ...the right-of-way to be acquired under all situations. Mr. Winters questioned if any of the properties identified for acquisition were currently owned by the Navy? Mr. Witt stated no. Mr. Neville questioned on the last part of Callow Avenue where it comes into Burwell Street is there a small piece of property to be acquired? Mr. Witt stated yes, there is right-way-acquired throughout the entire project. Mr. Peacock explained a strip of land is needed to maintain continuity with the sidewalks in that area. They did not think it will have a significant affect on any businesses with one exception and they have identified it for acquisition. He pointed out the area that is absolutely required to build the facility. The area identified in blue, was what was deemed by the Citizens Advisory Committee as desirable to maintain continuity with the Gateway concept and greenway coming into town. The public outreach in this section of the project was overwhelmingly positive, with only a few instances of concerns about the extensiveness of it and a couple of comments that it wasn't a good idea. When the rendering. of the Gateway was presented to the community, the sentiment of the project turned around significantly. Mr. Witt pointed out the reason why the acquisition of property was brought out for this segment was because of that extra bit of right-of-way needed to make the concept work and they are looking for endorsement of that from the City Council. Mr. Farr asked if the cost of the project include acquisition of property for the greenway and the landscaping? Mr. Witt stated the current costs includes acquisition, relocation as appropriate under Federal guidelines and landscaping. Mr. Law asked if the greenway #1158 #1339 TAPE #1319 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1995 Page 33 of 39 would be State property for maintenance purposes? Mr. Witt stated it would be City property. M/S/C/U(Overson/Colvin) that City Council accept the portion of Alternative 3 proposed improvements, which recommends the changes at the Gateway, at Farragut to Burwell. Mr. Witt identified the second section - one-way couplet (Burwell Street/6th Street). In this instance there were three alternatives: (1) to do the one-way couplet; (2) to four lane Burwell Street; (3) no-build alternative. The staff and Executive Steering Committee recommendation is to go with the one-way couplet proposal. Mr. Witt pointed out none of the proposals or alternatives will create a level of service of failure of the transportation system in the community. Mr. Peacock wanted to be sure that Council understands the recommendation has been for the one-way. If Council chooses to do nothing in this section, they would recommend the do-nothing be simply modified to include what they call Transportation System Management improvements that would look at some specific intersections that will be "hot spots" as time goes on, that are not cost capital intensive or impact to the community that would help improve that level of flow. Mr. Neville asked for clarification if that was for signalized intersections, improved crosswalks, signage, etc. Mr. Peacock stated yes, in particular the one intersection that begins to experience some difficulties, as we look out in time, is the Naval and Burwell Street intersection and they feel confident with most capital expenditure the problems at that intersection could be resolved. The intersection at 6th and Warren is going to be a problem under the do-nothing alternative. It would be extremely difficult to implement improvements that would fix that intersection because of the intensive nature and the impacts to surrounding property owners. M/S/C/U(Law/winters) that we do not make 6th Street or BuNell Street one-way, that we do modify the intersection and other areas of the streets that are necessary in order to improve traffic flow. Mr. Overson stated the primary opposition to one-way streets has been from residents and Callow Avenue business district people with good reason. He supports one-way streets because in this project the project's intent is to get public to the Ferry Terminal and from the Ferry Terminal back out to where ever they are going and one-way streets best meet the requirement of that intent. There are other options that can be considered other than what was presented. If 6th Street was taken out of the scenario and left it as is and as a result Callow Avenue and Montgomery stay the way the same, but that leaves Burwell Street flexible to become a one-way street into town, which would help meet the primary intent of the #1600 TAPE #1319 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1995 Page 34 of 39 program to get traffic to the Ferry Terminal. That is why funds are coming into this project...to accentuate the ferry system as a part of our road system. Getting out of town is still a part of the problem, but it more easily flows getting out of town with playing with the streets. M/(Overson/ ) an amendment to the motion to make BuNell Street one-way from Callow to Pacific Avenue. President Huff-Menees asked if Mr. Overson meant making BuNell 3- lanes and leaving parking on Burwell Street. Mr. Overson stated yes, initially 2-lane Burwell Street and keep the parking as is. Mr. Peacock asked for a point of clarification is this a "new alternative"? The travel demand for east/west flow from the Ferry Terminal into Kitsap County down SR-3 in the 20 year horizon necessitates three lanes in each direction. If we were to start with two inbound lanes on Burwell Street he felt that would work well; however, when the demand reached the point of needing three lanes, then parking would have to be removed. Outbound however, the maximum you would have would be two lanes on 6th Street and as time went on in the 10+year period, there would almost certainly be congestion problems degenerating to the point that it would exceed the city's established level of service thresholds driving the need to analyze additional improvements. Mr. Overson asked for an explanation because it is clearly stated that a no-build action does not give us a "fox trot" in any of the levels of service. However, Mr. Peacock's analysis is that going one way on Burwell Street will create a "fox trot". Mr. Peacock stated the no-build would essentially leave three lanes in that travel demand corridor on Burwell Street and 6th Street in each direction and that is what they need to make it work. Mr. Overson asked if Mr. Peacock and Mr. Witt would make it clear as to whether their professional opinion is that this an acceptable recommendation that could be worthy of further design or not. Mr. Witt stated what they have done is to take one of the out bound lanes away so the traffic congestion will be in the B and P still, which is where it is now and you've taken one of your outbound lanes away to convert it to an inbound lane. Mr. Peacock's comment on thee three lanes inward and outward on the no-build or under the one-way couplet, you've easily got three lanes on Burwell Street and 6th Street. Under the no-build there is one lane in on Burwell Street and two lanes in on 6th Street and the same going outbound. Under the alternative proposed by Mr. Overson, it would take away one of those outbound lanes add that is where the congestion will occur. Without an analysis, he felt their sense was you will degrade below our standards. Mr. Peacock stated in his professional opinion he would not positively offer that alternative without further time to give it consideration. His reaction is that intuitively three lanes are needed in each direction and it TAPE #1319 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1995 Page 35 of 39 would be relatively straightforward to analyze and quantify that in more direct terms, but obviously more than what he could do this evening. Mr. Colvin pointed out Mr. Draper stated the School District had a multi-million dollar deal for school property. He asked the City Attorney if Council could consider that impact in making a decision. Mr. Sievers stated the purpose of this analysis is both for traffic circulation and its impact on development along these corridors and Mr. Draper's comments reflect on how it would affect development of School District property. Mr. Law pointed out earlier Council made a commitment to the audience that no other alternatives would be brought up for discussion. It concerned him that Mr. Overson's suggestion presented a new alternative. Mr. Farr stated a lot of taxpayers' money has been spent on a lot of studies and we've invested months and years of time on studies and citizen input and come this far and the professional recommendations concurred in by the citizen committees that two alternatives be considered. He finds it unreasonable, at the last minute, to usurp all that engineering and citizen input and add another option. He firmly believed Council should look at the two options as presented. Mr. Neville stated he has never been a strong proponent for one-way streets, particularly when they intersect neighborhoods. An example of that was what happened in the City of Puyallup and Port Angeles. We are looking in the long term and 20 years out the level of service will not be same as it is today. One-way streets will take into consideration the neighborhoods and how the inhabitants of those neighborhoods will get across the streets to get to schools, playfields, etc.. But, it is going to be for the benefit of the greater part of Bremerton to get traffic moving in an organized manner and the citizens will make the adjustment. Even though the public has spoken out against one-way streets, it seems it only makes sense that we should go with the one-way couplet because it creates a better living atmosphere once the neighborhoods can get established and adjusted to the one-way couplets. There are buffers that can be created to ease the homeowners from the traffic whizzing by. Mr. Winters stated members of the public have told him how one-way streets do not work and yet has stated it is "good". It concerned him that not one person has approached him and said one-way streets will make things better. He is believing the public and will not vote for one-way streets. TAPE #1319 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1995 Page 36 of 39 Mr. Overson noted his amendment motion is dying for lack of a second. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated the question is on the main motion since there was no second to the amended motion. The motion is to elect the do-nothing option with modification to the intersections to improve traffic flow. President Huff-Menees stated having been part of this process for such a long time and knowing what has gone into it and the amount of research and public input and number of opportunities provided for public input, she has agonized over this portion of the project because of the impacts and the resistance to change. She does support the one-way couplet based on the information she has and is not convinced they damage business. She believes that people can adjust and there are examples of one-way streets all over the State. The people who came from Port Angeles and Puyallup, where they implemented one-way streets, had both negative and positive things to say and had most positive things to say with respect to business. She also believes this is part of long range planning and the opportunity is before them now with funding available and it is Council responsibility to act on it even if the need does not exist today and she believes Council was being remiss not preparing for the future now. Mr. Colvin stated he felt he could wait for the one-way streets and expects them to happen sometime in the future. He felt strongly that the School District's concern does merit consideration. Mr. Overson asked what if the proposed buyer just said that so if one- way street were voted in he'll propose a lower purchase price. Mr. Dawkins asked if one-way streets is voted down, what will it do to the funding? Mr. Witt stated it would not change the funding since it is not contingent on which alternative Council chooses, but rather on having an alternative and having a project. They will pursue funding until the project is completed. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Opposed: Dawkins, Colvin, Winters, Farr, Law, Overson, Neville, Huff-Menees Mr. Wltt stated the proposal is to create a one-way couplet on Pacific Avenue/Burwell Street/Washington Avenue; improves access into the Ferry Terminal by acquiring property and modifying the entrance. Project elements are: one-way couplet on Pacific Avenue - two lanes and Washington Avenue-three lanes, modifying the access to the Ferry Terminal and improved signal system. Mr. Peacock stated the staff and Executive Steering Committee's 2193 TAPE #1319 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1995 Page 37 of 39 recommendation is to implement the one-way couplet on Pacific Avenue/lst Street/Washington Avenue. Mr. Witt pointed out the other alterative is "do nothing". M/S/C/U(Colvin/Farr) to uphold the recommendation of the Executive Steering Committee. Mr. Overson pointed out Mr. Peacock proposed the opposite of what was previously discussed in that now traffic would be going into two lanes on Pacific Avenue and three lanes on Washington Avenue. Mr. Peacock stated that was a very good observation and to keep in mind the Ferry Terminal is not the only generator of traffic on 6th Street and BuNell Street. All the traffic coming across from east Bremerton is contributing to where the demand for three lane is coming in. Mr. Overson stated he would like to understand at what point. Some years ago the powers to be destroyed the real estate on Washington Avenue by deciding to make it four lanes rather than one-way and bought all the front property of those beautiful homes and basically made them less attractive. Now, Mr. Peacock is saying that he proposes going four lanes out of town on Washington Avenue. Mr. Peacock stated no, their recommendation was for three lanes outbound on Washington Avenue. Mr. Overson asked did Mr. Peacock state he would need three lanes where Manette comes into Washington Avenue? Mr. Peacock stated if he said Manette he misstated and intended to say Warren Avenue. He explained the demand for three lanes in and three lanes out is driven by the need from one end of the corridor to the other. At the Ferry Terminal end you don't have to absolutely have three lanes, but by the time the traffic feeding in from other streets, particularly from Warren Avenue at 6th and Burwell, that is when the demand starts picking up. Mr. Colvin asked if he understood correctly that the one-way on Washington would go out to 6th Street? Mr. Peacock stated no, the motion reads the one-way envisions only going as far as Burwell. Mr. Farr stated earlier a good point was made by some people on the timing of this particular modification and the discussion was the appropriate timing was when the demand was there or new development was underway. He asked if that needed to be included in the motion or is it automatically a consideration we have some latitude on the timing of this change, especially with the issue of property acquisition? Mr. Peacock stated his reaction would be that would be part of the details to be worked out with the community and City Council at a later date. Mr. Law stated he had the feeling that the discussion centered on getting started on development of this segment right away and acquiring the property. But, if one looks at the location of the TAPE #1319 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1995 Page 38 of 39 toll booths, a truck could not enter that way. Mr. Peacock explained they would want to sit down with the property owners in the area and the State and working collaborative with the Council to address how big an issue that is today and whether or not that change would need to be implemented today or wait until a subsequent proposal for the terminal became more of a reality. Mr. Law pointed out again we are playing with peoples' income and lives, which is more significant than housing. It is not known for sure if the State will make a change at the Ferry Terminal. He wanted to know how to handle it to make sure the State made its move so this works. Mr. Overson pointed out Council is being asked to look out six years, not six months. He recognized Mr. Law's concern and agreed they were valid, but again we are looking long term. Mr. Witt again stated the importance of meeting with property owners/business owners to work out the details. This project is trying to improve truck access into the Ferry Terminal and if the State doesn't have funding to address their side of the issue, then we might not choose to go forward with this segment. However, it is his understanding that the State is not happy with the current situation and would probably like to see it corrected. If there isn't the ability to go ahead with the project, then we have the ability to do other parts of the project and hold off on this segment until there is a consensus. Mr. Law stated he did not want to give a blank check to condemn property and make some one-way streets and then sit for many years. President Huff-Menees stated earlier this evening when the question was asked about if Council voted not to do the one-way couplets on Burwell Street/6th Street, would there be a possibility to do it later and the funding issue was addressed. She asked how would Mr. Witt respond to that question with respect to this segment? Mr. Witt stated it is the same question and same answer. If Council chooses to do nothing in this segment, they have taken away this element of the project and the momentum of the funding. Coming in and changing or amending the proposal would require amending the EIS and convince the funding agencies of the need. Mr. Witt stated he is in favor of the program, but he did not want to see someone become cavalier and rush in to condemn property before it will be affectively used. Mr. Peacock stated Council's points are well taken and there are no assurances that the State will move the toll booths. He would almost be surprised if the State would invest in moving the toll booths when the downtown revitalization and new Ferry Terminal proposal is on the table. The question is boiling down to what kind of burden are we placing on the property owners and businesses at the triangular block by acting with the decision to move forward with this recommendation. If Council chose to make this decision in favor of the recommendation, the businesses could continue to operate until such #2920 TAPE #1319 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1995 Page 39 of 39 time it became clear exactly what was to happen with the new ferry terminal proposal. If that continued to gain momentum and be implemented within the next two-three years, perhaps the timing of the condemnation of the triangular block would be coincidental with that terminal project. If, however, the new Ferry Terminal project lost momentum and did not move forward, he though the State would be much more willing to come back and talk about moving those toll booths and that would probably be the timing to displace those businesses. ME. Law stated what he is hearing is 18 months minimum before anything happens. Mr. Peaoock stated he is suggesting that a decision and the timing of those displacement in that right-of- way acquisition should be developed through public outreach and with subsequent Council discussion. The decision whether or not to do that could be made exclusive of that. Mr. Law stated he is not interested in giving the authority to do something out of sequence. Mr. Witt pointed out the first step of condemnation procedures is coming before Council. Mr. Sievers stated except this would be a State project. Mr. Witt stated the City would probably be the lead agency. Motion carried unanimously. 9A - PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION NO. 2523, REGARDING THE RECOVERY OF FEES FOR THE ABATEMENT OF GARBAGE AND DEBRIS LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 1537 CARR BOULEVARD, #AB95-199 On August 7 and 8, 1995, the City of Bremerton Street Department removed garbage and debris from the property located at 1537 Carr Boulevard, after the owner, Olea Johnson, failed to obey a Notice and Order to Remove Refuse within 72 hours. The abatement fund was charged $4,059.90 for the work. M/S/C/U(Law/Colvin) to hold this item one week. With no further business meeting adjourned at 10:14 P.M. L. McCLUSKEY, Cl'~y Clerk ~ity of SreHERR~e'r~n~''~' o~resident KLM/SH-M/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault