Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/27/97 TAPE #1487 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 27, 1997 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, August 27, 1997, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President David Farr presiding. Council members present were Bob Winters, Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees, Richard Neville, Lon Overson, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and Al Colvin. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Farr and Invocation given by Deacon Bemis of Our Lady Star Of The Sea Catholic Church. President Farr made the following announcement: (1) The City Council will hold a Study Session immediately following the Council meeting, in the Council Conference Room. Topic of discussion will be "Sinclair Landing Update." CONSENT AGENDA A. Advertisement - Washington State Lodging & Travel #AB97-193 Guide #0032 M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. #0055 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) on August 27, 1997, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: #FT4391, 211988, and 212006 through 212190 in the amount of $328,774.18; and Retirees' Payroll for the period ending August 31, 1997, in the amount of $99,035.59. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Law announced the Community Resources Department has information available about con games and scams, particularly targeting senior citizens. He encouraged those with elderly friends or relatives to pick up a copy of the brochure. He will also have brochures available at his next District #3 meeting. Mr. Neville reported work has started on the Evergreen Park TAPE #1487 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 2 of 30 seawall. Mr. Montgomery announced the MOM Committee is sponsoring a Rally on the boardwalk on September 6, 1997, starting at 10:00 A.M. He encouraged the public to bring their signs showing their support to retain the USS Missouri within the continental United States. In regards to the Missouri, the Navy will hold a session of the 106 process, which is a process they are required to go through when any historical designated building, site, etc., are to be transferred. This session will be held at Keyport in the Naval Underseas Museum. He read a letter received from Mary W. Haines, whose son died aboard the USS Arizona, in which she expressed her disappointment that the Navy would consider mooring the Missouri near the Arizona Memorial and views that as a sacrilege. She supported keeping the Missouri in Bremerton or Long Beach, California, but not near the Arizona. Mr. Montgomery noted more people in the United States are getting on the bandwagon and there is the possibility a lawsuit may be filed against the Navy. Mr. Winters stated as Chairman of the Telecommunications Committee, he wanted to know when City staff and members of the Telecommunications Committee will be meeting to discuss the proposed Telecommunications ordinance. He is looking forward to the Blackberry Festival this weekend. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Lynn Horton read the following Proclamation: (1) SEPTEMBER 1-5, 1997, WASHINGTON WATER WEEKS. Don Larson, President of Washington Scuba alliance, accepted the Proclamation and displayed a color poster listing Water Weeks events. A Water Weeks Journal can be obtained by calling the 1-800-824-4EPA. He announce his group sponsors the annual Sinclair Inlet Clean Up, which will take place on September 20. Mayor Horton announced as a springboard into the Blackberry Festival activities, the USS Nimitz will be honored for their presence and tenure in the City of Bremerton. She invited everyone to participate in this event and give the Nimitz a Bremerton kind of sendoff to their next homeport and thank them for their years of service within the community. Mayor Horton read a letter from the City to Captain Issac E. Richardson, III, Commanding Officer of the USS Nimitz, acknowledging their support of worthwhile community causes, such as United Way, Navy Relief, Mothers Against drunk Drivers, American Red Cross, Make-a-Wish Foundation, and Promise Keepers, as well as their major role in Operation Desert Storm and Operation Southern Watch in the Arabian Gulf. PUBLIC RECOGNITION TAPE #1487 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 3 of 30 John Thomas, member of the Council Salary Commission, announced the Commission will hold a Public Hearing on September 8, 1997, 5:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers to take input from the public on a proposed salary increase for the City Council. He asked that the City conduct a public audit of Westsound Community Access Television since they were mostly funded through public funds. Lastly, as of this date, he had not received a response from the Council to his question about the cost of implementing fluoridation. Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, announced Blackberry Festival hours are August 30, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM, and August 31, 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM. Darrell Tanner, Car Show Chairman, stated he anticipates having 200 participants, which will include Harley- Davidson motorcycles, Honda Motorcycle Club, new cars from local dealerships, classics cars, custom cars, antiques cars, and custom low rider bicycles. Mel Journey, chairman of the First Annual Fly In, announced this new event will be held on August 30, 1997, starting off with a Pancake Breakfast at 9:00 A.M. The Port of Bremerton and the Bremerton Pilots' and tenants Association are co-sponsors of this event. Ms. Atkinson briefly listed the entertainment lineup and announced a another new event this year is the Golf Tournament at Gold Mountain on August 29. Dave Boynton described how the Hydroplane Exhibition, a new event, came together this year, and will take place in Sinclair Inlet west of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS). The participating hydroplane is the "PICO." Mr. Winters asked where the public could view the hydroplane exhibition? Mr. Boynton stated PSNS will be opening their parking lot near the Missouri gate and there is a small park to the west of that parking area. However, the best place to view the event would be from a boat. He cautioned the public to not park along the Navy Yard Highway since it could create traffic problems. Ms. Atkinson announced the USS Nimitz Open House will take place on August 30, 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM. Lastly, she announced more new blackberry products will be introduced at the festival. Del Knauss stated several times he has brought up to Council his concern about the Council Salary Commission and its conflict with RCW 35.22.205. He urged Council to request the City Attorney look at the Washington State Constitution that governs how Council members are given salary increases. He is aware the Council Salary Commission is considering that eight Council members receive a 45% increase and the Council President would receive a 55% increase. During all of his working career, he has never received that kind of pay increase. He believes the money used for Council salary increases would be better spent on a Fireman, Policeman, Planner or Parks employee. He also believes the Council's current salary is TAPE #1487 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 4 of 30 comparable to other cities of a similar size. He urged Council to be the ones to vote on their salary increase. President Farr stated the City Attorney has already reviewed this issue and made his determination. Don Larson, President Kitsap Diving Association, handed out copies of Washington Water Weeks Journals to the Council members and noted it is a great way to promote activities in Bremerton. He report the State Park Commission is making progress on an Underwater Park program and he still maintains his strong support for Bremerton to become involved in such a program. 8A - BUDGET ADJUSTMENT - 1997 WASTEWATER FUND 451, #AB97-194 A number of project activities have occurred in the Wastewater utility that necessitate adjustment of the 1997 Wastewater Fund Budget. The attached budget adjustment request outlines the adjustments to be made. The adjustments provide for the final costs on the WWTP Odor Control Project and 1997 property acquisitions in Oyster Bay, Zone 1. Revenues include Public Work Trust Fund loans and Centennial Clean Water fund grants not previously included, and recognize the settlements received from Agri-Tech, Harbor Insurance and CH2M Hill. This adjustment also provides for ongoing contribution litigation against Metcalf & Eddy Services Inc. approval by the Council of the attached budget adjustment in the amount of $1,275,976 is requested. Gene Sampley, Public Works and Utilities Director, stated this Budget Adjustment is a result of on going litigation, costs associated with that action, projected costs for the remainder of 1997, and capital projects that were carried over from 1996. It was anticipated that those projects would have been completed in 1996; however, it was necessary to roll them over into 1997. The timing to present this Budget Adjustment was determined when it was felt there was no longer a strong possibility that the City would receive additional settlement revenues for the settlements that the City paid out in litigation to the Charleston Beach Association and other claims. The source of funding is the Miscellaneous Non- Revenues receipt side of the Public Works Trust Fund Loans and the Centennial Clean Water Fund grants as well as the available cash balance budgeted for the end of the year. The budgeted ending cash of $1,407,369.00. the projected budgeting ending cash with the subject revision would be $131,393.00. Public comment - none. Mr. Winters questioned if $767,000 was the correct figure for litigation costs and what was the amount received in settlement? Mr. Sampley stated the litigation cost figure was correct and the TAPE #1487 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 5 of 30 settlement amount was $1,980,000.00. #1069 M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Winters) The City Council approve attached Budget Adjustment No. 97-27 to Wastewater Fund 451 in the amount of $1,275,976 to reflect the correct status of the fund. 9A - RESOLUTION #2620 - ENTRY INTO ENERGENCY SERVICES FACILITY/MASTER PLAN AGREEMENT REGARDING JOINT TRAINING FACILITY, #AB97-195 The City of Bremerton Fire Department would like to enter into an agreement with various other fire Districts and Departments to establish a joint Fire Training Center on National Guard Property located at 1299 Union Avenue. Mick McKinley, Assistant Fire Chief, briefly reviewed the background for the development of a joint Fire Training facility, which started in 1989, when the City considered the replacement of the fire tower at Evergreen park. After evaluating several sites in the City, Fire Services of Kitsap County banded together and chose the National Guard Armory site on Union Avenue. This process has taken over three years to come to this point. Public comment - none. Mr. Winters complimented Mr. McKinley for his dedication to this project, and reiterated his suggestion to name the facility after Mr. McKinley. #1179 M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) To Pass Resolution #2620 to establish a Joint Fire Training Center. 10A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING), AMENDING THE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THE CITY BUILDING CODE, ~AB97-196 A recent case has found that courts of limited jurisdiction, such as Municipal court, are only authorized by Court rule to issue search warrants upon probable cause to believe evidence of a criminal offense may be found, and not authorized to issue warrants for evidence of a civil infraction. Many of the model codes adopted in the City Building Code, BMC Chapter 17.04, contain specific misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor penalties. However, other sections declare a violation to be "unlawful," and under the default penalty of B.M.C. 17.04.110, these would be classified as civil infractions. Since these construction and fire code violations often require on-site inspection for successful prosecution, it is recommended that the default penalty be changed to a misdemeanor to allow search warrants to be issued. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, briefly reviewed the discrepancies and TAPE #1487 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 6 of 30 reasons why this ordinance was necessary to allow a proper investigation under a search warrant. Public comment - none. Mr. McConnell asked for clarification for the deleting of "and fire safety," and asked if it was addressed under a different ordinance? Mr. Sievers stated this particular penalty section was not amended when the first section of that chapter was amended. #1325 M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to approve ordinance on first reading, amending the penalty for violations of the City Building code, and amending Bremerton Municipal Code 17.04.110. 11A - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 1997 DOCKET OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, RELATED REZONES, AND THE ADOPTING ORDINANCES (FT~T RE~ff)ING)~ ~AB97-192 President Farr stated approximately two-thirds of the items were reviewed by Council and public comment taken on August 20; however, no formal action was taken by Council. During this hearing, staff will complete their presentation, public input will be taken on each of the remaining items, then a vote will be taken on first reading of the ordinances. President Farr asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict of Interest" question, with all Council members being seated. Ron Houqh, Planning Manager, explained this is a continuation of August 20, 1997, public hearing. He briefly recapped each of the seven items discussed at the previous meeting. President Fart opened the opportunity for public testimony on the following seven items: (1) Harbor Heights Apartments: Public comment - none. (2) Bremerton School District: Public comment - none. (3) Auto Center Area Industrial: Public comment - none. (4) Broad Street Residential: Public comment - none. (5) Merit Company: Susan Brown., 1333 E. Hope, stated this was a difficult meeting to be at due to the confusion of the notification process. Those who attended the Planning Commission meeting were told this public hearing would be August 27, but residents received letters stating TAPE #1487 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 7 of 30 the public hearing would be August 20; therefore she requested action on the rezones be put on "hold" and re-advertised. She further explained she has watched this property since moving to the area 28 years ago, and was aware that the property has severe water problems in recent years. The Merit Company has owned this property for 30 years and she understands the time is right for them to maximize their profit, but she does not believe it should be at the expense of the neighborhood. Existing neighbors bought their homes years ago assuming there would be houses across the street. If businesses are intended, she suggested a 100 foot buffer along the eastern edge, using the 15% open space required for this rezone to protect the existing neighbors. (6) South Smith Cove: (Note: a letter was received from Mr. Paul S. Milnes and included in the City Council packet on page 110). Scott Buckingham, 900 block Washington Avenue resident, suggested the City expand Evergreen park to include the Standard Oil property in order to maximize the view potential from the park. Mr. Overson stated in the interest of efficiency, Council should go forward with the original proposal of Parks and Open Space as opposed to sending this issue back for further review. His reasoning is if the owners disagree with what the City proposes, they should request that it be changed to something else. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the City received a letter from an attorney representing one of the property owners (Loftus property), who is in his own right and proactive objects to the rezone of his property. In affect, one of the property owners is not willing to wait to see what happens with the City's property acquisition. (7) Waterfront Access Plan: Scott and Pamela Buckingham, 900 block Washington Avenue residents, stated their major concern over this proposal was the adverse affect it would have on the residents, particularly having to do with increased traffic and safety for their children. They were also concern about the possibility of High School age youth hanging out in the area, if it that area was developed by the City, possibly bringing a bad element into their neighborhood. Amy Burnett, 900 block Washington Avenue resident, pointed the existing use of the subject site is a short driveway with a garage and has been used as such for many years. Her bedroom window, as well as her neighbors, is only 10 feet away from the site and the two residents on the other side of the "short driveway" are 5-20 feet away. She noted there are four residents on that small driveway and three of them use it as they exit out of their front TAPE #1487 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 8 of 30 door. Three to five vehicles are continually parked on the site. She questioned if the area is kept as a view point, will all parking of vehicles be prohibited? She emphasized parking is a critical situation on the section of Washington Avenue north of the Manette Bridge. She asked that residential parking be allowed to continue on the site, if the Council decides to keep the subject area as a view point. Del Knauss, Bremerton resident, stated when he Chaired the committee that developed the City's current Comprehensive Plan, not one person spoke against having the subject area as a low key view point. The area was designated a low key view point prior to the adopting of the current Waterfront Access Plan. He sees keeping the viewpoint designation as a benefit to the neighborhood, not the general public. He supports retaining parking on the site for neighboring residents and to keep it as a viewpoint. David Baldwin, 900 block Washington Avenue resident, stated he has been a homeowner in the subject area since 1989. During the Planning commission's discussion of this item, he voiced his opposition to keeping the subject area as a viewpoint. He doubted the site could be maintained as a low key viewpoint, if it was developed. Parking along their portion of Washington Avenue is extremely difficult and at times people traverse llth Street Place (posted as one-way) the wrong direction. His neighbor JoAnne Marez, who was unable to attend this meeting, supports the proposal to remove the viewpoint designation. Another neighbor, who resides at 959 Washington Avenue, has a letter on file in support of the proposal as presented. H. Emily Moshay, Park Avenue resident, stated her opposition to retaining the subject area as a viewpoint. Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk, read the following letter into the record: "I reside at 110 1/2 11th Street Place. I am concerned about turning our driveway into a view point. My son's bedroom is only 20 feet from this area. I also have concerns about parking. There have been times when I come home in the evening and there is nowhere on the road to park. This forces me to park in the red zone and receive a ticket for $50.00, so I count on my spot in the driveway. My final concern is our increasing problem with crime in our neighborhood. I feel putting a viewpoint in a residential area would invite more crime and problems with neighbors and our privacy. I am not thrilled about a viewpoint being put here, but I hope that if this takes place a compromise can be reached to accommodate us on Washington Avenue and llth Street Place," signed Sara Marez. TAPE #1488 TAPE #1488 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 9 of 29 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT: Part 2 of 2 - Capital Facilities program Kay Wilson, Senior Planner, explained the Capital Facilities element is one of five Comprehensive Plan elements required by the Growth Management Act (GMA). The Bremerton Comprehensive Plan capital Facilities element consists of two parts: Capital Facilities Plan Part 1 of 2 (CF Plan) and Capital Facilities Program Part 2 of 2 (CFP). No amendments are proposed for Part 1. The GMA requires that the Capital Facilities expenditures of the City be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. For that reason, the City updates that element each year. The CF Element must include an inventory of existing capital facilities, a forecast of future needs, locations and capacities, and a six-year plan to finance the capital facilities within projected funding. In 1996, amendment were made to Sections A - Fire And Emergency Medical Services; B - Law Enforcement; C - Parks and Recreation; D -Sanitary Sewer; G - Transportation; H - Water. Ms. Wilson outlined the relationship among Capital Facilities Elements Policy Plan, Capital Facilities Program and the City Budget. The City's projected funding is based on a population projection, as shown on the CFP-2 Population Forecast Chart. Ms. Wilson pointed out a correction to the City's 1997 actual population to reflect 38,600 rather than 36,800. The City Treasurer looks six years ahead at the projected population for the year 2002 (43,000 people) and bases projected revenues out six years on that population as well as other considerations. Under "Future Water Needs," Ms. Wilson pointed out several errors in the documentation provided to Council and noted those errors will be corrected in the September 3 City Council Agenda Packet. She emphasize the Table did show sufficient water for the next six years and projected growth. The Water Utility has requested the following language be included in the Plan: "The City has two additional wells drilled and awaitinq water riqhts. Current regulatory and legal uncertainty at the State level precludes processinq of water riqhts applications except under emergency conditions." The new MUNICIPAL FACILITIES section is basically constructed to provide the background for two items that have been included in the City's Capital Improvement Program and are also included in the Capital Facilities Element, i.e., a new City Hall and potential purchase of a parking facility (Sinclair Landing Project). A statement identifying the need for a new City Hall will be added as follows: "There is considerable expense in operating and maintaininq the current obsolete facilities. Communications, TAPE #1488 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 10 of 29 efficiency and coordination are significantly more expensive in the existing facilities. New construction and design techniques would decrease operations and maintenance costs and improve the efficient provision of City services." Public comment - none. Mr. Overson questioned how the City could identify annual costs savings, if a new City Hall facility is built? Ms. Wilson stated she could not answer that question. Mr. Overson questioned the reasoning or projections that a cost savings would be the result of a new City Hall facility. Mrs. Wilson explained this item was proposed as an expenditure in the Capital Improvement Program, which was previously approved by the City Council. Since the two documents must be consistent, text was added to provide the general background on such a proposal and the specifics would come with further study. Don Pratt, Director of community Development, stated the purpose of including the language was to identify a potential cost in the future to undertake studies that will provide the kind of information Mr. Overson requested. He anticipates, within 2-4 years, there will be a request for funds to look at the possibility a new City Hall facility. REMOVAL OF "CEMETERY" DESIGNATION Mr. Hough identified the location of existing cemeteries along Kitsap Way and Naval Avenue. The "C" (Cemetery) designation was placed on the Plan maps to indicate the locations of existing cemeteries. It was not intended to guide the development of new or expanded facilities. Cemeteries are permitted (by Special Use Permit) in the SF-1, SF-2 and SF-3 iow density residential zones. The "C" designation on the Plan maps causes confusion and may require a Plan Amendment whenever an existing cemetery expands within an SF zone. Removing this designation from maps and map legends will avoid confusion and unnecessary Plan Amendments. Public comment - none. Mr. Montgomery questioning the value of even bothering to make this change considering the exiting cemetery properties would most likely never be used for another purpose. If the cemeteries wanted to expand, they could go through the appropriate process. Mr. Houqh explained any change outside their currently boundaries would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment, which he did not see as necessary since it is an allowable use under their current zoning. Mr. Winters questioned if the current cemetery on the west side of Kitsap Way owned additional land west of their current boundary? Mr. Houqh stated yes, but they cannot develop the site because the Comprehensive Plan shows it as a different use. Mr. Winters TAPE #1488 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 11 of 29 questioned why the City didn't implement a zoning change to the site that is not currently designated "cemetery" in order to meet needs that may occur by 2003-2006? Mr. Hough explained the zoning designation is low density residential (SF-1 or 2), which allows cemeteries with a Special use Permit and in some cases can be granted administratively. Because there are cemetery boundaries shown on the Map, someone could appeal the proposal to expand a cemetery outside the existing area. Since the City is not planning for future cemetery needs, staff did not see the need for a "Cemetery" designation on the long range plan. LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS Mr. Hough stated the Land Use Descriptions comprise four pages of land use designations on the Comprehensive Plan Maps. The Zoning Ordinance describes "zones" in good detail; however, the Comprehensive Plan did not describe the Comprehensive Plan designations, which are similar to the zones, and that situation presented some confusion to the public. The intent is to insert the land use descriptions into the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element along with the Land Use Maps. Public comment - none. Mr. McConnell questioned, under the MU PUD applied to a residential project, how many units per acre would be allowed? Mr. Hough stated the Mixed Use PUD Plan designation does not have a range. A PUD combines different zones and through that process high density can be combined with medium density or low density zone with a non-residential planned use zone. But, if a PUD was presented that wanted to combine a commercial center or office park with a medium residential designation, the MF Zone would probably be applied, which is a medium density zone and would become part of the PUD design. The zoning would have a limit on the density within that development. Mr. McConnell questioned if he understood correctly that a PUD does increase the number of units per acre? Mr. Hough stated there is a bonus density opportunity; however, it does not come automatically and comes with additional open space or other amenities. Mr. Montgomery stated he understood issues such as these were covered when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted several years ago? Mr. Hough stated the definitions were covered, but were not written into the Plan. President Farr announced Council will vote on the individual action items under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment ordinance. 1. HARBOR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS AMENDMENT #0620 M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) Motion to approve Harbor Heights TAPE #1488 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 12 of 29 Apartments redesignation from "Utility" to "Medium Density Residential (MDR)." 2. BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT AMENDMENT #0690 M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees/Montgomery) Motion to approve the Bremerton School District Amendment to "General & Highway Commercial (C-G)." 3. AUTO CENTER AREA INDUSTRIAL AMENDMENT #0715 M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) Motion to approve Auto Center Area Industrial Amendment from "General and Professional Office (C-P)" to "Industrial Park (IP)." 4. MERIT COMPANY AMENDMENT #0735 M/S/C(Huff-Menees/Montgomery) Motion to deny the designation of "Medium Density residential (MDR)" to "Mixed Use/PUD(MU)." Mr. Overson stated the owner of the subject property requested the amendment and had pursued several unsuccessful attempts to develop the site. He sensed the owner now believes the best use of the site would be under the MU designation. He could not support the motion to deny. He believes the City is duty bound to support use of real estate that is under private ownership. Mr. McConnell stated he views this proposal differently. In his opinion it is vague i.e., there are no plans and previous actions to have the site rezoned residential was not successful in developing the site into that use. He was concerned that the MU designation allowed the owner to put any kind of use on the site with only the Planning Commission's approval. Before he could support such a change, he would have to see a plan for that area. Mr. Colvin stated he believes the surrounding neighborhood deserves consideration; therefore, he will support the motion for denial. Mr. Montgomery questioned if he understood correctly that it would require Council approval to develop the subject property? Mr. Hough stated that is one of the conditions under the proposed rezone for this site. Huff-Menees stated her reason for making the motion for denial was out of concern for the neighborhood and the fact the City used the site for residential density to support population figures under the Growth management Act (GMA). She felt strongly that the City should stick to that decision and she does not supporting changing the current designation. Mr. Law stated he was concerned that the size of the buffer kept changing. Mr. Houqh explained the proposal would allow other options than Medium Residential. One of the options would be to TAPE #1488 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 13 of 29 expand the existing shopping center to allow existing businesses to expand and possibly bring in other new businesses. He was not aware of any proposal submitted to build something specific, but it does open up the options. Mr. Colvin stated he was concerned the City would be giving the property owner a "blank check" to build whatever they wanted. Mr. Hough explained a site plan review before the City Council is required, if a proposal is submitted. This is the only site in the City where the City Council does a site plan review at a public hearing. Mr. McConnell asked if it wouldn't be more appropriate to rezone a portion of the subject site as "Shopping Center" to accommodate future expansion of the existing shopping center rather than having 3/4 of a store in a Shopping Center zone and the remainder in a different zone? Mr. Hough stated that is a possibility and such a proposal would have to come before Council for approval. Mr. Neville stated he supports the motion for denial based on the need to continue its identity as future density residential to meet the GMA. President Farr stated he could not support the denial based on the fact he has faith in the system that has worked in most cases to benefit the City and take the concerns of the neighborhood into consideration when a site plan is approved. Vote on motion: In Favor: Huff-Menees, Neville, Law, McConnell, Colvin, Montgomery Opposed: Farr, Winters, Overson Motion carried. 5. Broad Street Resldential Amendment #1059 M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) to approve two small lots on Broad Street from "CG" to "MDR". Mr. McConnell pointed out if the proposed change is approved, it would require the current owner of an adjoining commercially zoned property to provide a buffer on his property. He could not support the motion, if it puts an existing property owner to a further expense and more loss to their business zoned property. Mr. Hough stated the General Business zone and most business zones require 10-foot setbacks from residential zones. In this case that would be true. He felt the City had sent a precedent with the property on the north side of Broadmore Village when Broadmore Village was rezoned from General Business to Multiple Family. At that time, the affected property owner requested a Special Exception from that rule and was granted the exception. The TAPE #1488 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 14 of 29 commercial property owner in the subject area is aware of that process and could request an exception to the setback requirement. Mr. McConnell questioned if that exception could be made part of the motion? Mr. Montaomery stated he agreed with Mr. McConnell's recommendation to provide the "exception" in his motion, which he then amended. Mr. Houqh reminded Council they were amending the Comprehensive Plan and following this action Council will be addressing a set of rezone requests. This issue is more of a zoning issue than a Comprehensive Plan issue and was more appropriate to include it when the rezone was considered. President Farr asked if it was inappropriate to have it included in the Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Hough stated yes. Mr. McConnell asked that the issue be address when the rezone of the two lots came up for consideration. Vote on motion - unanimous. 6. Waterfront Access Plan Amendment Mr. Overson questioned what is meant by a "low key" viewpoint? Mr. Hough recalled when the Waterfront Access Plan was being developed about eight years ago, the intent for a iow key viewpoint that provided a stopping/resting area for people walking along the sidewalk and system of sidewalks that would link the downtown with various points along the shoreline, including the Manette Bridge access, Evergreen Park, Smith Cove, etc. Such an area could be as simple as a bench and garbage can. Mr. Overson asked if it could also be a place where local residents park their vehicles and are able to look over the vehicles at the viewpoint without actually accessing the area? Mr. Hough stated it would be a visual viewpoint since there is no physical access to the shoreline. Parking might be developed on the street side with a pedestrian area on the water side. Ms. Wilson stated she believes the Waterfront Access Plan is quite clear about viewpoints in residential areas and the intent is for walkers and no parking spaces provided. And, when a viewpoint is in a residential neighborhood, the City would not plan that viewpoint until a neighborhood meeting was held with surrounding residents. Thirdly, the Waterfront Access Plan addresses protecting the adjacent neighbors from intrusion of noise, etc., through design. There are several other viewpoints along that route and all of them are in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Overson questioned how the City proposed to resolve the owners' concerns where, by default, the site has become access to residential areas and allowed needed vehicle parking? Ms. Wilson emphasized the importance of holding a neighborhood meeting to address those kinds of issues before the City makes a proposal for the site. Because this site is so unusual, it might be the City would provide some neighborhood on- street parking and the viewpoint developed as a path with a bench. Mr. Overson stated he recognizes the concerns of the residents in TAPE #1488 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 15 of 29 the subject area that there is need for additional parking; however, he did not see this action as one of those opportunities. The Waterfront Access Plan is a long-term plan that sets aside real estate that can be retained for public purposes and if that use is changed, it would have to be for a significant reason. He did not believe that the issue should be presented on the basis it was presented. #1428 M/S/C(Overson/Colvin) To deny the Waterfront Access Plan change as presented. Mr. Montgomery agreed with Mr. Overson's position and the Shoreline Management Plan states the City must protect viewpoints. However, if the issue comes back before Council, he would support a motion to designate residential parking only on that street, but prior to that kind of action, the existing garage needs to be removed due to its illegal status. Mr. McConnell stated he supports the denial of the proposed change because he sees the viewpoint as a great asset to the surrounding neighbors as well the city as a whole. President Farr questioned if the time frame for developing the viewpoint would be past the six year time horizon? Mr. Hough stated he had no idea when the City might develop the area; however, there is the possibility that the Parks Department might apply for grant funding that may become available in the future. President Farr questioned if the viewpoint remains as it is, would the neighbors be allowed to continue using the site for parking vehicles? Mr. Hough explained it is a non-conforming situation and the City could decide to abate the situation. Mr. Colvin stated if the proposal is denied, does everything remain the same? Mr. Hough stated no, the garage must be removed. Vote On Motion: In Favor: Overson, Law, McConnell, Colvin, Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Neville, Farr Opposed: Winters Motion carried. #1689 M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees) Motion to approve Section 7: The text of the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to incorporate the annual update of the Capital Facilities Program portion of the Capital Facilities Element. #1711 M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) Motion to expand the Park designation to Sheldon Boulevard and expand the High Density Residential to the east of Highland Avenue (Section 8). TAPE #1488 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 16 of 29 #1780 M/S/C/U(McConnell/Montgomery) Motion to approve Section 9: The Land use Plan Maps contained within the Comprehensive Plan are hereby amended to remove the designation "C" (Cemetery) and designate it as "Low Density Residential" (Section 9). Mr. Overson questioned if it was allowable to have a "0" on the Comprehensive Plan Map if the "Cemetery" designation is removed? Mr. Hough explained the underlying zoning is Low Density Residential. Mr. Overson asked if that should be added to the motion? Mr. Hough stated yes. #1834 M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) motion to approve the Land Use Descriptions as discussed (Section 10). #1867 M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) Motion to approve Ordinance, on first reading, as amended by the previous motions adopting the 1997 amendments to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. President Farr announced the Study Session scheduled to following the Council meeting has been postponed to September 8, 5:30 P.M., in the Council Conference Room. Mr. Hough announced the next action before Council is to approve the following rezone proposals: Harbor Heights Apartment - changing the zoning of specific portions of the proposed Harbor Heights Apartments development site from the present designations of "FM (Forest Management)," and "SF-3 ((Residential Low-density)" to "MF (Residential Medium-density)." #1997 M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) Motion to approve Section 1 of the ordinance (Harbor Heights Apartments). Bremerton School District (Section 2) - change the designations of two lots, located on the east side of Wheaton Way, north of Dibb Street from "PS (Parks & Schools)" to "GN (General Business)." Auto Center Area Industrial (Section 3 - change the designation of four lots, consisting of approximately 22 acres, in the auto Center area from "PO (Professional OFFICE" to "IP (Industrial Park)," with conditions as described in Exhibit "C." #2033 M/S/C/U(Law/Montgomery) Motion to approve Sections 2 and 3 as presented. Merit Company #2064 M/S/C(Montgomery/Colvin) Motion to delete Section 4 - Merit Company. TAPE #1488 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 17 of 29 Vote on motion: In Favor: Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Winters, Neville, McConnell, Law, Colvin Opposed: Farr, Overson Motion carried. Broad Street Residential - change the designation of two lots on the south side of Broad Street, west of Wheaton Way, from "GB (General Business)" to "MF (Residential Medium-density", and approving a special Zoning Ordinance Exception for the abutting commercial lot. #2103 M/S/C/U(McConnell/Montgomery) Motion to approve the rezone as presented with an exception eliminating the setback requirement for the abutting commercial lot. South Smith Cove - to not rezone the expansion area of Evergreen Park and let it remain zoned as "Business Park (BP). Mr. Neville asked the City Attorney to state for clarification why he recommended retaining the current zoning. Mr. Sievers explained rezoning as opposed to the Comprehensive Plan changing private property to Parks and Schools is premature at this point. Mr. Overson raised a point that a threatened challenge is more real than imaginary. He also felt it could be antagonistic to property negotiations that are currently underway. He appreciates the fact the issue went through the Planning commission and possibly a compromise would be to table the Planning Commission's recommendation on part of the Business Park 4-6 months when it may be coming back to Council when the City acquires the property. #2209 M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) Motion to amend southeast of Smith cove by expanding the "MR (Residential High-density)" zone northward to include two additional lots on the east side of Highland Avenue. 11B - PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL/DOCK IN OYSTER BAY CHANNEL; APPELLANTS: RICHARD WRIGHT ET.AL; LOCATION: 2000 MADRONA POINT ROAD, #AB97-197 The City Council has been requested to conduct a public hearing to decide an appeal of a dock permit application determination of nonsignificance. The dock would be located behind a sinqle family residence in the waterway channel between Oyster/Ostrich'Bay. The City Council may agree with the decision or direct that a determination of significance or a mitigated determination of nonsignificance be issued. President Farr asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict of Interest" question. Mr. Winters read the following statement: "On or about mid July Mr. Maynard Hoffman invited him to me home to view the channel and they discussed the channel and its width and TAPE #1488 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 18 of 29 did not discuss anything else other than someone working for $10.00 per hour pulling weeds out of his yard. Secondly, on or about July 25-26, 1997, he and his wife and son enjoyed dinner at the home of the Reeds and enjoyed the waterfront, view and dinner. They did not and he would not allow discussion regarding the dock." Therefore, he will remain seated. President Farr asked if any member of the public believes any Council member should excuse themselves due to a conflict of interest with the appearance of fairness doctrine? Bernard Holland, So. Marine Drive resident, stated he had observed Mr. Winters also at the Reed's place of business; however, he was not aware of what they might have discussed. He was also unsure as to what was actually discussed when Mr. Winters was a guest at the Reed's home. Mr. Winters stated he would be glad to relate what was discussed. Mr. Holland stated he was objecting because of the "appearance of fairness"...Mr. Winters could say anything, but he would not know if it was true or not. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the appearance of fairness doctrine as ex parte contacts was amended by statute and does allow that ex parta contacts may take place as long as they are disclosed on the public record and the substance of those conversations are disclosed by the Council member. Therefore, it would not disqualify Mr. Winters. Mr. Holland stated he was objecting over Mr. Winters being at Mr. Reed's place of business, which Mr. Winters did not disclose. Mr. Slevers stated the time frame is important and Mr. Winters may want to clarify if the second incident was after the item was placed on the Council agenda or if it was prior to that date. Mr. Holland stated it occurred within the last month. Mr. Winters stated his impartiality regarding the document is very clear. Mr. Reed is running as a candidate for Council District #9 and he is running as a candidate for Mayor of Bremerton and they discussed those issues. Although he is not allowed to discuss his candidacy in City Hall, he is allowed to explain that situation in front of legal counsel. Mr. Sievers stated all Mr. Winters had to do was to reflect his recollection if any part of the conversation touched on the subject application. Mr. Winters stated no. Mr. Holland stated he felt the two parties sharing a meal was a little to close for an impartial vote. Jerry Paret stated she drove behind Mr. Winters' van as he left Mr. Reed's place of business at 8:10 A.M. Jim Reed stated he was visited by Mr. Winters at his place of business where they spoke at length about Mr. Winters' Mayoral race and his interest on issues. Mr. Winters had not been in his office after the Council Agenda had been prepared on August 22, nor have they had any telephone conversations except for the morning of August 26 when he talked with him about returning a phone call regarding someone wanting to support his campaign. Hr. Sievers stated prejudgment is one of the legs of the appearance of fairness doctrine and Mr. Winters should reflect whether or not he is too TAPE #1488 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 19 of 29 close and friendly in his social contacts to make a fair and impartial decision on the matter with the applicant. Mr.Winters stated he would not say he and Mr. Reed were that close, but he has examined the issue and understands Mr. Pratt's recommendations. He perceives he is being challenged because of an earlier "no" vote. He owns a rental property near the Reed property and travels in that area quite often, but over the past five years he and Mr. Reed have conversed very few times. Mr. Reed stated for clarification the appellant is not appealing him, but rather the Director of Community Development's decision and he was at this public hearing to make public comment on that appeal. President Farr stated since he has served on the Council, these are the most serious challenges he has seen to any of the Council members being seated on a quasi-judicial matter and asked Mr. Winters to be sure that he could deal with the appearance of fairness issue, but if he felt there was any doubt he would ask Mr. Winters to consider stepping down. Mr. Winters stated he had no doubt and would remain seated. Don Holtz, Madrona Point Drive resident, asked Councilman Carlos Montgomery to step down on the grounds that within the past 30 days he had traveled by boat through the channel with City employees to address the issue of dock standards, and on Thursday of the past week spent 1-1/2 hours at an adjacent property supporting his negativity to docks in the channel and stating incorrect facts that he felt were pertinent to this case. Mr. Montgomery stated he was on Mr. Green's property, along with a City Official, investigating an illegal "pulling-in" of a float, not on Mr. Reed's property. He emphasized the conversation did not include any discussion about docks; however, they did discuss the float issue and the depth of the water. As a City Councilman, when issues come up in his district he usually gets involved to help solve problem issues. He received numerous call about Mr. Green's float. Judy Johnson, Department of Community Development, stated on August 21 she and Mr. Montgomery did visit Mr. Green's property to discuss his float, but they did not discuss anything about the Reed property or the proposed dock. Mr. Montgomery stated Mr. Green did mention Mr. Holt's dock, Mr. Reed's dock, and houses; however, he did not get involved with any discussion relating to Mr. Green's comments. Mr. Sievers asked Mr. Montgomery if he recalled any conversation about the Reed dock? Mr. Montgomery stated Mr. Green talked about why they couldn't put a dock at that location, i.e, differences of various buildings throughout the channel. Mr. Sievers stated, based on his remarks about the Reed dock, did Mr. Montgomery feel he made any prejudgment on the application? Mr. Montgomery stated no. Mr. Sievers stated he believed Council could proceed with the discussion. He noted the judgement is the individual's as to prejudice and prejudgment and they have stated they have none and TAPE #1488 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 20 of 29 can make an impartial decision. Mr. Montgomery stated prior to going to the Green's property he asked the Director of Community Development, in Ms. Johnson's presence, if visiting the Green property would have any bearing on any further hearings that may come up on that channel? Mr. Pratt's response was no, if he was there for a particular reason. Mr. Winters stated what comes with this job is a little bit of integrity about responding to constituents. The press continues to hurl accusations at him, the public is now throwing accusations at him. He wanted it clearly understood that when Council members state their position, as requested by the Council president over their being seated, he believes their integrity stands for itself. President Farr stated Council must also respect the Public's concerns as well. Mr. Sievers stated there were a couple of other appeals scheduled that were related to Agenda Item lib that are not being heard at this time. There were two appeals to a Shoreline Master Plan interpretation by the Community Development Department, which have been canceled because the interpretation was been withdrawn in favor of the more deliberate public process of amending the Shoreline Master Plan under the moratorium recently passed by the City Council. More important perhaps is the appeal of the denial of the Substantial Development Permit on the residential dock - 2000 Madrona Point Drive, which has been continued to September 24 for revision of findings and possibly the decision. If the decision itself is revised, it will be republished and opportunities for other appeals to be filed, which will also be heard on September 24. Mr. Matt Mathes, Land Use Specialist, stated Council is to decide the action that is the basis of the file for a decision on a shoreline development permit, not the permit itself. A denial for the permit was made, and will be heard as a continuation of this hearing at a later date. If the Council votes "Yes" tonight, the DNS decision would stand, and the denial of the shoreline pezmit would remain. The applicant would then be eligible to reapply for the project no sooner than one year from the date of the denial. If Council votes "No", there would be two options: 1) to remand the DNS decision to staff for minor changes, then staff would reissue a new DNS; or 2) provide an amendment through a process used to notify agencies. TAPE #1489 The site in question is located on Madrona Point Road. He then passed out supplemental information, Attachments "A" through "F". He understands that the appellant has the burden of proof to show there is a basis for the appeal. TAPE #1489 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 21 of 29 Dick Wright, signatory appellant, stated the waterway issue being discussed tonight is monumental, and deals with an exclusive, individual piece of property that is totally unique. He is rebutting the decision of Non-Significance by the City of Bremerton, and stated the 3 minute limit would not be adequate for him to provide Council with all of the necessary information he would like to present. Mr. Fart stated in Public Hearings, the standard procedure has been to limit the time to 3 minutes to assure uniformity and fairness to both sides, and all speakers. Mr. McConnell offered that in the past, the appellant has been given 10-15 minutes, and then anyone wishing to speak after that would be limited to 3 minutes. Mr. Sievers read from the Rules & Procedures, which states the Council President designates the length of argument to afford a fair hearing of the issues, taking into consideration the size of the audience, and number of those who wish to speak. Mr. Wright, referred to the memo on Attachment "C", which showed the SEPA Action was DNS for all projects listed, with one exempt. He then questioned if those on the Council were fully aware of SEPA regulations, and the rules, and asked for a show of hands. He explained in 1971 the State mandated a state policy that would promote efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment. On August 26, he questioned Mr. Mathes how much writing was done in his development of this DNS? Mr. Mathes responded it was customary for staff reviewing a checklist to provide margin notes on each item; however, in the 20+ pages of this checklist there were no marks in the margins. He had reviewed the files, going back to 1993, and found this was typical of approximately half or more of the last six DNS issued. Mr. Wriqht stated this showed a pattern, then questioned if a detailed statement by the responsible official on the environmental impact of the proposed action was provided, as mandated, and if comments from any public agency that had jurisdiction by law or has special expertise with respect to the environmental impact, were obtained? Mr. Mathes stated prior to making the DNS, the State Department of Fishery was consulted in the field. Mr. Wright submitted the SEPA and the SEPA rules into the record, and stated due to the importance of this action, he requested that Council briefly peruse the highlighted sections prior to making a determination. He then referred to the Environmental Checklist and SEPA Rules, and went over the "Instructions for Applicant". He had previously gone through the document and noted questions he felt were pertinent to the environmental integrity of SEPA. He addressed #11's comments: "Install three pilings (waterwards of hiqh water mark) to secure 92' walkway to 8' by 10' landinq. For private recreational use," and noted no mention was made that concrete bedding pads would be installed. He directed Council's attention to the section relating to Environmental Elements, which are questions that do not TAPE #1489 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 22 of 29 deal with this specific unit, so the answers are not pertinent. In his view, SEPA is a very generic document that was produced in the 70's to create a system that would cause oversight of everything from a nuclear reactor, floating docks, livestock along rivers, et.; therefore, there are lots of areas that would not be pertinent to this issue. He referenced a section titled "Animals" and noted no answers were given relating to birds, animals or fish that could be observed near the site or known to be on or near the site. Under that same section (5c) there is a "no" answer to the question "is the site part of a migration route?" Mr. Wright believes that answer should be yes. He emphasized SEPA mandates that it be filled out in a manner that is brief, full and complete and the signature pages states that the information has been appropriately provided and the person filling it out must then sign the document. Mr. Wright pointed out in the subject SEPA document there was no signature page and it went through the Planning Commission review process in an incomplete state. Under the section addressing "Environmental Health, all questions were answered in the negative. Mr. Wright pointed out a sewer line runs directly underneath the proposed dock area. He questioned how would the City access that sewer line, if there was a problem? And, under that same section addressing impact of noise, the answer of "none" did not take into consideration noise from a pile driver that would be required to build the dock. SEPA speaks to uniqueness.., the subject channel is the only one of its kind in the State of Washington. Mr. Wright addressed the section having to do with AESTHETICS and the question "What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antenna? The corresponding answer was N/A. Mr. Wright stated when the low tide is out there will be 15 foot towers and when it is full the structures will stick out of the water 3-4 feet. And, under that same section (10b) it questions what views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The corresponding answer was "NONE". Under the section addressing RECREATION, Mr. Wright questioned the "NONE" answer to the question: "What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate area?" He pointed out the uses of water skiing, swimming, boating, walkers along the beach, etc. He emphasized the Planning Department personnel gave the answers no credence. Mr. Wright referenced Section D(5) - SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET For NONPROJECT ACTIONS - How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Corresponding answer - NOT LIKELY. In Mr. Wright's view that was TAPE #1489 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 23 of 29 a false answer because it will have an affect because other requests for docks will be brought before the Council. If the City Council finds in any other way other than in opposition to the abhorrent ruling by the Planning Department, which was done with total disregard to SEPA, they are not doing their job. He believes the Council role is to represent the people and to follow the laws of the State of Washington. The following individuals spoke in support of Mr. Wright's appeal. Gerry Peret, Marine Drive resident; Kathy Gallagher, Marine Drive resident; Kathleen Wright, Poulsbo resident; Bernard Holland, S. Marine Drive resident; Suzanne Holland, S. Marine Drive resident; John Sitton, S. Marine Drive resident. Gar Freymann, Bremerton resident. The following comments were made by the above named individuals: (1) A picture was passed out that was taken in front of Mr. Reed's home showing the narrowness of the channel at low tide. (3) safety for boaters and water skiers. (4) Installation of piling could diverting the current coming through the channel and affect the siltation process. (5) The channel has a cut throat run, smelt area next door to the Holt's property and onion jellyfish that come in and out the bay every third year. (6) The channel is filled with oyster and clam beds. (7) Variety of bird life inhabit the channel and bay areas. (8) Sea Otters also inhabit the area. (9) If approved, Council would be setting a precedent. (10) Per WAC, if additional information is provided or if there is reason to believe the DNS was obtained by misrepresentation or lack of material disclosure, then the lead agency shall withdraw the DNS. The incompleteness of the Environmental Checklist is obviously lack of material disclosure and the lead agency is required to withdraw the DNS. (11) If docks are allows on the channel that are built across from each other, 50% of the channel will be blocked and would restrict the waterway, which is public property. (12) If docks are allowed to be built along channel, it will restrict access to the City's sewer line. (13) Eighteen foot high pilings on either side of the channel are significant. (14) Recreational uses of the channel include: trout fishing, water skiing, sail boats, which will be impacted significantly if docks are allowed along the channel. (15) Misleading information as to State agency approval (Page 263 of the Council Agenda Packet). (16) The City Council's job is to be good stewards and to represent all the people, not just one individual. (17) Leave the waterways for the public's use. President Farr asked the City attorney if Mrs. Wright's statement that the lead agency "shall withdraw" leaves an option to remand the issue? Mr. Sievers stated it is based on the content and this TAPE #1489 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 24 of 29 is more of holding the applicant responsible or some intentional act of misrepresentation or materially not providing information. In those cases, the DNS is withdraw, but a new Checklist is prepared by either the agency, which would be the City, or paid for by the applicant. The checklist process is taken over because there is some intentional misrepresentation or lack of providing information. The Checklist can also be found to be inadequate or insufficient and remanded back for further information that can be provided as a supplement by the agency, which is less accusatory. Mr. Mathes stated there is only one appellant per appeal and Richard J. Wright is the appellant in this instance. He quoted the following statement from the appeal: "The relief sought is reversal of the DNS to become a "Determination of Significance." He stated even though there may be many holes in the information and under the best of circumstances more information could have been provided, he did not think Council heard the word significance, probable or likely, which are the three key words that Council needs to find in order to make a Determination of Significance. Mr. Wright's appeal references a "75-foot dock", when in actuality the proposed dock is 120 feet ( 75-foot floating dock would be attached to a 38 foot fixed pier and connected by a 10-foot gangway (not included in total length of dock), which would deal with the 18-foot tide change in the subject area. The structure would cover air space over the water, it does not cover the water surface area. Someone brought up an issue about a stone bulkhead encroachment; however, the City does not have any record on file for any encroachment and he believes the applicant has a statement obtained that the bulkhead existed in the present location on the Reed Property and the adjacent property since 1940. That document is available for Council's review. He pointed out members of the public had access to the drawings of the dock that showed actual dimensions. Another issue brought up was the SEPA amendment can be used to redescribe the project. This was done successfully for the Targett Dock DNS and for Kitsap Service Center when new information was available, which is recognized under SEPA rules. On file is a letter of shared use from Jane Erlandsen dated May 21, giving permission to the current location of the existing fixed pier that lies closer than the setback would normally allow. The 7.5 foot setback does exist from both the lateral and sewer main, which is the standard the City requires for access for service. The existing pier is three feet wide, as permitted and is longer than 25 feet that was permitted in 1991. Although the State Department of Fisheries has acknowledge a larger size pier is not a problem and that documentation is on file, in 1997 they do not feel it is significant and they do not provide permits in arrears, but find no relevance or significance in moving forward and attaching more dock. There was mention that the pier is illegal or non- confo£ming; however, that is not the case in that the applicant has TAPE #1489 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 25 of 29 also sought what the Shoreline Code provides. The height requirement is a Shorelines Substantial Development review issue that should not be addressed during this hearing. Addressing the issue of removal of notices at property address - the City's common practice is to post notices on properties, check them once during the notice period and then remove them at the end of that period. Mr. Mathes disagreed with the statement that one dock is misguided progress. The Shoreline Plan does enable piers and docks to be permitted within the existing guidelines and regulations. In fact, the City has provided and considered over six applications for docks and more than four are currently built. Therefore, he does not believe there is a basis for a finding of Determination of Significance; however, he agrees there is room for improving the level of information. It occurred to him that most of the people, who have acted to take on this issue, know the information that has been presented, i.e. representatives from Fisheries, Department of Ecology, etc. The following individuals spoke in support of Mr. Mathes' presentation: Jim Reed, Madrona Point Drive resident; Don Holtz Madrona Point Drive resident. ' The following comments were made by the above named individuals: (1) Usually, when someone makes an appeal or takes legal action against one issue or another their standing has to be established. No one has addressed the fact that Richard and Suzanne Wright are not residents of the City of Bremerton, but reside in Poulsbo. (2) Appellant has not provided how the proposed dock would adversely affect him personally. (3) Mr. Reed presented a signed, notarized statement that addresses the existence of the bulkhead prior to the 1971 Shoreline Master Program. (4) No information has been purposely withheld.., the environmental issues on fish runs and bird habitat have been addressed by the Department of Fisheries in a 3-page conditional HPA. (5) The ramp dimensions is not known at this point because the actual design of the dock is not final. And, the floating part of the dock will extend 75 feet into the water. (6) The side yard setback has a special exemption clause in the Shoreline Master Program, if a joint use agreement is obtained. (7) Access to the City's sewer line has been address by the setback requirements. (8) The legal term for the channel is technically the northern exit of Oyster Bay. (9) Because the City's has a moratorium on dock applications, there will not be a rush of applications until the Shoreline Master Plan is amended. (10) Bremerton needs some progress. (11) The Department of Community Development Director Donald Pratt granted approval for a 150 foot dock in Oyster Bay in May 21, 1996; and a Hydraulic Permit TAPE #1489 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 26 of 29 was granted from the Department of Fisheries, which required extensive work. (12) A professional survey by Parametrix, Inc., was presented detailing the channel to be 637 feet wide. Mr. Montgomery asked if he heard Mr. Mathes say that he makes notations on the right hand column of the Checklist as he makes his review? Mr. Mathes stated that is the procedure used, if comments are made. Out of the six DNS that have been issued since 1993, about one half have had comments on every fifth item and the other half had no remarks at all. Mr. Montgomery questioned the absence of Page 7 of the checklist? Mr. M&thes stated the appellant has looked at page 7 and agrees with the original. Mr. Montgomery stated in order to make a decision he needs complete documents. He has raised similar concern on other issues, and questioned the exclusion of a signature page? Mr. Mathes stated he was at fault for the missing Page 7 and the omission of the signature escaped his attention due to the applicant presenting other documents requiring his signature that he was providing honest information to the best of his ability. The applicant did sign the joint use application peri, it to the Department of Fisheries and to the U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers. Mr. Mathes believes the applicant was given a packet that was missing Page 7. Mr. Montgomery stated Council does not expect clerical errors and expects a complete document prior to making their decision. He would concur with the appellant that the SEPA is not a good document and understands how it could be confusing to the public. He was not ready to vote on this issue until a complete document is presented. Mr. Winters asked Don Pratt how many years he has served as the Director of Community Development for the City? Don Pratt, Director of Community Development stated 14 years. Mr. Winters asked if at some point in time during those 14 years, he experienced situations where pages were missing from documents presented to the City council? Mr. Pratt stated yes, more than once. Mr. Winters asked Mr. Pratt if his recommendation to affirm the SEPA DNS decision was 100% recommended by staff within the Department Of Community Development? Mr. Pratt stated no, they responded to the argument of the appeal and he deferred any decision to be made by the City Council. He concurred with Mr. Mathes's earlier comments that there are problems in the document. Mr. Overson questioned the kind of project that would warrant a significant determination? He pointed out the Overwater Park Project (boardwalk) did not even require an EIS. Mr. Mathes' memo to file shows a consistent history of proper determination that has been supported by State agencies and he could not find objective standard. #1634 M/S/C(Overson/Winters) Motion to affirm the SEPA DNS decision. TAPE #1489 City Council Reg. August 27, 1997 Page 27 of 29 Mtg. Minutes Mr. McConnell stated his concerns as follows: (1) the document was more concerned with building buildings on lots than the waterfront. (2) No birds or animals of any kind were identified as inhabiting the subject area. Because of that answer, Mr. McConnell suspected the accuracy of other answers. He also questioned the answer that there would be no noise associated with the proposed dock project. He noted the current Shoreline Master Program designation was listed as "NONE;" however, he assumed the Department of Community Development would have provided that information to the person filling out the form. In his opinion, the problem with this issue was not with the application for a dock, but rather the information provided by City staff. Mr. Colvin questioned the accuracy of Mr. Mathes' earlier statement that no other docks can be built after Mr. Reed's is built. Mr. Mathes questioned if he made such a statement; however, if it appeared he did he believed it referenced the moratorium that is currently in place. Mr. Colvin asked the City Attorney if that statement was accurate? Mr. Sievers explained several applications for docks have already been submitted to the Department of Community Development. During the moratorium no docks will be built; however, that is a short duration and applications for new docks will be submitted under new regulations. Mrs. Huff-Menees stated she shared Mr. McConnell's opinion that the process involved with the document is an insult to the City council, Mr. Reed as an applicant and this process is an insult to the appellant and those who have spoken in support of the appeal. The regulations having to do with SEPA are very definitive and what has been presented does not come anywhere close to compliance. It disturbed her that Mr. Mathes threw off the issue of missing pages and no signatures and points within the checklist that have not been addressed. She was not impressed with his presentation and she was sincerely disappointed that the City has a process as flawed as this situation. Mr. Montgomery stated his comments on the SEPA Checklist are not a reflection on Mr. Mathes; however, the form itself is a poor example of proper documentation and he favored having the Department of Community Development take another look at this issue to get it in accordance with SEPA regulations. He did not see how he could make a determination when he did not have a good understanding of the information provided. Mr. Neville questioned if he understood correctly that the appellant's appeal was submitted May 16, 1997, and that it is to be acted upon with 90 days? He asked if there was a reason why the appeal had not been acted upon within that 90-day period? Mr. Pratt explained there were negotiations as to when these kinds of TAPE #1489 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 28 of 29 issues should be heard and decisions made. He recalled there was concurrence among the parties that going beyond the 90 days was acceptable. Mr. Neville asked Mr. Pratt to expand his explanation as to the major issues causing the delay. Mr. Pratt stated he recalled their trying to figure out how the regulatory reform requires the SEPA decision to go forward with the decision on the dock itself, which actually did not happen. Mr. Neville questioned if the easy way out was a DNS? Mr. Pratt stated he did not think it reflected on the DNS and the merits of the DNS stand alone. Mr. Neville stated an earlier comment was made that some items had been whited out in the Army Corps Of Engineer's document. He asked if there was a specific reason that should have happened, if it did? Mr. Pratt stated he did not have an explanation; however, his understanding of the process is the Army Corps of Engineers document had no bearing on the SEPA determination and has little bearing on the City's actual decision on the Shoreline Permit itself. Mr. Mathes explained the applications go to the City at the same time they are processed through the State agencies and that was the reason why there was no identification number, date of application or date of approval for the three permits listed. It is not an omission or white-out, just the best information available at the time. President Farr asked Mr. Mathes to clarify if a DNS is overturned, will it automatically invoke the requirement for the applicant to prepare an EIS? Mr. Mathes stated as he understood SEPA rules, overturning the decision allows the Council to either find that there is a Determination of Significance and immediately following that decision EIS scoping would occur. TAPE #1490 During that EIS scoping process, the applicant would have the opportunity to address each impact as it comes up and if it is possible to mitigate those impacts there could be a finding of Mitigated Determination of Nonsignifiance (MDNS). The MDNS would be something between the DNS and DS finding, but is an inner active process that would happen after Council's decision. The City Council could make a decision, at this time, to overturn the DNS and either stipulate exactly what Council wants in replacement of that DNS or leave it open for the process under the rules to decide if it would be a MDNS or EIS President Farr asked if Mr. Mathes had seen very many requirements for applicants to prepare an EIS on a 75 foot wooden floating dock? Mr. Mathes stated no, and his research included looking to other Puget Sound regional areas. President Farr stated he believes there are problems with the preparation of this particular form, and on a broader issue some of the Council feels the form isn't appropriate to all situations, which is not the issue before TAPE #1490 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 27, 1997 Page 29 of 29 Council. His preference, if Council takes action to make corrections, is to send the form back to have the blanks filled in and have a more judicial scruteny. Mr. Montgomery pointed out the proposal is to construct a pier, not a "little wooden float", which could impact navigation. The question before Council is whether or not the DSN is correct and he believes it is not. #0101 Vote on motion: In Favor: Winters, Farr, Overson Opposed: Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Neville, Law, McConnell, Colvin Motion failed. #0124 M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) To remand to Department of Community Development to require complete, sufficient and detailed information in the SEPA Checklist on thosequestions that cover the major environmental issues on this project, to be used for a new threshold determination. President Fart thanked the TV camera crew for their services: Bob Neil and James Nobel, Jr. With no further business meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. City of Bremerton PJ/DF/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault