Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/23/97 TAPE #1512 CITY COUCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 23, 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 December 23 1997, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President David Farr presiding. Council members present were Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff- Menees, Richard Neville, Lon Overson, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and Al Colvin. Also present were City Attorney lan Sievers and Acting City Clerk Rich Hanna. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Farr and invocation given by Reverend Bill Wambsganss of the West Side Baptist Church. President Farr made the following announcements: 1. Council held a Study Session prior to the Council meeting to discuss general Council business. 2. Immediately prior to the Council meeting Council held an Executive Session to discuss "labor negotiations" and "potential litigation". CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - December 10, 1997 #AB97-266 B. Bid Award Recommendation To Holt Drilling #AB97-267 Gorst Monitoring Wells/Water Utility #0027 M/S/C/U (Neville/Montgomery) Motion 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. #0046 M/S/C/U (Colvin/Montgomery) On December 23, 1997, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 215461 through 215589 in the amount of $292,414.17; and Regular Payroll for the period ending December 15, 1997, in the amount of $729,245.45. TAPE #1512 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 23, 1997 Page 2 of 14 COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Colvin wished Ken Thorton "Happy Retirement and Merry Christmas". He commended the Bremerton Yacht Club for their excellent Christmas Boat Parade. He thanked April Chandler for her gift to the City Council and wished everyone a "Happy Holiday Season and prosperous New Year". Mr. McConnell wished everyone a "Merry Christmas" and cautioned drivers to watch out for children, who are out of school and daylight hours are shorter. Mr. Law recognized and wished every success to Elizabeth Brenner, Publisher of THE SUN, who is leaving to take a position with the Tacoma News Tribune. He believes Ms. Brenner has been a real help to the whole peninsula and specifically the Bremerton area. He wished everyone a "Happy Holiday'. Mr. Overson wished everyone a "Happy Holiday". Mr. Neville wished everyone a "safe and very Merry Christmas". Mrs. Huff-Menees - extended a "Merry Christmas" wish. Mr. Montgomery wished everyone a "Merry Christmas". He was concerned over a newspaper article in today's "SUN" announcing members of Congress had approved a $3,072.82 salary increase for themselves within a little noticed Postal Service Appropriation. He feels strongly that salary increases for elected officials should be voted on by the constituents and there should be a law that each bill has to stand alone on its own merits and not be married into the back of another. Mr. Farr wished his fellow Council members and members of the public a "Merry Christmas". MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Lynn Horton congratulated James Docter on his being sworn in today as the City's Municipal Court Judge and wished him the best of luck with his new duties as Judge of the Bremerton Municipal Court. She wished everyone a very "Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays". PUBLIC RECOGNITION John Thomas, Bremerton resident, wished everyone a "Merry Christmas", and noted Councilman Colvin will be missed upon his retires from the City Council. Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association (BMSA), wished everyone "Happy Holidays", and presented an Appreciation plaque to Councilman Al Colvin for his years of support to BMSA. TAPE #1512 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 23, 1997 Page 3 of 14 8A - ACCEPTANCE OF BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT- 1998, #AB97-268 The City has been awarded $48,116.00 from the U.S. Department of Justice for the year 1998. The Mayor must accept this block grant within the next two weeks. We request approval for the Mayor to accept. These funds will be included in the 1998 budget and presented to Council during budget review. Police Captain Joe Hatfield stated the grant funds will be used to purchase four Police vehicles. Public comment - none. Mr. McConnell pointed out the $48,116.00 of taxes that the public has paid to higher government sources that are now benefiting the Bremerton community. #0290 MISICIU (Montgomery/Huff-Menees) Motion to accept this block grant. Captain Haffield express his thanks and the Police Department's to the City Council for their efforts throughout the year dealing with hard issues that affect the whole community. He wished everyone "Happy Holidays". 8B - CONTRACT AMENDMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH AGI, #AB97-269 AGI is currently providing a water rights audit and analysis for the City of Bremerton Water Utility. The amount of information on the City's water rights, going back to the early 1900's, was significantly more than anticipated at the start of this project. A scope change includes assistance in providing data and analysis per a recent request from the Department of Ecology. This amendment is to increase the budget for this project from $9,750 to $14,000, and to change the expiration date to March 30, 1998. Kathleen Cahall, Water Resources Manager, stated she would be available to answer questions. Public comment - none. #0364 M/S/C/U (Huff-Menees/Montgomery) Motion to approve amendment and authorize the Mayor to sign subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures. 8C - LABOR AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND THE GENERAL TEAMSTERS' LOCAL UNION #589, #AB97-270 TAPE #1512 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 23, 1997 Page 4 of 14 Pursuant to RCW 41.56, negotiations have concluded between representatives of the City and the General Teamsters' Local Union No. 589, resulting in the attached Labor Agreement. These negotiations have been discussed with Council in Executive Session. This Labor Agreement's term is January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2000. It has been ratified by the Union's membership. Council approval is required to implement the new agreement. Jim Meith, Human Resources Manager, stated contract negotiations began on October 8, 1997 and involved nine negotiation sessions. In July of 1997, the Teamsters' negotiating team and the Management negotiating team attended a two day training session that was conducted by the Federal Conciliation and Mediation Service on a collaborative or interest based bargaining. He believes the result of that training brought forth a 3-year contract that clarified language, a wage increase for 1998 of 2.94%, and several language enhancements. Public comment - none Mr. McConnell referenced Article 5.6.1.1 - "standby rates", and questioned if it was referring to beyond two hours or two days? Mr. Meith stated it would be beyond "two days". The reason that clarification was included was in the instances where employees mutually agree with their supervisors to work a 4-10 schedule where they might have three days off or work a 9-80 schedule where they may get a 3-day weekend every other week. In the cases where the employee made the request, the administration and employees felt it was not appropriate to get the extra standby for the extra day off. Mr. McConnell referenced Article 28 and asked the number of certificates that can be received by WWTP operators above group 2? Mr. Meith stated he believed it went to a 4- level certificate. Mr. Overson complimented Mr. Meith on getting this contract worked out in a fairly short period of time and mutually compatible to both sides. #0478 MISICIU (Montgomery/Neville) Motion to approve the Labor Agreement by and between the City of Bremerton and the Teamsters' Local Union No. 589 January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2000 and make the necessary change in the 1998 Budget. 9A - ORDINANCE #4617 (SECOND READING) AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON IN THE OYSTER BAY AVENUE AREA, SOUTH OF WERNER ROAD, #AB97-265 Public comment - none. TAPE #1512 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 23, 1997 Page 5 of 14 #0520 MISICIU (Montgomery/Colvin) Motion to pass Ordinance .#4617, on second reading, amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Bremerton in the Oyster Bay Avenue area, south of Werner Road. 9B - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) SETTING WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES~ #AB97-271 The proposed ordinance will increase the City's retail water and wastewater rates by an average of 3.5 percent effective February 1, 1998. Staff analysis has demonstrated that this increase is necessary to allow the utility to pay for current operations and to implement the capital improvements, which are mandated to meet environmental and water quality regulations. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated in an attempt to avoid the type of dramatic rate that the City found necessary to implement in late 1993, the financial planning and capital planning of the utility has been based on regular, periodic increases in the rates for both water and wastewater. The intention is to try and match the City's rate increase changes in the general CPI Index. We are not falling behind inflation like what happened in the past that necessitated those large increases. The rate increases presented in the proposed ordinance are on the "fixed" rather than the "volumetrid' portions of the bill. The reason for that action is twofold: (1) the issue of equity to the Utility's customers; (2) good financial management of the utilities. Roughly 85% of the revenue from both utilities comes from the volumetric portion of the bill. whereas on the expense side of the operation, most of the costs of providing utility service across a wide range of volumes is essentially fixed. By making the periodic rate increases on the fixed portion brings about a better balance between the fixed and volume driven portion of the utility revenue. In dollar terms, this increase means an in- city single family residential customer will see a 35 cent per month increase in their water bill and a $1.10 increase in their monthly sewer bill, with no change to the stormwater portion. John Thomas, Bremerton resident, asked if this increase was based solely on inflation or on actual costs. Mr. Hanna explained the nature of the utility business is very capital intensive. CPI affects the operation and maintenance costs pretty much directly as inflation affects price of goods and services. An important aspect, in planning for the utilities, is to keep the utilities infrastructure in good operating order and to meet very stringent environmental regulations, i.e. Safe Drinking Water Act, mandates for separation of stormwater and sanitary sewers, and all the other regulations that have come down from the Federal level on the wastewater side. The 1997 budget reflects 10 million dollars of capital improvements to the City's wastewater system, not expanding the service area, but to meet those mandated environmental upgrades. TAPE #1512 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 23, 1997 Page 6 of 14 Mr. McConnell asked for clarification why a 3-member family living in a duplex is charged $1.10 less than a 3-memer family living in a single family dwelling on the wastewater portion of the bill. Mr. Hanna explained in this case it is a single meter and two living units are billed on a single bill. It is essentially a multi-family rate. Mr. McConnell believed three people living together would create approximately the same amount of wastewater no matter what kind of structure they lived in. Mr. Hanna .pointed out the volumetric charge would be the same, it is based on water consumption. The commodity charge in both cases is $3.70 per 100 cubic feet. Mr. McConnell questioned if a duplex had two water meters would the charge go up from $5.10 to $6.40 per unit? Mr. Hanna stated yes. Mr. Law questioned the impact on the average user? Mr. Hanna stated assuming that the customers are living in a single family resident inside the City, water service will increase by 35 cents per month and sewer service will increase by $1.10 per month. If that customer's current bill were $25.00 per month for the combined utilities, that would represent a 5.8% increase. If the current bill were $50.00 per month, it would represent a 2.9% rate increase; and if it were $75,00 that would represent a 1.9% increase. Mr. Law stated when this issue was presented in a Study Session, the majority of the Council accepted the proposal and he will lend his support this year; however, next year he will fight to see that the base does not increase any more than the percentage on the volume. He recognized that would cause management a challenge because the income may vary, but the budget is put together for the whole year and projections are made to cover that timeframe. Mr. Hanna stated Mr. Law's comments are duly noted. Mr. Overson stated there is not a universal feeling on the Council that increases should be all on the fixed rate, but there is a strong feeling by other Council members that it should be; therefore, next year's discussion should be lively. President Farr stated he and Mr. Law were at complete odds on this issue and he will argue just as effectively to keep the increases on the base rate because increases on the volumetric brings adverse affects to the point where people move out of the City because of the cost of utilities. In his research, he recalled that out of 88 utilities throughout the State of Washington, Bremerton is one of few that base wastewater usage on water usage. He is a firm believer that the fairest way to implement an increase is to place it all on the base cost. #0957M/S/C/U (Montgomery/Huff-Menees) Motion to approve ordinance, on first reading, setting utility rates. 9C - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DOCKS/PIERS IN OYSTER BAY CHANNEL The Washington State Department of Ecology implements the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. The city develops the program, the State reviews TAPE #1512 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 23, 1997 Page 7 of 14 and approves/denies, the State adopts the plan as law, the State and City enforce. The City Council, in August 1997, found the issue of permitting docks/piers within Oyster Bay Channel to have serious concerns adequate to institute a moratorium on any dock/pier construction pending a review of the Shoreline Master Program. The Planning Commission has completed their review of the pertinent portions of the Master Program and has recommended that docks and piers be prohibited within the channel. This recommendation has been forwarded to the City Council. The City Council must approve any requests for amendments to the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. Kay Wilson, Department of Community Development, stated a SEPA review was made on the proposal, an environmental review of an environmental checklist. The SEPA official issued a Determination of Non-significance (DNS) on the proposal. The comment period for the DNS is running currently and it will not become final until after 5:00 P.M., on December 26, 1997. Final action on this proposal will not take place until second reading of the ordinance on December 30, 1997. The staff report for the continued hearing will contain a report on the final status of the DNS or if it was revised for any reason due to public comment, or any information Council might request during this discussion. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on October 21, 1997. The Commission passed a Resolution recommending two changes to the Shoreline Master Program: (1) that Table 3-1 of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) be corrected to correspond with the regulations contained in item 6, page 5-19. This proposal was based on a misunderstanding in interpretation of the chart. Staff recommends dropping this proposal because there was no correction to be made. Unfortunately, advice from Department of Community Development staff was misleading, incorrect, and led to the Planning Commission's recommendation to implement that change. (2) That a special Shoreline Master Program Environment Designation be established for the Oyster Bay entrance channel that will prohibit piers, docks and other incompatible uses and activities while allowing activities that are compatible with the channel's unique environment. Staff reviewed this recommendation and felt it was probably going to create other problems of bringing other parts of the text into consistency with the change and came up with a way to accomplish the Planning Commission's recommendation in a more simple fashion through text amendment. Ms. Wilson used a viewgraph showing the Oyster Bay Channel, which is the channel that runs between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay, between Madrona Point and the Marine Drive Peninsula. The second viewgraph presented was a blow-up of the TAPE #1512 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 23, 1997 Page 8 of 14 Oyster Bay Channel that was prepared for a dock proposal approximately two years ago that was not approved. However, she could not verify the numbers showing the distances between four different points within the channel until second reading of the ordinance. That data reflected at point A at the head of the channel the unobstructed width was 225 feet, at point B it was 190 feet, at point C it was 290 feet, and at point D it was 250 feet. This information substantiates the fact that the channel is very narrow and is already somewhat obstructed by existing objects; however, those objects are floating and boats can navigate around them. A third viewgraph was displayed, which was produced for that prior dock application by an Engineering firm, showing at one point in the channel the Iow and high tide lines and how a particular dock would have projected into the channel at that point. The map reflected there is actually 637 feet shoreline-to-shoreline Ms. Wilson noted she did not have time to verify that information prior to this discussion. Mr. Mont.qomery questioned the appropriateness of using the maps that had not been verified. Mr. Law pointed out that information was not appropriate to even present to Council since it was not verified by staff. President Farr agreed with Mr. Law and asked her to not include information in her presentation that had not been verified. Mr. Colvin asked the City Attorney to comment on that point, lan Sievers, City Attorney, a check should be made on the credibility of the exhibits. Mrs. Wilson pointed out the proposed ordinance would adopt the amendments to the Shoreline Master Program, i.e., (1) a change to Table 3-1 Shoreline Use/Activity Matrix and would add a footnote - "little #9 under the RS Column for Piers and Docks - Piers and docks are prohibited in the entrance channel to Oyster Bay as depicted in Figure 3-5". (Note - Figure 3-5 is a map of the exact parcels that would be affected through the channel.) (2) Add a new subsection to Chapter 3F, which is titled Environment Specific Regulations... adding one heading "Oyster Bay Channel" and one sentence that reads: "Piers and docks are prohibited in the entrance channel to Oyster Bay as depicted in Figure 3-5". (3) Amend Regulation 10 - Piers/Docks reading as follows: Prohibited: Piers and floating docks shall be prohibited where navigation may be impaired significantly at entrances to bays, channels, or coves. No piers or floatinq docks will be permitted in the channel between Ostrich and Oyster Bays. Mrs. Wilson pointed out a typographical error in the ordinance and suggested the following revised language: "Piers or floatinq docks will not be permitted in the channel between Ostrich and Oysters Bays". This change is recommended so that it reads the same as the actual proposal appears. The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance: Bernard Holland, South Marine Drive; Kathleen Wdqht, Poulsbo resident; Gerry Perett, South Marine Drive; Susan Holland, South Marine Drive; Dick Wright, Poulsbo resident; and Sandy Verhelst, Kitsap Way. TAPE #1512 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 23, 1997 Page 9 of 14 The following comments were made in support of the proposed ordinance: (1) channel between Ostrich and Oyster Bays is a shod and narrow waterway. (2) The channel itself is the best testimony in support of restricting docks and piers from that area. (3) The Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of the prohibition of docks and piers within the channel. (4) Protect the rights of the general public to the use of these waters. (5) The public trust doctrine states that when covered by water, all of those lands in the channel are public domain. (6) Channel is a unique body of water, there is none other like it in the State of Washington. (7) Specific quotes from various Planning Commission members were recited into the record that were made at the time the Planning Commission voted on their recommendation to the Council. (8) The Noah map was an accurate map of the channel. (9) Council was asked not to take as gospel the comments made relating to the devaluing of property if this proposal is approved. (10) Prospective property purchasers are just as apt to want unobstructed beaches and waterways. (11) Preserve shorelines for the public to enjoy safely. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance: Joy Hemandez, Madrona Point Drive resident; Jim Reed, Madrona Point Drive resident; and Don Floltz, Madrona Point Drive resident. The following comments were made in opposition to the proposed amendments: (1) Property rights should not be taken away when there is a process already in place to protect the public, safety, and enjoyment of the waterways. (2) Property values will be adversely affected due to limitations placed on use of waterfront properties. (3) Question - is it not true, if the DNS is not a standing document for the proposed amendment, then no final vote can be taken? (4) Department of Community Development is unprepared and the information provided was inadequate and incorrect. (5) 61 property owners would have their property values lowered/devalued with only 10 property owners being notified of the proposed action. Kay Wilson stated in response to Mr. Reed's question about when a final vote can be taken if the DNS is still in the comment period, which is the case in this instance. Mr. Reed challenged or if it is appealed, then it is not a standing DNS. Mr. Sievers stated there has not been a decision made on the SEPA appeal since the comment period does not expire until end of day Friday, December 26. Those comments will be reviewed and by whom to determine who has standing to bring an appeal, if any appeals are filed. The SEPA statute and WAC do not require an aggregation of the underlying government decision with procedural SEPA appeals. The City intends to go ahead with first and second reading of the ordinance, If there is a final DNS issued after end of day December 26. Mr. Reed stated if in fact there is a final DNS issued after the comment period. Mr. Sievers stated that was correct and Mrs. Wilson stated her report the following week will be supplemented as to whether it was a final DNS issued or if it was TAPE #1512 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 23, 1997 Page 10 of 14 withdrawn or modified. Mr. Reed stressed an appeal has been filed on the DNS issued by the Director of Community Development. The Director drafted the SEPA Checklist, then read his own information and issued a DNS. Because an appeal has been filed on the DNS it means the DNS is not a standing document, Therefore, Council would be going against Department of Ecology procedure if they take a final vote on the proposed amendment before there was a standing DNS. He submitted a videotape of the boating traffic patterns in summer of 1996 within the subject channel. He asked that each Council member view the tape since some of them had not participated in an earlier tour of that area. He noted he previously submitted this tape to the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Fisheries, Department of Ecology and the Department of Community Development. He pointed out all Council members have taken an oath of impartiality. He asked why is this amendment being proposed. He challenged what does the existing current SMP not do that this amendment will do. Mr. Law stated in order for him to have a clearer understanding he needed clarification on several points: (1) the study that won't finalize until December 26; (2) define the organization; (3) how does it influence Council's decision; (4) does this negate a decision if Council had to have input from that group or organization. Mr. Sievers explained Council can not take final action on this non-project action until there is a final DNS issued by the SEPA Official, which is expected to be completed by the end of the comment period on December 26. As Ms. Wilson stated earlier, if as a result of the comments a decision is made to withdraw the DNS, then second reading of the ordinance would have to be canceled until a new DNS and new comment period had been completed. Therefore, if there is a final DNS Council can act on second reading of the ordinance on December 30. If persons file appeals after the final DNS is issued, State law and the WACs do not require consolidation of that appeal with the underlying final decision on this non-project action where it is a procedural appeal. Mr. Law asked then Council could vote on the issue without having all the facts. Mr. Sievers explained all Council needed was a final DNS that has a presumption of validity regardless of the appeals that may be heard later in January 1998. Mr. Law asked if the Planning Commission was proper and correct giving their decision without having that same information. Mr. Sievers explained the Planning Commission had a Checklist, which was based on the moratorium to consider regulations, but it was uncertain what the scope or direction of those regulations would be. The Checklist and DNS was finally issued once the Planning Commission approved the Resolution identifying the direction so that an evaluation of impacts could be made and have the draft DNS issued and having a comment period. Mr. Law stated what he was hearing was that the Planning Commission does not have to have all of the facts and rulings when they make their decision. Mr. Sievers pointed out the Commission was asked to consider changes, if any, to the regulations under the referral from the City Council under the Moratorium Resolution and they did a Checklist based on TAPE #1512 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 23, 1997 Page 11 of 14 that referral and their recommendation was forwarded in the form of a Resolution and the Checklist was amended and the DNS was then able to be issued since there was a specific proposal and action that was proposed. It is always a difficult item under SEPA in pinning down when the proposal reaches a point of clarification sufficient to do a Checklist and a DNS. In this case, it was very uncertain whether a change would be proposed at the Planning Commission stage. It was determined the proposal was not sufficiently clear for environmental review until after the Planning Commission's Resolution was issued and the DNS completed. Mr. Law stated his concern was to not create a situation where we have appeal items if Council votes at this time verses voting after all the appeal time had passed. He asked if it was fiscally responsible for the Council to vote on this issue at this time or wait until those final dates? Mr. Sievers stressed there is no problem for Council to vote on the issue at first reading of the ordinance because it is not a final decision. He anticipates a final DNS to be issued before the date when Council would make the final decision on second reading of the ordinance. There may be subsequent appeals, administrative, judicial, etc., but the Council can clear its agenda of this legislative item and see how it falls out. We will need to be assured that administrative appeals are exhausted in case there is an appeal that is successful that overturns a DNS If we do have to go back and do a DS or environmental Impact Statement, this ordinance automatically becomes null and void. It is Council's prerogative to determine what is the most efficient use of their time and less confusing process in making a decision. Mr. Colvin asked if there is an appeal on file? Mr. Sievers stated we have what is characterized as an appeal, but the time for filing an appeal is not until the final DNS is issued. We'lt consider that as an appeal if the applicant wants to turn it into an appeal after December 26. What we have now is considered to be comments and that person will certainly have an opportunity to have it turn into an appeal. Mr. Colvin asked if there is any legal requirement or legal rights for a property owner to enhance their property by building on public land? Mr. Sievers stated he was not sure who owns title to tidelands concerned in this issue, which is water at the high tide mark. The State has a mix of ownerships... having some tide lands granted, in other cases the Department of Natural Resources actually has title to tidelands. The public resource is the area that can be covered by water up to the high tide mark. The Shoreline Master Program is designed to protect those public resources. Mr. Colvin asked if the City had any legal obligation to grant permission to build on public land? Mr. Sievers stated there is no obligation, the Council does have the right to regulate shorelines, and those regulations may prohibit certain uses. TAPE #151,,'3 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 23, 1997 Page 12 of 14 TAPE #1513 Mr. Montgomery stated the following points of clarification: (1) The Planning Commission does not hear SEPA issues. If the SEPA is issued, there is an appeal process that comes directly to the City Council. (2) Quoted from Washington Shoreline Access Report by Ralph W. Johnson, Professor of Law Conference 1991: "The Public Trust document is an ancient doctrine that has been applied in both England and United States. In two 1987 decisions the Washington Supreme Court affirmed that this document is now and has always been part of the law of Washington. The Public Trust doctrine addresses questions of access and the use of commercial navigable waters and beds and recreational navigable waters, tidelands, shorelands, wetlands, and dry sand areas. Historically, the Public Trust doctrine applies to waters and beds of navigable waters, lakes, both salt and fresh, up to the high tide mark on salt water and the high water mark on fresh water lakes and streams. All the navigable waters of the land beneath them to be held in Trust for the people in recognition that unrestricted access to navigable waters and the harvest area was a necessary public right." #0026 M/SIC (Montgomery/Overson) Motion to approve ordinance, on first reading, amending the Shoreline Master Program, adopted by Ordinance #,1365, to restrict docks and piers in the channel between Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay Mr. Overson stated a point was made of other doctrine that controls the establishment of any hazards to navigation. Apparently the City does not feel that those controlling documents are sufficient and the proposed amendments are necessary. He asked if the City Attorney was aware of the other documents? Mr. Sievers stated he was not which documents Mr. Overson was making reference to. Mr. Overson asked if other documents control the establishment of docks/piers or is that in the control of the City? Ms. Wilson explained the City's Shoreline Master Program controls where and how docks may be constructed. That program is also approved by the State of Washington, so the City administers a City/State regulation. Mr. Over'son stated then it is the Department of Community's view that is not sufficient and the proposed amendment is pertinent. Ms. Wilson stated for clarification that the Planning Commission proposes the proposal before Council and the staff is making the presentation. Mr. McConnell stated from the documentation provided it appears that possibly 70 piers could be built on the channel. In his opinion, it would take far fewer than 70 to impair the traffic route for boats for those living on Oyster Bay. He agreed with the theory that the water in that area is public property and should be free to be enjoyed by all of the public. TAPE #151.~ City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 23, 1997 Page 13 of 14 Mrs. Huff-Menees stated although earlier this year there was a site visit that was organized by the Planning Commission that included a few Council members, that did not mean that other Council members were not familiar with the channel. She grew up in this area, had traveled that waterway many times, and was familiar with it from the water side and shore side and the changes that have taken place over time. Mr. Neville thanked the Planning Commission for the hard work that Council gave them in August to review the SMP, which was undertaken very diligently. The Commission qualified the statement of their feelings and he felt strongly that Council should uphold their findings, which he will support. President Farr stated he would vote in opposition to this ordinance change. He based his decision on the fact that he had owned waterfront property for over 10 years on a fairly narrow channel and spent many years as a boater that included traveling up and down the subject channel many times. He feels strongly about property rights; however, he tried to place himself on both sides of the issue in order to understand the passion and feelings of the property owners opposing piers. He also could very easily identify with property owners and would feel very much offended by someone taking away his right to use his property that existed when he purchased the property and that right remains with the people living in areas other than the subject area. He questioned the analogy if Council doesn't approves the proposal there will be a huge number of piers built in the channel. In regard to the issue of speeding boats, he feels strongly that if this is a safety issue it is wrong to punish the people who have not made the violation by taking away their rights. If there is a concern that there will be people at risk due to safety issues because of speeding in the channel, then that needs to be addressed, not taking away an individual right to build a pier. Vote on Motion: In Favor: Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Neville, Overson, Law, McConnell, and Colvin Opposed: Farr Motion carried. President Farr thanked the TV camera crew for their services: Bob Neal, Vern Herrick, and Mike Peebles. With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:22 P.M. TAPE #151 ~, City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 23, 1997 Page 14 of 14 DAVID FARR, City Co[~ncil Presi~lent City of Bremerton P J/DF/me cc: Normal Distribution FileNault