Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/28/96TAPE #1401 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES COUNCIL APPROVED AUGUST 28, 1996 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, August 28, 1996, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present were Bob Winters, Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees, Richard Neville, Lon Overson, and Cecil McConnell. Councilmen David Farr and A1 Colvin were absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Law and Invocation given by Reverend Donna Frey De Cou of Summit Avenue Presbyterian Church. CONSENT AGENDA - NONE #0017 CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTER8 Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. M/S/C/U(Overson/Montgomery) on August 28, 1996, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: EFT, 200683, 200878 through 201099 in the amount of $773,807.81; and Retirees' Payroll for the period ending 8-31-96 in the amount of $95,365.60. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS President Law announced Councilman Colvin was absent from the meeting due to his attending a gathering of the Tuskagee Airmen in Seattle. Mr. McConne11 announced the next District #2 Neighborhood Meeting will be held on September 10, 6:00 P.M., at Fire Station #3. The topic of discussion at that meeting will be the "proposed revised City Charter". Mr. Overson announced on September 10, 7:00 P.M., a Neighborhood Information New Work meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers, with the subject of discussion being "Sinclair Landing Project". Mr. Montgomery reported on the following; (1) his enjoyment of the Kitsap County Fair, particularly the musical performance of Leanne Rimes, a 13-year old vocalist. (2) He attended the last Concert on TAPE #1401 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 28, 1996 Page 2 of 16 the Boardwalk and was pleased to report none of outdoor concerts experienced rain. (3) He too was disappointed that the USS Missouri will most likely be moved to the State of Hawaii, which in his opinion would preclude the majority of the citizens of the continental United States from visiting it due to the cost of travel. The U.S. Congress will be making the final decision about the Missouri, but he doubted there would be a change from the recommendation that Hawaii be its final resting place. Nevertheless, the Sinclair Landing Project will proceed as originally planned and will be successful. (4) Mr. Montgomery read two letters addressed to Del Knauss from Richard Neville, City Council Vice President and Mary McClure, Executive Director of Sinclair Landing Association (SLA), in response to Mr. Knauss's concerns relating to City Council members attending an event at McCormick Woods on August 2, that was hosted by SLA and Fletcher Wright Inc.. Both of the letters emphasized the fact that the activity was a social event, not a formal meeting. Mrs. McClure's letter also addressed membership of the Gateway Committee in order to address an issue raised by Mr. Knauss that having Jerry Menees serve on that committee created a conflict of interest for Councilman Huff-Menees when future issues relating to the project come before Council for a vote. Mr. Winters stated two weeks ago he exhausted City staff members and Council members over a lease agreement regarding the amount of potential lost revenue for the City over placing of communication towers and antennas on City property by commercial entities. He feels strongly that this is a very important issue for the City and he will continue to investigate the exact dollars and how much revenue is potentially lost to the City. He announced District #9's annual Neighborhood Meeting will be held September 9, 1996, 7:00 P.M., at his residence located at 1104 Carr Blvd. He noted it is important to support youth fund raising activities, which seem to be quite prevalent at this time of year. Lastly, he and his family recently visited Disneyland and he continues to believe that theme parks and a place of destination is truly successful in some cities and he hoped someday Bremerton could head in that direction because it is a good family way to create jobs. Mr. Law announced the next District #3 Neighborhood Meeting will be held on September 17, 1996, 7:00 P.M., at the Senior Center. Police Chief Paul DuFresne will be the guest speaker at that meeting. Lastly, he announced Council will hold a Study Session immediately following the Council meeting to discuss Comprehensive Plan Amendments. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Lynn Hotton brought good news .... the City has been ranked #1 to receive an EDA grant in the amount of $300,000 to be matched by TAPE #1401 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 28, 1996 Page 3 of 16 the City for improvements to Evergreen Park. The City placed #1 out of 61 projects. Presently, the City is in the bid process for the relocation of 14th Street and soon the Street Department will demolish the existing restroom, which will be rebuilt, and, work will begin on some shoreline restoration. She is also moving forward with property acquisition along the southern portion of Smith Cove; however, further soil contamination sampling must be completed before finalizing the Consent Decree in order to acquire that property. Mayor Horton read the following Proclamation: (1) September 2 through October 1, 1996 as Washington Water Weeks. Don Larson, President of Washington Scuba Alliance, accepted the Proclamation and announced Washington Scuba Alliance and Sinclair Inlet Action Committee will sponsor a clean up on September 21, starting at the First Street Dock. Information on the clean up event is available by calling 373-5367. Mayor Horton stated the loss of retaining the USS Missouri has been a real concern to a lot of people and whether or not another ship will be pursued has not been determined; however, that issue will be given careful review. She does not believe that another ship can come in and simply replace the Missouri, both from a community support standpoint and a financial standpoint, so careful review needs to be given in order to build consensus if the Missouri is to be replaced with something else. PUBLIC RECOGNITION President Law announced following a concern raised by a citizen, Council will no longer record citizen's addresses or phone numbers in the City Council Meeting Minutes. When known, individuals speaking before the City Council will be identified as "Bremerton resident", "County resident" or some other identified city. De1 Knauss thanked Richard Neville for his response to his questions brought up on August 14, however, he still felt that Council members should have notified the public of their plans to attend or the fact that they did attend the August 2nd event at McCormick Woods. He referenced Mary McClure's letter and the fact that his item #2 was never answered...are we talking about one-way traffic for Burwell and 6th Street? In his opinion, public tax dollars were spent, approximately $335.00 on the "social event", which he felt should have been open to the public. Anne Albright, Gina Cruz, Colleen Banny, Patty Robson, all Bremerton residents, expressed concern over drug and crime activity, gang activity, child neglect, vandalism, loud parties, fighting and prostitution in there neighborhood (1000 block of 4th and 5th Street) that goes on day and night. Calls have been made TAPE #1401 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 28, 1996 Page 4 of 16 to the Police Department; however, they have not received relief from the disturbing activity and they are afraid to let their children play outside because of the danger it presents. Mariwyn Tinsley reported on the upcoming Constitution Day Luncheon on September 15, and the award of the Martin Luther King Bridge Builder Award. Mark Moshay and Phil Monorief invited everyone to attend a Labor Day Rally and Protest Demonstration on the waterfront boardwalk on September 2, 1996, 4:00 P.M.. Matthew Palermini, representing Harrison Memorial Hospital, thanked the 63 blood donors at the August 26 Blood Draw. Another Blood Drawing will be held on August 30, at the South Kitsap Health Care Campus from 1:00 PM - 7:00 P.M.. Don Larson, President Washington Scuba Alliance, announced the EPA has a free activity guide for Water Weeks and can be obtained by calling 1-800-424-4EPA. He also announced an International Under Water Clean Up will be held September 21. He was sad to see the Missouri leaving the Bremerton area, but he supported the idea finding another battleship to take its place as a tourist attraction. He toured the USS Texas, a WWI - WWII Battleship, in Houston, Texas, which he found very interesting. Charlie Brown, Bremerton resident, noted the State of Washington funded over $300 million dollars to build a Mariner's stadium, as well as offering $3 million dollars toward retaining the USS Missouri in Bremerton and Kitsap County was willing to provide $4 million dollars for the Missouri project; but no one can find enough money to permanently solve the drug problem in Bremerton. He questioned where are the priorities? Don Atkinson, KITZ Radio, announced a Parents Rights Rally will be held on August 31, 1996, in Poulsbo from 12:00 noon to 5:00 P.M., at Rob Park, and the MC will be Mike Siegel. Emily Moshay, Bremerton resident, reported Terrie O'Neil, Municipal Services Coordinator and Lori Smith, City Council Office, assisted her in tracking down the missing flower barrel that had been placed on the corner of Burwell and Pacific. It appears the barrel was damaged due to an accident; however, it will be replaced. She thanked the Police Department for helping her get rid of some very bad drug, prostitution and crime situations. John Thomas stated he was not opposed to the City Council receiving a raise in pay, but he would like that raise to be tied to the equal percentage point of the lowest bargaining unit pay raise TAPE #1401 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 28, 1996 Page 5 of 16 given to City employees. Should Council decide to tie it to the CPI, he suggested to modify the current bargaining units contracts to raise their's to that CPI. 7A - LEASE/AGREEMENT WITH AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES (ALSO KNOWN A8 WESTERN TELEPAGE), #AB96-181 The City of Bremerton formerly had three leases with AT&T (2 for the Cheryl Drive site and one for the Olympus Drive site). Monthly payments for these three sites were approximately $1,100.00. During renegotiations, it was determined that it would be prudent to re-examine monthly rates and to combine the three leases into two. The method of payment would be based on the total number of frequencies utilized by Western Telepage at$250.00 per frequency. They currently had five frequencies and were adding one additional which brought the monthly rent to $1,500.00 (excluding tax). Paul Lucas, Public Works and Utilities Department, stated no construction is involved with this proposal and is simply AT&T installing antennas on existing communication towers. Revenues to the City will increase as a result of this proposal and the $250.00 per frequency is pretty much the standard for the industry in the area for that particular type of addition. He noted several minor editorial changes were made to the agreement as follows: last paragraph and last line of section i - Premises...delete the words and emergency aenerator. Under Section 4 - Compensation - the first sentence shall read as follows: "Lessee shall pay Lessor a monthly rental charge of $1,250.00 per month in addition to leasehold excise tax and the other lease at $250.00 per month in addition to applicable leasehold excise tax. Under Section 7 - Taxes, second sentence shall read: "Lessor shall pay all real property taxes attributable to the property and lessee shall pay lease hold taxes as required. Public comment - none. Mr. Neville asked if he understood correctly that the City would receive $250.00 per additional frequency and that rate would be adjusted each year according to the CPI? Mr. Lucas stated yes. Mr. Neville asked if we are 3-4 years into the contract and the original $250.00 charge for each additional frequency is now $280.00, according to the agreement that new frequency comes in at $250.00, or would it come in at the new adjusted price? Mr. Lucas stated he assumed that with the CPI increases any additional frequency would come in at that higher rate; however, the contract does not clarify that point and felt it was something that could be negotiated with AT&T prior to the final signing of the agreement. Mr. Neville asked if the proposed contract termwould start 10 days after the City signed the agreement? Mr. Lucas explained currently #2111 TAPE #1401 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 28, 1996 Page 6 of 16 AT&T has contracts with the City, the most recent one expires 6-9- 97 and AT&T can add more antennas, but it would not be at the same price negotiated in the proposed agreement. Mr. Winters referenced the comment by Mr. Lucas that $250.00 per month was the industry standard for this area. He asked who had been contacted to determine that fact. Mr. Lucas stated he talked with Dean Heistand at CENCOM, who is familiar with the communications within the area and supported that data. Also, the proposed charge was offered by AT&T and Mr. Lucas talked with Pagenet, who had approached the City, and they concurred that $250.00 per month per frequency is an acceptable charge. Mr. Neville asked if the contract needed to be amended to include that additional frequencies will be charged at the new adjusted rate rather than $250.00 per month? Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated Mr. Neville was correct and could be added to the motion. M/S/C(Huff-Menees/Montgomery) City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the same subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures; including the cost of any additional frequencies will be paid at the new adjusted rate. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In Favor; Abstain: Huff-Menees, Neville, Montgomery, McConne11, Overson, Law Winters 8A - RESOLUTION #2554, IN SUPPORT OF RECOMMENDING THAT CITIZENS OF BREMERTON VOTE FOR "911 BALLOT MEASURE,,. #AB96-182 The Bremerton Fire Chief came before the City Council to ask their support in a unified message to our citizens in that they have the opportunity to vote a do pass vote to upgrade the County-wide 911 Emergency and Public Safety Dispatch Center. The building, equipment and tower all need upgrading in order to adequately handle the growing volume of emergency calls. Fire Chief Mick McKinlev stated he and Police Chief Paul DuFresne have been working on this issue for several years and are very familiar with the technology and believe this is the solution for the City of Bremerton and Kitsap County and will carry well into the next century. At this time, they are asking for Council's support of the ballot measure. Public comment - none. Mrs. Huff-Menees stated her support of the resolution and encouraged citizens during the few weeks before the Primary #2446 TAPE #1401 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 28, 1996 Page 7 of 16 Election to learn more about this issue at public meetings. She emphasized this is a very critical issue for the safety of our community and deserves our support. Mr. Neville pointed out the information provided under Impact Of Non-Passage...if the levy fails because of dated equipment, building and tower, calls may be delayed, delaying emergency crews to those needing their help. Mr. Neville pointed out there have already been situations where the local air bands have been closed to local calls when other areas responding to emergency situations take precedent. One recent incident involved a false call relating to a plane crash in Elliott Bay, which took one of the local bands totally off the air, which could have jeopardized someone in Kitsap County had they tried to make an emergency call. He asked the cost to the rate payers if the proposal is approved by the voters? Police Chief DuFrense explained the levy to pay back the 10-year Bond issue would cost a typical $100,000 home just over $19.00 per year. He equated that cost to the cost of a large pizza; therefore the cost is very affordable although the total cost of the project is over 18 million dollars. Mr. Winters pointed out when calls come into CENCOM (911) they are prioritized according to levels of emergencies and he hoped citizens understand that the service they get is great and for the price it is superior, but not always is their emergency as important as what comes into CENCOM, although they are very important. He urged members of the public to support the CENCOM ballot measure. President Law stated he supports both the proposed resolution and the ballot measure. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) to pass Resolution #2554. 8B - RESOLUTION #2555, ADOPTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FOR THE YEARS 1996 - 2001, #AB96-183 The Mayor and staff have produced the attached CIP document for the year 1996-2001. Copies of the draft document have been provided to Council for review and it has been presented to Council committees. It is now requested that the Council adopt the CIP for the years 1996 - 2001. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated the CIP document was prepared as a cooperative effort of all City departments. He noted this document is one of a number of documents where the City's Administration invests as much resources as available into a variety of long range planning documents in order to provide more efficient services to the citizens. The proposed document combines the Utilities' Comprehensive Plans, Parks Department, 6-Year Street 2810 TAPE #1401 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 28, 1996 Page 8 of 16 Plan as well as the General Facilities plans into a single document, which will coordinate with the CFP that is required by the State's Growth Management Act and provides the foundation for the City's annual budget for 1997 and ensuing years. Public comment - none. Mr. Neville asked how the proposed CIP document fell within the Growth Management Act? Mr. Hanna explained the Capital element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, required by GMA, demands a document that summarizes at a somewhat higher level than the CIP. The threshold between the two documents is the inclusion of any capital expenditure in excess of $15,000. The threshold for the GMA document is $35,000. Mr. Neville questioned if the CIP was a guideline to be used, into the future, for improvement of facilities, such as parks, buildings? Mr. Hanna stated Mr. Neville was correct. Mr. Neville noted even though the plan covers a 5- year period it is updated annually. He complimented Mr. Hanna and his staff in the preparation of the document. He asked what would happen if the plan was not approved by Council? Mr. Hanna doubted anything would happen. However, it brings about a greater degree of coordinating projects between the various departments. Under the Mayor's guidance, as they prepare the Preliminary 1997 Budget, they will use the CIP as a guide. Mr. Overson stated he could recall a period when there was no CIP, which he views as a valuable tool, and thanked Mr. Hanna for a job well done. M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) to pass Resolution #2555 adopting the City of Bremerton CIP for the years 1996 - 2001. 8C - RESOLUTION #2556, DESIGNATIN~ KITSAP COUNTY LEAD A~ENCY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN, #AB96- 184 The current Solid Waste Management Plan was completed and adopted by all participating parties (cities, tribes and county) in 1992. RCW 70.95 requires review and revision of Solid Waste Management Plans every five years. The RCW allows for cooperative development of the plans and encourages regional solutions to solid waste management. In the past, Kitsap County Public Works, with concurrence from the cities and tribes, has been the lead agency for development of plans for the region. The County is prepared to continue in the role of coordinating the solid waste planning efforts for the unincorporated county, cities and tribes. We have the option of developing our own plan or participating in coordinated regional planning. #2995 TAPE #1401 City Council.Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 28, 1996 Page 9 of 16 The City of Bremerton participated in the advisory committee for the previous plan development and were pleased with the results. Funding will come from an Ecology grant and a County Solid Waste Reserve fund earmarked for planning purposes. There will be no cost to the City. It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution assigning Kitsap County lead agency status for the review and update of the current solid waste plans. President Law asked if there is any liability to the City in this proposal? Mathlean McOluskey, City Clerk, stated it would probably be the same liability that would accrue to the other participants. Once the plan comes back to the City, Council will be asked to adopt it, and once it is adopted it becomes the City's plan. She believes the City will have more active participation in this planning process since the Utility is appointing Bill McKinney, Bremerton's Forester, to serve on the committee. When the prior plan was developed, a Bremerton resident was involved and staff involvement was on a lessor basis. Public comment - none. Mr. Neville noted one of the things he highlighted on this proposal was the fact it would not cost the City any money. M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) to pass Resolution #2556, designating Kitsap County lead agency for development of a comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. 9A - ORDINANCE (FIRSTREADING) AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF $346,938.50 LID BONDS AND ACCEPTING THE PURCHASE OFFER OF SEAFIRST BANK The proposed Ordinance will authorize a bond issue which will finance the construction of LID's No. 327 and 328. The bonds will be repaid from the assessments paid by the adjoining property owners as stipulated in the Ordinances which adopted the respective assessment rolls. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, noted the documentation being passed out to Council at this time is the second draft of the Preliminary Official Statement and a revision to the calculations, which sized the bond issue. At the conclusion of the construction phase of the L.I.D. funded projects, the Engineering Department brought to Council an Ordinance, which upon passage finalized the Assessment Roll on all of the benefitted properties in an amount equal to the construction cost; and in the case of Kitsap Lake the construction cost less the City's contribution to the project. Following that action, it was Mr. Hanna's duty to contact property owners making them aware of the Assessment levied on their property and to provide them an opportunity to make prepayment prior to securing the permanent financing. That activity has come and gone and has TAPE #1401 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 28, 1996 Page 10 of 16 had one late breaking change from the information originally provided, i.e., one prepayment on the Kitsap Lake L.I.D.. That change (an additional $4,500) has been incorporated into the latest version of the Official Statement so that the Bond issue is now sized at $342,421.31. The Agenda Bill also mentions that the City is accepting the Purchase Offer of Seafirst Bank, which is not being done at this time. In attempting to comply with Council's directive to avoid whenever possible using Emergency Ordinances in securing financing, it will be necessaryto fill in the blanks and present to Council the purchase offer from Seafirst at the time of second reading of the proposed ordinance. TAPE #1402 Mr. Hanna pointed out the dollar amounts on pages 2, 3 and 4 of the Ordinance will be changed to be consistent with that one additional prepayment. Also, at the top of page 12 of the ordinance the first line shall read: "has been and is fixed at the rate of 8.2% per annum pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 4560 and 4559, respectively." There is a state statute requirement that the interest rate be fixed in the ordinance that approves the bonds, which is a fairly recent change in the statute where that was previously required to be in the ordinance affixing the final Assessment Roll. President Law asked if he understood Mr. Hanna correctly that he was talking about the interest rate for delinquency? Mr. Hanna stated the interest rate he referred to is the interest rate charged to the property owners under the Assessment Roll. The interest rate that the City will pay will not be fixed until the pricing is completed with Seafirst. Public comment - none. #0131 M/S/C/U (Overson/Montgomery) to approve Ordinance, on first reading Mr. Hanna cautioned Council, as officers of the City, they should not be participating as purchasers of the bonds, but he encouraged citizens to consider such an investment opportunity. 10A - PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ASSISTED LIVING CONCEPTS GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY, #AB96-186 On June 18, 1996, the Planning Commission approved a special use permit and site plan for Assisted Living Concepts' Group Residential Facility - Class I Large. The 39 unit facility is intended to provide housing for elderly persons. These approvals are being appealed by adjoining property owner, TAPE #1402 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 28, 1996 Page 11 of 16 Bremerton Cascade Associates, on the grounds stated in their Letter Of Appeal received by the Council's office on 8/12/96. The written arguments pertaining to this appeal and Planning Commission's exhibits are on file at the Council's Office and are available for the Council's and publics' review. The City Council, when hearing an appeal, shall eiEher: 1) Affirm the decision under review; 2) Reverse the decision under review; 3) Modify in whole or part the decision under review; or 4) Remand the matter back to the approving authority for further consideration. Such action shall be decided by a majority vote of the members present. That vote may be taken at the same or any subsequent meeting. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, outlined the procedures for the Closed Record Hearing as required by State law. President Law asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with no objections being made. He then asked if all City Council members had reviewed the documentation in the Agenda packet on this issue? Council members Bob Winters and Sherril Huff-Menees stepped down due to their not having reviewed all of the information; however all remaining Council members would remain seated. Jack A11ingham, Planner, stated the application is for a Special Use Permit and a Site Plan Review for a group residential facility Class I Large. The Planning Commission Hearing date was June 18, 1996. The site is located approximately 995 feet south of Sylvan Way on the east side of Rickey Road. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and approved the Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review subject to four conditions as listed in the Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law. The site is zoned Multi- family use and a group residential facility is allowed in that zone with a Special Use Permit. The Planning staff's recommendation is to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. The written arguments on the Appeal have been filed with the City Council and the Planning Commission's exhibits (6) have all been filed with the Council and available during this hearing. Mr. Sievers stated his commenting on the record as presented to Council, to sustain the argument for compliance with Rule 12 as far as inserting new information rather than arguing into the record and that was reviewed in Council during an Executive Session. He recommended that the comments contained in the Appellant's written argument concerning the background of one of the witnesses at the Planning Commission, Miss Gibbs, be stricken and not be considered } #0435 TAPE #1402 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 28, 1996 Page 12 of 16 as part of Council's deliberations in making this decision, based on the fact it does not comply with Council's Rule 12 (b), which directs which types of new information may be submitted. M/S/C/U(Overson/Colvin) decision. to uphold the Planning Commission's Mr. Neville stated his support of the motion based on information provided indicating the City Engineer determined the road was suitable and the number of trips would be less with the senior facility than if it were only single family dwellings. Mr. McConne11 stated after a through review of the documentation he too supports the motion. President Law stated he neglected to ask earlier in the discussion if any member of the Council had visited the subject site? Mr. Montgomery stated he had driven by the area on several occasions, not could not recall a specific date. Mr. McConne11 stated he had traveled in that area frequently, but not just to specifically view the site. President Law stated he visited the subject area and was aware that the project was under consideration, but he did not contact anyone while there. Mr. Montgomery questioned if Rickey Road is an approved City road? Mr. Allingham stated Rickey Road is a dedicated public right-of- way. Mr. Overson pointed out Rickey Road is also an emerging road that will receive significant improvements in future years. Vote on motion - unanimous. Councilman Huff-Menees returned to the Council Chambers at 7:30 P.M.. Councilman Winters did not return to the Council chambers. 10B - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) TO AMEND THE "ADMINISTRATION,, SECTION OF THE BREMERTON ZONING ORDINANCE, #AB96- 187 The "Administration" section of the Zoning Ordinance contains the procedures for processing most land use permits. The proposed revisions will classify those permits into four "types", will simplify the advertising and notification requirements for each type, will standardize the steps in permit processing, and will amend and clarify permit approval criteria. The proposed changes also incorporate the requirements of ESHB 1724. These changes will improve our notice requirements, will provide a "consolidated process" for multiple permits, and will integrate SEPA (environmental review) with the Site Plan Review process. The Bremerton Planning Commission, following several study sessions and a special meeting on August 13, recommends City Council approval of TAPE #1402 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 28, 1996 Page 13 of 16 the proposed amendments. Ron Hough, Planning Manager, stated Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance deals mostly with land use types of permits that are issued out of the Planning Department and provides guidance for those permits as far as site plan review, the application procedures, public hearing procedures, approvals and down through appeal procedures. This section has been revamped to integrate the 1724 Regulatory Reform changes. Following is a summary of the changes that are proposed for the Administration secton of the Zoning Ordinance: (1) categorized land use decisions into four types (2) Standardized processing procedures for each permit category type. (3) Added a new section on "planned actions" that are already proposed in other documents. (4) Adjusted the processing procedures to comply with 1724, the first of which is offering a Consolidated Permit Process. (5) Greater emphasis is to be given Pre-application conferences. The Code requires a Pre-application conference for the Consolidated Permit Process because it is complex. (6) Clarified process for "technical review" prior to Determination of Completeness. (7) A new process for Determination of Completeness, within 28 day of submittal for review of application. (8) Notice of Application timeline criteria. (9) Notice of Public Hearings is stated more specifically within the document. (10) the Notices of Decision and final decision have been modified from past practices. (11) A new section on Development Agreements was added, which came out of 1724, which allows entering into Development Agreements following something, like a major PUD, that may take several years to build out. (12) Revised procedures for the major permits, i.e. Special Use Permit, Variance, Special Exception, Rezone, Development Regulation Amendment, Site Plan Review and Appeals. Mr. Hough referenced a Permit Process Table that lists the basic types of decisions: (1) Type I - basic over the counter type decisions that do not require paper work or application forms. (2) Type II Decisions are a little more complex and require applications and public notices. (3) Type III Decisions are Preliminary Subdivisions, Vacations, Planned Unit Developments, etc., which use to have dual public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. One of the new requirements of the new legislation is to limit the number of public hearings the applicant has to go through in the process, so now one Open Hearing is held and one Closed Appeal Hearing or the system can be set up where only one Open Public Hearing is held within the process. (note: the table identifies where the hearing will be held.) (4) Type IV Decisions address Annexations, Urban Renewal Plans, District/Neighborhood Plans, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Development Requlatory Adoption and Development Regulatory #1067 TAPE #1402 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 28, 1996 Page 14 of 16 Amendments. (5) Shoreline Decisions address Subdivision Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Permit Revisions and Master program Amendments (legislative). Mr. Hough reviewed the various discussions by the Planning Commission on who should hold the "public hearing" and the "closed hearings" for each of the types of decisions identified above. The recommendation is to approve the Ordinance adopting Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Public comment - none. Mr. Montgomery stated he agrees with the general principal for 1724 when a mandate of 120 days was designated from the time application to approval of permits. However, he felt strongly that the State had no business telling cities how to handling their permitting processes. The City Council is suppose to set policy for the City. He was violently opposed to the decision 385 where it goes from the Planning Department directly to the City Council. He asked the City Attorney if he understood correctly that the Planning Commission can hold a pre-decision hearing? Ian Sievers, City Attorney stated in effect they can have a hearing so long as it is not used for the record of the ultimate decision. However, the correct term to use would be "public meeting", not a hearing. Mr. Montgomery stated he would object to the ordinance as written because it does not define types I, II, III, IV and V. Mr. McConne11 stated he was not particularly crazy how the state has mandated the hearing process, but it had to be better than the "closed hearing" council just deliberated on. M/S/C(McConnell/Overson) to approve Ordinance, on first reading. Mr. Overson complimented staff on weaving through the challenges of the legislation adopted in 1995. He agreed that the proposed ordinance was not perfect, but he believes it gives the public what they would like and that is an opportunity to voice their concerns to their elected officials. Mr. Neville questioned if the Planning Commission was to hold a "public meeting" could that go to Superior Court? Mr. Sievers stated "public meeting" is defined and does comply with the State Act. It is a voluntary meeting that can be held by the Planning Commission or Council, but it is not the record hearing upon which the decision can be made. If such meeting are held by the Planning Commission, the City Council would then be free to hold the record "public meeting" and Council could consider any recommendation as a result of a Planning Commission held "public meeting". Mr. Neville pointed out the Planning Commission indicated they are not TAPE #1402 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 28, 1996 Page 15 of 16 comfortable with the idea of their holding "public meetings" rather than "public hearings" for Type III issues. Mr. Hough stated the Planning Commission was uncomfortable because to do a neighborhood meeting of that type the Planning Department would probably send out notices to people within a certain area, inviting them to make comment and meeting minutes would be produced to establish a record of that meeting. The Planning Commission felt that might be perceived as a "public hearing" because it is relatively formal. Mr. Neville agreed it was a type of formality, but he has always respected the Planning Commission's decisions and the effort they have given and he enjoyed receiving their facts and findings and took their recommendations seriously. For Council to omit them from the Type III category is an injustice; however, on the other hand the people who are appealing have a right to the elected official rather than an appointed body as the final say in the matter. Mr. Montgomery stated he attended two Planning Commission Study Sessions where they discussed this subject and the impression he got was their being uncomfortable with the "open hearing" definition; however, they were looking for direction from the City Council. Mr. Hough agreed that the Planning Commission was looking for direction from Council. Mr. McConne11 stated he understood the Planning Commission did not want to hold "public meetings", but his interpretation on that ruling is the Commission can hold such a meeting but none of the documentation they create can come to Council for consideration and the only consideration would be their recommendation. President Law concurred with everyone's concern that the Planning Commission is not involved in the Type III Decisions, but the Planning Commission is not comfortable with the interpretation under the rules. The Commission unanimously voted to either be the "open hearing" body or to be excluded from participation of any kind for Type III Decisions. At this point, his perception is that the Planning Commission does not want to mislead the public. He will support the motion and hopes a solution can be made to change the perception of the Planning Commission and the way the State wants it handled. Mr. Neville raised a point of clarification on Mr. Law's statement that the Planning Commission had a unanimous vote on their decision to not hold "public meetings" on Type III Decisions. He referenced page 188 of the Agenda Packet and noted the motion was documented as 4-affirmative votes and 2-abstained. Because of the two abstained votes, to him it means there is reasonable doubt and according to their minutes of August 13, they had three recommendations for Council: (1) recommend the proposal that #1427 TAPE #1402 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 28, 1996 Page 16 of 16 includes public Commission meetings and recommendations; (2) remove the Commission from any involvement of Type III Decisions; (3) ignore the mandate of 1724 and recommend that a public hearing be held by both the Commission and City Council for Type III Decisions. Mr. Neville strongly supports the Planning Commission hold "public meetings" and forward their recommendation to the City Council. M/S/C(Montgomery/Neville) an amendment to the motion to include the Planning Commission in the Type III Decisions. Mr. Overson stated he was not sure where the confusion was coming from over the Planning Commission's intent of involvement, but he felt they desired to correspond with the requirements of 1724, which means one open hearing and one closed hearing. If the proposal is to go with an open hearing under Type III Decisions at the Planning Commission level it would automatically establish closed hearings at the Council level. He could support either position, but he felt Council needed to approve the motion as originally stated and test the system for effectiveness. Vote on Amended motion: Motion carried In Favor: Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Winters, McConnell, Neville Opposed: Overson, Law Vote on main motion as amended: In Favor: Huff-Menees, Neville, McConnell, Montgomery Opposed: Law, Overson Motion carried. President Law thanked the TV camera crew for their services: Erin Daniels, Vallerie Daniels, Noah Daniels, and Stephany James. With no further business meeting adjourned at 8 ;00 PM. KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk J~~~t ~ City of Bremerton KLM/JL/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault