HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/14/96TAPE #1355
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
COUNCIL
APPROVED
MAR 6 1996
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 1996
#0031
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, February 14, 1996, at 5:30 P.M.,
with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present
were Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Cecil McConnell, Carlos Montgomery,
Sherril Huff-Menees, David Farr and Lon Overson. Councilman Richard
Neville was absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and
City Clerk Kathy McCluskey.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President Law and Invocation given by Councilman A1 Colvin.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - January 24, 1996, #AB96-032
B. Minutes of Meeting - January 31, 1996, #AB96-033
M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees/Montgomery)
presented.
to approve Consent Agenda as
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Overson extended best wishes to Councilman Neville, who
experienced health problems. On February 7 and 8 he attended the
AWC Legislative Conference, which he found to be a great
educational experience. He emphasized the legislators are hard
working individuals serving their constituents.
Mr. Farr reported he attend Congressman Norm Dick's Town Meeting on
Tuesday evening, which was well attended with a standing room only
crowd. He hoped such future meetings could be held in a larger
facility in order to handle the large turn out. He was impressed
with the way Congressman Dicks answered questions from those in the
audience. It was also an event that would have merited being
televised on the local access channel.
Mrs. Huff-Menees echoed Mr. Farr's comments regarding televising
Congressman Dicks' Town Meetings. She too extended get well wishes
to Councilman Neville.
Mr. Montgomery echoed get well wishes to Councilman Neville.
Mr. McConne11 reported on his District 2 Neighborhood meeting, held
on February 13, which was pretty well attended. He and those
attending that meeting were quite impressed with the information
TAPE #1355
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 2 of 29
provided by Randy Witt, City Engineer and Bob Tulp, Public Works
Operations Manager, on City street issues as well as the sewer
treatment plant. He also extended best wishes to Councilman
Neville for a speedy recovery.
Mr. Colvin echoed get well wishes for Councilman Neville. He also
attended the AWC Legislative Conference and was very impressed by
Attorney General Christine Gregoire. He was so impressed with her
that he conveyed to her that she belonged in Washington D.C.,
because what she had to say was good for the entire nation.
Mr. Winters thanked Congressman Norm Dicks for holding the Town
Meeting and directly answering the publics' concerns, remarks and
opinions on the "do's and don'ts of government". He was pleased to
report the Daddy Daughter Dance, held on February 10, was very
successful and he was pleased to be part of the First Annual Daddy
Daughter Dance. He attended his first Cable Communications
Committee meeting and will have a report next week regarding that
meeting. He asked the residents of Bremerton to please be patient
regarding what is taking place in Cable franchising. He extended
"Happy Valentines Day" wishes to his wife and Mother, as well as
those in the viewing audience.
Mr. Law announced District #3 Neighborhood Meeting will be held
February 20, 7:00 P.M., at the Senior Center. The main speaker for
that meeting will be Russ Hauge, Kitsap County Prosecutor.
Mayor,s Report
Mayor Hotton reported she just returned from giving testimony in
Olympia. She announced the Bremerton Police Department passed
accreditation and are one of the few in the State having met that
goal. She extended compliments to Chief DuFresne, Captain
Hatfield, Captain Rodgers, Lt. Forbes and everyone else involved
with that process. She was pleased to report new garbage cans have
replaced the green containers in the downtown area and the old
receptacles will be used in some of the less heavily used City park
areas. Today, she attended the following events: (1) a Volunteer
Fair at Bremerton High School where local groups needing volunteers
had an opportunity to share their programs with students and
solicit their assistance. The High School is offering one credit
for 90-hours of community service. She thanked all of those
involved in putting on the Volunteer Fair during school time. (2)
A presentation at the Kitsap Regional Library where they learned
about library services and their LINKNET program. (3) She and
several City staff members were challenged to a rousing game of
badminton by the Senior Center seniors. She also wished Councilman
Neville a speedy recovery.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
TAPE #1355
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 3 of 29
Charleen Burnett, Parks and Recreation Department, reported on the
very successful Daddy Daughter Dance held on February 10, and
thanked Councilman Winters for his assistance at that event.
Peter Myers, 4317 D Street, accused the City of non-negotiations
with his representative about sale of his property in the
condemnation area near the sewer treatment plant.
Ed Pietras - Black History Month Parade - February 17 at Sub Base
Bangor - Unity Banquet/February 24, 6:00 P.M., at the CMO Club at
Sub Bangor Base.
Joyce Libsack - The Association Of Retired Federal Employees (NARF)
is sponsoring free Income Tax Counseling for the elderly at the
Sheridan Park Community Center Monday through Friday 12:00 - 4:00
P.M.
Don Larson, President Washington Scuba Alliance - complimented the
City on the new garbage cans placed downtown. Kitsap Diving
Association meeting - February 15, 7:00 P.M., at the Department Of
Transportation Building in Port Orchard off of Hwy. 16/Mullenix
Interchange. Earth Day Events - Annual Sinclair Inlet Clean
Up/Marine Fair on April 20, 12:00 - 3:00 P.M., at the First Street
Dock. Mr. Larson would like to work out a way to resolve the
problem of volunteers getting parking tickets on the day of the
clean up. The Department Of Ecology is backing down on their
assistance to Earth Day events this year due to budgetary problems,
so they will be looking for assistance from other local
groups/agencies. April 15-26 the Naval Underwater Museum will have
a tele presentation from Key Largo, Florida, which is primarily for
children. The contact person for that presentation is Lt. CDR Hill
(360) 396-6460 or Joyce Jensen (360) 396-4148. Kitsap Water
Festival will be held March 22, at Olympic College.
John Thomas - commented on the very successful Daddy-Daughter
Dance.
Patrick Hirsch, BCAT, reported he had not been requested to
televise Congressman Dicks' Town Meeting.
Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association - St. Patrick's
Day Parade - March 16, 1996, 11:00 A.M.
Gordv Byrd - commented on Congressman Dicks' Town Meeting and was
continuing his fund-raising for the Byrds' Nest project.
7A - ONE YEAR YMCA MEMBERSHIP FOR ALL OUALIFIED CITY EMPLOYEES,
#AB96-034
For the past nine months the Wellness Committee has devoted its
TAPE #1355
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 4 of 29
time to developing a health/fitness program for all City employees.
Program goals included a cost effective program that provided a
benefit for all employees. The YMCA was selected due to the
quality and level of services provided for the employees and their
families. Some of these services include: centrally located
facility; reasonable rates for family members to join, well rounded
family facility that includes family and youth programs for all Y
members at little or no cost (scholarships for low income are
available); use of the City pool; and reciprocating memberships
with other YMCAs. Ordinance #4514 allows expenditures from the
Employee Medical Insurance Reserve Fund for employee wellness
programs, subject to the budgetary authorization of the City
Council.
Mayor Lynn Hotton pointed out a Health Reserve Account is earmarked
for off-setting increasing health care premiums and can be used for
things such as vision care, orthodontics dental care or in this
capacity for membership to the YMCA. The City spends approximately
$400-450,000 yearly out of the Health Reserve Fund. If the usage
of the health care system can be reduced by even 10%, that means
the City will be able to recover the $30,000 allocated for the
wellness program plus the added benefit of having healthier
employees. The Administration will monitor usage of the health
benefits and the kinds of disabilities occurring to see if this
program is working. At the end of the one-year term, the program
will be evaluated as to its effectiveness and a recommendation
forwarded to Council either to continue the program, modify it, or
to cease the program. Wellness is something that is on all
corporations minds and the Association Of Washington Cities has
been promoting wellness and wellness programs over the last several
years because they recognize the cost of health care.
Mary Blanchard, Human Resources specialist, talked about they
Employee Medical Insurance Reserve Fund. The current balance of
this fund is approximately $538,000. The ordinance creating this
fund places the following restrictions on its use: (1) off set
future increases in employee medical benefits; (2) fund additional
employee medical benefits; (3) fund an employee wellness program;
(4) pay for stop loss coverage claims processing or other costs
associated with the administration of the City's medical insurance
program; (5) and/or for any other health related purposes. This
ordinance also stipulates that-expenditures from the fund shall be
consistent with provisions of all collective bargaining agreements
between the City and its employees. She pointed out the proposal
is consistent with that provision. This proposal is being
recommended to the City Council by the Wellness Committee and the
Insurance Benefit Committee, which are comprised of representatives
from City Unions as well as non-represented employees.
TAPE #1355
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 5 of 29
In 1995, a survey was conducted among all City employees and the
results of that survey strongly indicated a desire from the
employees for some type of health fitness program. Out of 310
employees, 145 responded and 127 indicated they would take
advantage of a health fitness program, if offered. This amounts to
approximately 40% of the City's work force.
The YMCA was selected based on the fact the Wellness Committee felt
it provided a well rounded family facility and conveniently located
to most work sites. The YMCA membership allow use of the City's
swimming pool, offers a wide variety of family and youth programs
at either low or no cost to members, provides reciprocating
membership at other YMCAs, provide low-income scholarships and
reasonable spouse and child rates.
This proposal is only one element of the Wellness program. Other
activities undertaken by the Wellness Committee in 1996, include:
smoking cessation program, noon time nutrition workshops, blood
pressure screening and a wise health care consumer workshop.
Approximately 100 other cities throughout Washington currently have
wellness programs in place or have employee health promotion
programs. In the past 10 years, the Association of Washington
cities has strongly encouraged and promoted the purpose of
wellness programs in the work place. The City has recently applied
for a grant through AWC to allow the City to provide ongoing
wellness activities.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to this proposal and
cited their reasons as listed: Deborah Chard, Bremerton resident,
Richard Boe, representing Bremerton Health & Raquet Club, Inc.,Gary
Covlngton, Manager of the Bremerton Tennis and Athletic Club;
Mark McDanlel, Manager Kitsap Gym & Racquet Club; Elizabeth Bue11,
High Avenue. (1) cautioned the City Council to give this issue a
closer look considering the possibility of greater annual increases
to health insurance premiums. (2) concerned that this proposal
will adversely affect The Bremerton Health & Racquet Club; (3)
legal concerns over the process of selection of the YMCA; (4) only
a small percentage of City employees will continue their
participation at the "Y" past a two month period and would result
in throwing needless money away. (4) Most people participate in or
attend a fitness club on the basis of convenience and close to
where they live, not generally where they work. (5) Imprudent use
of taxpayer dollars to pay for services not rendered and it would
be more prudent to use those funds on the pay for service basis.
(6) YMCA does not pay any sales taxes and private health clubs do.
(7) It is a waste of money.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposal:
Charlens Burnett, Parks & Recreation Department employee;
TAPE #1355
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 6 of 29
Terrie O,Neill, Municipal Services Coordinator; Ron Belden, City
employee and member of the Wellness Committee; John PaVne,
Bremerton Fire Department; Paul Luoas, City employee and member of
the Wellness Committee; Pat Mceanney President Bremerton Fire
Fighters' Union. Comments in support: (1) preferred having the
opportunity to use a health facility closer to a work place. (2)
The Wellness Committee will monitor the program closely and the
employee must participate at a minimum of 8 times per month. (3)
Once was a member of the YMCA, but had to suspend her membership
due to the cost. (4) Use of the YMCA facilities helped reduce
stress. (4) Found various facilities closer to residents had higher
costs than those offered by the YMCA. (5) Not all health club type
facilities offer family programs. (6) The City is putting its
faith in the City employees, hopeful they won't let the City down.
(7) Fellow employees can encourage each other to continue using the
,'Y" facilities. (8) The Wellness Committee took a lot of time and
effort in developing this proposal, which was supported unanimously
by Committee members. (9) Fire Fighters Union gives their total
support for this proposal.
Mr. Boe stated regardless of those speaking in favor of the program
and the Wellness Committee, the bottom line is of the 300 employees
how many will actually use the YMCA membership? He believed the
proposed approach is all wrong.
Jim Meith, Human Resources Manager, stated the Wellness Committee
looked at the concept of giving some type of voucher to the
employees. Administratively, they determined that would be a
cumbersome process to handle through the Payroll Department. The
funding source is money already set aside for this kind of
purpose. He is very aware that the proposed program needs to be
assessed and as part of that the employees will be asked to sign an
agreement that they will participate at least 8 times per month and
the generated activity will be monitored closely. He believes all
the questions raised had been looked into.
Mayor Hotton stated in response to Mrs. Chard's comments about
holding this money in abeyance in the event of an increase in
future premiums, the City's premiums are based on the number of
claims for the preceding year. If the number of claims can be
reduced, then the premium costs can be ramped down. Approximately
six years ago, the City was part ofthe AWC Insurance Pool and at
that time the City felt y premium costs could be handled better if
the City was self-insured. The City chose to enroll with KPS and
Group Health, which has proven very successful in keeping premium
rates down and resulted in the large health benefits reserve
balance. The Wellness Committee is an employee committee and since
their inception she has not interjected her views. The Committee
took it upon themselves to research the issue. The Committee is
#2335
TAPE #1355
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 7 of 29
made up of a lot of thoughtful people and she supports their
recommendation and urged Council's approval. Mrs. Chard stated she
believed the 35% increase in premiums she mentioned would happen
whether or not the City was self-insured. She suggested
reimbursing City employees if they complete a year in some type of
wellness program.
M/S/C(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) to approve the expenditure of $30,000
from the Employee Medical Insurance Reserve Fund to pay for the
cost of a YMCA membership for all "regular" full and part time City
employees and officials beginning March 1, 1996 - February 18,
1997. Expenditure to be paid in monthly installments of $2,500 per
month and authorize the Mayor to sign the Group Membership
Agreement.
Mr. Winters asked how along ago the employee survey was taken that
resulted in 145 responses? Ms. Blanchard stated in September 1995.
Mr. Winters asked as clarification of the 145 responding were 127
in favor? Ms. Blanchard stated yes. Mr. Winters noted those
figures are different than those given by the two gentlemen from
the health clubs. He also asked how much do City employees pay out
of their paychecks into this fund monthly? Ms. Blanchard explained
employees pay $7.00 per dependent up to a maximum of $21.00 per
month. Mr. Winters asked how much annually goes into that fund and
how many years have the employees been paying into the fund?. Ms.
Blanchard stated that figure would vary and she did not have an
annual figure. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, gave a guess of
$20,000, and the employees have been contributing for the past six
years. Mr. Winters stated he would feel a lot better if 310
employees had responded to the survey and it concerned him that
only half of all the City employees indicated they wished to
actively pursue health fitness. Ms. Blanchard stated she felt
getting a 47% response from a survey was an excellent response.
Mr. Colvin questioned if the City might save a lot more money
covering costs for fitness programs for those employees actively
pursuing such activity. He asked the current cost for a membership
at the YMCA? Ms. Blanchard responded $32.00 per month per person.
Mr. Farr asked if the Wellness Committee conducted site visits as
part of their selection criteria? Ms. Blanchard stated most of the
criteria was spent on employee input. They were looking for a
facility that was close to work sites as well as a program that
offered family participation as well. The Committee also felt the
City's swimming pool is an excellent facility and the membership
provides use of that pool. Another attractive feature was the "Y"
offered reciprocating memberships and that they provided reasonable
child and spouse rates (spouse - $17.00/month; child-$5.00/month).
TAPE #1355
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 8 of 29
Mr. Overson stated he believes everyone endorses the program and
the Committee and Ms. Blanchard have done an excellent job and the
questions appear to be revolving around implementation. The
document presented by Mr. McDaniels gives four ways to determine
the value or return on investment in such a program and points out
experience shows approximately $500.00 returned per employee who
participates in such a program. He felt strongly that there will
be a return on the investment and taxpayers will get more back than
they will be investing. If this proposal does not pass, he
recommended one additional survey be taken, which would provide a
more broad selection of organization that the City feels could
provide all the needed facilities for this kind of program. If the
response from that survey indicated four facilities were the most
popular, then possibly the $30,000 could be divided among those
groups.
Mrs. Huff-Menees pointed out there was some validity to some of Mr.
Overson's comment; however the proposed program is a recommendation
as a result of several months of study from City employees, based
on their belief that the YMCA was the best facility to meet the
employees' needs. She commended the Wellness Committee for the
work that they did to come up with this proposal and urged
Council's approval.
Mr. Winters read into the record Councilman Neville's comments
regarding this issue: "Mr. Neville is not only in favor of the
proposal, but supports it very strongly."
Vote on motion:
In Favor:
Farr, Huff-Menees, Montgomery,
McConne11, Colvin, Winters, Law
Motion carried.
opposed: Overson
#3079
8A - ORDINANCE #4543 (SECOND READING) RESTRICTING STORAGE OF
OVERSIZE VEHICLES, #AB96-030
President Law explained this item was presented at the previous
Council meet and not everyone present at this meeting were present
during first reading of the ordinance. He assured the public that
those not present at the previous reading had reviewed the video
tape of the meeting and would be seated on this issue.
Public comment - none.
M/S/C(Montgomery/Winters) to pass ordinance restricting parking
oversized vehicles over 10,000 lbs., or 22 feet in length to 120
hours within any 30 day period and that we do not exclude motor
TAPE #1355
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 9 of 29
homes.
Mr. Overson called for a point of order and asked if it was
appropriate to propose a modification on second reading? Ian
Sievers, City Attorney, stated yes, since there is the possibility
of Council members getting input from constituents between the
first and second reading. The only thing that cannot be done on
second reading is to introduce a new subject. Mr. Overson
expressed concern that members of the public, who own motor homes,
would not have an opportunity to address this amendment at this
time and felt they should have the opportunity give their input
into this matter. Mr. Montgomery stated his motion just stated his
same position on this issue as he commented at the previous Council
meeting. Mr. Sievers stated the second way Mr. Montgomery phrased
the motion was more accurate, in other words, the prohibition of
long term storage of oversized vehicle would include motor homes.
Mr. Overson stated then Mr. Sievers is saying the motion passed on
first reading struck the term motor homes in the last sentence?
TAPE #1356
Mr. Sievers stated no, he thought Mr. Montgomery made that comment
during the discussion prior to the vote on first reading of the
ordinance. Mr. Montgomery stated at the previous meeting Mr.
Neville made the motion to accept the ordinance as written and Mr.
Montgomery voted in opposition to that motion. Mr. Overson stated
if Mr. Montgomery's motion did not pass, then Council could pass
the motion as made at the time of first reading. Mr. Colvln called
for a point of order and asked the City Attorney if the motion just
made by Mr. Montgomery changed the second reading of the motion?
Mr. Sievers stated Mr. Montgomery wishes to make an amendment to
the ordinance on second reading. Mr. Colvin asked if that should
revert back to the first reading of the ordinance? Mr. Sievers
stated Council can still make changes to an ordinance on second
reading. It went through one form on first reading and now there
is a motion on the floor to change the ordinance and modify it to
some extent. As long as it is still dealing with the same
legislative subject matter, amendments can be made. Mr. Colvln
stated he believes the subject matter has changed by including
motor homes and asked if he was correct? Mr. Sievers stated that
depends on how narrow the subject matter is defined. The subject
matter is oversized vehicles and storage in rights-of-ways. There
were some exceptions written in and now Mr. Montgomery's motion
proposes to take out an exception.
President Law suggested for clarification Mr. Montgomery might like
to read the change he is proposing. Mr. Montgomery referenced the
last page of the ordinance, 7th line down from the top - deleting
the words "except motor homes"; and that the last sentence under
TAPE #1356
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 10 of 29
Section 3 - Amendment - be stricken which reads: "As used in this
secton motor homes are vehicles, originally manufactured as a
recreational vehicle, which do not require a special permit for
highway travel."
Mr. Overson pointed out Ms. Goodell did a lot of work developing
this ordinance, studied the issue and proposed it as written. Last
week input was given by the public indicating they were glad to see
motor homes excepted. He recommended to the Council that they vote
against the motion so that action can be taken to pass the
ordinance as approved on first reading. Mr. Colvin stated he
supported Councilman Overson's comment in order to give members of
the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment to
the motion; and he would not support Mr. Montgomery's motion.
President Law stated there was one other option available and that
would be to make a motion to table the item. Mr. Colvin asked the
City Clerk if that was an option to Council? Kathleen McCluskeV,
City Clerk, pointed out a motion has been made and on the floor and
the "question" had been called. Council could vote down the motion
and the issue could be tabled.
Vote on Moton:
In Favor:
Huff-Menees, Montgomery, McConnell,
Winters, Farr, Law
Opposed:
Colvin, Overson
Motion carried.
9B - PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION #2535 REGARDING RECOVERY OF FEES
FOR THE REMOVAL OF GARBAGE ON THE PROPERTY AT 1340 HAYWARD AVENUE,
#AB96-011
On 11/29/95, the City was forced to remove garbage and debris from
the property located at 1340 Hayward Avenue, after the owner,
Daniel C. Stenson, failed to obey a Notice and Order To Remove
Refuse within 72 hours. The abatement fund was charged $319.80 for
the work.
President Law asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question with all Council members being seated.
Janet Lunceford, Building Department, stated neighbors of the
subject site filed a complaint on October 17, 1995, about garbage
and debris strewn around the site and the house appeared abandoned.
When she inspected the site on October 23, she found the area
littered with debris and learned that the owner had walked away
from the property, which was recently foreclosed. The owner did
not receive any of the notices sent by the City, which resulted in
no action. Therefore, since there was no action the City conducted
a clean up of the site on November 28, and now the property has
been taken over by the VA.
#0205
TAPE #1356
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page ll of 29
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to pass Resolution #2535 and order that
the fees incurred for the abatement of garbage and debris at 1340
Hayward Avenue be collected as reasonable abatement costs, and
become a personal obligation against the owner of the property,
Daniel C. Stenson, which if not collected within 30 days will
become a lien against the property.
9A - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - TRACYTON BEACH PRE-ANNEXATION
ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION~ AND ORDINANCE {PIRST
READING), #AB96-031
President Law asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict of
Interest" question. Mr. Winters stated for the record that he
received a telephone call today from Dwight Nichols. Since Mr.
Nichols expressed an opinion on this issue, Mr. Winters would step
down if the public felt there was an appearance of fairness issue,
but he felt he could still vote fairly.
Tom O'Hare, Attorney for Mr. Vegeer, stated he was concerned about
conversations that Mr. Colvin may have had with constituents on
this subject. Mr. Colvin stated he received requests from the
public to come and view the area inquestion, which he did. He has
not offered any opinion to those constituents, and he has not yet
made any decision in any manner. He also received a letter on this
issue, which he referred to the City Clerk.
Mr. Farr asked for clarification of a potential conflict of
interest on an incident in the past when he sold a house to an
investment group, which included Mr. Vegeer. Mr. Sievers stated
that was a closed transaction and wouldn't present any appearance
of fairness problems.
President Law stated there has been a lot of attention on this
matter, and all Council members probably received at least one
letter, which were given to the City Clerk.
Mrs. Huff-Menees stated she received two phone calls on this issue,
but she offered no comments.
Mr. Montgomery stated he visited the site, but talked to no one on
this issue.
Mr. McConne11 stated he received a phone call, and offered no
opinion or comment. He cautioned the public on contacting the
Council members prior to a hearing on a land use issue, because
there is the possibility of causing a member to have to step down.
All opinions should be expressed at the podium at the City Council
TAPE #1356
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 12 of 29
meeting.
Mr. Sievers stated there is a state statute that deals with the
appearance of fairness and land use issues like this, and it does
allow exparte contact with opponents and proponents, as long as it
is disclosed prior to the hearing and the substance of the
conversation is stated. He agrees with Mr. McConnell's comments,
however, he hoped the public would not take it as rudeness if a
Council member will not discuss an issue with them because they are
acting on legal advice
Mr. Overson stated he has also had conversations with people on
this issue, but believes all discussions were within the content of
information already printed in the Council Agenda packets.
Joy Beckley, citizen, brought up an incident, but it was stated
this was not an appearance of fairness issue.
For the record, all Council members were seated following
discussion of issues relating to possible appearance of
fairness/conflict of interest.
Ron Hough, City Planning Manager, stated this item is a continued
public hearing from February T, where he gave a formal presentation
· He then gave an additional abbreviated presentation emphasizing
the main objective is to apply the City of Bremerton Comprehensive
Plan Designation and a City zone to the area in question, which is
being called the Tracyton Beach Annexation area. The Planning
Commission held a hearing on this issue, and have made their
recommendation to the City Council.
The Planning staff originally recommended Single Family-3 because
of land use efficiency, primarily availability of urban public
services, and it was more consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan policies and objectives to allow higher density, with lower
density in the rural areas. The current zoning in the County
would be the next step up, Urban Residential-6. The current
recommendation from the Planning staff, following the Planning
Commission meeting, is for Council to approve, on first reading and
pass on second reading, the ordinance adopting the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law of the Bremerton Planning Commission for Low
Density Residential, and Single Family-2 zoning. This density is
stated to be the more typical of the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Montgomery asked for a clarification of the number of lots
shown on the map and those listed in the packet. Mr. Hough
identified a couple of "unknown" lots listed with the County
Assessor that are just "slivers" of land.
TAPE #1356
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 13 of 29
Mr. McConne11 asked the distance between Tracyton Beach Road and
the water line. Mr. Hough stated approximately 50 feet.
Kathy McCluskey, City Clerk, announced a packet of information
provided by Mr. Vergeer and his attorney, Mr. O'Hare would be
passed out to Council members. She then read letters into the
record from the following individuals: Violet Krone-Peters, 124 E.
31st Street; Joy L. BeckleV, 2720 Tracyton Beach Road; Richard &
Charlotte D,Amico, 307 E. 30th Street; Betty Lou Mullav, 319 E 29th
Street; Violet E. Scott, 2824 Tracyton Beach Road; Harold James,
2779 Tracyton Beach Road. The above individuals raised the
following concerns: (1) High density would indicate very small, low
cost dwellings would be constructed, which would decrease
valuations of neighboring properties; (2) increased traffic
creating new hazards; (3) existing water drainage problem; (4)
addressing existing wetland areas; (5) SF-2 zoning more appropriate
to blend in with surrounding area; (6) increase in crime/drug
activities; (7) pets will run loose in open territory.
Harry Keenan, Project Manager, discussed items from the Growth
Management Act, and Vision 2020. For clarification, he stated the
current Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is 9 units
per acre and is currently zoned in the County at 6 units per acre.
Kitsap County will suggest that the property be rezoned to UR-9, if
it is developed in the County, to match the surrounding areas. The
present owner of the property has filed for a rezone in the County
that would yield 10-19 units per acre.
In 1995, the City of Bremerton revised their 1986 Comprehensive
Plan to bring it into compliance with the State Growth Management
Act (GMA). The following goals of the original State plan call for
a 5-part strategy to manage growth, and they feel that the property
use they are proposing follows these guidelines:
(1) In order to achieve a higher level of home ownership.
(2)
Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land and
sprawling, low-density development.
(3)
Ensure that sufficient land areas are available and
appropriate zoning is in place to allow the level of new
development that is needed to accommodate Bremerton's 20-year
plan.
(4) Adjust development guidelines and regulations to prevent
development that is inappropriately low, that might waste
valuable urban land.
(5) Promote the concept of development clustering to conserve
TAPE #1356
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 14 of 29
energy, save land, lower public costs, reduce sprawl, and
provide open space.
(6)
Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all
economic segments.
(7)
Promote a variety of residential densities and housing types
and encourage preservation of existing housing.
Dave Smith, discussed and addressed issues raised at the last
Planning Commission meeting, and their conclusions as follows:
(1)
Impact of traffic that may occur on East 29th Street, since
that is likely to be the main access to the development. He
stated that the road simply has to meet City Standards for a
"sub-collector" street, which it does. This allows up to an
average of 1000 daily car trips. Their calculations show that
one home uses an average of 10 trips per day, meaning this
street could handle up to a maximum density of 100 units.
There are currently 16 homes on East 29th Street.
(2)
Decrease in values to current homes and property. The homes
to be built will be priced at approximately the same value or
greater than adjoining lots.
(3)
View Impact. He questioned whether this is relevant, but
views will be impacted regardless of the density.
(4)
Higher density causes lower quality design. He stated this is
not true, higher density has nothing to do with quality of
design, and cited examples of other developments with high
density, and also high value. It was further pointed out by
Mr. Vergeer that the homes on this property will be superior
in construction, insulation, and design to those on adjoining
properties.
(5)
Impact on schools. He stated Armin Jahr Elementary School is
overcrowded, but this is due to the temporary assignment of
students from Crown Hill while their new school is being
built. It is a financial benefit to a school to be near
capacity.
(6)
Impact on sewers. The overall population of Bremerton has
drifted down slightly over the last 10 years, so there is
plenty of capacity in the existing sewers. More ratepayers
could possibly lower rate bills of existing customers.
(7)
Impact on tax revenues will be beneficial because no increase
in public services will be required for these additional
TAPE #1356
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 15 of 29
homes. Encouraging home ownership will help create a trend of
increasing tenancy in the City.
Dave Berg~ist, discussed neighborhood impact. He understands how
emotionally disruptive it can be to have new development next door,
and it is normal to fear the worst. However, it is his experience
that in every case he has been involved in, he can look back and
see the neighbors' fears were abated, and their property values
unharmed. He cited examples of other developments to support this
point. Also, property values throughout the County are being
devastated by substantial down-zoning as a result of the mandates
of the Hearings Board and the Growth Management Act. Cities have
successfully argued to the state that they have the infrastructure,
the necessary infill sights, and the right to accommodate the
coming growth with denser development. This would give Bremerton
the opportunity it desperately needs to rebuild its population
base.
Mike Brown gave a general overview and raised some additional
points:
- Even though there was a large crowd in attendance tonight, he
felt his group represented a much larger crowd who were not in
attendance, those who might now possibly afford ownership of
a home.
It was an honorable decision of Mr. Vergeer to handle this
process through the annexation and PUD process within the
City, in an effort to bring the citizens, who are impacted by
this project, together in the "information loop".
All technical issues, such as stormwater run-off, are
questions that many hours and many dollars will be spent to
answer before they even get to the question of how the project
is actually developed, and will be done at a later date.
- The sole question tonight is density.
All members of the development team are from this area, and
care about improving the local communities.
Tom O'Hare, Attorney for Mr. Vergeer, elaborated on points given
previously by the project development group. He did point out that
out of the 15 acres being annexed, only 10 acres are considered for
development; and that East 28th Street can be considered as an
alternate route.
Ron Ross, Developer, stated he has tried for years to develop in
the City of Bremerton, but has not been able to find suitable land.
The City is favorable to developers because it has sewers, water,
TAPE #1356
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 16 of 29
and density. He feels it would be practical to allow the
annexation of the property at the density that is comparable to the
neighboring density. Most importantly, it would give the City the
control of the property. He too, brought up points from the Growth
Management Act, and the City's plan, and the need for new homes
just to replace current, deteriorating homes.
TAPE #1357
Gerald S. Vergeer, Jr., owner of the property stated the proposed
Tracyton Beach Annexation area, for all intents and purposes, is
already a part of Bremerton. The annexation would recognize
formally what already is fact. The issue is to what degree of
density should the property be annexed. The property currently has
the density designation of up to 9 units per acre, because the
property has an existing infrastructure to support that density.
He talked about a nearby large-lot development with lower density,
and all the economic problems now being experienced. To have a
quality, affordable housing development, he asked Council to
approve the SF-3 zoning.
Joyce Libsack, Alta Drive resident, stated her neighborhood is one
of the lowest density areas, and also abuts the project area. She
brought up the fact that Sheridan Hills is one home per acre. She
also pointed out the fact that all of the present homes were built
by professional builders, and none of them got the drainage problem
right the first time.
Art Castle, Executive Vice President for Home Builders Association
of Kitsap County, stated because of the Growth Management Act, the
route the cities must now take for the direction of new housing is
going to be small lot urban housing developments.
Lynda Gibbs, Schlagel Lane, a resident of this area for 20 years,
stated the developers are following the Comprehensive Plan and
using the present infrastructure to its full potential. She agrees
with all information presented so far, and thinks the SF-3 zoning
would be the best for the community.
Vivian Bodle, Land Use Chair for the Kitsap County Association of
Realtors, supported any plan that brings quality, affordable homes
to citizens. The Navy will take their families where there are
decent, affordable homes, and Kitsap County needs to offer that
kind of housing. We also need to make sure our own children and
grandchildren have decent, affordable homes.
Doug Betget, representative for the neighbors, stated a petition
with over 70 names was submitted in support of the Planning
Commission's decision for the zoning density SF-2. Major points to
TAPE #1357
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 17 of 29
support this are: (1) SF-2 density could achieve most of the goals
for the developers anyway, with the bonus densities that are
possible. (2) The density issue is the only point of control the
neighbors feel they have in making sure the developers do not go
well beyond what they indicated up to this point. (3) Even though
other developments in the area are zoned at SF-3, the actual lot
sizes are more consistent with SF-2. (4) Residents feel that
Bremerton already has more than its fair share of low cost housing,
and rather than develop new high density housing, the developers
could re-develop some of the existing areas in West Bremerton that
are in sad need of attention. (5) This property was originally in
the County, so shouldn't have been included in the City's plan for
the Vision 2020, but should be considered a "bonus".
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, was asked for a Point of Order on
presenting visuals, such as pictures, or new documents such as
newspaper articles to Council, when they were not presented to the
Planning Commission on the same issue. It was stated that all the
newspaper articles were printed since the Planning Commission
Hearing, and the rules say that if there is a reason why an article
couldn't have been produced for the Planning Commission, Council
can consider them now, if they want to. However, the property tax
statements were of record and available when the Planning
Commission met, so shouldn't be admitted as part of the record
tonight. Entering a law that has been passed, such as the
Comprehensive Plan of the County or the City, should not be a
problem. He further explained procedurally we don't restrict
people from submitting a letter and testifying.
The following individuals expressed their concerns: Beth
McConaughv,2938 Pawnee Drive; Jim McDonald, 2944 Pawnee Drive NE;
John McConnell, 313 E. 28th Street; Jerome Nelson, 2932 Pawnee
Drive; Stephen O. Herkert, 2929 Pawnee Drive; Dwight Mickels, 129
E. 31st Street; Gar]F Clauson, 123 Alta; Audrey Boyer, 5625 Ocean
View Blvd. NE; Dick Eskridge, 2720 Tracyton Beach Road NW; Michael
ForneV, 320 East 28th Street; Barbara Klu~e, 312 E. 29th Street.
Issues of concern raised by the above named individuals are as
follows: (1) Higher density as proposed is not consistent with the
lot sizes of the surrounding neighborhoods, or the "character" of
the existing neighborhoods. (2) Lack of adequate roads to the area.
Access to the development from East 29th Street, and possibly
Tracyton Beach Road is insufficient. (3) Severe water and drainage
problems are known to already exist in the area, which has very
steep slopes. (4) High density would indicate that very small low-
cost dwellings would be constructed, which would decrease the
valuations of neighboring properties. (5) The development is open,
flat ground, and there is little to buffer the development from the
existing neighborhood. (6)Increase in traffic. (7) Increase in
crime. (8) Increase in noise. (9) Smaller lots means smaller
TAPE #1357
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 18 of 29
yards. (10) Lack of parking. (11) Environmental impact concerns.
(12) View blockage. (13) Adverse affect on wildlife; (14) There is
support for SF-2 zoning designation. (15) There is support for
annexation of the subject area. (16) An Environmental Impact
Statement needs to be completed in order to determine what the site
can handle. (17) Increased traffic would pose a hazard to children
walking to school due to lack of sidewalks along Rickey Road and
Pine Road. (18) The width of E. 29th Street and E. 28th Street are
not adequate to allow two way traffic plus parking on both sides.
Dave Bergquist stated a question was raised about the price of new
homes, the proposed plat would probably have homes between $100 -
$135,000. This discussion does not involved the "plat" of the
site, but just zoning and annexation. Also, any water problems
identified must be taken care of during the design and development
of the site. The actual number of units will be determined by the
property itself and what it will accommodate under the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Brown pointed out he was one of three out of six developers
involved in this project that live in the City of Bremerton and he
has no plans to move. Also, the owner of the property lives next
to the site. He gets a feeling from some of the opponents that
they don't realize the input that is available to them through the
PUD process that will address traffic concerns, environmental
concerns, etc. He took issue with comments brought out about low
income housing. He does not consider someone purchasing a home
costing $100,000+ as low income. Comments have been made about lot
sizes of the surrounding area and trying to draw some comparison to
what should be done in the future. At any part of the text of the
Growth Management Act, it clearly points out that what we have done
in the past is not going to get us to a desirable point in the
future. In fact, the thrust and reason for having the
Comprehensive Plan and Growth Management Act is to re-evaluate what
has been done and decide what should be done over the growth in the
next 20 years and make some prudent decisions based on that
information. That in mind, he felt the lots sizes surrounding the
development are not as relevant as they have been made out to be.
Mr. O'Hare pointed out in many ways the City made a policy
decision when the City zoned all of the abutting areas SF-3. He
urged Council to look past the issues of water, traffic, etc.,
because those issue will be met when a specific application is
submitted. The issue being dealt with, at this hearing, is the
overall policy issue. Don't also get confused by an argument that
says SF-2 is just as good as SF-3 because there are some bonus
density possibilities and exist only if the criteria established in
the City's Zoning Ordinance are met. All Mr. Vergeer is saying is
TAPE #1357
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 19 of 29
give him the same treatment that was given to the adjoining similar
properties that he would be added to when annexed into the City of
Bremerton.
Mr. Smith stated higher density will produce more tax revenue. An
issue was raised about some problems out beyond the site on Rickey
Road and the opportunity to fix those has been stated in general.
The greater opportunity to address some of the problems of
infrastructure are going to be met with higher density.
Mr. Berger stated if there is to be no consideration of SF-1, SF-2,
SF-3, then he requested it be stricken from the City's planning
operation and no longer considered because it will continue to be
a waste of their time. He thought there were some choices to be
made between SF-3, SF-2 and SF-1. What they have indicated is that
it is not relevant and there are no choices. He reminded .Council
the surrounding neighbors were present at this hearing because they
believe density is an issue and do have a choice and the
neighborhood believes SF-2 would meet their needs, especially for
the very reason if the developers are able to meet the requirements
they can increase the density. All those things that say "if they
can meet those requirements to increase density" will be the things
that should address the concerns of the residents and they can
probably achieve the density they desire. He also asked in
consideration of everyone, unless someone has something more to say
in support of SF-2, lets stop further public testimony and let the
City Council make their decision.
Mr. Overson stated he still needed to know the intended
development, number of units and why isn't SF-2 zoning sufficient?
Mr. Hough stated he could not answer Mr. Overson's concern because
there is no development proposal submitted to the City at this
time. There is a request for annexation into the City and what
they are trying to determine for this piece of property is the most
appropriate density the City will consider once it is annexed.
Based on that, the developers will design something to fit the
site. Mr. Overson stated based on his understanding of everything
presented, he sees a lot of things in favor of SF-2 and very little
that supports SF-3 zoning, particularly when considering the
potential adverse impacts. He agreed that the City had the
responsiblity to take in density, but it was pointed out this
proposal was not infill, but new development. He asked if property
along the water was designated SF-2? Mr. Hough explained there is
a considerable amount of SF-2 in existing large lot development
around the shorelines and that designation has been applied in the
past.
Mr. Montgomery emphasized the issue before Council is growth
management and proper zoning of the site, not what will be built.
TAPE #1357
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 20 of 29
The surrounding property is all SF-3 and the developer of that area
decided on the lot size, which is his privilege as long as they
meet the requirements of SF-3. SF-2 would be a down zoning of that
particular area, if you consider the SF-3 designation on the rest
of the surrounding area. Mr. Hough explained the surrounding
subdivisions were built under the City's old R-1 zoning, which
dates back to the 1940s, and the minimum lot size was 4,800 sq.
ft., for a single family house and 5,800 sq. ft. for a duplex. The
builder of that development chose the density he desired. Mr.
Montgomery stated then the previous zoning and the current zoning
of SF-3 in the surrounding area is the same. Mr. Hough stated
yes.
Mr. Winters stated he attended a meeting in 1991, when Congressman
Norm Dicks voiced his biggest concern was the housing stock
available in Bremerton was an embarrassment. The 203K program is
a perfect example of the rehab and first time home buyers
assistance to become homeowners. He respectfully regretted that
sometimes some Council members and others in this room get their
intelligence insulted on the fact they have been working diligently
on the growth management issue to increase the density in order to
adhere to the Growth Management Act. He agreed there is a need to
increase the density for a greater tax base in the City. He felt
it would be very important for Mr. Castle to follow what it is we
are doing to improve and adhere to the Growth Management Act. His
last concern has to do with the land and whether or not an
Environmental Impact Statement will be required later on. Mr.
Hough explained when a development is presented the next step in
the environmental review process a Checklist is completed including
being reviewed by the City's SEPA official, who determines what
needs to be done in order to get all concerns out on the surface
and deal with them through the type of process proposed, such as a
P.U.D.
TAPE #1358
Such a process may be an Environmental Impact Statement if serous
enough or it could be a mitigated Determination Of Non-Significance
where they have to provide additional information on the soils,
water seepage, springs, drainage, hardpan, clay, traffic analysis,
etc. The City also has a Critical Land Ordinance, which was
adopted several years ago to address wetland and environmental
issues. This process is carried out through a public process. Mr.
Winters stated at the February 7th City Council meeting John
McConnell stated added traffic on E. 29th Street would personally
affect him since it was the only place where an ingress and exit to
the site could be placed. Mr. Winters pointed out E. 28th Street
would also be available; however, Mr. McConnell did not mention
that fact in his testimony. He believed Mr. McConnell's concerns
would be addressed later on if the development proceeds. He
TAPE #1358
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 21 of 29
respects the Planning Commission, but in this instance he disagreed
with their recommendation.
Mr. Colvin asked for clarification if there are two issues before
Council: (1) support the findings of the Planning Commission; (2)
to overturn the Planning Commissions recommendation? Mr. Sievers
stated in this case it is not an appeal and Council simply has a
recommendation from the Planning Commission on a Comprehensive Plan
designation and zoning that would take affect upon annexation. Mr.
Colvin asked if the Planning Commission availed themselves of all
the same testimony? Mr. Sievers explained the Planning Commission
held a public hearing and took testimony. Mr. Hough explained most
of the testimony heard during this hearing was very similar to that
given before the Planning Commission and that was one of the
reasons why they recommended the SF-2 designation. That testimony
was included in the data provided to Council in the Agenda Bill.
Mrs. Huff-Menees stated she wished to correct something that had
been stated a couple of times, which is that the Navy personnel
housed in Tacoma were families. They were single sailors and that
is why they were selected to be housed in Tacoma. The reason for
that was not due to a housing shortage, but because of very
specific type of housing needs. She felt it important to not use
the Growth Management Act to entice Council to make bad decisions
and yes, we do want to increase density in the City and we do want
to increase the City's population. However, we don't want to make
the kinds of decisions that they have watched being made around
Bremerton with such dismay. Over and over again, we have been
critical of land use decisions that have been made around the City.
There are lots of opportunities for infill development and
increasing densities in the areas where it is most appropriate to
make such increases. She does not believe this proposal is one of
those areas because it is a very sensitive area. She believes that
SF-2 zoning will allow developers to get the density they are
saying they want with the bonus opportunities that exist.
Mr. McConne11 stated it is the Council's responsiblity to increase
the density and growth of the City, but it is also their
responsiblity to ensure that what we do does not adversely affect
what already exists. Designation SF-2 along the shoreline has been
the standard practice for the City because of the potential danger
of building above a shore, especially if we have extreme rainslike
what was recently experienced.
Mr. Farr reminded his fellow Council members of the joint meeting
between Council and the Planning Commission. He came away from
that meeting with what he thought was an understanding that Council
would in some cases disagree with findings of the Planning
Commission and that was the way it should work because Council is
#0430
TAPE #1358
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 22 of 29
not to be a "rubber stamp" for the Planning Commission. He also
called attention to the fact the Planning Commission,s vote on this
issue was not unanimous, but a split vote. Having served on the
Kitsap Regional Planning Council, he witnessed the bitter debate
over whether or not this community could accept 20,000 people and
when the City said it could, they were called "crazy". He sees
this as the first in a series of times Council will be called upon
for some tough decisions that won't be popular with some
constituents in the immediate area to increase densities. In this
case, it is not an increase in density. He did not see it as
beneficial, if the City annexed property into the City and
downgraded it from the surrounding area; and it could only cause an
uphill battle to establish creditability that development will be
encouraged in Bremerton. He respects people's rights to develop
their own property in accordance with the regulations and for what
they feel they can sell.
Mr. McConne11 emphasized with SF-2 zoning the developer could match
the current County zoning with a P.U.D. and open space
considerations.
Mr. Farr stated he believed the builder would go with the area that
will grant him the highest density. If Council approves SF-2, he
suggested there is the possibility that the process will go through
the County and the neighbors will have the very thing they object
to now and they'll miss out on the possibility for the City to come
later and address their concerns and issues.
President Law stated he has listened to the persuasive comments
from the public and members of the Council. Even though the
Planning Commission had a split vote, it was a well thought out
vote. He is very apprehensive about the subject area being one
that will come back to haunt them later. He supports increasing
Bremerton's density because the facilities and services that give
the best package for development are in Bremerton, but he did not
feel this site was the best site to carry out that goal.
Mr. Colvin stated he agreed with Mr. Farr about being short
sighted, but he felt Council would be short sighted for not taking
into consideration the topography of the subject area.
Mr. Farr questioned the Planning staff's original recommendation on
this proposal? Mr. Hough stated the Planning Department's
recommendation was for SF-3. Mr. Farr pointed out that was
something Council might wish to take into consideration because
there was thought into that recommendation as well.
M/S/F(Montgomery/Farr) to approve Ordinance, on first reading,
granting an SF-3 zoning designation.
TAPE #1358
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1994
Page 23 of 29
Vote On Motion: In Favor: Farr, Winters, Montgomery
Motion failed.
Opposed:
McConnell, Colvin, Overson,
Huff-Menees, Law
#0405M/S/C(Overson/Colvin) that Council approves the Planning Commission's
recommendation to zone this area as SF-2, and approve Ordinance on
first reading.
Vote On Motion:
In Favor:
Colvin, Overson, Huff-Menees,
McConnell, Law
Motion carried.
Opposed:
Farr, Winters, Montgomery
9C - PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) TO AMENDTHE CITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO COMPLY WITH THE FINAL DECISION AND ORDER OF
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD, #AB96-035
Bremerton's revised Comprehensive Plan was adopted on April 5,
1995. Portions of the Plan pertain to the Anderson Creek area were
appealed to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings
Board. The Board reviewed the Plan, conducted a public hearing on
November 28, 1995, and issued its decision in December. The
Hearings Board upheld the City's plan but directed certain changes
to correct some more internal consistency problems. those changes
have been drafted. The Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on January 30, 1996, and recommended City Council approval
of the changes as presented.
President Law asked the City Attorney to clarify the issue before
Council. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated
this is readoption of the Comprehensive Plan that was earlier
adopted by Resolution. The form of adoption does not change the
ordinance, so a hearing will be held, at this time, and a hearing
on second reading of the ordinance. That initial document was well
supported by public hearings and Council followed the public input
process. The only changes to the Comprehensive Plan are some
technical corrections in the text and mapping, principally having
to do with industrial lands. Most of those changes focus on the
Anderson Creek area and those boundary lines and land use
designations changes are driven by two events that have happened
since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The boundaries changed
because of an annexation, which took place in the intervening time;
and because of a revision to a change in ownership or surplusing by
the City Council since the initial adoption. Mr. Law asked if
input should be limited to the proposed changes? Mr. Sievers
stated that would be his advice, since a number of other hearings
were held that led up to the Council adopting the entire Plan.
TAPE #1358
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 199~
Page 24 of 29
Ron Hough, Planning Manager, briefly reviewed the issue as outlined
in the Summary Statement. He noted the City has taken the steps
required by the Hearings Board to comply, which were not extensive
and primarily consistency issues internally within the
Comprehensive Plan itself. It addresses some areas dealing with
the Land Use Inventory Table that indicated a certain amount of
industrial land where it was actually developed as industrial land
and not vacant industrial land. The Board misinterpreted the
Table, but an adjustment was made for several other reasons. Most
of the changes included were meant to clarify what the City agreed
to with Mr. Sciepko, who also annexed 76 acres adjacent to the
Anderson Creek area, and has an option to purchase part of the
Anderson Creek property. The amount of industrial land was
approximately 340 acres; however, that amount has been reduced to
168 acres. The central corridor of Anderson Creek is now proposed
to remain as Open Space and zoned as Forest Management. A much
smaller amount of Industrial Park would be located on the upper
west portion of the property and Mr. Sciepko's property, which has
been shown in the Exhibits and adjusted on four maps in the
Comprehensive Plan (Exhibits A, D, E. & F) to include the Sciepko
annexation, which was not part of the Comprehensive Plan at the
time of its adoption.
President Law asked the Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question with all members present being seated.
Ron Sciepko, 3023 W. State Hwy. 16, stated the merits of
Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan were reviewed, testified to,
considered and decided by the City Council in the winter and spring
of 1994/1995. The appellants took the matter to the Hearings Board
to which they submitted a detailed brief and numerous supporting
documents. The actual hearing on their appeals lasted most of a
full day before a well prepared Hearings Examiner, who found that
none of the arguments challenging the City's Comprehensive Plan had
merit, factually or legally. The Hearings Board, on its own,
discovered the City adopted this plan by Resolution rather than by
Ordinance, which is one of the reasons this item is back before
Council. There were no substantive defects in the plan and there
were three other amendments the Hearings Board asked the City to
address, which related to the recommended changes and all relating
to being "mutually consistent". The City also proposes to amend
the plan to include his 76 acres annexed land and to reduce from
340 to 168 acres the Utility land acreage that is designated in the
Plan as Industrial Park and Residential. Some would argue that the
use of this property as a Corporate Campus would be wrong. The
Hearings Examiner was emphatic in explaining to the appellants
several times during the hearing that the GMA mandates the
consideration of several potentially conflicting goals. It is not
improper to accommodate two objectives, protection of the
TAPE #1358
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 25 of 29
environment and creation of employment opportunity as mandated by
the statute. The fact that certain lands containlcritical areas
does not prohibit development of non-critical portions of land.
Nor does it preclude development on critical areas as long as those
areas are protected. The Hearings Examiner found no merit in
arguments against development of this area for industrial purposes
given the protection requirements. The Plan, as it exists today,
carries substantively more protection for the City's wells than it
did when originally adopted. The City's Wellhead Protection Study,
now completed, will guide the City in protecting the wells for the
future. It would be wrong to generate a Comprehensive Plan that
failed to balance properly two potentially conflicting goals,
policies and objectives. The City's Plan harmonizes those
apparently conflicting objectives so the purpose of each can be
accomplished, that is so that we, as a community, can enjoy
tempered, environmentally safe economic development. Don Pratt,
Director of Community Development stated to Mr. Sciepko several
times that he believes the City has the framework of codes and
ordinances in place for full development of an industrial park on
Corporate Campus. The appellants' challenged the City's ability to
do this, so they challenge the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
Growth Management Hearings Board found the City of Bremerton to be
in compliance with the GMA with some minor, technical exceptions.
Basically, the Growth Management Hearings Board has given the City
of Bremerton a vote of confidence in their plan and in the methods
they choose to manage development.
Mary McKenzle, 2462 E. Phinney Bay Drive, stated her interest in
this issue is as a resident of Bremerton and she wished to speak to
the fact that 40% of Bremerton's water supply comes from the
aquifer under Anderson Creek property. While she understands the
amended plan is an improvement, it does leave a lot to be desired
from an environmental perspective. She is greatly concerned that
the City is willing to give greater consideration to a relatively
small profit relative to the terms of the profit that may be made
by others involved than long term revenues into the future. She did
not want Bremerton's water resources mortgaged on the basis of
limited research and expertise and felt it was a gamble at best.
She is confident the City is reluctant as well. Reckless
development of natural habitats that include main streams and
aquifers, particularly for a commercial development, is
irresponsible. She urged Council to give great consideration to
the larger picture and long term affects of this decision.
Helen Haven-Saunders, Anderson Hill Road, stated Mr. Sciepko has
set a precedent of ranging far from the technical details of
compliance and she would attempt to be more brief than usual. The
Growth Management Hearings Board basically said most of what her
Associations brought to them was not within their jurisdiction and
TAPE #1358
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 19~
Page 26 of 29
they did not give the City a vote of confidence in this plan. They
gave them a vote of confidence in the City's Comprehensive Plan and
emphasized the City's plans for Anderson Creek, while they might
not be the right thing for the land, were not within their
jurisdiction. The Hearings Examiner also commented that the County
also had the obligation to designate and map critical areas for the
City so they could be used in the City's designation planning. She
and her group received a notice of public hearing that said the
amendments are intended to correct the inconsistencies identified
by the Hearings Board and also clarify the land use designations in
the Anderson Creek area, that there were important changes and
their comments were welcome. Based on that, she thought that there
would be a little more than technical details being discussed
during this hearing. She comes before the City Council as the
representative of the Association To Protect Anderson Creek and did
not ask their membership for a "turn out for this hearing". So
far, the City has never held an unencumbered hearing on the land
use designations for this area or zoning issues. The discussions
about proposed uses of the land have always been shadowed by a
"more important" discussion like its sale or like the entire
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan being at stake. She is concerned that
we have never discussed this in a rational fashion as a community
with Council. The wording from the option to buy from Mr. Sciepko
pricing the timber on the land will have the immediate affect of
forcing the buyer to clear cut much of the area in order to achieve
a profit. As conservators of the stream and their neighbors, this
affect will be incongruent and impact the health of the stream,
which is their major concern as well as the water beneath it.
These land use designations and zonings, which follow them, are
being considered without an environmental study that the City's own
SEPA coordinator originally assessed was necessary for the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning change. Therefore, the city is
circumventing its own SEPA process and giving them no option but to
look at another appeal. The original SEPA threshold determination,
which was a Mitigated Determination Of Non-significance, was
appealed and withdrawn last Spring. There has been no subsequent
determination on the original proposal or on this amended
combination of designations. A more detailed Environmental Check
List was required of the prospective buyer and has not yet been
submitted. This process, Check List, threshold determination and
public input should be done first before the zoning and sale take
place. With an industrial park and City residential designation
for this relatively undeveloped area, the City will be contributing
to one of the biggest transportation messes in Kitsap County. The
Figley Park development, the County's quick fix for the embattled
Noresland residents, will be in an Appeals Court this month and the
County will be back in front of the Hearings Board with their Woods
UGA. The city's plans for Anderson Hill and surrounding area tie
in directly with their errors in this area. The studies conducted
TAPE #1358
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 27 of 29
about density in their portion of Southwest Kitsap depend upon road
conditions, which have significantly deteriorated since those
studies were completed, including the semi-closure of the road to
Port Orchard, which impacts the traffic at the Anderson Hill/Old
Clifton road junction and the semi-closure of the bottom of
Anderson road. That is the major capital facility that has to be
addressed before development is allowed. The plans for the
Anderson creek area are destructive and poorly researched.
Reasonable alternatives have never been properly discussed and the
City will encounter determined and concerned opposition to the
project until we approach community planning in a more democratic
and deliberative manner. The agencies that exist to protect the
environment are not being effective in Kitsap County. The only
effective way to protect the environment is at the City Council
level and they should only approve those land uses that are
appropriate to a particular piece of land. A flat piece of land on
a highway, on a rail line or near an airport would be far more
appropriate than a steeply sloped forested piece of land that
happens to be near a road with a creek running through it, above an
important aquifer in a rural residential neighborhood. The City
Council could still disapprove these changes and have the City
withdraw the Anderson Hill plan and continue to study the
appropriate uses of the land, and she urged Council to do so.
David della-Rovere, 3300 Anderson Hill Road Sw, representing the
Association To Protect Anderson Creek, referenced the
Planning Commission meeting held a couple of weeks ago and the fact
that he made a presentation and provided background information.
At that time, the Planning Commission was under the impression that
all they were voting on was the inconsistencies that were being
corrected, so they were not open to any other kind of voting. All
statements the "Association" has made previously about the
Industrial Park portion of the project are still current and on the
record. However, there is a change, which has been stated, that
the main portion of Anderson Creek has been changed to "Utility
Land" and the portion on the east side is designated as "Low
Density Residential". That specific change has not been addressed
by his group. A concern that they do have is in the Capital
Facilities section, it does not adequately address impacts on
schools. Under Industrial Park (IP) designation there would be no
impact on schools, but when changed to "Low Density Residential" it
does have an impact. He asked if there had been any consideration
of talking to the South Kitsap School District to determine the
kind of impact by the time it is zoned? Mr. Overson pointed out
there are impact fees for any development of size to take care of
such concerns. Mr. Della-Rovere stated the point is when a plan is
developed you look at those things. He also raised the issue of
"traffic" and the impact it would have on the surrounding
neighborhood. Having sat through a public hearing on a land use
#2897
TAPE #1358
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 28 of 29
issue prior to this item, he heard from the proponents their
applauding the city for taking in 20,000 new residents and the GMA
resulting in cutting down on development outside the cities so
development can occur within the cities. Council had a discussion
about the City's responsibility to the GMA and the need to densify
the City by increasing densities. His opinion was not that far off
from Council's decision. He agrees with the concept of the GMA,
and that basically is growth will occur in the cities. Now, the
problem he and his neighbors face is from the City's standpoint
this area is within the City, but from a practical standpoint, it
really isn't. President Law cautioned Mr. Della-Rovere to stick to
the issue. Mr. Della-Rovere referenced the vote of several Council
members on the Tracyton Beach issue and their saying you have to
look a what is really there. He urged the same kind of
consideration in the Anderson Creek area. If you follow Growth
Management, yes development should be within the City, but this
area is really a rural area, not an urban area. He agreed with Mr.
Sciepko's statement that "you need more industrial land within your
urban areas to provide jobs." He is not opposed to a Corporate
Campus type development within a city. This area, although it is
technically in the City Limits of Bremerton, is still a rural area.
Mr. Overson pointed out the Anderson Creek area is within the urban
growth area as designed by the Growth Management Plan, both City
and County. Mr. Della-Rovere noted the County's plan is stili up
for debate.
Mr. Winters read the impact of non-passage of the changes: "The
recommended changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan were directed
by the Growth Management Hearing Boards in its final decision and
order issued in December 1995. The Board gave a compliance
deadline of 4:00 P.M. on February 26. The adopted amendments must
be filed with the Hearings board by March 4. If the City does not
adopt the corrections to the Comprehensive Plan, the Plan will
remain internally inconsistent and that status could affect the
City's eligibility for certain types of grants or other State
funding for needed projects and could leave the City vulnerable to
the State imposed sanction.,,
Mr. Overson directed his comments to the last two speakers from the
public and urged them to study the facts that have been before
Council. The area has already been clear cut to the extent it is
to be clear cut, the area around the creek has been protected, and
the watershed is well protected as far as that within the city's
control.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Winters) to approve Ordinance, on first reading,
adopting the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and including amendments
ordered by the Growth Management Hearings Board.
#3012
#3152
TAPE #1358
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 14, 1996
Page 29 of 29
President Law announced Mayor Horton has requested Council to
review their vote taken on Ordinance #4543. Mayor Hotton stated
the recommended motion approved on February 7, was to exclude RV's
from the ordinance, which means RV's would be allowed to stay
longer than the time limit identified in the Ordinance. Council,s
action tonight changed that model motion and it concerned her that
the public was not given prior notification that such action was
under consideration. She was concerned about the public's reaction
when the ordinance became law in 10 days and the City started
enforcing it without further public notice. She asked Council to
reconsider the motion and then table the motion for two weeks in
order to get information out to the public. She will abide by
Council's decision either way, but she wants to assure the
opportunity for public input.
M/S/C(McConnell/Winters) moved to rescind the vote on Ordinance
#4543 and to continue the item for two weeks.
Vote on motion: In Favor: Overson, Farr, Huff-Menees,
Motion Carried
Opposed
McConnell, Colvin,
Montgomery, Winters, Law
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required
by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified
as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that
had been made available to the Council.
M/S/C/U(Winters/Montgomery) on February 14, 1996, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: 195061, 195078 through 195303 in the amount of
$634,415.17.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M.
/
~//~ ~THLEEN L. McCLUS Y
~OHN E. LAW, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/JL/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault
City Clerk