Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/10/94TAPE #1225 UNAPPROVED DRAFT COUNCIL :' .PPROVED SEP I' 199 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1994 #0037 #0062 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 10, 1994, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Sherril Huff-Menees presiding. Council members present were Morrie Dawkins, Bob Winters, John Law, David Farr, Richard Neville, A1 Colvin, and Lon Overson. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Huff-Menees and Invocation given by Reverend Woody Peabody of St. Paul's Episcopal Church. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - July 27, 1994 #AB94-167 M/S/C/U(Neville/Farr) to approve the Consent Agenda with a correction made changing "West Bremerton PeeWee Association" to "Warren Avenue PeeWee Association". CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.2.4,080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on August 10, 1994, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 177513 through 177648 in the total amount of $369,265.46; and Regular Payroll for the period ending 7-31-94 in the amount of $670,864.11. President Huff-Menees announced Council is restructuring the Council meeting format and as part of that change a time for "Public Service Announcements" has been set from 5:10 - 5:30 P.M. Anyone wishing to make an announcement of a public service nature can come to the podium and have their message televised. More information on this process will be provided at the August 17th City Council meeting. The new Public Service Announcement opportunity will begin on August 24. At the previous Council meeting she indicated Council would be making a slight change to the Public Recognition Time in that it will be a 15-minute time TAPE #1225 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 2 of 32 period at the beginning of the meeting, and anyone who has not had an opportunity to speak during that time period is welcome to stay and address their issue at the end of the Council meeting. Previously, she announced that Council .Member Reports would be moved to the end of the meeting as well. Council had asked to revisit that issue, and determined they wanted their reports to remain at the beginning of the Council meeting. Other upcoming City meetings: Planning Commission meets August 16, 6:00 P.M.; City Council Study Session on Monday, August 15, 5:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M., Agenda - (1) Cable Consultants/Franchising; (2) proposed salary for Wastewater Manager; (3) Dam Safety Requirements; (3) Kitsap Lake Road Sewer Extension Bid Award; (4) Wastewater Treatment Plant Odor Control Project Update; and (5) Alexander Lake Dam Reconstruction Update. Applications are still being accepted through the month of August for City Council District #8 position, which will be appointed by the City Council. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Winters announced an AGAPE sponsored dance will be held on August 12, 8;00 P.M., at the Westside Improvement Club. He also sent his mother a "get well soon" message. Mr. Law announced there will not be a District #3 Neighborhood meeting in August and the next scheduled meeting will be held the third Tuesday of September. Mr. Overson reported on a significant improvement on the waterfront as the old Salvation Army building is torn down providing some new view corridor and soon to be built parking, which he sees as another step in improving that area. He attended the Neighborhood Information Network meeting, held August 16, which was well attended. He was pleased to report that City Police responded very quickly to an incident in the Highland District on the evening of August 16. Mrs. Huff-Menees read into the record a letter from Nancy Buck, Voter Registration Coordinator For District #1, thanking Legislative Assistant Merilynn Erhart and Council Office Assistant Lori Smith for their dedication, efforts, and collaboration in their Voter Registration Drive. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Lynn Horton announced residents on Lower Marine Drive should have their telephone service back on line within two hours, which was disrupted by someone severing a telephone cable. She also reminded everyone that following the Council meeting, the pubic will have an opportunity for input on the qualities they would like to see in a new Police Chief. Wrap-up activities for the Kure, TAPE #1225 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 3 of 32 Japan delegation included a Lions Club picnic on August 3 and a banquet on August 4. There is the possibility of a Bremerton delegation going to Kure, Japan in November of this year and anyone interested in learning more about that trip can call her office. The Kure delegation presented the City with a gift and she in turn wished to present it to the City Council. President Huff-Menees accepted the decorated vase from Mayor Horton and thanked the Kure visitors for the lovely gift. PUBLIC RECOGNITION President Huff-Menees asked that anyone wishing.to speak during Public Recognition to please fill out a card with their name and telephone number. Bob 8auter, Post Commander VFW Post 3694 and President of the Kitsap County Veterans Coalition, made the following announcements: 1) "Military Retiree Day" will be held on August 12, 8:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. On that date, information will be handed out from various agencies to assist the retirees and their families; 2) The Manette community is sponsoring a parade on August 20, 10:00 A.M., starting on Scott Street. The veterans organization will take part in that parade and everyone is invited to attend; 3) On September 10, 4:00 P.M., American Legion Post #149, 425 S. Cambrian, is hosting an evening to "Meet The Candidates" running for office in the 23rd District and the public is invited; also 4) September 14 will be the first of monthly one-daX sessions by legal personnel to afford legal aid to veterans and the elderly over 65, which will be free of charge. This service will be conducted at West Hills Honda on Auto Center Way. De1 Knauss asked that he be provided information showing 1) the total amount that would be in the Roosevelt Field Capital Fund if no money had been borrowed for other projects; 2) the total amount that has been spent out of that fund, and what projects they have been applied to; and 3) what is the time frame for paying back that fund. He also wants to know why half of the grass at Evergreen Park is "burned up" and only one small section is being watered? Other people are also concerned about other parks in the City being allowed to "brown out" instead of keeping the grass green by watering. In reference to Council's proposed change to Public Recognition, by Council moving their reports back to the beginning of the City Council meeting shows the people that Council is watching out for themselves. He questioned whose idea was it to limit Public Recognition to 15 minutes. When Council members ran for office didn't they tell people "I'm running on the platform of TAPE #1225 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 4 of 32 limiting Public Input?" No. When people run for office, the public hears "we want to hear from you", but once in office, Council tends to forget that. If you do not have the time to listen to the public, then don't bother coming to their doors when running for office. Jack Lefcoski announced the Kitsap Lake community will hold a meeting on August 22, 6:30 P.M., at the Kitsap Lake Mobile Home Park. The City's Citizens Action Committee will be holding a public meeting on August 30, 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers. Gordy Byrd expressed his disappointment that the last Concert in the Park at Evergreen Park was cancelled. Shannon Cook announced Harrison Hospital Annex will hold a blood drive on August 26, 11:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. and 1:45 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. She was pleased to report she completed the Hospice Walk and raised $243.00 for Hospice of Kitsap County. Roy McInnis asked that he also be provided the information requested by Del Knauss on the Roosevelt Field assets. He personally apologized to Mr. Winters for his demeanor at the previous Council meeting. He is known to make faces and comment on issues and wished to apologize if such action offended Mr. Winters. Mr. Winters stated his apology was accepted. Don Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, displayed two posters that have been printed for publicizing the Blackberry Festival. The Jazz Festival will take place on August 20 in the Park Place Building followed by additional performances in five lounges in the area. The 35-mile biking event, held August 6, was well received with a comparative small turnout. He anticipates this event to grow in the future. The Kiwanis Air Fair will be held on August 21, which is part of the Blackberry Festival this year. The Friday night concert on the boardwalk will feature Jr. Cadillac and the Farmers' Market vendors will also be in operation. At 10:00 P.M., there will be a fly over by a "Russian Mig", which will be shooting off fireworks off of its wings. Main Streets "Prospectives 94" program will be held in September with possibly two programs to cover ballot measures and candidates. Mr. Law made a brief statement explaining the process by which Council Agenda Items are brought before Council members for study prior to their being placed on the Council Agenda. 6A - ADJUSTMENTTO METCALFANDEDDY SERVICES INC., CONTRACT (#2901) WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION BASE "B" REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, #AB94-168 TAPE #1225 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 5 of 32 Current contract budget for repair and maintenance of the Wastewater Treatment Plant, lift stations, and appurtenances is $150,000 for contract year 1994 (January 1 - December 31). Expenditures for repair and maintenance through July 15, 1994 total $132,160. Anticipated priority repair and maintenance through December 31, 1994 is estimated at an additional $80,000 for a total of $212,760. Costs charged to repair and maintenance include scheduled equipment maintenance as well as unanticipated equipment breakdowns. Bill McKinney, Wastewater Treatment Plant Contract Compliance Officer, stated he and Tom Warner, Treatment Plant Manager, would be available to answer questions on this issue. A question was raised earlier ... What had been formally budgeted in years past for this item? For the past five years, the budget has included $150,000 for this item. Mr. Neville questioned the number of lift stations? Mr. McKinnev responded there are 34. Mr. Neville questioned if 10 of the lift stations are to be worked on, are the other 24 in good working condition, or are they all going "bad" at one time? Mr. McKinneV explained the other lift stations receive routine maintenance and scheduled maintenance. The items listed in this proposal are some major items that were anticipated other than routine maintenance. Mr. Farr questioned.why would such items as those requested be unanticipated when they are serviced on a routine basis? Mr. McKinneV stated that was a valid question, and in hindsight, it would have been better if that item had been increased in the 1994 Budget. After reviewing the records, that budgeted amount had not been exceeded, and of the $132,000 expended this year approximately $60,000 was used for unanticipated breakages that did occur during this last year. Public comment - none. Mr. Oversonquestioned.if Mr. McKinney.anticipated bringing forward larger budgets in future years? Mr. McKinney stated he felt that was safe to assume in that the plant is 10 years old, and the life expectancy on a lot of the pumping components is 8-10 years, so we are in that period of time when there will be increased maintenance and replacement for some items. Mr. Neville noted the request was in the amount of $80,000 for repair and maintenance and questioned will there be an additional budget adjustment to cover labor expenses? Mr. McKinney explained labor expenses is covered under a separate account. TAPE #1225 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 6 of 32 Mr. Overson stated following discussions on this item, he has been convinced that it is better to provide the necessary funding now, because ifit is not spent it will be carried over to future years. #1292 M/S/C/U(Overson/Colvin) to approve increasing the Base "B" Repair and Maintenance amount from $150,000 to $225,000. The additional amount above the Total Estimated 1994 Repair and Maintenance Expenditures would be a contingency for unanticipated equipment repair. 6B - EASEMENT AGREEMENT IN. FOREST RIDGE PARK ON BEHALF OF DUANE BAKER, 8R,, #AB94-169 The owner of building lots on the west side of N. Lafayette between Burwell and 6th has approached the City about securing an easement to the lots through Forest Ridge Park off of Summit Avenue. Summit Avenue is an internal park street, not a public Right-of-Way. The Parks & Recreation Commission has recommended approval of the proposal with related park improvements and has forwarded the issue to the Council to decide whether or not to authorize the Mayor to sign the proposed agreement on behalf of the City. Mr. Law stated having looked at the presentation made and documentation provided, he feels this should not be presented to the City Council in this format, but rather as a Public Hearing item. He cited B.M.C. 13.12.030, "Parks Protection - Procedures to Surplus or ChanGe Use, the following procedures shall apply to the sale, possible sale, lease, or significant change in use shall mean any activity which does not complimentor support a recreational activity"; Subsection 13.12.030(b) states "The City Council shall hold a minimum of two public hearings concerning the matter in addition to other statutory hearings"; Subsection 13.12.030 (d) states "A unanimous vote of the full Council membership is necessary to sell any of the park assets described above or to significantly change their use"; Subsection 13.12.030 (e) states "In the absence of a unanimous vote to sell, or as an alternative to meeting the criteria of Subsection (c) or (d) or the Council may, by a simple majority of those present, refer the matter to the voters at the next scheduled election". He pointed out on the site plan that 25 percent of that block would become blacktop and to him, that meant a significant amount. Mr. Overson stated he appreciated Mr. Law's presentation and understood it, however, Council did have the following option: 1) pull the item; 2) table it; or 3) go through the process and either accept it.or turn it down. He did not see any other options at this time. Mr. Colvin asked the City Attorney to give his opinion on Mr. Overson's statement. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated in reference to Mr. Law's comments, he felt the procedure TAPE #1225 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 7 of 32 that was adopted in the Agenda Bill is interpreting the first phrase that Mr. Law read, which talks about the procedures that shall apply... one being a sale, lease, or a significant change in use. He quoted: "a significant change in use shall mean any activity which does not comDliment or support recreational activity". He did discuss this issue with Ms. Vanneman prior to her leaving the City, and her position was that the consideration that the developer is offering the City, mainly the pavement of the access road and parking, was a compliment or support of park activity, otherwise the consideration offered would be worthless to the parks system and they probably wouldn't want to give them an easement. So, interpreting that phrase they found it complimentary to park use in getting this paved parking for park use;'and for that reason, they did not feel it was a significant change in use being contrary to park use and requiring the procedures' of the ordinance. Council may interpret that differently, again it casts a cloud on what we are getting as consideration. But, he didn't feel this hearing needed to be interpreted. The Parks Protection Ordinance does not require extensive or any kind of notice procedure prior to the hearing such as publications, posting, or mailings to neighbors, but states Council shall hold a minimum of two public hearings. He believed either Mr. Law or Council President Huff-Menees mentioned at the prior Council meeting that this Council takes public input and basically holds public hearings on.every item on the Agenda. Tonight's item is a public hearing and Council could continue the item and have a second public hearing next week, if Council found it was not complimentary or supporting for park uses. The other criteria would be that there would have to ultimately be a unanimous vote of Council after the second hearing. Mr. Colvim stated Mr. Sievers did not answer the question that he asked. He questioned if a unanimous vote was necessary to give this item approval? Mr. Sievers stated he felt that was a reasonable reading of the ordinance. If Council decides to hear the issue and pass it with a simple motion that it is a contract and it is some interest in land, he thinks that is why the significant change in use was included in the ordinance. He believes inclusion of "significant use" was to capture the essence of those interests in properties that were short of leases or sales and set a performance standard. He felt that was a reasonable interpretation and that they did not have to follow the Parks Protection Ordinance procedures. The department felt the consideration offered by the developer did compliment park use. If Council feels it does not compliment or support park use, after holding two hearings, they should pass it with a unanimous vote. Mr. Colvim asked if there was any requirement to preannounce the public hearings? Mr. Slevers stated no...agenda items are set and basically Council holds public hearings on all agenda items. Mr. Law questioned if he understood correctly, that if we are TAPE #1225 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 8 of 32 talking about a public hearing on land use that there is no requirement to notify the residents around an area? Mr. Sievers stated those are the type of public hearings, by ordinance, that have additional notification procedures written into the Zoning Code. In certain cases, the City has more than one notice of a public hearing. Mr. Winters stated based on confusion, he suggested tabling this item until Mr. Pratt, who originated the Agenda Bill, returns from vacation and conducts the presentation. Mr. Overson reminded Council this item did come before Council Committees, and their response was they did not like it. Mr. Sievers' presentation basically puts the "ball back in Council's court" and they must determine if, as proposed, this is something that is useful for the park or if it actually represents a change in land use. The other side of the concern is the reason the Parks Protection Ordinance was written the way it was, because it goes into the normal process that provides for an announcement as per any normal Agenda item, which then announces the second hearing. He did not want to take away the option for Mr. Winters to make a motion to table at this time, but once such a motion is made, Council must vote on it. Mr. Colvin stated he agreed with Mr. Overson's comments and he did not want to take away the opportunity from any citizen to speak on this issue at this time. Mr. Farr raised a point of appearance of fairness in that he owns a piece of property 1/2 a block from Forest Ridge Park. Mr. Sievers stated Mr. Farr did not have a conflict in that this item was in the nature of a contract with a private party and the City as a corporation, and is not a land use hearing to determine how the law applies to his right for a permit. Mr. Law questioned how could Council make this become the first of a two-meeting hearing and should Council take a vote on the issue at this time? Mr. Sievers stated no vote should be made prior to hearing input from both of the required hearings, if that is what Council determines is needed. There would be no voteat this time and Council would just continue the hearing to another time on the Agenda. C.D. Montgomez7 questioned if council voted to disapprove this request, would it have to go forward to another hearing? Mr. Sievers stated yes, and was a reasonable interpretation of the procedures identified in the Parks Protection Ordinance. Mr. Montgomez7 stated he first learned of this proposal through a newspaper article and his first reaction was "not Forest Park again". He was contacted by a resident of the subject area, who objected to the proposal. Following that discussion, he made a TAPE #1225 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 9 of 32 walking tour of the area under consideration. After careful review of Mr. Baker's intent, he does not support the proposal. He cited a statement in the newspaper article: "Having townhouses there will increase legitimate park use and discourage illegal or undesirable activities". That comment was stated by someone in a subcommittee and is inaccurate. Increased use of the park will only come if the citizens of the City desire to use the park, which has very little amenities for family picnic or sport activities. From his observation, walkers and bikers are using the park. Neighbors of the park are concerned about illegal activity taking place in the park during evening hours. With the shortage of park space in the City, it is inconceivable to allow developers to utilize any part of any park for their personal use. He pointed out the statement under Impact Of Non-Passage that the developer would only have access to his site from north Lafayette and that park improvements would not take place. Mr. Montgomery emphasized the developer knew the access to the site when he purchased the property. He believed the proposed parking area would be used by the developments tenants/owners and not be of any benefit to the park. He pointed out the proposed parking area was surrounded by trees and had a limited view of the park itself. Gordv Byrd questioned the City's Attorney's interpretation regarding having public hearings and he believed notice must be given in advance of such hearings. Mr. Overson assured Mr. Byrd that discussion on this item is considered a hearing and could register as the first of two hearings. Council does have an option to choose to hold another hearing for further public input if they determine that this is a proposed change in the use of the park. Mr. Byrd questioned the method used to notify the public? Mr. Overson explained notification was given for the normal Agenda packet publication method the Friday before this meeting. Bob Sauter stated he deals with the Legislature in Olympia and he thinks before Council determines this is a public hearing they need to get a ruling from the Attorney General. Even the State Legislature publishes public hearing notices at least two weeks in advance and this discussion is an item on the Agenda for the City Council as New Business and not designated as a "Public Hearing". De1 Knauss stated he was heavily involved in development of the Parks Protection Ordinance and in no way is an easement across park property not a substantial change in use. The proposal would only benefit the developer and the only time of year the park needs extra parking is at Easter. It appears discussion on this proposal has been going on since April, however, at no time did anyone bring the proposal before the residents at a Neighborhood Information Network meeting. If Mr. Pratt was working under orders from the Mayor to hush this up, then an apology needs to come from the TAPE #1225 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 10 of 32 Mayor. If Mr. Pratt was doing this on his own, something is definitely wrong with department head's authority . He quoted comments made by Mayor Horton: "over my dead body will I encroach on any more parks". His response to that statement is...here we go again. If parking improvements are needed at Forest Ridge, he will personally donate $50.00 towards such improvements and he will volunteer to seek out additional donations. Richard Chrisinger stated being a part time resident of Bremerton and Springfield, Missouri the way he learned about this issue was through his Bremerton neighbors. He currently owns and pays taxes on 16,000 sq. ft. of land to the north of the proposed easement. He identified the following concerns: (1) he nor his neighbors were aware of this subject matter prior to Saturday/August 10 newspaper article; (2) does he run, walk or crawl since his property holdings are up for sale? (3) Does this enhance his property valuation? (4) When was the neighborhood going to be notified about this proposal? (5) How many of the large 50+ year old trees are going to be removed from said easement? (6) What happens with all the future soil erosion that will be caused by the proposed construction; (7) How high will bulkheads/retaining walls be to protect possible soil erosion? (8) Will the easement land be graded to Summit Avenue street level? (9) Who benefits from the sale of said timber? (10) How much land does the City relinquish from Forest Ridge Park from granter to grantee? (11) Will the developer pick up this land easement up for taxable land holdings? (12) Was the City Council aware of a recent fire within the park boundaries? (13) Is Council aware of the trash dumping in park right-of-ways? (14) Is Council aware of the traffic into the park during night time hours? (15) Do you remember the big wind storm of a few years past...what a uproar to have three trees cut down for safety to protect a house? He had a copy of the easement agreement dated 4-26-94 and passed out copies of that document to numerous Forest Ridge Park neighbors. As a seller of a property, he is still responsible to his new owner about subject easement planning. He is strongly opposed to this proposal. President Huff-Menees stated for clarification that this issue might have been before the Park's Commission in April, but Council did not see it until the week of August 1, nor did she know how long it was under the consideration of the Parks Commission. Tom Hahn stated he believed only the developer would gain from this proposal and the park would just get smaller. There are other land holders next to the park, with various zoning, who may want some kind of concession to use park land? Such action would be precedent setting that people can "pave over" a park. He was not pleased that the residents in the subject area were "kept in the dark" that this was being proposed. Whether or not there is a law TAPE #1225 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page ll of 32 stipulating public hearing notification, he felt such notification should have been given to the surrounding residents saying "we're going to talk about an easement". He believes the park is abused by people dumping trash and changing the oil in their vehicles on park property, not to mention drug dealing and violent crime in that same area. He would like someone to put pressure on the Parks Department to clean up the park through routine maintenance. For quite some time the Boy Scouts have provided cleaning and maintenance effort in the park. Chet SimDson stated in his opinion, the City Attorney did not give a straight answer on the "public hearing" issue or the voting options. He was concerned over the practice of the City giving away land and cited the time when Bremerton traded McCormick Woods some property that had approximately $350,000 worth of timber on it and the City offered to pay them $660,000 to take it off their hands for another piece of property which they couldn't use or never used. The City gave away land recently on Kitsap Way because there was to be a better intersection at Kitsap and Marine Drive. In his opinion, that intersection is not better than before, but other people did benefit by the City giving away land. A few years ago he called the Parks Department and asked them about a tennis net, basketball net, repair of the swings at Forest Ridge Park. The response he received from the person answering the telephone in the department was "where is it". He pointed out the newspaper article calling it the "almost forgotten park". He is very familiar with that park and it is not a "forgotten park". The only people who have forgotten the park is the Parks Department and the City Council. Previously, downtown businesses were offered having a beautiful road built providing access to their business so their land would be worth more because they had spent 30 years gambling on a no-nothing policy and they lost. Now the City is saying they want to give away more land and part of the park will be taken away to do it. Every district in every city of this County and every County of this state and every state in this union are grappling and struggling to get park land set aside for parks, and what does the City's Parks Department tell us?...that they want to give part of it away and deteriorate more of it by building bulkheads and cutins on the down hill easement. Furthermore, he believed the City cannot give away any part of the park because if you do it would revert back to the original owner. That point was brought up before and they were told that it was a fact. Cecil McConne11 stated earlier there was discussion about the Parks Protection Ordinance, however, he heard no mention of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance identifies several items of allowed uses for Park and School Zones. Then it has other uses allowed by Special Use Permit and there are unlisted uses - an access road to a private development is an unlisted use of that TAPE #1225 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 12 of 32 parks property. If the use is not listed in the Zoning Ordinance, which it is not, it shall be considered an unlisted use and an unlisted use may be approved only through the Special Use Permit process and may be approved only if the Planning Commission finds it to be similar to the limited uses that are allowed in that particular zoning district. Jan Hahn stated she did not view development as a bad thing, but questioned what was meant by "townhouses", how are they to be built and will they become an instant slum. President Huff-Menees explained the only thing that can be discussed at this time has to do with the easement...the development project is something that will be addressed at another time. Mrs. Hahn stated she could not foresee another instant slum developed within Bremerton. To the casual observer Bremerton looks good, but it is things like this that happens internally and is not good. When issues such as this come before Council they should also include full disclosure of what kind of development would take place. Gene Hawkins stated he came to Bremerton in 1937 and purchased a home on Terrell Avenue. He and his wife walk through Forest Ridge Park every morning, as do several other neighbors. In talking with one of his neighbors, he learned that Forest Ridge Park property was deeded to the City of Charleston with the restriction that no chain saw touch the trees in the park. He felt that was the right attitude to take toward this park. He felt there use to be a Parks Department that cared about the park, but that is not the case today. Someone removed the "no riding on trails" signs and now motorcycles are driving through the park at 2:00 AM., and people using mountain bikes are tearing up the trails. He was very concerned over the fact that recently someone set a fire in the park, approximately 30 ft. in diameter, that was extinguished 'by the Fire Department. TAPE #1226 Carol Artands expressed her concern about lack of notification of this being an issue and saw no benefit for parking spaces off of Summit Avenue. She agreed that Easter was the only time a large crowd gathered at the park and usually people attending that event park along the street. She is concerned about the narrowness of Lafayette Street. She urged that this issue be carefully considered by Council and questioned this use as benefit to the park. Katherine Glade stated she visited Forest Ridge Park and read the logo posted, which stated: "Bremerton Parks committed to enriching life in Bremerton". On March 11 she was interviewed for a volunteer position with the Parks Commission by Mayor Lynn Horton and Parks Commission member Larry Hall. At that time, she talked TAPE #1225 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 13 of 32 about Mr. Baker's project and the Mayor seemed surprised about the proposal. Mr. Hall went on to explain there was already an access road for a private home in that general location and Mr. Baker's request of access through the park would provide lighting and additional parking spaces. Mr. Hall made the comment to her: ."this issue is going to go through". She was very uncomfortable with Mr. Hall's comments and urged Council to give this proposal close scruteny because it does not sound right to her. No additional parking is needed in the park, however, the Park Department needs to come in and cut ivy down from the trees and provide needed maintenance. She called the Parks Director three weeks ago to voice her concern, however, as of this date she had not received a call back. She also had difficulty getting the previous Parks Director to return her calls. She agreed that the Boy Scouts were the ones doing most of the clean up work in the park. To start nibbling away at City park land is something that might have happened in the '50's...we're more aware now to let that happen. George Goings stated he has known about Mr. Baker's project for some time and has been opposed to it. He first learned of the project from the Department of Community Development and at that time there was no talk of needing an easement through the park. From looking at the drawing the development, it looks like the developer needs additional parking for his development. He agreed with others that the park does not need a parking lot. There was a large parking lot next to the restrooms in the park and that area was a problem from illegal activity taking place so the Boy Scouts came in and blocked off the parking lot and turned it into a playground. Now, a proposal is before Council to put in another parking lot saying that the park needs it. He did not know where that kind of thinking would lead to a better use of the park. He felt the newspaper article was slanted too much in favor of the proposal and stated things like: "out-of-the-way, largely unknown Forest Ridge Park". He questioned "out-of-the-way to who and "largely unknown" to who? He has lived in the this area since 1951 and Forest Ridge Park is part of a lot of peoples lives. If an easement is allow for a portion of the park, it would make an island...the first island of maybe many because the whole strip along North Lafayette is zoned for apartments. He hoped the City Council would turn down this proposal. Barbara Roland stated she is a teacher at Magnuson Alternative School and threeor four times a year she uses the park for "camp cooking" classes. Magnuson School also runs classes for survival skills in the park and Frances Haddon Morgan Center also uses the park a great deal. Part of her after-hours activities as a vocational teacher is having kids do projects and some of those projects have to do with cleaning up the park. Magnuson School would like to use the park more, but she find it difficult with no TAPE #1226 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 14 of 32 picnic tables and lack of cooking areas or barbecue areas. She questioned how would taking a large chunk of the park help Forest Ridge Park, Magnuson School, Frances Haddon Morgan and all who do use the park? She did not support seeing part of the park land going to a private person's use. Roy McInnis stated he is not against development in the City, however, there are certain times when certain things come along that should not be brought before Council. He does not understand how this item got on the Agenda. Earlier in the discussion the Council President stated they are just now hearing about this proposal and now he hears later that this discussion should be turned into a public hearing. He discounted statements made of input by Mr. Pratt and Mr. Hall...who cares they are not here. He urged Council to listen to and heed citizens input. He did not support approving this item. Mayor Hotton stated she would respond as to how this item got placed on the Agenda. She nor her staff have the authority to take away the responsibility of the City Council. The City Council is the entity that approves or disapproves easements. The~applicant came to the City with his proposal and asked that Council have the easement issue brought before them. She does not get involved with a lot of land use issues and the reason for that is because there are set procedures for land use. She believes it is inappropriate for her to get involved either pro or con and try to inflict her opinions on the process that is set by ordinance. What she can do is to work with that procedure and if she sees there are issues coming up time- after-time that are stumbling blocks as far as policy, then she will recommend to staff to bring those issues before Council for policy making decision. She did not know every detail about this proposal, but was aware it was requesting an easement across park property. Until a short time ago, she did not realize it involved development of parking and the possibility of change in park use. This item did go through the Parks Commission and she does not know how it was presented to them. Clearly, a better job of notification needs to be done. on issues such as this. She had tried to get a neighborhood meeting, on this issue, set up prior to this meeting, but was unsuccessful due to Mr. Pratt being on vacation. After she and her Department Heads reviewed the Agenda Bill on this item, the applicant was notified that he must be present at the Council meeting or she would ask to have the item pulled off the Agenda until Mr. Pratt returned. She emphasized Council is not to be blamed for bringing this item before them, but is something that was generated by City staff upon request by the applicant. It is Council's decision whether or not they wish to approve this item, not hers, the Parks Commission, or the Director Of Community Development. Jack Lef~oskl stated if Council was not embarrassed he was TAPE #1226 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 15 of 32 embarrassed for them. He has attended many Council meetings and in his opinion this is the "biggest screw up" he has ever seen. He suggested that Mr. Winter's suggestion be followed and table this item until Mr Pratt returns, a determination is made whether or not public notices are required to be sent out to residents within the subject area, and clarification of legal procedures. He questioned if this proposal should have gone before the Planning Commission? Roy McInnis stated if Council tabled this item now it will be gone and not brought back. Gordy Byrd stated since there has been so much negative testimony on this item, he felt it should not be on the Agenda. His understanding of "tabling" was that all discussion would stop and then brought back for further discussion at another time. He questioned if this discussion would be considered as the "first hearing"? Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated this is the first hearing. Del Knauss questioned if the proponent chose to ask Council to pull this item at this time would that be possible? Mr. Sievers stated yes. Mr. Overson stated if the proponent asks the item to be pulled off the Agenda, it would be removing the present action, but that does not say the individual couldn't return it at another time in another form. Mr. Knauss stated the reason he raised that question was because he was not sure how Council was treating the issue at this time. He questioned if Council was going to vote "No" and say they are done? Or, will Council say they consider this the first hearing and another hearing will be held? Mr. Law asked the City Attorney if this discussion is the first hearing and what has to be done to do this correctly so that it gets resolved and everyone feels that they have had their fair chance to express themselves?. Mr. Sievers stated there is a problem with the Parks Protection Ordinance in that it calls for a fact finding to be initially made before proceeding with the item. Someone at some point has to determine whether this interest in the park land is complimentary or supports recreational activity. He takes it the prior Parks Director felt it did and proceeded in a particular way. And, the Parks Commission agreed with the proposal after giving their review. If Council finds that it does not compliment or support recreational park activities, they can still go through the entire procedure of two hearings and require a unanimous vote. Council must decide whether this item requires only a simple vote of the Council at one hearing, which is tonight, or whether they will require following procedures of the Parks Protection Ordinance because it does not compliment or support recreational park TAPE #1226 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 16 of 32 activity and require two hearings and a unanimous vote. Mr. Winters asked for a clear explanation of what is meant by a "unanimous" vote. Mr. Sievers stated that is one of the procedures listed under the Parks Protection Ordinance that Council is required to follow, if they find that a sale, lease or significant change in use as defined in the ordinance exists. He quoted the following: "to approve the action it requires a unanimous vote of the full Council membership". That requirement means all currently serving City Council members, not those sitting as a quorum. Mr. Overson pointed out Mayor Horton and the City Attorney stated that the City Council has been empowered to make the decision on this item and have to take the "hits" afterward. Mr. Winters stated he sat in on a committee meeting with Pat Harris, Director of Parks and Recreation, along with Council members Farr and Dawkins. At that time, Mr. Harris stated he was not sure as to what he had in the proposal, but Mr. Pratt had given it to him to present. Such a statement disturbed Mr. Winters and now at this meeting he is embarrassed and appalled over what is taking place because Mr. Harris did not have answers to his questions and Mr. Pratt was not available due to his being on vacation. Also, it disturbed him that he was stopped from making a motion'to table the item early on in the discussion. President Huff-Menees stated she is not embarrassed about what is happening during this discussion. She knows of no other method of a public opportunity for people to address this issue for Council to learn their feelings. She did receive several telephone calls, but in response to Mr. Winters and Mr. Lefcoski she is not embarrassed at all. The newspaper article alluded to Council giving their approval during the Committee review process. She assured the public. that was not correct, however, the Parks Commission did approve the proposal so that it could come before the City Council. Council has not made a prior determination on this issue and what the Committee did was decided this issue needed to be heard before the full Council and the opportunity for the public to address this issue. Information Council received on this issue or any issue that the public gives input for or against is very important and enables the Council to make decision that they know their constituency is concerned about. Bob Sauter asked if Mr. Baker was present to respond to concerns raised by the public and City Council? President Huff-Menees explained Mr. Baker had the right to choose whether of not to speak. Mr. Sauter emphasized Mr. Baker was the person who should explain the intent of his request. Elizabeth Bus11 stated she had a misunderstanding about the proposal and did not realize the subject area was even a part of the park. She also understood that the proposed parking would not TAPE #1226 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 17 of 32 be used by tenants of the development. She felt it would be nice to provide parking for people who visit the park and allow access to the park for people living on Mr. Baker's property. At the beginning she was against the proposal, but now after learning more she is in favor of the easement request. Duane Baker, proponent, stated he has listened to lots of comments, both good and bad during this discussion. The particular area of the park that his proposal would affect is currently not used. He went to the expense of having the area surveyed and provided that information to Mr. Pratt, Director Of Community Development. This project has been developing since January 20, 1994, when he received a letter back from the City. He has taken this issue through the Parks Department, Parks Commission, Engineering Department, Department of Community'Development in an attempt to cover all areas correctly. The proposed housing units are 1-2 bedroom single family residences. Mr. Overson asked if Mr. Baker currently had a building permit? Mr. Baker responded no. Mr. Ore:son pointed out this discussion should not include what Mr. Baker is proposing to build, just an easement. Mr. Baker stated his proposal for an easement would allow access to the upper area, which would provide a convenient drop off place for people living on his property. His proposal also showed parking for visitors as well as homeowners on his property. The new parking area proposed for the park was the idea of Park personnel because they are in need of parking. He was also proposing to put in lights so that the parking lot would be lighted and he saw this as giving park improvements at Forest Ridge Park a boost in the right direction. In response to the comment that the proposed building project would turn into a slum, he assured the public and City Council he builds quality projects and cited several locations of buildings he has developed. C. D. Montgomer7 stated he would like the City Council to resolve this issue at this time and not table it. President Huff-Menees stated there is one matter that needs to be clarified with respect to this issue that addresses a few of the concerns expressed, one of which was perhaps this should have been a package that addressed the total issue. She emphasized there is no "package" as Mr. Baker indicated he has not applied for any permits. Mr. Baker's proposal is not something that would require him to go before the Planning Commission, so this is the opportunity for this issue to be heard. Mr. Law referenced B.M.C. 13.12 (D) and asked if a unanimous vote procedure is appropriate only if this discussion is considered a hearing and it is the second hearing or is that a procedure that could take place at this time? Mr. Sievers explained the way this TAPE #1226 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 18 of 32 has been proposed is a single hearing with a simple majority vote because it compliments or supports recreational activity. He is not saying Council has to agree with that, but that is how it has been proposed. Therefore, Council can hold a single hearing, which they have, with a simple vote to reject or approve it by a majority vote. He would feel comfortable with that interpretation if Council decides that this is a supporting activity. The issue can be disposed of during this hearing. He pointed out (D) is a subpart of .030, which is one of the procedures required if Council finds that the proposal does not compliment or support recreational activity. Mr. Colvin stated it was his understanding, from the City Attorney's remarks, that the first thing Council must do is determine if this proposal comes under the Parks Protection Ordinance. In response to those who wanted the item tabled at the beginning of the discussion, he supported opening the discussion and allowing the citizens to voice their opinions. Mr. Overson stated to shed light on that question the way it is proposed, it is not covered under the Parks Protection Ordinance because it is proposed as a complimentary or supplementary use to the park. If Council takes that view point, what they are considering is an easement and must limit the discussion to that issue. Mr. Colvin questioned if he was correct in that Council can make the determination whether or not it comes under the Parks Protection Ordinance? Mr. Sievers stated that was correct. Mr. Neville stated he disagreed with Mr. Overson on that point. It is specifically spelled out that Forest Ridge Park falls under the Parks Protection Ordinance and any time Council wants to do something with any of that property it has to be, in his opinion, a full unanimous vote decision in order to change any part of it in any way. Mr. Overson stated if you take the line of reasoning that it does come under the Parks Protection Ordinance, then any action Council takes now, other than having another hearing, would not be correct and the only way this could happen is through a majority vote. Council can show its intent by dispensing with it at this time if they determine it does not need a second hearing or staff input or study. Mr. Colvin asked if Council needed a majority vote to determine if this item comes under the Parks Protection Ordinance? Mr. 8ievers stated to continue with Mr. Overson's thinking, he believes that may be the best way to propose it. If Council agrees that it compliments or supports recreational activities and vote on that and disagree with it, they can defeat the item at this hearing and a second hearing would not be needed. In fact, if Council determines it does not compliment or support this proposal it doesn't make sense anyway because if you want a second hearing you don't want this consideration...a parking lot development, but something else like money. Mr. Colvln challenged Mr. Sievers's earlier comment that it was Council's Option whether #1299 TAPE #1226 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 19 of 32 this issue comes under the Parks Protection Ordinance or not. Mr. Sievers stated Mr. Colvin was correct. Mr. Colvin asked if Council could vote, at this time, as to whether or not the issue comes under the Parks Protection Ordinance? Mr. Sievers stated in a sense it is 'covered by the Parks protection Ordinance because Forest Ridge Park is included in that ordinance. M/S/C/U(Overson/Law) to deny the application for an easement. President Huff-Menees asked for clarification if there was another option to refer this item back to Mr. Pratt for further information without taking any action? Mr. Sievers stated Council could continue the hearing to another date in order to obtain more information. Mr. Overson stated if Council soundly defeats this issue at this time it sends a message to staff that there is no consideration for an easement at this site. If staff wants to again propose such a plan, they need to present it in a different format and covers the needs of the Parks Protection Ordinance, which is a different process. Mr. McConnell has also opened the staff's eyes to the fact it may even be a consideration under the Zoning Ordinance, which would take a different process. Mr. Neville stated he feels strongly that a determination of whether this proposal falls under the Parks Protection Ordinance should be first prior to action on the stated motion. Mr. Colvin stated he agreed with Mr. Neville. Mr. Law asked should the motion on the floor be voted on and the easement be granted, does Council still have the recourse of going to the Park Protection Ordinance and have the second hearing? Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated by voting at this time Council would be deciding which procedures governs. As Mr. Sievers explained, it does fall under the Parks Protection Ordinance because it is part of that ordinance, however, within that act it gives some criteria to decide if it fits that criteria. If the stated motion fails, then Council has not approved it and another motion would be required to approve the proposal. Vote on motion: Unanimous. 6C - GORST CREEK BASIN STUDY - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTWITH AGI, INC., AND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH PUD NO. I OF KITSAP COUNTY, #AB94-170 A professional services agreement has been negotiated with AGI, Inc. to perform a study of the Gorst Creek Basin. This basin contains several wells, a reservoir, and a stream integral to Bremerton's water supply resources. This study will assess the dynamics of the surface water and groundwater and evaluate water resource management options. This TAPE #1226 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 20 of 32 amount for this study is not to exceed $73,200. PUD No. 1 has agreed to fund this study in full from their "Water Resource and Conservation Fund" as described in the attached interlocal agreement. Kathleen Caball, Water Resources Manager, stated she would stand by for any questions Council may have. Mr. Meville asked if City staff assisting with this procedure would be paid from this funding? Ms. Caball stated no, the funding was granted in order to pay the consultant fees. Some of the data collection is being done at well levels that is already being done under operation and maintenance functions. Mr. Meville questioned the number of City staff to be involved in this procedure? Ms. Oa~all pointed out there are estimated man-hours on specific duties. Mr. Overson noted the consultant will provide 10 copies of the report to the City along with a workshop on the end result, and questioned whom else will receive copies of the report? Ms. Caball stated the data being collected is not only important to the City but regionally and County-wide. The PUD will receive that information in order to assist in regional planning. There are similar projects being conducted in the County, which will also be used for regional planning. Mr. Overson questioned why would the PUD want to fund this program for the City? Ms. Caball explained the City requested funding from the PUD as part of their grant funding program. She assured receiving these funds for a City project is not something special and other water districts have also been recipients of PUD grant funds. Mr. Overson stated the larger part of that question is what will the PUD do with the information at the regional level and who has the decision power on that information? Ms. Caball stated any regional planning will involve the City. One of PUD programs is development of the Kitsap County Ground Water Management Plan and the City is involved with that project. The end product from that study will be similar to the City's Watershed Report, which will be brought to Council for their concurrence or nonconcurrence. Mr. Overson clarified his concern that this proposal appears to be of benefit for the City when in fact it benefits the PUD. Ms. Caball assured Mr. Overson that both the City and the PUD benefit from the study and it adds to the data base of information on ground water/surface water in the whole County. Mr. Overson stated his concern is that the County currently has the reins on growth management and a large part of that is the utility and a large part of the utility is the water. He wants to make sure that information on water resources is correctly used as it relates to growth management and as it relates to the City's goals for growth management. He trusts that #1894 TAPE #1226 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 21 of 32 Ms. Cahall and other City staff are watching out for the City's interest. Ms. Caha11 emphasized this study will assist the City to do what Mr. Overson described as it relates to growth management in the City. Mr. Colvin questioned the source of funding? Ms. Cahall explained the funding is coming out of the PUD's Water Resource and Conservation Fund. Mr. Colvin stated he felt it was about time the City started working more cooperatively with Kitsap County cities, the County and surrounding Counties. Mr. Overson stated he agreed with Mr. Colvin, however, he wanted everyone to understand where the money really comes from. The Kitsap County P.U.D. tax is something that everyone pays and it was about time the City received something back for all the money that has been paid into that entity. Former Councilman Collins was also concerned about the County PUD and its controlling County-widewater resources. Mr. Farr questioned the process for selecting AGI, Inc., as the consultant service? Ms. Cahall explained the department advertised for a request for qualifications that included the fact that the City was looking for a hydro-geological firm that specialized in this kind of project. Seventeen firms responded to that advertisement and following a committee review, five firms were asked to submit a specific proposal for the project and AGI was selected from those proposals. Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) to approve the professional services agreement with AGI, Inc. and the Interlocal Agreement with PUD No. 1 of Kitsap County to fund this project and authorize the Mayor to execute the same, subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures. 7A - ORDINANCE NO. 4478 (SECOND READING) CLOSURE OF MONTGOMERY AVENUE AT 11TH STREET, #AB94-165 Mr. Dawkins raised the point that he was not present during the previous discussion on this issue and asked if he should step down from hearing this item? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated there is nothing to require him to step down from second reading of the ordinance. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read the following letter from Safeway, Inc.: It has come to our attention that the Council has begun the street closing process. 'Our office has some concerns about closing Montgomery Street. In addition, we were not notified about this public process and hearing. As an adjacent property owner, we are requesting to be notified and TAPE #1226 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 22 of 32 that we are allowed to make testimony. We have some concerns about Montgomery Street being closed as follows: 1) What will happen to the traffic that currently uses Montgomery? 2) How will this impact traffic in front of our store? 3) What happens to the level of service at the intersection of 9th and Callow and llth and Callow? 4) Will local traffic now be re-routed to other neighborhood streets? This briefly outlines some of Safeway's concerns. However, just as important is that we should have been notified and we are very concerned that we were not. At this time, we are opposed to this street closure and would like the City to respond to our concerns as outlined in this letter. Thank you for your time. The letter was signed by Mitchell S. Johnson, AIA, Design Manager. Mayor Hotton stated in talking about this issue with the Traffic Safety Committee and staff, she feels strongly neighborhood streets should not be used as major thoroughfares. One thing everyone seems to agree with is that neighborhoods should not be deteriorated because of people using their streets as bypassing thoroughfares and she concurs with that position. She does not want to see neighbors being pitted against neighbors when everyone agrees that their common goal is to make their neighborhood safe. It is of interest to her that Safeway wrote the letter that was read into the record after they already indicated they are willing to contribute to the landscaping required once the street is closed. The City's Campus Evergreen Plan identifies street closures as possible ways to enhance neighborhoods and if Council chooses not to approve this proposal, she will be drafting the Engineering Department to look at the transportation corridor in that area because she believes it does create some problems for easterly neighborhoods as well. She also believes that other areas around- the City are impacted by their streets being used as bypasses from major intersections and those concerns should also be looked at in a comprehensive fashion. Randy Witt, City Engineer, stated he had no additional information to add over what was presented at the previous Council meeting on this issue. Mr. Neville asked how could the City neglected to inform Safeway of this hearing? Mr. Witt explained it was an oversight on their part. They have no notification procedure identified for an issue such as this. As a result of this incident, he sees the value of having a notification process that involves the surrounding properties. On the other hand, Safeway was not an entity that he TAPE #1226 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 23 of 32 was concerned about since a condition of their development had to do with their agreeing to do the landscaping if the street closure became a reality. He was under the impression they were well aware of the project and in support of it. Mr. Colvin asked if it was too late to give Safeway an opportunity for input? Mr. Witt stated he discussed the issue with the author of the letter, Mitchell Johnson, and from that conversation he believed a representative from Safeway would be present at this hearing. Mr. Colvin asked if Council should refrain from any action until Safeway has an opportunity to give their input? Mr. Witt stated delaying action on this proposal would be possible if Council determined that was an important element to their decision. He reminded Council that Safeway has closed both of the driveways that previously exited on to Montgomery. Mr. Overson stated he has heard that other are strongly opposed to closing off Montgomery Street and asked if Mr. Witt was aware of that as well? Mr. Witt stated he is aware that residents on Rainier Street are concerned and may want to do something similar if traffic increases on their street. There is a community concern among streets and the City does not want to see neighbor pitted against neighbor. Mr. Overson asked if the goal was to close off all streets? Mr. Witt stated he believes the goal involve keeping streets safe from speeding traffic. Mr. Overson pointed out other streets are used as alternates to main thoroughfares, such as Highland Avenue, thereby we are back to the precedent issue and he was not sure if the Engineering Department or the City is prepared to handle that possibility. Mr. Witt stated safety is a key point and this particular request is being driven from within the community to stop traffic. The Engineering Department supports the proposal because of the amount of traffic on llth Street, not the traffic traveling down Montgomery. From historical data, Montgomery Street has not reached the threshold of accidents that would bring about traffic control device installation, but it is an area that has been watched for possible closure and it meets the needs that is being watched on llth Street. They have not come out and stated they support stopping through-traffic on Montgomery Avenue, however, they do support stopping left turns off of llth Street on to Montgomery. Again, it is not a warranted situation, but it is not a bad idea. Mr. Farr stated he appreciated the Mayor's comment that if this proposal did not pass, she would look at the traffic corridor, which he felt should be looked in any event. He personally believes from the llth Street aspect there are a couple of intermediate steps that are more appropriate than a street closure: (1) prohibiting left turns off of llth Street onto Montgomery; (2) enhanced enforcement. He has never seen a closed street reopened. TAPE #1226 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 24 of 32 Mr. Colvln asked that the purpose for closing Montgomery Avenue be restated. M~. Witt explained Montgomery Avenue residents presented him with a petition requesting the street be closed at the llth Street intersection due to too much through traffic on their street. His department performed the analysis that is required by WAC before taking any action. As they evaluated the petition, they looked at it from the questions they were obligated to answer because of the WAC and what resulted was the fact Engineering could support the request because of people turning left off of llth Street on to Montgomery. This was an issue that they had been watching for some time from a safety factor. Up to this time, they did not have adequate accident history in that area to justify doing something, but is an area they have watched closely. Colvim asked if Mr. Witt was saying a "No Left Turn" sign wouldn't accomplish the same affect? Mr. Witt stated no, the petition presented specifically asked that the street be closed. Mr. Colvim questionedMr. Witt's response to a "No Left Turn" sign? Mr. Witt stated if the petition had asked for a "No Left Turn" sign they would have supported it for the same reasons. Absent a petition, accidents at that location are not sufficient to warrant traffic control measures. Mr. Colvim questioned if the street is closed, is the City then shifting that traffic to another street? Mr. Witt stated what they want to do is shift that traffic down to the signalized intersection on Callow Avenue and keep the traffic where it should be. The reality is some people may choose to drive down Rainier Avenue rather than Callow Avenue once Montgomery is closed off. Residents on Rainier Avenue are concerned that traffic will be shifted to their street and the Mayor wants to address this type of problem with a plan and not piecemeal. Mr. Colvin pointed out in the City of Seattle there are areas that have devices that restrict vehicles' speed for traffic regulation. Mr. Witt noted traffic islands have their own pros and cons and street detours is another alternative as are speed bumps. Mr. Winters stated in getting the drivers to use Callow Avenue, how far up would the left turn lane be extended up llth Street? Mr. Witt explained the left turn lane is already established and is a protected turn lane at Callow and llth Street. The Traffic Safety Committee did discuss the possibility of lengthening that turn lane, however, after preliminary investigation it was determined that the lanes are too narrow without some curb/gutter/sidewalk reconstruction. Mr. Dawkins stated he received complains about people using side roads in his east Bremerton district rather than using the Sylvan Way/Wheaton Way intersection. He asked if there was any solution to keep people on major thoroughfares? Mr. Witt stated closure of a street is one solution, however there needs to be a comprehensive look at all areas with community involvement. Mr. Farr stated from TAPE #1226 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 25 of 32 personal experience under certain conditions one can spend quite a long time if you get caught the wrong way at the light, which might be the reason why a lot of people try to avoid that light. Mr~ Witt stated that would show up on any light and is a matter of a person's level of patients. He encourages people to time themselves and generally they are delayed less than five minutes. It is his understanding lights are on a 2.5 minute cycle. Another point to bring out is that when someone sees a red light ahead they make a decision to take a short cut through a side street prior to entering a turn lane. Mr. Overson stated he believed one reason people use Montgomery street as a cut off is because the light at the top of llth Street at Kitsap has a long waiting period prior to turning green. Mr. Witt stated the issue of traffic signalization can be reviewed, however, llth Street has much more traffic than 6th Street. Mr. Law asked if no left turns are allowed off of llth Street on to Montgomery Avenue and only right turns allowed off of Montgomery onto llth Street (going north), could the Engineering Department implement some programs to slow up traffic on Montgomery? Mr. Witt stated the issue of traffic controlling devices was something the Mayor, Safety Traffic Committee and he need to discuss in that it also affects other areas within the City. Mr. Law questioned if the decision was to put up two "No Left Turn" signs now and then implement the closure of Montgomery Avenue six months from now would it cost the same.? Mr. Witt stated it would cost more since there is a cost to mount the "No Left Turn" signs as well as the signage and construction work that would be required for the closure. Jennifer Hipsley, representing residents of Rainier Avenue, stated due to the proposed closure of Montgomery Avenue, they have signed and submitted a petition that addresses the current traffic situation on their street. Some of the residents haves expressed concerns that auto dealers on 6th Street are using their neighborhood to test run their vehicles. They would like to have someone from the City look into that situation as well. TAPE #1227 Duane Vickor3[, Safeway Store Manager, stated he was asked by Mitchell Johnson, author of the letter read into the record, to attend this meeting and convey Safeway's concerns about the proposed closure of Montgomery Avenue. He questioned the procedure of notification for this hearing considering the Safeway property is within the subject area being discussed? Mr. Witt explained there is no requirement in City policy, ordinance or otherwise to notify people when action such as this happens. People living along montgomery Avenue were aware due to their signing the TAPE #1226 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 26 of 32 petition. He did not have a set notification process like that used in the Planning Department for land use decisions. He saw the value of such a notification system and apologized for not engaging in a more extensive notice posting process. However, he believed Safeway was informed of the proposal considering their permit for their construction project included an agreement that they would provide the landscaping and maintenance for the closed-off-street area. Mr. Law stated he felt Safeway needed to look into their internal communications process because someone within the Safeway Corporation had to have knowledge of the subject closure to make a commitment to maintain the area created by blocking off the street. M:. Vicko~-~ stated he became aware of that fact at this meeting. If MontgomeryAvenue is blocked off at llth Street, where does that end and if it continues, will it make llth Street a freeway? He believes much of the traffic using Montgomery was generated from the access to the Safeway property, which no longer exists because of the construction project currently underway. He feels there is a safety issue with people traveling very fast on Montgomery Avenue, however, he did not know if closing the street is the answer. He does not recall seeing Police officers patrolling that area to check for speeders. One of the concerns mentioned in Mr. Johnson's letter was what will happen to the traffic currently using MontgomeryAvenue. That concern was also raised by residents in the Rainier Avenue area. Safeway's concern is how shifting of traffic onto Callow will affect their store. Mr. Colvlm asked how will the closure of Montgomery impact the Safeway store when it reopens? Mr. Vickory stated the potential problem he sees is the possibility of losing customers driving by the store on llth Street and remember they needed to pick something up at Safeway and would normally turn on Montgomery and circle back around to the store. Mr. Farr asked Mr. Vickory's assessment of how truck traffic would be routed with completion of the new Safeway Store. Mr. Vickory stated when Safeway Store was in operation trucks did access the off-loading area off of Montgomery. It is his understanding that the new store's off-loading area will be accessed by truck traveling on callow, turning on 9th Street and backing into the loading area. Mr. Witt pointed out the City worked with Safeway to design the loading dock area so that the noise level would be reduced as much as possible and existing of trucks will be directed onto Montgomery heading south to Six Street. Mr. Vickory stated he recognizes there is a safety issue and Safeway wants to be a good neighbor and business in the community. He was not sure that closing off Montgomery Street itself would be the right approach. Cherie Brown stated she lives on the corner of lOth and Montgomery TAPE #1227 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 27 of 32 and wanted Council to know there are three home day cares operating on Rainier Avenue and elementary school is one block away. Residents in her area have experienced numerous incidents of vehicles speeding down Rainier Avenue and she is a frequent caller to 911 reporting license plates. She is not against closing off Montgomery Street and if approved she would like to see something done to help traffic control on Rainier as well. She asked the City to provide for some kind of assistance to the neighborhoods to the east of Montgomery at the same time Montgomery is closed and not wait until it become even a bigger problem. Loren Hvsslev stated he shares the concerns of others about traffic moving eastward from Montgomery once it is closed. Things that he did not take into consideration prior to input given by the Safeway representative was trucks coming up 9th Street to enter the store's loading area. He questioned what about the people who live along 9th Street and the impact delivery trucks will have on their neighborhood and are the streets built to take the weight of trucks coming to the store? Mr. McCaslin stated even though the Safeway representative says truck traffic will go south on Montgomery he believes they will continue turning north on Montgomery and then making a right turn onto llth Street. He did not believe truck traffic would re-route to Rainier because of the narrow street with parking on both sides. The only way to eliminate the problem of truck traffic on Montgomery if the street is not closed, is to post it "No Trucks Allowed". His own vehicles has been hit four times, once by a Safeway truck. Joshua Stewart stated he was the person who started the petition to close Montgomery Street. He disputed the point that proper notification was not given and cited the number of places it was printed publicly. Previously, he brought to Dan Eisses' attention that Safeway would deed the corner of Montgomery, a part of the store's parking lot, to make the turn around if needed. They would do that with the guarantee that the City could not keep that piece of property if the turn around was not made at that time. They opted for the deadend not only to stop truck traffic but to also stop speeders. He cited numerous times when vehicles parked along Montgomery street have been hit, which resulted in residents having higher insurance premiums. He acknowledged the fears of Rainier Avenue residents, however, there is not enough room to put a deadend or a turn around at the end of Rainier Avenue and.llth Street. There is adequate room to put in a deadend and Safeway has promised to give additional land to allow turn around space. Also, the City Engineer stated Safeway agreed to landscape and maintain the strip as part of their permitting process. The Rainier Avenue problem.also has to be addressed, and he supports no left turns onto Rainier, no left turns out of Rainier, and no thru streets. TAPE #1227 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 28 of 32 Safeway has stated that they will inform their trucks not to use Montgomery, but they will not be able to control other delivery trucks. Regarding the cost of a "No Left Turn" sign, there is already a flasher hanging on a messenger wire at llth and Rainier, so that would even be cheaper to hang a sign there. C. D. Montgomer~ stated his support of the Montgomery road closure due to the amount of traffic that gets backed up every time someone stops to turn left onto Montgomery off of llth. He disagreed with Safeway's comment that the traffic will make it difficult for customers coming in and out of the store only on Callow, and compared the businesses on Wheaton Way. Jim Brown summed up that safety, Rainier Avenue's problems, and the noise of the trucks are his issues of concern and they have all been addressed tonight. He fully supports the closure of Montgomery. James Hindburg is not a resident of Montgomery Avenue, but is a Safeway customer. His concern is the increased traffic on Callow due to Montgomery being closed, making it more difficult for him to get to and leave the Safeway Parking lot. He understands the concerns of the residents of the area, but he also has concerns of the new problems that would be created with this solution being presented. Duane Vickor]Fstated that Safeway agreed with Mr. Hindburg, and was concerned about the affect the Montgomery road closure would have on all customers. He stated he was not at the meeting when the petition was brought to Council to close Montgomery, and wanted to know the reasons the residents wanted the road closed. President Huff~Menees stated that the reason given was "public safety". Mr. VlckorV pointed out that the safety issue before Council is not necessarily the trucks that are using that route but rather the speeding vehicles. Mrs. Bue11 stated she felt it would be nice to still have the option of going down Montgomery Avenue if the traffic is really heavy. Forrest Bi~s, Montgomery Avenue resident, told about.his truck being hit four times, then was stolen. His new truck was parked on Montgomery for two weeks when his window was broken and someone tried to steal it again. There is a lot of traffic, the street is narrow, and there are a lot of speeders. He looked at the plans for the new Safeway store and saw that there would be no entrance to Safeway off of Montgomery and questioned how long will that last? He fully supports closing Montgomery, and hoped the City Council did not change their mind. TAPE #1227 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 29 of 32 Mr. Neville again stated his support of this proposal based on the Evergreen Campus Plan. Mr. Overson stated at the previous Council meeting he voted against the proposal on the basis that if it didn't pass Council would send it back to staff for further study. He now is strongly leaning toward supporting the requested action and understands by doing that it will force staff to direct their attention to other areas experiencing similar traffic problems. He believes street planning in the City will take a big jump in priority once this issue is approved~ Mr. Colvin stated he believes safety of the citizens within neighborhoods should have priority over any other concerns. Mr. Farr stated inn the past this Council and past administrations have been publicly chastised for being short sighted and he viewed closing Montgomery avenue was an extremely short sighted answer to a couple of problems that are real to the residents in that area. It is his understanding that speeding and hitting other people's vehicles is illegal and the solution to those issues is not closing off a street. He supported other methods of traffic control...more enforcement and signage with closing off a street as a "last resort" action. Mr. Winters stated his continued support of this request based on safety. He was also aware that the contractor for the Safeway construction project was in attendance at the previous hearing and assumed he was representing Safeway's interest. Mr. Law stated his position of support of this proposal and the importance for the City to take actions to stop speeders on residential streets. He hoped enhanced enforcement would become a priority for the Patrol Officers so that they could catch the speeders. Mr. Dawkins stated his support of the proposal considering there is no buffer between a commercial area and residential area. President Huff-Menees stated her continued support of this proposal based on safety and quality of living in neighborhoods. She also believes the issues addressed in the Campus Evergreen Plan are just as important today as they were when written. She was a regular shopper at the Callow Avenue Safeway store and very familiar with traffic in that area. She does not believe approving this proposal would be taking traffic from one area at the expense of another neighborhood. It is very clear that traffic on other streets, such as Rainier, also needs to be addressed and may not require street closures. #1562 #1651 TAPE #1227 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 30 of 32 M/S/C(Neville/Winters) to pass Ordinance No. 4478 on second reading closing a portion of Montgomery Street between 9th Street and llth Street. Vote on motion: In Favor: Colvin, Winters, Overson, Neville, Law, Dawkins, Huff-Huff Menees Opposed: Farr Motion carried. 8A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING POSITIONS SUBJECT TO COUNCIL CONFIRMATION, #AB94-171 This ordinance corrects references to positions subject to City Council confirmation. Municipal Code Section 2.49.010 is amended to strike some positions which have been removed with the recent Department of Public Works and Utilities reorganization. In addition, the Civil Service Officer has been added since this was included within the Personnel Director's job when the ordinance was first written; and the Treasurer has been added since confirmation is required by Charter. The Planning Director, Human Resources Manager, Director of Parks & Recreation, and Director of Public Works & Utilities replace positions which have been retitled. Sections 2.49,020 and .030 replace the title of Personnel Director with Human Resources Manager. Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Overson/Farr) to approve ordinance on first reading, amending those positions regarded as administrative heads for the purpose of Council confirmation; and amending Chapter 2.49 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. 9A - RE8OLUTION NO. 2477, CHANGES IN LOANAPPROVAL REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED REHAB PROGRAMS, #AB94-172 Request that City Council adopt resolution which 'restructures present owner-occupied C.D.B.G. rehab program to provide zero- interest deferred loans to very low-income (below 50% Area Median Income) homeowners and 3% principal-deferred loans to low-income (below 80% Area Median Income) homeowners. This is due to present terms excluding too many applicants; sizable backlog of unspent funds; and no appreciable improvement in appearance of housing stock. Pam Root, Project Coordinator, urged Council's approval of this proposal due to the need to improve the program. The program is funded by Community Block Grant funds and has accumulated a sizeable backlog of funds due to grant funds and program income. Currently, there is in excess of one half million dollars in the TAPE #1227 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 31 of 32 fund and the City needs to spend those funds faster than what is being spent. If the program is changed, as outlined in the resolution, there is a good chance of speeding up the process. The new program would offer deferred loans that are based on the value of the home rather than the ability of the homeowners to take on new debt. The loans would be deferred as long as the property is owned and occupied by the original borrower. She provided Council with handouts describing the program and new application forms as well as a sample of client profiles. Mr. Neville asked that the income limits eligible for this program be read into the record. Ms. Root stated zero interest deferred loans would be available to households with a gross annual income of does not exceed 50% of the area median income. Three percent loans would be available to households whose gross annual income does not exceed 80% of the area annual median income. Family size and maximum incomes are as follows: i - $22,450; 2 - $25,650; 3 - $28,850; 4 - $32,100; 5 - $34,650; 6 - $37,200; 7 - $39,800; 8 - $42,350. MS. ROOt pointed out' the annual incomes are adjusted annually by HUD. Mr. Farr stated Council had been previously briefed on this program, which he believes is excellent, and regretted the Council meeting had run so late in the evening that some of the television viewing audience may have dropped off. He wanted to see this programs get the maximum exposure because it is an excellent opportunity for'many people to take advantage of a program where they can only win. Mr. Winters suggested having the Rehab Program featured on Inside Bremerton as well as coverage in The Sun. Ms. Root noted she appeared on Inside Bremerton approximately six months ago. Mr. Dawkins stated he supported the recommended changes to the program and was sorry to see such a backlog of unspent funds when it is such a great program. President Huff-Menees stated when the need is so great in this area it is painful to see that we have monies available that are not being utilized. She feels the changes to the program are badly needed and supports the proposal as presented. Mr. Colvln invited Ms. Root to come to the next City Council meeting and speak about the changes to the program during Public Recognition. Mr. Law questioned if Ms. Root could identify enough prospects for this program to utilize the funding available? Ms. Root stated she did not have any way to scientifically predict who will use the program. However, the people who will still be squeezed out are #2039 TAPE #1227 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 10, 1994 Page 32 of 32 those who have only owned their homes for a year or so and have little or no equity because there is still the constraint of an 80% loan to value ratio. People disqualified on the basis of debt to income ratio with less than perfect credit form the majority of people who are denied loans. Her hope is to quadruple the number of loans currently being made. She would like to do one per week instead of less than one per month. Mr. Law asked if the City will need more labor support in the department to handle loan applications. Ms. Root stated she didn't feel there would be a need at least for the first six months. Much of her time is spent dealing with banks and looking up obscure credit references and if the City could do the Title searches and underwriting to simplify the process, then she could spend her time doing what she does best which is construction inspections and work write ups. If the program takes off and the volume increases, then it is possible additional staff will be needed. She has applied for the new round of grant funding for additional staff funding to use where they see the need. Mayor Lynn Horton stated she has spoken to many people about the proposed change in the City's Rehab Program and across the board it has been greeted with enthusiasm. She has not talked with anyone who felt it was not an appropriate step to take or that it was unworkable. M/S/C/U(Overson/Farr) to approve Resolution No. 2477, change in approval standards for Owner-occupied Rehab Loan Program. With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:56 P.M.. KLM/SH-M/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault