Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/27/94TAPE #1195 UNAPPROVED DRAFT COUNCIL APPROVED MAY 18 199 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTEH APRIL 27, 1994 #0042 #0090 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, April 27, 1994, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Ellsen Fitz presiding. Council members present were Morris Dawkins, Bob Winters, John Law, Sherril Huff- Menees, David Farr, Richard Neville, and Lon Overson. Absent was Council member A1 Colvin. Also present were Assistant City Attorney James McNamara and Deputy City Clerk Gil Johnson. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Fitz and Invocation given by Reverend John Eichmann of Bremerton Serviceman's Center. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting -- April 13, 1994 #AB94-081 B. Modification of Interlocal Drug Task Force #AB94-082 Agreement .M/S/C/U(Neville/Dawkins) presented. to approve the Consent Agenda as CLAIMS/Wl~RRRNT REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24,090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. M/S/C/U(Overson/Neville) on April 27 1994, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 174840 through 174846, 174869, 174883, 174890 through 174905 in the total amount of $76,505.91; Regular Payroll for the period ending April 15, 1994, in the amount of $569,476.55; and Retirees Payroll for the period ending April 30, 1994, in the amount of $89,626.83. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORT8 Mr. Winters stated since last week's Council meeting several people indicated to him that scotch broom wasOK and others indicated it wasn't OK. On Wednesday, April 20, he wrote a.letter to Michael Eisner, President of the Walt Disney Company, inviting him to look at the City of Bremerton for possible location of an amusement TAPE #1195 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 2 of 33 center. He envisioned having a Mickey and Minney's "Navy Town USA", which could be a tremendous tourist draw thereby diversifying local industry other than government entities. Mrs. Huff-Menees commended Mr. Winters on his letter to Mr. Eisner and she felt it spoke for many people who have dreams for Bremerton and believe they are possible. She announced the next District #7 Neighborhood meeting will be held May 31, 1994, at the Bremerton School District Administration Office on MontgomeryAvenue, 6:30 - 8:30 P.M. Mrs. Fits introduced Merilynn Erhart, Council.'s Legislative Assistant, and asked her to report on the Neighborhood Information .Network meeting held April 25, in regard to the Manette Bridge. Merilvnn Erhart reported that the State Department Of Transportation has a long range plan for maintenance and repair of State owned bridges. Originally, the Manette Bridge was scheduled for maintenance work during the summer of 1994. However, that work schedule has now been changed to the summer of 1995 with a 3-4 day closure, in order that needed maintenance work can be accomplished on the Warren AvenueBridge during the 1994 work plan. In the long range planning for the Manette Bridge, the State anticipates replacement of that bridge any where from 7-15 years after the next maintenance work, which will consist of refurbishing the expansion joints in order to stop corrosion of metal on the under side of the bridge. The State Design Engineers will be asking for public input from the east Bremerton Council District areas, the City of Bremerton,. and others who utilize the bridge during their commute trips to and from work, on where .they would like the bridge located, etc. They want to make sure that the design/site that is chosen by the State will not adversely affect the surrounding areas. This kind of dialogue can only come about through citizen advisory groups working together with City government. She emphasized the importance for the citizen to take advantage of upcoming Council District Neighborhood meetings and Neighborhood Information Network meetings to learn first hand valuable information that could affect their daily lives within their neighborhoods. Mr. Law announced the next District #3 Neighborhood meeting is scheduled for May 17, 1994, 7:00 - 9:00 P.M., at the Senior Center on Nipsic Avenue. At the previous District #3 meeting, a concern was shared by several people that a particular pay phone was being used for illegal purposes. He was pleased to report that the Telephone Company is very good about changing any pay phone so that it only accepts outgoing calls if it was being used in a manner that did not support the objectives of the community. The Police Department will contact the Telephone Company and work with them to have it converted to outgoing calls only. Owners of such pay TAPE #1195 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 3 of 33 phones are paid only on outgoing calls and restricting incoming calls on a particular phone will not have an adverse financial impact. Mr. Farr announced the next District #6 Neighborhood meeting is scheduled for May 24, 1994, 7:00 P.M., at the Bremerton High School. One part of the program for that meeting will be a presentation on the Bremerton Main Street Program by Don Atkinson. He is hoping for a better turnout at this meeting than his previous meeting since he will be holding it within his District and at a more convenient time. Prior to his becoming a City Council member he had not attended any neighborhood meetings, but now his attitude has changed and believes everyone can benefit from participating at such meetings. Because he is now a "retired" person and has had time to walk around the area, he has noticed many homes are kept up very well. However, there are a few blighted areas as well and he has passed on information to the Building Department about accumulations of garbage that should be removed. Mr. Neville reminded everyone that every Monday evening the KCAP Office is opening their gymto be used as a "teen center" for youth activities. KCAP is still seeking input on the'kinds of activities the youth like and would like to see available at this location. He extended a special "thank you" to Brem-Air Disposal Inc., and all the helpers who assisted with the Spring Clean Up activities at Evergreen Park. He was pleased to see the new owners of Brem-Air keeping their word that they would continue to assist the public in the same manner as the previous owner. Mr. Overson stated it was good to be back after being out-of-state for two weeks. During his time away he experienced snow in Billings, Montana and Anchorage, Alaska.. During his absence, he understood Council had some challenges, but handled them well. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Mayor Lynn Horton reported on Friday, April 19, 11:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M. there will be an indoor Flea Market/Craft Sale at Sheridan Park Recreation Center and proceeds from that event will benefit the Pendergast Regional Park. A Teen Dance will be held on May 7, 8:00 P.M. to midnight, for youth ages13 - 19, at the Sheridan Park Recreation Center, admission will be $5.00. Mayor Horton reported the City is inreceipt of a $75,000 funding source to conduct a hydrological basin evaluation of Gorst Creek. She emphasized City tax dollars are contributed to P.U.District #1 of Kitsap County and it was nice to see some of those coming back to the City. This week she received a Voice Mail message from Ann Warnable requesting information regarding recycling rates and some other things, however, she did not leave quite enough detail so TAPE #1195 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 4 of 33 that the Mayor could provide a response. She asked if Ms. Warnable was watching the telecast of this meeting to please contact her office so that she could respond to her specific request. Mayor Horton publicly commended Mike Middleton, an almost 20-year employee of the Parks Department, for his assistance to Eric Crutcher, who experienced insulin shock and was slipping into a diabetic comma. Through Mike's quick response in assisting the young man and obtaining emergency medical assistance, he very likely saved a life that day. Eric Crutcher is the son of Marty Crutcher, a former Council member. Mayor Horton read the following Proclamations: (1) Proclaiming the month of May 1994 as "Better Hearing and Speech Month", which was received by Amy Becken, Owner/Audiologist at Kitsap Audiology, located at 2635 Wheaton Way in Bremerton; and (2) Proclaiming the week of May 1-7, 1994 as "National Drinking Water Week", received by Kathleen Cahill from the City of Bremerton Utility Department. The purpose of Drinking Water Week is to encourage citizens to learn more about their water. For more information, customers may call the Utility Department's Hot Line at 478-2330 or come visit the office at Olympus Drive. Citizens are also invited to a National Teleconference on Groundwater being sponsored by the League of Women Voters. It will be on May 4, 1994 at 9:30 A.M. at the Keyport Museum. Mayor Horton had one last issue regarding bringing information on land use and development issues in each of the Districts prior to them coming to the Planning Commission andto the City Council. It is her hope that if we can get as much information to the public as possible, way ahead of the process, we will help diffuse volatile situations either through lack of information or misinformation. Participants of the first Neighborhood Information meeting gave positive feedback and were appreciative of getting information ahead of the event. President Fits explained that the 3-minute time limit for public input would now be monitored by a new timer. The timer will be set for 3 minutes and then a buzzer would sound. Citizens are then asked to wrap up their concerns as soon as possible. If there are lengthy issues that would take longer than 3 minutes, it is requested that they be put in writing, and then a synopsis of the issue presented at the Council meeting. A response to the letter would be given the following week. Please speak only once, this is not the time for a debate. Also, there are specific rules in regard to public access television in regard to political candidates and issues and when we get a little closer to the time, those rules and regulations will be given. TAPE #1195 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 5 of 33 Wanda Mossberger, who has lived in the Bremerton area for many years, spoke on the issue of the Bremerton School District levy. She would hate to see the levy defeated and urged everyone to continue to give our children the education they've received to date. Marilee Hanson, Principal of Bremerton High School, felt it was important to explain what will happen if the Bremerton School Levy Bond issue fails and how it will affect everyone in the City of Bremerton. There is a lot of money that comes to education that has a lot of strings attached. Such funds coming from the Federal government and State government totally fund specific programs, such as the Chapter I programs for low-ability, low-income students, vocational programs, special educations programs, etc. What is not fully funded is regular basis education i.e., Math, Science, Social Studies, English, Fine Arts, Foreign Languages, etc. She is sympathetic about the high taxes people pay, however, she was not sure everyone understands the spinoff of what happens if the Levy fails to be approved. If the Levy fails, 34 teachers from within the District will be lost and the High Schools share of those 34 teachers would be 4-5 teachers. She has already developed the master schedule for .the 1994-1995 school year and there are already 26-32 students in every one of their academic programs. She would be required to take 4-5 of their youngest and very good teachers out of Math, Science, Social Studies, English, etc., as well as other student type activities they are involved with. Also, classes would have to be cut, meaning students would not be able to get all of the class they currently have access to. We would have to cut things from Advanced Placement US History where Students are receiving College Credit along with other outstanding things that have been developed over the past 5-7 years. It would also be necessary to cut Speech And Debate, which was only instituted three years ago, and won 3rd in the State this year. They would have to cut a program for "at risk" students, which kept about 20-30 students in school who historically dropped out of school. But the big thing is the co-curricular program, that is totally unfunded by the State. It takes a lot of man-hours to run speech, debate, drama, all the sports programs, etc. Hundreds of students who are safely in school programs now, would be in the streets without these programs. If you vote against the levy, you are voting against safe streets, students, and against all citizens of Bremerton. Glen Jarstad stated that the Bremerton School District has always been very supportive of the City government and didn't understand why the Council as a whole, or independently, hasn't passed a motion endorsing the school levy. Susan Level1 spoke on the Kitsap County Zoning Ordinance and TAPE #1195 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 6 of 33 Conservation Easement' Amendment, and presented a letter stating that the Kitsap Citizens for Rural Preservation intend to appeal this Amendment because they feel it is contrary to the Growth Management Act. They request the support and assistance of the Council in their appeal. Ca1 Leichman reminded everyone that the discussion with he, Brian Mueller, the Mayor, and Mike Phillips as moderator, is still on, but they are still waiting for a conference date to get together with TCI. The Program is to take place May 10, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. on channel 12. Roy McGinnis stated that last year, the Council started a process to clean up an area of property on Kean Street in front of the Sinclair Missionary Baptist Church, and it was supposed to have been done in a certain amount of time. It was started, then it stopped. He does not expect an answer tonight, but would like to hear from the Council or the Mayor what will be done towards the continuation of the clean-up? President Fitz stated we will have an answer for that next week. Don Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, reported on some positive developments downtown including the development of a new, quality antique facility. They have just settled on a location for at least the first increment, 8,000 feet of the Amy Burnett complex. A meeting to discuss this will be 1:00 - 4:00 P.M. on Saturday, May 7, 1994, at the gallery. Anticipated opening date is June 1, 1994. Also, a meeting on Tuesday, May 10, 1994 for the citizens of Bremerton and the greater Kitsap County.area will be held to enhance new businesses and to support them. A regional marketing effort is also getting organized toward other entities including the Turner Joy, Harbor Tours, and the Amy Burnett Gallery. Effort is being made to stimulate business downtown both to the local community and to outside areas. He also announced that the Bremerton Sunday Market opens on the Overwater Park this Sunday. Marv Lou Lonq, Baymont Avenue, referenced newspaper articles about individuals in the community speaking out about the outrageous sewer rates in the City of Bremerton. She wonders how many people have written or called their City Council representative and/or the Mayor and documented their complaints and troubles paying the increased fees being levied against the citizens? She wonders how much the City would be creating in revenue presently if people were levying a per unit impervious charge to all of the parking lots and school facilities and shopping complexes that have a great amount of run off that goes into the stormwater process that are not presently contributing to this particular project. She still maintains this needs to be a viable Utility and presented to the TAPE #1195 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 7 of 33 public for a vote for acceptance as a separate Utility. She believes the Mayor and City Council is in violation of the City Charter, which only goes to prove this City is not a viable body politic and does not operate according to its own laws and violates citizens rights. She invites everyone who is interested in joining the effort to disincorporate the City of Bremerton to the C.R.A.B. Association meeting on April 28, 7:00 P.M., at the old KBRO building. Gordy Byrd, P.O. Box 930, stated as he was coming into the City Council meeting he was approached by Pat O'Neill, a former Police Officer, who asked him not to speak so much at the City Council meeting and that some of the thingsgoing on in the meeting do not concern him. That comment angered Mr. Byrd and if he wants to know something about a specific topic being discussed, he will get up and ask questions.' It concerned him that some of the people he has helped financially and who promised to pay him back have not done so. He wanted everyone toknow that he is still collecting funds for his shelter for the homeless ($10,043.97 in his shelter fund). Lastly, in his opinion, Harrison Hospital has the best food in the world. 6A - FARMER'S MARKET AGREEMENTTO OPERATE ON THE BOARDWALK, #AB94- 083 City Staff and the Farmer's Market Board have completed negotiations on the Farmers Market Agreement to operate the Market on the City Overwater Park for the 1994 through 1996 summer seasons. This agreement is in addition to the Farmers Market rending license required under BMC 5.30 and includes operating requirements and Overwater Park placement. This agreement is the same as last year's with the following changes: 1) Section 1 includes dedicating part of the adjacent parking lot to the Farmers Market. Market will compensate the City for lost parking revenue; and 2) Section 3 extends the market season to October 15. Paula Johnston, Licensing Inspector, stated this agreement is similar to the 1993 agreement to operate the Farmer's Market on the boardwalk. The 1993 season was very successful and they anticipate a repeat performance this year. The Market's maintenance of the boardwalk was superb as well as the coordinating effort of getting their vendors on and off the boardwalk. She noted Don Atkinson, Farmer's Market board member and Terrie O'Neill, Municipal Services Coordinator/City liaison to the Market organization, would be available for questions. Mr. Farr stated during the Council committee review of this item, there was a concern over providing parking for patrons of the Farmer's Market and events on the boardwalk. It is his understanding that future meetings will held to address the issue TAPE #1195 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 8 of 33 of providing free parking for patrons. Ms. Johnston stated Vicki Vanneman, Director of Parks and Recreation, is putting together meetings with the Port of Bremerton and Turner Joy Association to look at parking needs, and what the City could afford to dedicate towards that use. Following those meetings, a recommendation will be taken to the Parks Commission for their review and recommendation. Mr. Overson stated the watch word of the 90's is "service" to the customer and he is concerned that Bremerton Main Street is willing to dedicate 30 spaces to the vendors but "zero" to customers. He questioned what is the potential that Main Street would come up with an equal $80.00 per Sunday for customer parking? Don Atkinson, Executive Director, Bremerton Main Street Association, stated he felt there was a misunderstanding that needed clarifying. Several months ago, the Market Master came to Bremerton Main Street Association and told them the growth of the market is somewhat dependent on the ability of some larger vendors from outlying areas to come and sell out of their trucks or vans. In the past, the Market has deferred to the City and their request to not have any vehicles on the boardwalk. In order to address the bigger need, they negotiated the rental of 30 spaces to provide additional sales areas for the larger vans/truck vendors. He emphasized there is free parking on the street along Washington Avenue, which is just above the boardwalk area. They are stepping out on faith and committing $80.00 per week to expand the market and provide a greater service to the consumers. At this point in time, they do not have absolutely free space, but the purveyors of parking down in the boardwalk vicinity have given a discount to both vendors and market customers in the past. Ca1 Leiohman questioned (1) do the vendors pay a sales tax to the City/County/State; and (2) are the vendors who provide restaurant type foods required to have a certificate that they are healthy individuals? Ms. Johnston stated the vendors at the Farmer's Market are responsible for reporting and paying retail sales tax to the State of Washington. The Master License that the Farmer's Market Association gets from the City along with an agreement provides for the vendors to pay the Business and Occupation Tax to the City through the Association. All of the revenues generated on a particular day on the boardwalk are reported on the Master License Tax Account. To her knowledge, all taxes that are appropriate are being paid. If there are food handlers selling any kind of eatables at the market, they are required to have a current food handlers permit from the Health Department, and the Health Department does do sporadic inspections. Mr. Law stated having watched the Farmer's Market grow over the years and seeing the number of volunteers working on the Market, he #1936 #1980 #2080 TAPE #1195 City Council Reg. Mtg. April 27, 1994 Page 9 of 33 Minutes felt they should also be thanked. The merchants that have been supporting the market are not making more money, but they are interested in getting more customers into the downtown area. M/S/C/U(Law/Farr) to approve the Farmers Market Agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute this agreement with the Bremerton Sunday Market. 7A - ORDINANCE NO. 4457 (SECOND READING) 3LMENDING THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS ANDAMENDING CHAPTER 17.04 OF THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE, #AB94-078 Public opinion - none. M/S/C/U(Neville/Huff-Menees) to pass Ordinance No. 4457 on second reading, amending the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and amending Chapter 17.04 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. 7B - ORDINANCE NO. 4458 (SECOND READING) SETTING SALARY RATE FOR MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE UPON UPGRADE, #AB94-079 Public opinion - none. M/S/C/U(Farr/Law) to pass Ordinance No. 4458 on second reading, setting salary rate for management and professional staff upon upgrade and amending Chapter 2.50 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. 7C - RESOLUTION NO, 2467 APPROVING CITY POLICY ON LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, #AB94-084 The City supports the use of Local Improvement Districts (LID's) to fund public improvements which the City cannot solely provide funding for. The attached City policy provides guidance to City staff and the public on the City's role in forming and supporting LID's. Key points of the policy are that the City will provide the administration and engineering design for a project to a limit based upon the project construction cost and the amount of funds available. The City may exceed the limit where appropriate to address a City objective. The LID will fund all other costs associated with the project. The City support is for existing development within the City limits. The policy also addresses petition review. A draft of the policy was discussed at the City Council Study Session on April 6, 1994. Randy Witt, City Engineer, stated the City has received interest in Local Improvement Districts in the past and one is in process in the West Kitsap Lake area with another request for one coming before Council at a Public Hearing on May 4th. As they worked with people in the districts, it became apparent that a policy needed to be established of what the City's level of support would be on a LID, and make it public enough so that everyone understood the TAPE #1195' City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 10 of 33 City~s role. The proposed policy has been developed to provide that guidance. The policy consists of some general statements regarding the purpose for a Local Improvement District, keeping in mind it is a method of funding for a public improvement by local property owners. In the area of "City Contribution", they set up a staged contribution scenario to reflect the portion of Engineering and Administration that would be typical based on the construction of a project. In general, the larger the construction project, the smaller the percentage that goes toward Engineering and Administration...there is a certain amount of fixed cost that it takes to get a project going. For their instances, they stated if a construction project is below $50,000, the City would contribute up to 20% of the project cost in Engineering and Administration~ if the cost of.the project is between $50,000 and $100,000, the City would contribute up to 18%~ between $100,000 and $500,000 the City would contribute up to 15%~ and if greater than $500,000, the City would contribute 12% in Engineering and Administration. As discussed earlier, if there is a City-wide aspect of a Local Improvement District, the City would pick that up, and an example of that may be over-sizing a water or sewer line to meet a more regional need. The City will fund its fair share assessment for City properties within any LID or ULID boundary. The Local Improvement District will be responsible for the remaining costs of the project, which would include: construction, right-of-way' or land acquisition, construction inspection, environmental documentation, short term financing, bond sale, permit fees, and City costs in excess of the maximum amounts. as discussed above. Also included in the policy is the need for "Petition Review" prior to it' being circulated. In the past, the City has had to recirculate petitions and desired to provide a process whereby it would eliminate or minimize having to take such action. The LID process is for existing development in the City limits and not intended to support a development project. Mr. Farr questioned if the proposed policy was modeled after policies used in other cities? Mr. Witt stated no, it was not modeled after other policies, but developed through consulting with other administrative staff members and input from the City Council as to what the City will do to support the LID/ULID Districts. He is aware of cities that make no contribution, he is aware of other cities that do make contributions, and others that make a greater contribution. Mr. Farr questioned if the City~s contribution is first in line, and is there some guarantee that the project will be completed? Mr. Witt stated what is important in answering Mr. Farr~s question is how the Local Improvement Districts are formed. He did not want to follow along the same method used to form the #2475 TAPE #1195 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 11 of 33 West Kitsap Lake LID and preferred the process being used in formation of the Wheaton Way LID. Mr. Law questioned for clarification if the City's contribution was in-kind services verses hard dollars? Mr. Witt stated what is proposed is having City staff do the design work on a project, which is still considered hard dollars in that they would set up a project number and accrue costs. The intent is to use City staff for this portion of the work, however, there may be instances where consultants may be hired to do that segment of the work. C.D. Montgomez7 stated his strong support of adopting the proposed policy. He was not pleased about the City's financial involvement in the West KitsapLake LID, and having a policy such as this would eliminate that from happening again. Mrs. Huff-Menees stated she felt it was critical for the City to support LIDs and ULIDs as encouragement for neighborhoods to make improvements that are necessaryto keep their properties at value. M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees/Farr) to adopt Resolution No. 2467 approving the City policy regarding Local Improvement Districts. Councilman Dawkins 'stepped down from both Public Hearing Agenda items due to an appearance of fairness. 8A - PUBLIC HEARING ON 75% PETITION TO ANNEX THE 58 ACRE WEST HILLS ANNEXATIONAREA I=ANDAPPROVEORDINANCE (FIRST READING), ~iAB94-085 On December 7, 1993, the City Council gave tentative approval to the West Hills Annexation Area. That area is 70 acres. This Petition supports a 58 acre area of the initial area designated as West Hills Annexation Area I. Owners of parcels in this area together with those parcels which have entered into Outside Utility Agreements, agreeing to annex, comprise the required 75% of the total tax assessed value needed for annexation. The Council is asked to: (1) Hold public hearing to accept comments pertaining to the annexation and related matters; (2) To' make a'final determination on the annexation before them; and (3) Adopt land use designations for the area. Terrie O,Neill, Municipal Services Coordinator, identified the Annexation Area as being off of SR-3 and Werner Road, west of Cottman Avenue, which is west of Oyster Bay Avenue. This annexation process was initiated by a primary land holder, Chuck Haselwood, and on December 7, 1994, the City Council approved the initial 10% petition and required staff to take the necessary steps TAPE #1195 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 12 of 33 before annexation to ,determine pre-annexation zoning. However, in February of 1990, a document called the Westhills Area Plan was adopted by Council Resolution and this plan was reviewed by Public Hearings. The plan includes zoning designation for the area and is included in the Annexation Ordinance. Those zoning designations included General Business and Single Family 3 (SF-3). Since the 10% petition in December, she also completed a State Environmental Check List, which is required, and submitted it to the Department Of Community Development who issued a Declaration Of Non - Significance. That action was subject to a 15-day review by affected jurisdictions and people within the area. No comments were received on the SEPA Check List, but there were comments regarding the annexation. On April 13, a 75% Petition for annexation was certified by the City Clerk's office and the petition represented signatures of 77% of the property owners based on assessed valuation on Kitsap County Assessor's records. The area is valued at 8.5 million dollars and a petition of 6.4 million dollars would be a sufficient petition to allow annexation under the State statute. This petition is a 77% petition and on file in total in the Clerk's office. If the City Council approves and passes the proposed Ordinance, the staff would submit an application to the Boundary Review Board, which would require a 45-day review period, and affected jurisdictions would be notified of that application..If no hearing is requested within that 45-day period, the annexation would take affect 10 days after that 45-day period expired. Mrs. O'Neill outlined the different methods of annexation allowed by State law. President Fit~ asked the "Appearance OF Fairness/Conflict Of interest" question with all Council members being seated. Mr. Law asked the City Attorney to given an opinion on the question of the method of annexation being used. Jim McNamara, Assistant City Attorney, stated he saw no legal problem with the method being used in this instance. Mr. Overson raised a concern over the Annexation boundary not including all of 3rd Avenue and questioned if there was a reason for not extending the boundary in that area? Mrs. O'Neill stated the proposed boundary meets the City limit on 3rd Avenue as well as northern, southern, and western directions. Mr. Overson pointed out the sewage treatment plant appears to be an "island" and questioned why it was not included in the annexation? Mrs. O,Neill stated there are enough signatures to include the sewage treatment plant area, however that would isolate Max Meigs properties to the south, which is the only access road. The City Attorney recommended leaving the Boundary at Cottman and to address annexing the wastewater treatment plant area at a later date. She emphasized TAPE #1195 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 13 of 33 the "island" area was not created through this annexation. Mr. Overson'stated he believes the petition method of annexation best represents the people most strongly involved, each individual has the opportunity of giving their approval or disapproval, and it requires 75% support as opposed to 51% through the Voting method. Mr. Farr questioned if a property being annexed into an area had a non-conforming use, was it grandfathered into zoning designation? Mrs. O,Neill stated that was correct. The intent is to find the zoning that matches the current use, and if there are any differences, they are grandfathered into the City's zoning. Far~ questioned if the annexation area was served by both City water and sewer? Mrs. O,Neill stated yes. Melody Maxim, Poindexter Avenue, questioned who actuallysigned the petition? She, nor anyone else on her street had seen the petition, and she only learned about this hearing through a neighbor. Mrs. O'Neill explained the petition was circulated by the property owner who presented the letter of intent, which is commonly done in annexations. Most of the houses on Poindexter are not on sewers, so there was leveraging on Poindexter. The address list she used for notices sent out was from the County Assessor's records. She stated that some letters were returned and she has those in her file. There were two notices sent out and the area was posted and published in the newspaper." Ms. Maxim questioned the actual number of people who signed the petition out of the 100 property owners? Mrs. O,Neill emphasized the entire petition is on file in the City Clerk's office and many of the petitions are represented by Outside Utility Agreement, which were signed when' the properties were developed. Each'petition has a list with the Tax Assessment/Tax Lot Numbers that show which parcels come with a UtilityAgreement. She did not have the exact number of signatures on the petition, however, the assessed value of the petition is 77%, which is what is required by law. Ms. Maxim stated Mr. Haselwood's housing, the new Coca Cola plant, and auto dealership probably are where all the assessed value comes from, and the lower assessed area is being annexed along with it. Mrs. O,Neill explained that the car dealerships were annexed under a separate annexation and the City did obtain an Annexation Agreement several years ago from Mr. Haselwood, Westhills Honda, and other properties in that general area. However, at that time, they did not include the residential area as part of that annexation. Mr. Haselwood did present the City with a letter of intent aside from the Annexation Agreement, which was not acted upon, but the State requires that the City act upon it within 60 days, resulting in this petition. Ms. Maxim questioned if the new parcel of land cleared at the corner of Union and Poindexter Avenue is not to be used as a car lot? Mrs. O'Neill stated the parcel identified by Ms. Maxim belongs to the City's Utility. Ms. Maxim stated she does not want TAPE #1196 TAPE #1195 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 14 of 33 to become part of the City and after talking with her neighbors, many of whom share her feelings on this issue, they did not feel they would have a voice on this issue because Mr. Haselwood does own a lot of property in that area. She hopes the City Council will consider her views and some of the thoughts and feelings of people who have not spoken up on this issue. Gordy Byrd questioned if the proposed annexation area is located near the Welfare Office at the corner of Union and King Street? Mrs. O,Neill pointed out the Annexation boundary area. Glenn Jarstad, 2823 Hefner, stated his family have owned property in and near the annexation area for over 45 years. He was pleased to see the property being brought into the City and complimented Charles Haselwood for taking property in that area and creating service areas for the people of Bremerton. He looks forward to the day when everything from the freeway (up on the hill) can be utilized for an industrial or business use. He believes the people in that area will then get top dollars for their properties. He continued that his stretch of land has the only remaining tree cover, and as that develops, he supposes the hill will eventually disappear. He also believes the future of the City will be developing out to the west, and he would like to see Navy Yard City people join in modernizing the City and expanding to the west. Larry Wells stated at the time he purchased his property from Mr. Haselwood it was in the County, which was fine with him. He finds it interesting that the "petition method" was on valuation of property and not necessarily by a vote of the people who live there or own property. The majority of the older area is rental properties and he could understand that to a certain degree. But, he doubts Mr. Haselwood will reside anywhere on the subject area within the next two years. He appreciates the fact this area is lucrative because there is high density new construction going on, and is "ripe" for the picking. He suggested there are areas Mr. Jarstad mentioned and also Rocky Point, that Bremerton has not taken advantage of to increase their tax base with this selective annexation method. He objected to being included in theAnnexation boundary. Mrs. O'Neill stated in response to an earlier request,-there are 121 tax lot numbers included in the annexation petition. President Fits asked if Mrs. O'Neill knew the numbers Of those signing the .petition? Mrs. O'Neill stated she recalled that some properties on Poindexter were leveraged with the petition. She stressed annexation requires more of a majority than any other process in government. At the time they requested comments from various City Departments, there were quite a few comments that did not support #0220 #0225 TAPE #1196 City Council 1Reg. Mtg.-Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 15 of 33 this annexation because of the problems in the proposed area, such as lack of fire hydrants and poor streets, and that unless the City had been presented with this petition, we would not have moved toward annexation. Mr. Haselwood does have plans to make improvements in that area which will bring it up to City standards. Ms. Maxim asked the question how many signatures were on the petition, not the number of parcels involved. G~I Johnson, Deputy City Clerk, read into the record letters from the following: (1) Opposed annexation of Poindexter Avenue - 1218 Poindexter - Darrell and Lori Zintner; (2) Opposed annexation - Royce; 1309 Lansing West - Steven And Della (3) Has no objection being annexed into the City - 1321 Avenue Cottman - Marian J. Segreto M/S/C/U(Overson/Huff-Menees) to approve the annexation petition of the area designated as the West Hills Annexation Area I. M/S/C/U(Overson/Farr) to approve Ordinance on first reading, annexing 58 acres known as the West Hills Annexation Area I, which lies west of Cottman Avenue and is bordered by the boundaries of the City on the north, west and most of the southern side into the City of Bremerton and fixing the effective date of annexation. 8B - PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF PLANNING COMHISSION DECISION TO REOUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 8TATEMENT~ APPELLANT: CHARLES BASELWOOD, #1~B94-086 A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued by the City on January 25, 1994. This decision, not to require an Environmental Impact Statement subject certain conditions, was then appealed to the Planning Commission on March 15, 1994. The Planning Commission overturned the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance and is requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS) to beprepared. The Planning Commission determined that an EIS will allow for greater public involvement in identifying impacts, and will allow the City to review alternatives which may be adopted to lessen impacts identified in the EIS. The Planning Commission's Decision is being appealed for reasons stated in the Letter of Appeal (Attachment I). TAPE #1196 City Council 1Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 16 of 33 When hearing an appeal, the City Council may take any of the following actions: 1) Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and determine that the project will have a probable significant environmental impact, requiring an environmental impact statement to be compiled; 2) Overturn the Planning Commission's decision, allowing the project to be considered based on the conditions of mitigation contained in the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance; or 3) Remand the decision back to the Planning Commission to impose additional mitigating conditions which might lessen impacts identified by the Council. President Fits asked all of the people in the audience who planned to speak on and give testimony on this issue to please stand and raise their right hand. She then administered the following oath: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding this matter? The response from the audience was "I do". President Fits asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all members, except Councilman Dawkins remained seated. Mr. Winters stated as an appearance of fairness he wanted to disclose that he has a contract with Doug ride, a member of the audience. Jim McNamara, Assistant City Attorney, asked if Mr. Winters had any financial interest in the property that is under consideration? Mr. Winters stated no. Mr. Overson pointed out Mr. Winters does have a financial interest with someone who may have a preference as to which way he votes and which could have a financial influence. He recognized that it could be a distant influence, however, he wanted everyone to recognize that is how he sees it. In the question of ,'appearance of fairness", the question. is really on yourself as to whether or not you feel that you can give this an equitable viewpoint based on all the information and not allow any of the information to bias him on his decision. Mr. Winters stated he believes he can give the appearance of fairness by hearing all the information and utilizing his vote. Mr. McNamara stated he felt Mr. Overson's position about Mr. Winters having some kind of financial interest is too remote to disqualify him on that basis. Jack 111ingham, Current Planning Division, stated this item had already been before the Planning Commission on an appeal of a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) threshold determination. The State Environmental Policy Act requires the City to review proposals and make a decision whether or not to require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). When the City does so, it has three alternatives in which it can take, 1) to issue a Determination Of Significance and require an EIS; 2) another avenue is to issue a Determination Of Non-significance, which does not require an EIS; and 3) a combination of the two is a Mitigated Determination of Non- significance, which sets forth specific conditions of mitigation TAPE #1196 City Council 1Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 17 of 33 under which an EIS would not be required. A Mitigated Determination Of Non-significance was issued on January 25, 1994. There were about eight categories with specific conditions of mitigation relating to earth, stormwater management, water quality, compliance with shoreline regulations including public shoreline access, and the environmental quality of the site. The site is located on the 2500 block of Snyder Avenue, the former site of a Unocal Fuel facility, and is immediately adjacent to and north of 25th Street directly to the east of Wycoff Avenue and northwest of the intersection of 25th and Snyder Avenue. The site consists o~ 2 1/2 acres. The current zoning of the site is Single Family 2 (SF-2) and the proposal is to rezone the site from SF-2 to SF-3, and then subdivide the land into 11 single family residential lots. The proposal also consists of constructing an internal road, which would be a dedicated public right-of-way, which is designed to meet City standards. There was a previously existing pier that was used with the Unocal Tank farm and the proposal is to reconstruct the pier and add a gangway ramp and floating ramp to allow water craft access to the pier and properties. The Mitigated Determination Of Non-significance was appealed to the Planning Commission on March 15, overturning the Planning staff's decision and requiring that a Determination Of Significance be issued and that an EIS be required. This decision is being appealed by the proponent, Charles Haselwood and his representatives. Mr. Fare stated the subject site is in his District and he gave careful study to the Agenda documentation, which answered many of his questions relating to the appeal. He questioned if he was correct in understanding that Council is only being asked whether or not to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. ME. A11ingham stated Mr. Farr was correct and this meeting would not be the appropriate time to approve the proposed rezone or subdivision. Mr. Fare stated one concern he does have is the environmental health, especially considering the prior use of the subject site. He referenced a requirement (found on page 76 of the Agenda packet), which is part of the Mitigated Determination of Non- significance that originally said an EIS would not be required, which stated: "The applicant shall provide a summary of the environmental quality of the site and identifies those items to be specifically addressed". Then, on page 75 of the Agenda packet, under Item 8 it states: "List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared or will be prepared directly related to this proposal". And, a response to that question is as follows: "A prior Phase I environmental assessment of the site by Union Oil showed no contaminants". Me questioned if everything, as far as the environmental concerns, has been addressed to the TAPE #1196 City Council 1Reg. Mtg. Minutes · April 27, 1994 Page 18 of 33 satisfaction to those concerned and have any surprises turned up and is there any further action required to address or correct any environmental problems with the site? Mr. A11inghamexplained the site comes under the control of the Model Toxic's Control Act, which is administered by the Washington State Department Of Ecology (DOE). The applicant has submitted to the City Environmental Assessments which have come out since the threshold determination was made and it got into the appeal process. In that information are some environmental investigations and some declarations by certain State agencies that they are not concerned with the property. The whole idea of the Model Toxic's Control Act is to investigate potential hazardous sites and to try and remediate them back into productive land as soon as possible. It was his understanding that the investigations have been conducted. He believes one of the primary movers of this investigations is the financial community, as lenders of money are hesitant to lend money on development projects that have not been certified or determined to be environmentally safe. The condition of mitigation is to specifically identify what the environmental documents are that would identify the environmental quality and where they could be located for public review. When this application was submitted to the City, that information was not known. President Fitz asked if that information was part of the Planning Commission hearing? Mr. A11ingham stated no. President Fits questioned should Council be discussing something that was not part of the Planning Commission's hearing? Mr. A11ingham explained since the public hearing before the Planning Commission, the applicant has been working at developing compliance with this condition. Jim McNamara, Assistant City Attorney, stated the scope of consideration of information material should be the same as that taken before the Planning Commission. Mr. Overson questioned why would the appellant not want to do an EIS? Mr. A11inghamstated he imagined that the appellant would say it would be a delay to their project and it would cost them additional funds. Mr. Oversonquestioned what would an EIS do that has not been done? Mr. A11ingham explained an EIS would involve greater public involvement, i.e, a scoping meeting, preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement identifying the project, range of impacts of the project, and alternatives to the project. From that range of alternatives, it would provide the decision makers, such as the City Council, alternatives from which it could adopt,- conditions, or deny the project based on unavoidable and significant environmental impacts that Council would find could not be mitigated. Mr. Farr asked if an EIS is generally required on a development of this scale? Mr. A11in~ham stated that during his tenure in the City's Planning Department, he has not seen an EIS prepared on a TAPE #1196 City Council 1Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 19 of 33 'subdivision. Mr. Farr asked if Mr. Allingham had seen subdivisions of something similar developing 11 lots that did not require an EIS? Mr. A11inaham stated yes, there have been other subdivision within Bremerton that have involved equal to, as many, or more lots that did not require an EIS. Mr. Farr questioned if the original intent and original decision by the City's Planning Department was that an EIS would not-be required based on the findings of the Mitigated Determination Of Non-significance? Mr. a11inghamstated yes, there is the intent that those conditions identified the impacts that the City's staff identified and applied conditions that would mitigate the impacts. Mrs. Huff-Meneesquestioned if there is something additional to the items listed in the Mitigation Determination Of Non-significance that would likely appear in an EIS? Mr. A11~ngham stated yes, additional information could be requested and addressed during the scoping process. The scoping process provides the public an opportunity to request certain impacts or requests that information be provided in the EIS. Mrs. Huff-Meness asked if Mr. Allingham was aware of the type of questions that might be asked, with respect to an EIS, that have not been covered in the items in the Mitigation document? Mr. A11ingham stated he believes the City Council and Planning Commission were provided with comments from the Washington State Department Of Fisheries, which pose some issues pertaining to shoreline erosional rates, and maybe the need to look at shoreline setbacks that would reduce the requirement or future need for shore protection, such as bulkheads. The Department Of Fisheries was also concerned with overwater coverage of the pier and basically stated they would not be able to approve reconstruction of the pier without mitigation. Those issues were not addressed in the Mitigated Determination Of Non-significance. Mr. Farr asked if there will be another control vehicle that will address those issues other than what is being discussed at this time? Mr. Allingham explained the Department Of Fisheries has a hydraulic project approval for the construction work for the pier over the water. As far as requiring a geotechnical analysis of shoreline erosion rate and the setback of structures, the Department of Fisheries would not have any sign off authority. Mr. Farr stated he understood that there are requirements in the Shorelines Management Act that address those particular issues. Mr. A11ingham stated that was correct, and within the City's Shoreline Master Program there are policies and regulations that are far enough away from the shoreline to reduce the possibility of needing bulkheading. Mr. Farr asked if those same requirements applied to everyone if they want to build within so many feet of the shoreline? Mr. A11inghamexplained some of them are policies, which are not necessarily regulations. Mr. Overson stated it appears there is a group in the community who TAPE #1196 City Council 1Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 20 of 33 feel that more needs to be done to assess the environmental impact on this project. He asked do woknow what that group is actually seeking, i.e., to stop this project, to push it back to SF-2, or to protect the environment? President Fitz pointed out the group of citizens opposing this proposal are present and will give their testimony as to their intent. Gary Sexton, Attorney representing Charles Haselwood, introduced the following individuals also in the audience: Mike Hancock, who held the contract on the subject site prior to Mr. Haselwood, and has information about how the project came about; Steve Ottmar, A.E.S. Consultants Inc., who did most of the work in preparing the Environmental Assessment and information and plans for the subject site; Gary Kucinski, Haselwood's representative and the consultant on engineering problems. As indicated earlier, it is important to keep in focus on why this issue is being appealed to the City Council. Mr. Haselwood filed in October, an application for rezone and a plat. In that process, an application was filed to improve the dock that had existed because the top of the dock had been removed but the piling remained. The Planning Department chose to put those issues into one package so that the City Council would not be incumbered with a mass of process. It must be remembered that this application is simply for 11 single family units, a fezone application from a SF-2 to an SF-3, which would allow seven units per acre density where the requested is 4.11 units per acre. The surrounding area is already SF-3, indicating that the subject site was left out in the Planning process so the request for the rezone only brings this site into conformity with that which is already in place. The requested plat takes the single parcel and tries to make it usable and through the designing of AES basically says the best use of this is for 11 single family residences. The issue is not whether or not this is an appropriate rezone or whether the plat is acceptable, that is for another day. The only issue is whether there should be a requirement for an EIS and the Planning Department has already issued its Declaration Of Non- significance with the mediation. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197.11,330 states: "An EIS is required for proposals for legislation and other major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment". The Declaration Of Non-significance is made when there is no significant environmental impacts. It also includes definitions as a guide, such as: "significant as used in SEPA means the reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality". The primary thing the City Council must determine is if this proposal as presented gives the presentation that it is likely to have more than moderate impacts on the environment. It also puts forth several other requirements and notes in making the threshold determination the responsible offices should determine whether all or parts of the proposals or impact have been analyzed in the previous analysis; TAPE #1196 City Council 1Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 21 of 33 (B) whether an environmental analysis will be more useful at another future place. In other words, they ask you to look and see what has been done before and take that into consideration and what is out in the future. Mr. Sexton pointed out the surrounding area has a considerably higher density than the subject parcel. He questioned if one would say that this application was likely to have an environmental impact of significance on the density. The answer would be no, due to the fact the project is under the existing surrounding density. The secondary issue of density is that there may be some impact of increased traffic on streets. He referenced three streets, ~ycoff, Snyder, and 25th Street that currently exist, and there doesn't appear to be any true impact in terms of the streets at all. The next would be the potential impact to sewer, water, and garbage. Before they filed their application, they came to the City and asked the Planning Department if they saw any impacts on sewer, water, and garbage services and on September 28, 1993, they received a letter telling them that the water service was available within the 25th Street right-of-way and consists of an 8 inch cast iron main and the water system pressure is estimated at 70 lbs. per sq. inch. He emphasized the water service was planned to provide expanded service and constructing single family homes on the subject site is a typical use for the property. Wastewater service is available within the 25th Street right-of-way and the wastewater capacity is estimated at 90%. Again, the City told them there are no problems with this project and no environmental impact due to the fact it is already taken care of. Finally, in terms of the sewer and water hookup, the City stated the proposed project must be connected to the sewer and water systems shall be completed in accordance with the Utility development requirements. He emphasized that provided for a future process to address that particular item. Mitigation Determination by the Planning Department - in this particular case the Planning staff added requirements and took care of the mitigation issues internally. They indicated in the Mitigation document that the lead agency for this proposal probably would not have a significant adverse affect on the environment subject to the mitigation measures listed. They then added some particular requirements, i.e. earth - there needs to be a grading plan and that it must have a temporary erosion control plan, which is standard, and during the construction that process will include looking at the weather and time of year and making adjustments. Planning staff noted that the stormwater system will be reviewed by the Department as part of their overview and included in the document submitted the stormwater is addressed by having a closed system, with a water infiltration system, biofiltration system and essentially the stormwater in the area will be cleaned out before TAPE #1196 City Council 1Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 22 of 33 it gets off site. The last item that is noted in the Mitigation document is the question of the Environmental Assessment and a request for the proponent to submit additional information about what has been done. He noted that information was submitted by letter on February 7, 1994, by a consultant. He did not know if the Planning Commission asked the same question asked by the City Council, whether or not their was any environmental impact. All information about the prior work done had been submitted to the Planning Department. The subject site was previously owned by Unocal, and starting in 1967 a GEO-engineer was hired to handle this particular property and prepared ultimately a report, which is on file with the City Of Bremerton Planning Department. Starting in 1987, they identified what problems there might be and they did find there was potentially some items of concern. As a result of that, in the next two years 3,400 cubic yards of material was removed off site and disposed of in the appropriate manner. The testing was then redone in 1990-91, and 1992, and passed by GEO- engineers with them saying this site is acceptable and usable for any type of development. As indicated after that, Department Of Ecology (DOE), Department Of Natural Resources (DNR) and Department Of Fisheries reviewed and signed off the report and said that it was appropriate. He stressed the environmental side has been handled. The Department of Fisheries did say that if a dock is to be built, they would require a Hydraulics Permit and would have to deal with questions whether or not there would be a shadow affect on the water. In reviewing the original appeal, there are no facts cited why there should be a EIS required other than they questioned if the City had looked at these things, which they had. Mr. Overson asked the question why did Mr. Haselwood not want to complete an EIS? The assessed value on the subject site is $120,000 and the time 'estimates for completing an EIS is 6 months to two years to complete, which would be a "killer" in terms of the project. The cost range for doing an EIS is $50,000 - $150,000. If the City requires an EIS, it would more than double the cost of any lot and/or kill the project, thereby stopping further development in Bremerton. To his knowledge no one has suggested requiring an EIS on this size of a project in the City of Bremerton. He noted the last project.for Mr. Haselwood had an assessed value of 8.5 million dollars and 58 acres, and it was not significant. He believes history shows you cannot afford to set a precedent to require a EIS in this particular case. Mr. Overson pointed out that when looking at the whole zoning map for the area all along the waterfront it is SF-2, which was intended to reduce the impact on the waterfront. He does not personally agree with that intent, due to the fact this project appears to provide sufficient space for a quality of life that is TAPE #1196 City Council 1Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 23 of 33 good. He did not believe the subject site was "missed" from being made SF-3, but was intentionally designated as SF-2. Mr. Sexton stated where to address that issue. is in the rezone application process, not in terms of saying we're going to require a very substantial expenditure. Mike Hancock, President Of American Redicorp, a real estate and investment corporation, stated in response to Mr. Overson's question, the area north of the subject site is currently SF-3 'zoning along the waterfront. He referenced the previous annexation issue and the statement made about a straight line of annexation theory and applying it to the subject site, it should be SF-3 by default. His purpose in speaking on this issue is to.clear up some of the background regarding the environmental issues dealing with the subject property. His corporation had the property under contract for about six months prior to the time Mr. Haselwood became involved in the project. He signed his corporation's interest in this property to Mr. Haselwood prior to his executive purchase of the site. A comment was made at the Planning Commission hearing that the Environmental Analysis was done by Mr. Haselwood's consultants, therefore, the integrity of that should be questioned. At the time he gotinvolved with the property, the Environmental Assessment had already been done (several years before) and was commissioned by Unocal in response to requirements by EPA under the Act previously cited. The clean up was done, the site revaluated and certified as being clean. That was again done prior to his getting involved in the property. He reviewed all the testing documents and talked with the EPA, DOE, and other State agencies about the possibility of anything else that should be known that would be required before the site could be considered "clean" and usable for residential development. At that time, he was told there was nothing else, and GEO-engineers had put their engineering seal on the report and that was considered good enough. After Mr. Haselwood closed the purchase on the subject site, it was discovered that the area of the.property outside the uplands, the area where the substantial portion of the pier was built on, were first class tidelands under the control of the Department Of Natural Resources and had been leased to Unocal. It was then required that the lease was signed by the Department of Natural Resources from Unocal to Mr. Haselwood in order. for him to have control of the entire property. Mr. Hancock acted upon Mr. Haselwood's request and contacted the DNR to begin the assignment process of that lease. At that time, the DNR discovered there had never been an Environmental Assessment done of the bedlands underneath the water in the first class tideland area. DNR identified several conditions under which they would sign the lease: (1) require Unocal to do an Environmental Assessment of the bedland underneath the pier in the leased area and they would make a condition on the assignment that Mr. Haselwood take immediate TAPE #1196 City Council 1Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 24 of 33 action to repair the pier, which was in dilapidated condition. Mr. Haselwood removed the top off the pier and bobbed the pilings so that no one could access the pier and accidentally get hurt. It took almost two years for the DNR to apply enough pressure on Unocal for them to complete an Environmental Assessment of the bedlands underneath the water and pier. A subsequent report was issued to the DNR indicating no environmental contaminates were found in those bedland areas and was given a clean bill of health. To his knowledge the assignment from DNR 'is underway. In his opinion as a developer for nearly 10 years in Kitsap County, in requiring an EIS of this property would do nothing more than delay the project and add substantial amount of cost without adding any value to the property. Obviously from a business standpoint, those costs have to be passed on to the buyers. He did not feel it was appropriate to require an EIS on a project of this size - an 11 lot subdivision. The last time he was before this Council he was proposing a rezone of 20 acres behind the K-Mart store in East Bremerton from SF-3 to high density residential, which was issued a Declaration Of Non-significance for a 440 unit project, which was not appealed. Mr. Law questioned if Mr. Allingham had all of the documentation Mr. Hancock described in his presentation? Hanaock stated to his knowledge - yes...the initial report, the clean up/certification and subsequent report on the bedlands. Gordy Byrd raised a question relating the existing zoning and land use of the site? President Fitz noted the zoning of the surrounding area took place prior to her coming on the Council. However, Mr. Overson stated he thought it was zoned for fewer houses because of being located on the waterfront. Mr. Byrd pointed out the subject site is located on a bus route. Dou~ Eide stated he and his wife own several pieces of property in the subject area and have no problem with Mr. Haselwood proceeding with the project without conducting an EIS. The environmental impact to the neighborhood would be worse if this project did not go forward. He found it interesting that current residents in the surrounding area are living on smaller lots than those proposed for the subject site. Phil O1we11, opponent, stated he appreciated the fact that Mr. Haselwood's representatives who are to be involved in this project were present. He wanted to clarify a statement made by Mr. Eide...he does own two parcels in the subject area, but does not live there. Secondly, on any given project and/or SEPA process that may or may not require an EIS, there is what is known throughout the business world as a "lead agency". In this case, it is the City of Bremerton that was established as the lead agency. The reality behind the lead agency status is that everyone else follows that lead. They give comments, when they have the time, or TAPE #1196 City Council 1Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 25 of 33 when they feel they are absolutely necessary. Or in the case of his neighborhood and himself, when we raise them to the City; case in point is the Department of Fisheries letter. When Mr. Sexton references the WAC Code that governs the threshold and determination process, what he failed to cite to the City Council are some of the other elements in which one code under WAC 197.11.330 states that the same proposal may have a significant adverse impact in one location, but not in another. When we talk about other locations, we're not talking about anything else other than this specific site. That specific WAC also goes on to say that several marginal impacts, when considered together, may result in a significant adverse impact, which would require an EIS. There have been a couple of SEPA processes that have been ongoing with this project since it began. One of those processes was the "dock". He takes exception to Mr. Sexton talking about the facts of all of the elements and requirements governed by the City's Codes and policies in regard to this project when he states they consolidated them. The reason this process is before the City Council is because it was required, finally, by the lead agency. The initial project was the dock, and the City Council, at his insistence, wanted to know what was planned for the upland development. The original proposal was to do it piece-by-piece for whatever reason. The discussion must center on a 2.5 acre piece of property at the end of Snyder Avenue and North Wycoff, not some other site located somewhere else in the City. The impacts of this project are on the streets and area within the horseshoe surrounding it and the water. What an EIS will do at this point will bring all the pieces of this puzzle together from Fisheries to Ecology to Natural Resources to the neighborhood and to the City, all of which has been trickling in information since the beginning. He wanted to clarify that he and his neighborhood are not opposed to the proposed development on the subject site. They are opposed to it being thrown in to their existing neighborhood without some sort of guidance or mitigated circumstances from either the developer and/or the City. The City, being the lead agency, had failed at the first juncture of this proposal to stipulate those mitigated circumstances and that is why they are at this appeals hearing and will continue to be here on this process until it is done. They do not want to delay the project, and the delays and realities up to this date have not been from his group or himself, nor have they been from the other agencies that have been answering to the lead agency. The reason for the delay on this project is the developer himself by trying to "put the cart before the horse" and the lead agency required him to show what he'd be hauling with it. Me and his group recognize that the proposed project will be a benefit to their neighborhood, but there are some inherent, significant impacts that must be looked at by everyone involved in this project. Me emphasized it is hard to enforce mitigated circumstances and in a lot of the SEPA processes and case histories TAPE #1196 City Council 1Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 26 of 33 he reviewed, including the first one on this project, there were "0 or maybe 1" mitigated circumstances. This particular SEPA process, after all of this input, has slowly kept moving forward with almost a page of mitigated circumstances, which can end up being variances and/or tough to follow up and/or enforce. The Department Of Fisheries was delayed in getting their response in on the dock repair project. The Planning Commission, appointed by the current form of government, after hearing all the pros and cons finally at the last hearing sorted through the facts, heard testimony, and decided given the parameters and all of the questions that have come from this project from the beginning, that an EIS would be of benefit. If we could set a precedent for the quickest EIS in history of that type of work, then put him in line for being first.. He emphasized the City itself, from the Mayor on down, told the citizens there must be harmony within our community, we must create something other than "downtown" in the neighborhood. What a better way to do that than right here at North Wycoff and Snyder through a process that has.already been started by the Planning Commission. What the EIS will do, especially if there isn't a lot of contesting testimony and/or people arguing against the project, is involve all of the agencies and save the City with having to deal with something later that we should have done up front. In closing, he asked the City Council to follow up on what the Planning Commission recommended and he assured the Council, from his position as Chairman of this group appeal and the neighborhood, that they want to see the project completed, and they want to be involved and have a say in what will be going on in theplace where they are residing. President Fits asked Mr. Olwell to be specific as to what his concern is as it relates to this appeal? Mr. O1we11 stated he did not believe that we were here to discuss what he wants to see. He said Mr. Sexton's comments started into some of the concerns, and he cautioned that he will be before the Council during each requesting process of the project to show you his position. President Fitz stated she does not live in Mr. Olwell's neighborhood and could not see what specifically he wanted mitigated. Mr. O1we11 said the Planning Director has stated he does not know how they will be able to handle the rezone and the Department Of Fisheries has already stated the proposal isn't going to "fly" over the water. He questioned why should we deal with these things at the end when an EIS can involve all of the agencies, all of the players, and resolve any problems from the very beginning? Why do we have to continue to. press on and walk backwards when the appellants at certain junctures, being he and his neighborhood, are telling the City Council they support the TAPE #1196 City Council 1Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 27 of 33 project, however, everyone needs to be involved. He emphasized previous discussion about a 58 acre development not requiring an EIS was not a comparable site due to the fact it was not previously used as an oil site. Mr. Law stated he also was trying to understand Mr. Olwell's position on this issue. He questioned if he heard correctly Mr. Olwell's statement that the Department of Fisheries objected to the proposal? Mrs. Huff-Menees pointed out the letter from the Department of Fisheries does not state an objection to the project, but does list what needs to be done in order to rebuild the dock. She believed the Department of Fisheries would most likely state the same thing in an EIS. She also was having a difficult time to figure out what else Mr. Olwell wants beyond the mitigation that is already included. She emphasized this mitigation is not unusual for any type of a land use proposal and it is not as though something unusual has been stimulated for the developer to comply with,. and happens frequently. Mr. O1we11 'stated all of the agencies that have been forwarding information, some of which almost didn't get into the documentation, have, for whatever reason, been unable to pull together and pinpoint what everyone needs to make this succeed. They have been coming in at different intervals and time frames all along on this project, including the neighborhood's input. He emphasized he is not here to argue the CityCouncil's decision, but all he can state is what has gone on with this project has been the City's inability to involve every piece of the puzzle that will have to interlock to make it work, not just one element at a time. He and his neighborhood are concerned with the impacts of this project due to the fact those impacts will have an affect on them many years into the future. When the project is completed it will be basically creating a neighborhood within a neighborhood, of which some of the Planning staff have already commented on. Me questioned what benefit is that to him as a resident of the neighborhood and City. Mrs. Huff- Menees asked Mr. Olwell if he objected to the project that is being proposed? Mr. O1we11 stated yes - he objects to the size and rezoning the subject site and the cramming of 11 lots into that parcel with a commercially built pier. His earlier statement was that he had no objection to the subject site being developed. He and his group are objecting to the rezone from SF-2 to SF-3 and objecting to the pier, given its current plan of development, and they are following the objections of Department of Fisheries and other State agencies that have gotten involved also. Mr. Farr stated it was his understanding that Council was not debating whether or not to approve a permit for building a pier or the fezone. In his opinion, the only question before Council is whether or not they concur with or overturn the Planning Commission's decision that requires an EIS on the subject parcel. He does understood the requirement to provide public access, TAPE #1196 City Council 1Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 28 of 33 signage, trails, etc., to the water, however, he did not understand that included a pier. Mr. O1we11 stated that could also be mitigated and bought out by paying a fee and not be required to provide that access. Mr. Farr pointed out there are other control vehicles in place to regulate the items of mitigation as they get to them. Dave'Kimbe11, Manchester resident, stated he owns property in the subject area and they are very invested in the neighborhood and did attend the Planning Commission's hearing on this issue. He and his wife support the requirement for an EIS on this project. He did not feel the conceptual design showed the intensity of the development on the water and surrounding area. There are very few properties with that kind of density along the water. He referenced that WAC 197.11.794 defines "significant": "as used in SEPA, which means reasonable likelihood of more than moderate adverse impact environmental quality"; and they characterized that significance .involving content and intensity. He views this project as very intense in character to the surrounding neighborhood. He pointed out the following three issues: (1) dock and residential shoreline that will have higher than medium priced homes on the site; (2) those residents will want to prepare their shoreline in a way to protect their investment; and (3) the Department of Fisheries is concerned about bulkheading. In order to set back and meet Fisheries request, the lots will have to be made smaller and build fewer houses. He pointed out the impact on traffic has been documented as potentially 55-60 more trips per day coming out of the cul-de-sac and 'sees that as an adverse impact on the residents in that area. He noted the existing piling of the pier is deteriorated and Department Of Fisheries will only approve a dock or pier with a maximum of S-foot width of decking, which has to have the ability to let light through. He doubted that the pier was in good enough shape to rebuild and felt 'it should be torn down. Mr. Sexton mentioned that a private consultant blessed the site as being "clean" environmentally, and if the mortgage bankers buy off on that certification, then he has to concede that it is apparently clean and usable. He has not reviewed the specific documents that address the clean up of any hazardous.materials that were provided for this hearing. It was his understanding, after talking with Planning Staff, that only 3-4 items would need to be addressed through an EIS and he did not see this as causing that great of a delay. He felt it was doubtful that Mr. Haselwood would follow all the mitigating conditions set forth by the City and he based his opinion on past performance and his view of possible lack of compliance to other State, County, City, and environmental requirements that have been put forth to him. He referenced Mr. Maselwood's problems on a piece of land in the Silverdale area where earth was moved prior to getting the proper permits. Mr. Law stated he believed Council was hearing accusations that could not TAPE #1197 TAPE #1196 City Council 1Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 29 of 33 be substantiated and felt it was necessary to focus on the subject site. Mr. Kimball stated the work done on the Silverdale site was done illegally, per Department of Fisheries through a court action against Mr. Haselwood. He was knowledgeable that capping of the pilings was done without the proper permit, which-added to his concern that Mr. Haselwood would not follow the mitigation conditions specified by the City. He believed Mr. Haselwood had a long way to go to show that he is a good steward of the environment by his past performance. In conclusion, he believed an EIS should be mandatory and the project should not be allowed to progress by the allowance or appearance of purchasing variances through the practice of "political influencing". He questioned why is such a big deal being made of not doing an EIS? He apologized if anything he said during this hearing appeared to be slanderous against any one, however, he was citing examples of what had happened in the past. Mr. Law expressed concern over Mr. Kimball's comment of someone "politically influencing" on this proposal. Mr. Kimball stated he believed there had been some influencing in the past on some of the things Mr. Haselwood had done. Mr. Law pointed out Mr. Kimball was speaking in front of seven Council members and if Mr. Kimball felt there was "political influencing" going on between the · Council members and Mr. Haselwood he wanted to hear about it. Mr. K~mba11 was referencing such marks to what happened with the County. Mr. Law stated we are not the County. Luoinda K~mba11 stated she did not believe there were any built-in safeguards if problems develop later, and wants the City to monitor closely any and all development on the site. She acknowledged that She resides in Manchester, however, they have invested funds in maintaining their rental property located near the subject site. Their future plans may bring them back to reside in their Wycoff property. Mr. Farr stated he misunderstood Mr. Kimball's answer to his question about which piece of property did he reside in the subject area. Mrs. K~mba11 explained she and her husband reside on the waterfront in Manchester, however, they do own a rental property in the subject area. Mr. Overson stated the citizens are concerned over potential impacts of a development in their area and we have all seen how they can be impacted. The citizens are concerned that the safeguards that are in place now are not going to be sufficient. On the other side, there is an owner that has the right to develop the property'based on where it is, what is there, and they have done a great deal of investigation and done a great deal to demonstrate that they can and will do it correctly "EIS-wise". So, the question is, is what is in place going to solve the residents' concerns? He questioned if the Dockside development required an EIS and how many homes were in that development? Mr. A11ingham TAPE #1197 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 30 of 33 stated no, it had a Mitigated Determination Of Non-significance. the Dockside development consisted of approximately 120 homes. Mr. Overson questioned if any problems had developed in the lake as a result of that development? Mr. A11ingham stated professionally, Dockside can teach a lesson on shoreline development and there are alternatives to the'type of development that occurred there. He pointed out there could also be alternatives to the proposed development, however, that may be his own personal opinion. His personal/professional opinions do not necessarily represent the Planning Commission's decision to require an EIS and that is what is before Council at this time. Mr. Farr stated there are concerns that the person developing the subject site will not live up to the rules that are in place and that there would be more assurance if he was required to go through a more lengthy process. President Fits stated she sees this project as having an impact on the area, but the things that seem to concern the citizens of that area the most, the shoreline and dock, are all covered under other agencies. Having been through the building portion of the overwater park, the City is very aware of how difficult the Corps Of Engineers, Shorelines Management, and Fisheries can be to work with and demand that certain things be done their way or they will close down a project. She had a difficult time seeing how an EIS could make any difference since the developer has addressed many of the concerns. She felt there are rules and laws in place to take care of most of the concerns raised during this hearing. John Law agreed with President Fitz. He saw three areas: Fisheries (the pier), shoreline management, and rezone, all of which will still have to be processed. He was at a loss as to what the EIS was going to come up with. There also apparently is noquestion as to the clean up done by Unocal. Mr. Overson asked, from a legal standpoint, would an EIS give the City any better position or more ability to control this project? Mr. McNamara stated no, what it would do is make the applicant take a closer look at the project, but at the end of the EIS the City or Planning Commission could then impose and conditions it wanted. Mr. Overson asked if the Council were to support the Planning Commission's decision, is there an appeal above that? Mr. MoNamara stated yes, it could be appealed to the Superior Court. Mr. Overson then.said the City Council has to be aware of the property owner's interest, we have to weigh that as well, the other side of that is if we don't force an EIS, and ten years from now a problem develops, is the City liable? Mr. McNamara said there is no liability for the City, the role of the Council this evening is merely to determine whether the Planning Commission acted properly TAPE #1197 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 31 of 33 in requiring the EIS or not. If there subsequently is found to be environmental problems with the site, the City, by not having the EIS, does not incur liability. Mr. Overson asked Mr. Allingham if he was the designated SEPA responsible official. Mr. A11tnuham stated yes. Mr. Overson asked, do I detect in you a sense of concern that an EIS is needed or are you saying that the recommended mitigation is correct? Mr. Allinghamstated that he is here to represent the Planning Commission, and their decision is that an EIS is required, and the Planning Commission overturned a decision I made not to require an EIS. Mr. Overson isn't that a conflict of interest? Mr. Rilingham we11I can take off my SEPA responsible hat and put on my Planning Commission representation hat and fairly represent the Planning Commission this evening. I could also talk about things that the EIS would get into such as alternatives and possibly even some scenarios. The Planning Commission asked if there could be alternatives, at least look at alternatives. President Fitz expressed concern that Council heard only testimony that was discussed with the Planning Commission. Mr. A11ingham said he could discuss alternatives such as 5 lots or 20 lots, vegetated enhancement plan, or other alternatives an EIS might look at. Mrs. Huff-Menees asked if the alternatives Mr. Allingham just mentioned, although they could be addressed in an EIS, could they not also be addressed in the rezone? Mr.'allingham stated no, the rezone application would be Just to change the zoning, the plat application would be just what is being proposed. The EIS is where the City would review alternatives. Mr. Overson asked if he could give a good scientific guess as to how long it would take to do an EIS? Mr. Alltngham said it would likely be between 6 months and 2 years depending upon the amount of time staff had effortto put into scheduling public meetings, processing a draft-EIS, and what a consultant would take to turn the draft-EIS into a final-EIS. Mrs. Buff-Menees asked if his awareness of what the cost could be coincide with the statement Mr. Sexton made? Mr. allingham said that he did not have a real grasp of what the cost of an EIS for this project would be, but stated that the cost should not be a consideration whether or not an EIS is required. Mr. MoNamara stated that the Council is to determine whether or not an EIS is required based upon the facts of the project. Mr. Farr asked Mr. Allingham if he could put on his "original hat" and let him know if he had any confidence in his original approval. A11in~ham said yes,-that the Conditions of Mitigation would adequately mitigate any identified impacts to the date that decision was made. Me continued to say that he does not make these decisions by himself. Richard Novills stated that after hearing all of this, it comes down to either "yes" or "no". Me also said that he regards .the Planning Commission very highly. The job they do is not an easy task, but that they do it, and they do it well. There are #0542 #0642 TAPE #1197 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 32 of 33 questions raised within.the Planning Commission as to whether an EIS is needed or not. The mitigated circumstances we read through in our packet were very thorough. There are some questions out there that are still unanswered, .and Itm afraid that Itm going to have to abide by the Planning Commission that their concerns should be weighed heavily by us even though they are not'specifically spelled out, the unknown questions should be answered. M/S/C/F(Neville/Overson) to uphold the Planning Commission~s decision to require an Environmental Impact Statement. In Favor: Neville, Overson Opposed: Farr, law, Huff-Menees, Winters, Fitz Motion failed. Mr. McNamara stated that a motion should be made to overturn the Planning Commissionts decision. Mrs. Huff-Menees stated that she can certainly appreciate that this is a difficult situation and issue for those who live.in the area, however, that she has been very impressed with the mitigation that has been provided for this project, and further impressed by the commitment on the part of the residents to follow this project all the way through. She thinks that with those two factors involved, this is going to be a project that should go forward without requiring an EIS, that it shouldntt be necessarysince the agencies that will be involved do not need the authority of an EIS to carry out their authority on these issues. With that in mind, I recommend that we overturn the decisionof the Planning Commission and not require an EIS. M/S/C/(Huff-Menees/Farr) to overturn the Planning Commission~s decision, and not require an Environmental Impact Statement on this project. In Favor: Farr, law, Huff-Menees, Winters, Fitz Opposed: Neville, Overson Motion carried. TAPE #1197 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 33 of 33 With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. KATH~E~L~KEY, City Clerk EILE ent City of Bremerton KLM/EF/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault