Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/29/89TAPE ~695 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 29, 1989 #0004 #0016 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4TH Street, Bremertonr Washington, Wednesday, November 29, 1989 at 5:30 p.m., with Council Vice President Hank Waibel. Council members present were Lon Overson, Shirley Marty Crutcher, Lynn Hortonr Morrie Dawkins, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, A1 Colvin and Russ Johnson. Council President Spencer Horning was absent. Also present were Assistant City Attorney Laura Anderson and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Vice President Waibel and Invocation was given by Reverend Ron Pratt of the Trenton Avenue Baptist Church. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes Of Meeting - November 15, 1989, #AB89-333 M/S/C(Horton/Crutcher) to approve Consent Agenda as presented. Vote: In Favor: Abstain: Overson, Crutcher, Horton, Waibel, Collins, Dawkins, Colvin Johnson CLAIMS/WARRANT REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing which has been made available to the council. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on November 29, 1989, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 10612, 10613 and 10633 through 10651 in the total amount of $33,410.45. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Crutcher had a discussion with Mrs. Allan and another lady who expressed concern that the reason they did not shop downtown was due to traffic and parking problems in the downtown area. Mrs. Horton reported last week she met with the Waterfront Park Design Committee and viewed the architectural rendering of the park by Mr. Steve Rice. Right now the specifications are going to the construction people and she anticipates sometime between January and April of 1990 the City will have the beginnings of a brand new park on the downtown waterfront. Mr. Johnson announced that the Bremerton area was not in the final running for the location of a new National Cemetery. He did feel the City should follow up and find out what it was that kept the City out of the running. He also noticed recently in a Federal employees Notice that the US House of Representatives have passed a bill, HR-94, that deals with Fire Codes and what it says is that if this passes both Houses and is signed by the President, if you are a Federal employee and are on travel you must stay in a hotel that meets all the requirements of the Federal Fire Code. Upon a preliminary look at Bremerton, it was determined that only a couple Hotel/Motels in Bremerton meet that code. Considering the number of Federal employees staying in our local Hotel/Motels it might be wise for their owners to contact their Congressman and see what is going on and urge reasonable restrictions or make their Hotel/Motel comply. The Kitsap County Solid Waste Advisory Committee will be meeting Wednesday, December 6, and he will be speaking at that meeting. On Thursday, November 30, the Washington State Department Of Ecology will be meeting with the Mayor, staff and some member of the City Council to discuss clean up of Sinclair Inlet. And, Mr. Johnson has viewed an Executive Summary of their plan and feels TAPE #695 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1989 Page 2 of 12 it reflects a reasonable approach which involved government entities all the way from Tribes, US Navy, County, City of Bremerton, and Bremerton's portion is not huge dollars. And, Mr. Johnson thanked Mayor Lobe, City staff and Council Chairman of the Fiscal and Budget Committee for the fine job they did in preparation and presentation of the proposed 1990 budget. Last week The Sun ran an article about how law enforcement satellite television network is being beamed across the country which is helping Cities save money~ helping in accidents rates~ etc. After reading this article Mr. Johnson called Chief McNeal and questioned why the City of Bremerton wasn't doing something of this kind .... Chief McNeal responded that the Police Department had already been involved in this new program for two months. Again, Bremerton is a front runner with other cities. Mr. Colvin commended the Council and City Treasurer for putting an austere budget together and he was pleased to see that the Council was still considerate of the City's senior citizens. Mr. Dawkins stated he and his wife attended the Olympic College and Community Band Concert and had a very good time. Mr. Waibel attended the Third Annual Winter Wonderland event which was held at the Pavilion and was well attended. He noted the event raised as much money off of ten trees auctioned this year as they did on 30 trees last year. Additional funds were raised through presale of trees as well. He commended the sponsors of this event. County governments have been very concerned with the rise in law enforcement costs and very small rise in State funding and have sponsored a series of Town Meetings through out the County to discuss these concerns. The Town Meeting held in Bremerton on November 27 was well a~Lended and it was brought out that in many cases the crime rate, crime statistics, the amount of cases that have to be heard have gone up over 100~, and in some counties have gone over 3,000~, and yet the increase in State funding has been less than 35% so there is a real crisis in law enforcement. Also, Kitsap Transit will sponsor its Second Annual Food Drive and anyone riding Kitsap Transit Buses can use canned foods instead of money for the cost of the fare. Last year 25,000 food items were collected and one of the local food banks was stocked with soups up to about one month ago. PROCLAMATION Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read a Proclamation recognizing there is a significant and growing body of evidence that home care services stimulate quicker and fuller recoveries and improvements than comparable services within institutions as well as providing a cost effective delivery system for high quality individualized health services. Mayor Gene Lobe did proclaim the Week of November 26 through December 2, 1989 as HOME CARE WEEK. A representative of Option Care accepted the Proclamation and explained that Option Care is a National company providing home IV services in the United States In Kitsap County they provide services from Forks, Washington to Federal Way, WA. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Lucille Gleichman, 700A Searl, expressed concern that the City might be considering using volunteers instead of the Paramedics for emergency services. She noted this could be life threatening to the elderly and their need for quick response to medical emergencies. Dusty ~hodes, representing the Marine Corp League of Olympic Peninsula, announced the annual Toys For Tots Drive has begun and they are currently putting together 80 bicycles and are in need of help from within the community to accomplish this task. Anyone wishing to donate some time and talent to this endeavor can come #0661 TAPE #695 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1989 Page 3 of 12 to the basement of the downtown branch of Kitsap Regional Library. Individuals who would like to volunteer to assist in wrapping gifts can come to the downtown branch of the Library from 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM commencing December 11. Gifts will be distributed on December 23 at the Kitsap Pavilion 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM. 6A - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT, #AB89-334 Bids have been received for the subject project. The lowest bid was $78~683.50 submitted by Madsen Electric. Following is a summary of the bid totals: Madsen Electric $78,683.50 Signal Electric $95,704.50 Jan Stemkowski, Assistant City Engineer, stated the City received an Exxon Oil Rebate Grant. This contract that is being requested would provide for the installation of the traffic controllers that were part of that grant. The $78,683.50 accounts for just the cost of the installation - the controller equipment had been previously purchased off the State Bid List. The Grant will fund 904 of the cost of installation and the remaining 104 will be funded through the Arterial Street Fund. Mr. Johnson questioned where will the new controllers be installed and what will they do for traffic flow? Mr. Stemkowski stated 12 controllers will be replaced in the downtown area and all the signals will be timed in sequence which will reduce the stop time and provide a cost savings in vehicle fuel consumption. M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) to authorize the award and execution of the contract to Madsen Electric. 6B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT - TRANS 360, #AB89-327 This item was before the City Council on November 22, 1989, directed back to staff to provide some additional information. and Ken Brees, Street Superintendent, provided the following responses to questions raised at the previous Council meeting: (1) currently Trans 360 is providing this training to City of Seattle Solid Waste Department, Public Utilities/Grant County, Public Utilities/Grays Harbor, Public Utility District/Benton County " -' The State has gone to what is called "Third Party Testing" - they have taken two of their employees, had them trained so they can skill test the drivers and sign off on the waivers. These two employees are not available to outside governmental entities. Kitsap County has not done the Third Party Testing but they have grouped tested on the written portion of the test and they have continued to sign off on the waivers. The County did not do any additional preparation for employees prior to their taking the written test - they had 3 or 4 individuals who did not pass the written portion and they will be meeting with their attorney and Personnel Director to determine how to handle personnel who do not pass the licensing test as well as address the problem of new employees coming in requiring that they be licensed or whether the County will provide the training. Ace Paving is letting the individuals seek their own license renewal, however they are signing the waivers. (2) If the City chose "Third Party Testing" it could be provided by Trans 360 who also has a contract with the State to provide Eha~ Eest. It would cost approximately $800 per person-who have met a stringent list of requirements to the extent that they cannot have received a speeding ticket that is over 15 miles above the speed limit, no reckless driving, no DWI's, etc. This would involve only the "skill" portion of the requirement and would not provide any assistance toward the written portion of the requirement. This is available to the City if notification is submitted and the State approves the individuals in time for testing on December 18, January 22 and January 29 and TAPE #695 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1989 Page 4 of 12 February 5. Mr. Brees noted that he sits on the negotiating team with the Teamsters Union and the Union is concerned as to what happens with those individuals who do not pass the testing. And, he pointed out that the City does not have to provide this training, however, he feels it would be beneficial to the City if assistance was given by the City. It may also be a benefit in the area of insurance by showing the added training being offered to employees. Additional benefits received by the City are less maintenance and wear and tear on the trucks and possible fuel costs savWngs. Mr. Johnson feels due to the time constraint in training someone in-house that the City should consider going all the way in training thereby having as many benefits in return. Vice President Waibel noted that there still could be a personnel question as to what happens if individuals do not pass the requirements. Caroline Marshall, Personnel Director, stated there are a number of areas that could disqualify an employee, such as medical exam, skills, driving background record. Those individuals who do not pass one of those three areas the City will immediately discontinue allowing them to operate the vehicles that require those licenses. She wants to wait until the entire group is trained and see the results. She will be working on identifying those kinds of work available that would not require such licensing to see if individuals could be reassigned duties. She feels it will take several months to work through all the details required and will be more knowledgeable of what will be required by late February or early March. Vice President Waibel questioned if any individual has been identified as being ineligible to even take the test due to their driving records? Mr. Brees stated the first 20 individuals have gone through the medical test and passed. Forms are being filled out and sent to the State which will provide background driving checks. Mr. Dawkins questioned if someone does not pass the tests how soon can it be retaken? Mr. Brees stated there is no time limit but there is a limit that it can be taken only three times. #1062 M/S/C(Dawkins/Crutcher) to approve the Professional Services Contract with Trans 360. Vote: In Favor: Abstain: Overson, Crutcher, Horton, Waibel, Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson Collins 7A - PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #SL-4-89; APPELLAI~T: PAUL SCHMIDT; LOCATION: 117 SECOND AVEN]3E, #AB89-318 On August 1, 1989, the Planning Commission approved the Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional Use Permit to allow the reconstruction o~ a parking lot located at the former Bremerton Lumber site. The Commission's approval was subject to 10 conditions (refer Eo Ex. II). On November 1, 1989, the City Council remanded the decision back to the Planning Commission for further review. On November 8, 1989, the City Council rescinded its decision and set November 29r 1989, as a hearing date to reconsider the appeal. The City Council, when hearing an appeal, shall either: (1) Affirm the decision under review; (2) Reverse the decision under review; (3) Modify in whole or part the decision under review; or (4) Remand the matter back to the approving authority for further consideration. TAPE #695 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1989 Page 5 of 12 Such action shall be decided by a majority vote of the members present. That vote may be taken at the same or any subsequent meeting. Vice President Waibei asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Councilman Horton noted for the record that she had met and had discussions with Olympic College to discuss some of the restrictions requested by the appellants and she requested the College to come to some sort of compromise both on the restrictions as well as the time limitation on the permit. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, outlined previous Council action and clarified that the hearing was continued to take further testimony and that the Council Chair would determine the order to proceed. Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated he was gave a brief review of the issue ond on Use Permit is required is because the Shoreline Master Plan includes the condition that parking can only be an independent use for~ five year period if it is proposed within the downtown waterfront urban renewal area. The Planning Commission heard testimony and in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law decided the five year period was appropriate and in addition that the other attributes of the Shoreline Master Plan were met and they recommended approval of the request by Bremer Trust with several conditions. The key conditions that the appellant brought to the City Council included primarily whether or not the appropriate mix of long-term/short-term parking was required and whether or not it should be a five year period or shorter. Paul Schmidt, Appellant, apologized publicly to Councilmen Collins, Waibel and Horning for his not realizing that this issue would be so misinterpreted in the local press. He stressed he was not opposed to the issuing of a temporary permit, he was not opposed to tearing down dilapidated buildings - he is opposed to abandonment of the sound principles of the Shoreline Master Plan and Downtown Urban Renewal Plan. He believes in cooperation between the property owners and the City of Bremerton but there is a vast difference in cooperation and appeasement. Commuter parking should not be located on the waterfront. In 1986 the City Council took the first vital step for the citizens of Bremerton to take control of the waterfront property, Resolution #2117, which is based on the Urban Renewal Law of the State of Washington. In one of the quotes in the Urban Renewal Law it states: "in making the development of this property constitutes making the land available for development or redevelopment by private enterprise or public agencies, including the sale, leasing or retention by the municipality itself at its fair value for uses within that plan". In October 1988 Mayor Lobe mad~e the following statement to the City Council: "because the majority of ownership interests within the Urban Renewal Area have not exhibited the ability and/or desire to develop or redevelop their property and because this situation has negatively affected adjacent property owners within the area and the Cit~ he made the following recommendations that this area be designed as a 'blighted area' and he suggested the objectives in determining which specific commercial enterprises will be successful in this area and to develop an Urban Renewal Project based upon an economic research plan" Mr. Schmidt noted this market research plan and the resulting urban renewal plan cost the taxpayers of the City $50,000, and the report directly addresses various forms of development that could economically feasible on Bremerton's waterfront. The Bremerton Shorelines Master Plan for 1989 mandates that the City Council consider the following issues: the Shorelines Management Act of 1971 designated this particular TAPE #695 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1989 Page 6 of 12 property state-wide significant shorelines. It listed seven guidelines that should be considered in order of preference and the third guideline was to determine the long-term over short-term benefit and required to evaluate the short-term economic gain or convenience of developments in relationship to the long term and potentially costly impairments to the natural environment. The natural environment, as defined by the State, does not count sea gulls and seaweed it constitutes amongst other things land and shoreline use, relationship to existing Land Use Plans and even parking. Mr. Schmidt stated he believes the following should be done: (1) The City Planning Department or Design Review Board should periodically determine how many short-term and long-term spaces are needed. This idea came out of a letter from Mike Connolly and John Mitchell from the Board of Trustees of Olympic College to Don Pratt, which Mr. Schmidt read; (2) the applicant should agree in writing that the Conditional Use Permit does not fit the Urban Renewal Plan and that the issuing of this permit does not invalidate the City's right to acquire this property; (3) short- term parking should never be more important than long range planning. And, Mr. Schmidt stated Bremerton has come too far to take a backward step and with the powers the City now has in the Shoreline Master Program and the Bremerton Urban Renewal Plan we can no longer blame anyone but ourselves if Bremerton doesn't act. Parking lots on the waterfront are a detriment both economically and aesthetically. Cooperate with the property owners but don't abandoned years of work and preparation by this very City Council. Dr. Michael Connolly, Trustee for the Bremer Trust, stated the question of demolishing the Bremerton Lumber building has been kicking around for as long as he has been Trustee. It was part of discussions and negotiations that led to making the marina and waterfront park a reality and was always viewed as a desirable, necessary part of the effort to improve the appearance of the waterfront. In hindsight it would have been smarter to keep some leverage making one thing contingent upon another. He did not think he needed to nor did he want to - one contingency breeds others. Bremerton has had enough of nothing happening to last a lifetime. It was important that something positive happen without delay so he took the risk but now the chapter to this story must come to a close at this time. The City has the right to regulate land use and has done so through the adoption of a new Zoning Ordinance, Urban Renewal Plan and Shoreline Management Plans. Those regulations set the parameter for development, i.e., they describe what is permissible. The Trust's proposal for a Conditional Use Permit is within those guidelines and the Trust has accepted certain additional conditions imposed by the Planning Commission which further serve the City's legitimate interest that parking on the site be limited to users of the waterfront and occasional commuters. Even the rate schedules are to be approved by the Director Of Community Development to ensure they are designed to accomplish these objectives. He submitted that Bremer's has already agreed to much that another party would walk away from. The City has already been advised that economic grounds are an improper basis for whatever decision Council reaches. He did stress that the appeal is similarly tainted. The proposed requirement that such permit be non-transferrable is economically motivated and is also unacceptable. However, he did not object to an annual review of the parking ratio. Over time the demand for additional hourly parking on the waterfront may increase as the Marina and park and boardwalk gain popularity. It would simply be good business to accommodate that need as the demand and economy support it. We would conduct such a review for our own purposes in any case and bring the Director of Community Development into TAPE #695 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1989 Page 7 of 12 that process is not objectionable. Mr. Connollv noted he had been aske~ in the spirit of cooperation~ to accept less than a five year term for the permit, although that issue is not directly raised in the appeal. To be perfectly fran~ he is loathed to do so. The lesson he has learned is that negotiations are only over when someone says no. He will, never the les~ compromise one last time and accept the time limit of four years from project completion and if that is not acceptable then he would ask the Council to turn the application down. He believes the interim use compliments the waterfront projects now or soon to be underway. But more important, is that this project go forward or be killed outright. The following individuals spoke in favor of the appellant: Dusty Rhodes, speaking on behalf of the Sheridan Neighborhood; Del Knauss, President of BACON. And the following comments supported appellants position: (1) City should retain control of the parking on the waterfront and grant the permit for only one year not the five years as requested; (2) if a five year permit is granted it will be impossible to deny permits to other parking lots nearby; (3) support Bremerton Main Street rather than Flagship 89 due to Flagship's support of parking on the waterfront; (4) no objections to development of additional parking spaces on old Bremerton Lumber Yard site or to short-term temporary use permits and ,encourage demolition of the existing buildings which are an eyesore and unsafe. Sharply object to any long-term Temporary Use Permit for additional parking on the waterfront - it will set a precedent for anyone wanting to develop additional parking; (5) short-term Temporary Use Permit should not exceed two years and&reviewed as necessary as the waterfront. The following individuals spoke in favor of granting the Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permit: James Robinson, 4904 Kitsap Way and member of the Waterfront Design Committee; Jim McKenna, US Bank; Clint Shinkle, 645 4th Street, Suite 02. And, the following comments supported the Applicant's request: (1) the Waterfront Design Committee's deliberations included acquisition of additional property to provide adequate parking for commuters and park users, including coordination with the Port of Bremerton's development, USS Turner Joy supporting group and consideration of the major property owners; (2) waterfront development important first step in the downtown revitalization; (3) Urban Renewal area should extend farther - should be moved on the west side of Washington Avenue for parking; (4) Parking lot adjacent to the waterfront park is ok in the near term and is necessary; (5) surface parking will never match the appeal of property with development potential and as the waterfront develops properties in that area will become more attractive to investors; (6) improve the look of downtown area which would be enhanced by demolition of old buildings and providing parking for both commuters as well as visitors to the park and waterfront area; (7) four or five years is not a long time when looking m development projects which include financing and planning; (8) take a determined approach which may not mean the quickest method of development but would mean moving forward in a positive way; (9) Olympic College is a positive force within the Bremerton Community; (10) 1990 Goodwill Games and a potential political convention in the Seattle area will bring large numbers of tourist to the Bremerton Area, another need for getting some of the eyesores off the waterfront; (11) return of passenger-only foot ferries will increase need for additional parking; (12) USS Turner Joy will attract tourist to waterfront area. TAPE #695 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1989 Page 8 of 12 TAPE #696 Jim Adrian, 621 Washington Avenue, responding from a neutral position, stressed the importance of not institutionalizing parking spaces on the waterfront. Parking problems in Bremerton will only increase as the economy improves and he noted several large ship overhauls as well as one Navy Ship home porting in Bremerton are scheduled for PSNS which will increase the population in the area. He hoped that a mechanism or procedure would not be instituted setting up such that the waterfront is the only place in the community that can be used for parking needs. Through the recent election campaigns both the candidates talked about potential growth for Bremerton coming from the Seattle area - this would means more demands for Bremerton. He stated he believes Olympic College deserves approval of their request, they have a legitimate cash flow consideration to provide a short term infusion of cash so they can demolish the buildings which would be to everyone's benefit. However, within the frame work of the permit the City must make sure it does not institutionalize parking on the waterfront. Also, Mr. Adrian pointed out the applicant is being required~eet all the "permanent parking requirements" for a temporary parking lot - he must pave it, screen, landscape - is this not lending permanency to the parking lot. Would it not be beneficial to the community to not provide a permanency to help the applicant reduce his cash flow by reducing the requirements? Finally, Mr. Adrian pointed out four criteria that must be met from the Downtown Urban Renewal Waterfront Plan, one being: the parking lot is designed and managed for use by visitors and patrons or uses within the downtown waterfront and not available for employee parking (per the Planning Department what this means short term parking is allowed up to five years but it is not to be available for employee parking). The Planning Commissio~ by their decision in granting the permi~ has defacto interpreted that to mean that waterfront parking to service long-term ferry commuters in affect constitutes visitors and patrons within the downtown waterfront. If a precedent is established where these parking lots on the waterfront are being used for long-term commuter traffic there is the danger of locking into a very serious situation. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read into the record letters received from Paul Drnjevic, 2515 E. 22nd; and Glenn L. Vockrodt, President of Manette Neighborhood Association. Both letters were opposed to granting a temporary permit for a five year period and felt it would set back any progress toward development of the waterfront area. Don Pratt, Director Of Community Developend, stated for clarification the market research that was conducted did not cost $50,000 rather $17,000 but in fact the planning effort on the waterfront far exceeds $50,000 in total. That planning effort on the waterfront did result in both the Shoreline Master Plan and the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan. The Council and staff have planned that area, a plan was adopted and that plan says: "(1) any parking lot approved by a Special Use Permit on the waterfront must be designed and managed for use by visitors and patrons of uses within the downtown waterfront and not available for employee parking" The staff recommendation to the Planning Commission and their ~pholding of that recommendation that the use of the parking lot by ferry riders constituted patrons of uses in the waterfront; (2) a Shoreline Substantial Use Permit should be granted with the permit to expire every five years" Therefore, planning for the waterfront was done and did include these two elements. In regard to institutionalizing parking on the waterfront...the Council's plan limits five year use for waterfront parking for each piece of property on the waterfront. The City can refuse to renew that permit. Lastly there was a suggestion that discussions be #0261 TAPE #696 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1989 Page 9 of 12 initiated about diminishing development standards on the waterfront - lack of paving, landscaping...this would only be acceptable and permitted if an amendment was made to the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan and the Shoreline Master Plan. Right now according to the planning that has been done, that is not permitted. Mrs. Horton stated as it stands now with the new park and marina recreation pier are completed we do not have a great deal of short term parking on the waterfront to facilitate the activities. The proposed parking lot will include a majority of its spaces for short term parking that will facilitate those new amenities. She believes that the Planning Department annual review is a good thing to include - making good business sense for the College but for the community as well. The four year permit period is a gesture on the College's part to indicate that they want the waterfront developed as much as the City's does. However, the community feels the buildings need to be removed and the only way the College can justify removing them is to have a four year permit. She urged the Council to see this a.s a compromise, neither side is probably thrilled with the compromise but there are elements that both sides can agree to. Additionally, she stated she would like to stipulate by granting this permit the City is not relinquishing the right, under the Urban Renewal Plan, to condemnation if it should come to that. M/S/C(Horton/Johnson) to uphold the Planning Commission's decision approving the Shoreline Development/Conditional Use Permit #SL-4- 89 subject to the 10 conditions stated in the Planning Commission's Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, amending Condition #(3) changing five years to four years on the permit and commencing from the date of completion of the parking lot by June 1990 (which would coincide with completion of the Phase I of the Waterfront Park); and to include that an annual review be conducted as to the ratio of short term and long term parking; including a statement that "we the City Council of the City of Bremerton have not relinquished the right under the Urban Renewal Plan for subsequent condemnation if the Council feels it needs to come about". Mr. Johnson stated for the record that the City and the College are not divided into "sides" ... there have been many issues and programs where the two have agreed wholeheartedly and several issues there have been differences of opinion. In his opinion, he did not believe the Council was against demolition of the buildings or even temporary use of the waterfront for parking, however, a strong signal needs to be sent that it is not desired to have the waterfront turned into a commuter parking lot for ever - a decade or two! He felt a five year permit was too long but feels four years is a good compromise and will support that. Planning and development do not take place in an instant and he feels wording can be included in the permit which states clearly that this will be an interim contingent use. He did not agree that commuter parking is a part of the waterfront uses. He also would be willing to work out something with the College, which could save them money, to ease up on some of the development requirements for a permanent parkin~ lot when it is considered a temporary u~e. Mr. Colvin stated he felt it should be left up to the College as to whether or not they are willing to meet all development requirements for a permanent parking lotversus a temporary parking lot. Mr. Collins questioned for clarification if discussion involved 35 parking spaces which would be constructed once the buildings are removed? Mr. Pratt stated the project proposed includes the parking lot that is currently in place plus the 35 spaces that would be constructed once the buildings are removed. There is a legality question of the current parking that is there today. If #1031 TAPE #696 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1989 Page 10 of 12 this permit is approved, the question of that legality goes away - the current lot becomes legal. Some spaces that are currently there will go away, primarily those along the Department Of Natural Resources property and some spaces that are not there will appear, primarily in the Bremerton Lumber building site. Mr. Collins questioned if there would be parking on the existing street to the tunnel? Mr. Pratt stated no. Mr. Collins stated he supported removing the Bremerton Lumber building but he feels the issues should be separated - the Bremerton Lumber building/demolishing and the building of a parking lot in the space that the building would leave and the park on the waterfront. And, he raised the question as to the legality of the existing parking lot as well as expressing concern over the water runoff and proper drainage. Mr. Pratt stated he had dropped any further investigation into the legality question when this permit was filed and that currently there is no more water running off that property today than when it was used as a lumber yard - drainage is adequate. Mr. Dawkins questioned if at any time within the four year permit period could the Bremer's Trust do something else with the property other than using it for parking? Mr. Pratt stated parking is allowed until 1994 but it does not restrict the owner to changing that use to any other legal use. Mr. Johnson questioned if the City is assuming any additional liability by approving this permit with regard to non-point source pollution? Mr. Sievers stated no, as long as it was a lawful use and the run off existed during the previous use. Don Pratt stated Condition #7 requires that the parking lot shall be designed to dispose of all surface water accumulation to prevent any drainage into Sinclair Inlet as per City Engineer specification. The Planning Commission did not recommend or approve a permit that allows any kind of illegal drainage into the Inlet. Vice President Waibel stated he did not believe the motion as stated addresses whether or not Council considers commuter parking to be short term non-employee use. He would like to see it amended to allow only 13~ of 2- hour parking and the remainder to be less than 4-hours and no designated monthly parking be allowed. Mr. Sievers stated the provision in the Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan is somewhat ambiguous and he agreed with Mr. Pratt that the wording that was adopted would indicate it referred to employees of the Urban Renewal Area. Everyone is an employee of someone sometime during the day and that is a waterfront use (ferries) and these people would be patrons of that waterfront use. I think possibly the proper way to go if Council does not agree with that interpretation would be to amend that clause in the plan. M/(Collins/...) amendment to the motion - 13~ parking be limited to short term parking of not more than 4-hours. Mr. Overson noted the appellant pointed out some communities that have successful parking on the waterfront - such as Kirkland. He was not sure why people on the Council are so intent on trashing the city - why can't the City develop and grow a step at a time. Vice President Waibel noted that none of the cities mentioned uses waterfront parking as commuter parking .... commuter parking does not add money to economic development into the City. Mr. Colvin suggested that an alternate method would be to develop underground parking. Motion died for lack of a second. Vote on original motion: In Favor: Dawkins, Colvin, Hotton, Johnson, Overson, Crutcher, #1224 TAPE #696 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1989 Page 11 of 12 Opposed: Collins Abstain: Waibel M/S/C(Johnson/Collins) that the City Attorney be directed to bring back language to clarify the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan to state that Ferry commuter parking is not one of the parking uses intended for that area. Mr. Overson questioned where will Ferry commuters park? Mrs. Horton stated she would rather see a clarification of what kind of parking can go on the waterfront, if any at all. Mr. Johnson noted there are a lot of kinds in the plan but the question is what is water related use. Mr. Pratt stated he will issue an interpretation and if the Council did not like it then it can be repealed. Mayor Gene Lobe stated he did not understand the implication of what is being said could change the entire face of the City of Bremerton forever. Mr. Johnson stated he believed that no one envisions that one of the desired uses for four block of waterfront was ferry commuter parking. Mayor Lobe stated the City has done everything with its power to try and get foot ferry traffic to downtown Bremerton - where are the commute5 who would be using that ferry going to park? If commuter parking is not going to be allowed then the foot ferry better not be allowed either...it is a key element to having the foot ferry service. Mr. Johnson pointed out commuter parking is grandfathered into existing lots and even during the transition period. Mrs. Horton pointed out Council should look at options available and at the time staff comes back with their presentation Council has the opportunity to say yes or no. Mr. Overson stated he was more concerned with the entirety of the Urban Renewal Plan and staying in line with sound principles of that plan, some of which are not clearly defined. Possibly at some time Council should take another look at the entire Plan. Mr. Johnson stated he would like to have clarified the permitted long term parking uses within the area of the downtown waterfront per the present boundary. Vote: In Favor: Colvin, Johnson, Overson, Crutcher, Horton, Waibel, Collins Opposed: Dawkins 7B - PUBLIC HEARING - CITY OF BREMERTON'S PROPOSED 1990 BUDGET, #AB89- The purpose of this hearing is to take testimony from the public on the proposed 1990 budget. Mayor Gene Lobe briefly reviewed development of the proposed budget, compromises made by departments due an austere year. The primary priorities are still public safety and great effort was made to maintain current service/staffing levels with a slight increase. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated under the Mayor's direction staff has invested a great deal of time and effort in putting together a budget that will serve the citizens of the City well the coming year. There are no dramatic changes and is essentially a continuation of the financial policies that have been the practice of the City for the past several years - it includes no TAPE #696 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 29, 1989 Page 12 of 12 new taxes or increases to existing taxes or fees. In the area of public safety, the budget will provide for three new fire fighter positions and seven new Police Officers. The new Police Officers positions are the result of the contract that has been reached between the City and Bremerton Housing Authority as well~raffic Division which has been proposed. New programs included in the budget are: (1) video arraignment process as well as a Home Detention Program; (2) Traffic Safety Program (grant funded) in Municipal Court Department. Capital projects that are included are: (1) Phase I of the Athletic Sports Complex; (2) design and initial construction phase of the Boardwalk project on the waterfront~ (3) cont~n' of on-going fund raising with the USS Turner Joy project; (4) in Utilities - construction of a new water pump station in Kitsap Lake area; (5) continuation of on-going program to upgrade the City's transmission mains between the source of supply west of the City and the corporate City limits; (6) and completion of the on-going construction of the Central Bremerton Wastewater Transmission improvements. Public input was invited - none received. Mayor Lobe expressed concern that there was not more interest from the citizens concerning budgetary issues. With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. KATHLEEN L. MCCLUSKEY, CITY CL~RK APPRCV CER HO i 1 File/Vault President