HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/2004 MINUTES
Minutes for
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 2004
I. Call to Order
Commissioner Streissguth
The meeting was called to order by at 5:30 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner
Kosusko, Commissioner Nelson, Commissioner Streissguth, and Commissioner
Friedberg-Nerf. Quorum certified.
III. Approval of Agenda
Commissioner Streissguth introduced the agenda. She noted that the meeting minutes
IV
from the October 19, 2004 Planning Commission meeting and recommended section .,
Approvalof MinutesA motion was made by
be removed from the agenda.
Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to approve the
agenda as amended.
Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Kennedy: Yes; Kosusko: Yes;
Nelson: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; Friedberg-Nerf: Yes. The motion carried.
IV. Approval of Minutes
(This item was removed from the agenda.)
V. PUBLIC MEETING
A. Call To The Public.
(public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda)
Commissioner Streissguth
Seeing none, closed this portion of the meeting.
B. Public Hearing: Paul Rogerson, Planning Manager
, began the Public Hearing
portion: “I have a staff report related to your public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan
this evening. A couple of housekeeping items before I start: recording volume in the
room. I think the Planning Commission members are aware; I want to make the members
of the public aware that the regular recording equipment that this room will eventually
have is not yet installed and we’re operating with some ancient recording equipment
tonight. We’re not sure how well it’s working and I’m going to ask everyone who
speaks, either from the public or members of the planning commission to lean close to the
mike and speak really loud. It may be that we’re trying to pick up this entire meeting on
the little recorder in front of me, for example, or something like that; we’ll just not real
sure. So please speak very clearly and a little louder than you normally would tonight so
we can get a good record of this hearing. Also, I want to ask you for your forbearance and
forgiveness for my attire; I’m dressed more casually than I believe a staff member should
be in this situation. Today was moving in day for the City staff on the sixth floor of this
building and we’re all still reeling and physically exhausted and we’re dressed to haul
boxes and unpack heavy equipment and I ask for your forgiveness for my appearance.
th
“The staff report for the public hearing. On May 18 of this year, 2004, the Bremerton
Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft 2003-2004 Comprehensive
Plan update to forward to the City Council. We’re here tonight not to revisit that entire
Comprehensive Plan, but to review for you several small changes that have been made to
that draft plan since your approval of it last May. That’s the first note: The scope of
tonight’s hearing and I want to reiterate this is a public hearing, an official hearing. It’s
fairly limited – we’ll talk about six or seven items. The first of those items is not
something I’ll go into in a great bit of detail. I wanted to point out to the Planning
Commission members and to the members of the public that one of the changes you’re
going to see in the Comprehensive Plan, when compared to that plan approved last May,
is that it has been completely re-formatted. It now is in a two-column format more like a
magazine. It’s full of graphics that illustrate the points, the goals and the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan – something that you didn’t see any of in the draft approved in May.
Enough said on that. The more substantive issues are what I want to cover next. The
first change in this Comprehensive Plan is the addition of a new designation called
“Marine Industrial”. That designation replaces a designation called Industrial Park in the
same location and that location, I’m going to walk to the map and point that out for you
and members of the public [walks to the map]. The Marine Industrial designation applies
on this location along the Port Washington Narrows roughly in the vicinity of
Pennsylvania Street. The designation replaces the Industrial Park designation that was
formerly there and is very, very similar in nature. That’s why we don’t believe this is a
substantive change. The uses allowed under this designation are not appreciably different
than those allowed under the previous designation with one small change: The small
change is that this designation now allows a set of marine related and storage uses. In
other words, a storage of boats and other related equipment. The emphasis in the district
is now slightly different in that activities in this land use designation can be marine
related storage and other things related to the use of the waterfront. It continues to
emphasize protection of adjacent neighborhoods by buffering techniques and others and
adds that protection by requiring that circulation of marine equipment, boats and the like,
as they are moved about on the site is within the site and does not take place on adjacent
streets. Once again, this is a change; it’s still a light industrial type use but now with a
little bit more marine emphasis than the former designation included. I’m going to ask
the Chair at this point if you want to stop and entertain questions after each of these
sections or wait to the end of the Staff Report to entertain questions.”
The consensus of the Commissioners was to wait to the end of the Staff Report for
questions.
Paul
: “The second major change is the addition of the new designation called “Core
Centers Supporting Residential” (CCSR). In order for you to understand that
designation, I’m going to read large portions of it. Your staff report includes the
language that will be inserted in the Comprehensive Plan describing this designation. If
you move to the bottom of the second page of the staff report, you’ll see both the policy
direction section that will be added and the discussion section that will be added. The
policy direction section reads, ‘Create potential for residential development that will add
critical mass of population supporting a strong downtown, the nearby Manette
Neighborhood Center and the Harrison employment center. This residential population
should be able to circulate between the three centers by using the City’s planned
“Freedom Trail”, mass transit and other non-motorized modes of transportation.” That’s
the policy direction for this designation; I’ll point out where it is physically in a moment.
The discussion that would also be added to the plan reads, ‘The Core Center Supporting
Residential designation provides for medium density residential development in locations
along or very near a public trail system linking the Manette Neighborhood Center, the
Harrison Employment and Downtown Regional Centers.’ The designation provides
opportunity for residential development that places additional population within easy
walking distance of the commercial activities in the three centers in the core of the city.
In addition, the CCSR locations will be well served by public transit. The intent of the
designation is to increase opportunity for significant population to locate near these
centers thus increasing their viability and level of activity, while at the same time
supporting a pedestrian option for circulation within a “loop” connecting these three
closely connected nodes of future growth. And to finish out that description, I want to
point where that is on the map. The CCSR designation is here on the north-east side of
the Port Washington Narrows, located essentially between the Manette Neighborhood
Center and the Harrison Employment Center, the Harrison Hospital district along the
shoreline of the Port Washington Narrows.
The third change in the Comprehensive Plan is the addition of language describing the
Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center. That center was designated in the earlier plan, but the
text describing the look, feel, and general dimensions of that center was not included in
the draft that you approved in May. That text has now been added; your staff report goes
into some detail about, in summary, what that text says. I’ll try to summarize it in even
fewer words than the staff report. The Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center is described as
featuring open space and trail systems that link the center to the nearby Oyster Bay
shoreline and playfields in the West Park area, as well as taking advantage of excellent
marine views. There’s additional description in that text about how heights should be
handled in the center, saying essentially that heights should be regulated such that there’s
views from structures in most parts of the center northward to the Oyster Bay area – to
the marine environment.
[The next change] that we’re describing for you tonight is a change in the way the
description of Urban Growth Areas is handled in the Comprehensive Plan. This is
evidenced in two places in the new draft: First there’s a new section in the Introduction
chapter entitled “Eventual Growth Intent” – that’s on page 10 of the Introduction section.
Large portions of the text found in this new section were previously found in a section
called “Unincorporated Urban Growth Area”. This old section was also on page
Introduction 10, or page 10 of the Introduction section, but has now been moved to the
Land Use element and is now found on Land Use page 6 (LU-6). The new “Eventual
Growth Intent” section describes a new policy direction for most areas beyond the current
1995 Urban Growth Area. The supporting Eventual Growth map is introduced on
Introduction 13 and depicts most areas currently in the East Bremerton unassociated
UGA as that future intent area. So to clarify, the old section had indicated an intent to
include all of these areas in a new, larger Bremerton Urban Growth Area. While the new
section indicates that most of this geography is now in this area of future interest, but not
intended to be part of the Urban Growth Area in the immediate future. The reasons for
this recommended policy change spring from the technical requirements of the Growth
Management Act and in summary the issue is that one of the primary requirements in the
Growth Management Act is that a city demonstrate an ability to provide urban services to
an Urban Growth Area that it wishes to designate. At this point, the City has not done the
necessary technical work to justify the existence or the claiming of that Urban Growth
Area. We do, however, intend to do that technical work in the very near future and so
that area is indicated as an area of future interest, but at this point we’re not
recommending that we’re prepared to formally designate it as an Urban Growth Area.
There are some amendments in the Technical Appendices, too. These are of, well, I was
going to say little consequence, but actually they improve the ability of that section to
demonstrate our ability to provide urban services within the current city and our small
Urban Growth Area. Those amendments are to the water section of the Technical
Appendices and they simply substitute statistics and technical data from the 2005 Water
Comprehensive Plan update now being prepared by the Public Works department for
older data that had appeared there previously. So it’s just an improvement in the
freshness, the newness of the data in the water section. It actually increases the ability of
that section to demonstrate adequate ability to serve water rather than, in any way,
detracting from that section’s ability, so it improves that section.
Finally, just a piece of information for the Planning Commission, I’m holding in my hand
a copy of the draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive
nd
Plan. This was published officially on Friday, this past Friday, October 22, so it’s now
in the first few days of the 30-day public comment period that must accompany the
issuance of such a document. So for members of the public, you should be aware that the
Environment Impact Statement for this Comprehensive Plan’s been issued; the public
nd
comment period runs from essentially now until November 22 at 4:30 PM. Comments,
and there’s information in the document about how to submit comments, but in essence,
th
they can be submitted to the Department of Community Development on the 6 floor of
this building, and if you have questions about the details of that, please see me after the
meeting. The document, as you can tell, is thick and technical and I’m going to be
polling the Planning Commissioners and ask them if you want a copy of it. If you’d
rather come to our office and examine a copy or if you want your own copy to take home,
we’re certainly able to provide you one. I haven’t handed you one directly tonight
because I’m not sure how many of you really want to get a copy. But the Comprehensive
Plan Environmental Impact Statement is available and finally I should summarize its
contents and I can do that in about one sentence: In summary, the contents supports
selection of Scenario 3, Land Use Scenario 3 that you’ve already indicated was your
preferred alternative and the document does not identify any significant adverse
environmental impacts that are not mitigated by the Plan. So in other words, EIS
supports the Plan.
That concludes the staff report. I’d entertain any questions that you have.
Commissioner Streissguth
: Do any Commissioners have questions for staff?
Commissioner Nelson
: A few more examples for the Marine Industrial besides the boat
storage; it’s light industrial but ….(voice trails off)
Paul Rogerson
: I want to make sure I understand the question, Commissioner Nelson,
you’re asking what the permitted uses, what types of uses would be permitted…
Commissioner Nelson
: What types of uses, yes.
Paul Rogerson
: Well of course, the first part of that answer is we haven’t developed the
implementing zoning so that complete list is not yet developed, but I can give you the
general description. The general description would be light industrial activities related to
marine use; propeller repair, for example, boat repair, that type of thing. And removal of
boats from water and storage on site for the purpose of repair or long-term storage.
Office uses that are related to marine activities, perhaps a restaurant to support marine
activities on the site – that’s conjectural somewhat, but the bottom line that I’m trying to
get to is light industrial and supporting uses for a marine related activity center.
Commissioner Cockburn:
I have a question, Paul. On the CSR designation, is that just
unique to that one property or is it in any case when there’s a request for a large
development of density between centers?
Paul Rogerson
: Well, theoretically, at least, any property meeting the criteria set forth
for receiving that designation could receive it. The criteria are that it’s adjacent to the
Freedom Loop Trail, adjacent to the three centers: The Manette Center, the Downtown
Center and the Harrison Employment Center. Discussion in the Comprehensive Plan
talks about it being a somewhat larger site; a site of several acres or more. I’m not clear
how many sites qualify; there’s at least one that we’re aware of at this time, but it’s not
possible to write designations for a specific site without making it available to any site
that is generally the same.
Commissioner Kennedy
: I have one question regarding the CCSR and you are stating
that it provides for medium density. I’m assuming that’s 18 [dwelling units] per acre?
Or could that be ….. depending on the…..[audio is not clear]
Paul Rogerson
: The answer is somewhat similar to the one I gave a moment ago and
that was, first of all, the zoning hasn’t been developed so there’s an opportunity in the
public process involved with developing the zoning, that implements this Comprehensive
Plan, for the public to talk about what medium density residential means. You’re entirely
correct when you say in the past, in the City of Bremerton, medium density went up to
about 18 units an acre, so I would assume that something in that range is most people’s
general understanding of what “medium” means, but that would be part of a public
discussion at a later date.
Commissioner Streissguth
: At this time I would like to open the Public Hearing for
public comment. Please step to the microphone – I’m not sure if we have any sort of
timing device that is working for our three-minute clock so we’ll do our best to prompt
you in that regard.
Richard Nerf
: Richard Nerf from Madrona Point Drive in Bremerton. I may be out of
order here because this is not dealing with specifically with … the items that Paul talked
about, so feel free to stop me if I’m wrong. I wanted to talk a little about a Land Use
designation, the “Commercial Corridor”. It is contrasted to the Wheaton Way
redevelopment corridor, which the Wheaton Way redevelopment corridor gets a lot of
words in the Plan that indicates it’s a great concern and a lot of talk about making it
better. The Commercial Corridor is to be attached to Kitsap Way and it’s kind of thrown
in as a default value – well, we’ll just put that on Kitsap Way. I think Kitsap Way needs
a little bit more attention. It is one of the more attractive arterials in Bremerton, and to
simply make it “Commercial Corridor” I think doesn’t properly treat it – it needs a little
bit more attention. It’s near good views of Oyster Bay; the area around West Park is
nicely forested and so just to put it in as something that’s just your average strip center I
think does not do it justice. Thank you.
Susan Brown:
Susan Brown, Bremerton. This is just a little picky thing. I’ve seen here
several times and I thought somebody would change it and it didn’t get changed.
Introduction page 11, top of the second column, it talks about the late 80’s being when
the retail activity bled out of the city into the suburbs. I believe that was the early 80’s –
change that. Or late 70’s.
CommissionerStreissguth
: At this time we’ll close public comment at this hearing.
(something about session – audio cuts out)
CommissionerKennedy
: I would like to put forth a motion that the Planning
Commission recommend these amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to the City
Council.
Pam WilsonDepartment of Community Development
,, questioned wording
(microphone not working).
CommissionerKennedy
: I think we just have to recommend for City Council
consideration the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
CommissionerFriedberg-Nerf
: I second the motion.
Pam Wilson
: There is a motion on the floor for the Planning Commission to recommend
the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to City Council for consideration. It has
been properly seconded. And the question: Commissioner Cockburn: [comments from
the Commissioners] Was that not right?
CommissionerCockburn
: I have a question. Are we bringing up the Comprehensive…
are you trying to recommend the whole Plan update, or just the changes to the Plan
update?
CommissionerStreissguth
: Staff is stepping to the podium; perhaps they’ll provide
some clarification on the actions that we took earlier in the year.
Paul Rogerson
: Staff’s understanding is you’ve taken action on May 18 recommending
the Comprehensive Plan forward to the City Council. At this time the public hearing is
limited in scope to the changes that have been made, so you’re taking action on those
changes as Commissioner Kennedy has moved.
CommissionerKosusko
: This is a little discussion before we vote. With the addition of
the Marine Industrial designation, in looking at page LU-53 under the definition of IP
(Industrial Park), there is still reference there to … the last sentence of the discussion
says, ‘In cases where Industrial Parks are near shoreline areas, usage should be consistent
with the shorelines designation and must protect shorelines values.’ I’m wondering if that
needs to be said now, and maybe that statement is transferred into the Marine Industrial
section rather than being in the Industrial Park section.
Paul Rogerson
: Staff’s recommendation would be to agree with you. That same
language, if that’s the wish of the Commission, certainly could and should be transferred
into the Marine Industrial designation. That really essentially goes without saying
anyway, but good to reiterate, I think.
CommissionerStreissguth
: Further discussion, or….?
CommissionerKosusko
: Under the short discussion there is of the Core Center
Supporting Residential – which, in the version I have was still the Center Supporting
Residential – the structure type is listed as medium density residential. There’s really not
any discussion of a mixed-use character at all and I just wanted to confirm that that is
what we all believe we talked about for that area – that it is strictly a residential district
and doesn’t include a mixed-use component at all. The reason I ask this is because there
are certainly properties along that… in this area that are not residential. There’s our
wonderful historic tavern, for instance, and with this designation, are we excluding that
use, do we want to exclude that use? Point of discussion with this definition.
Commissioner Cockburn
: I guess to carry that on, would a daycare facility in there,
would that be, with that kind of density might be justified, by the market would that fit in
or not fit in?
CommissionerKosusko
: I understand we want to limit commercial development in that
area because we’re trying to support the adjacent centers; we’re not trying to create
another center. But there may be some things like daycare or a school or something that
also fits in that area that doesn’t fit under the medium density residential label. Any
opinions?
CommissionerStreissguth
: It was my understanding it would be just a residential
designation. I understand we probably have existing uses [audio cuts out here] …
second tavern wouldn’t necessarily …
CommissionerKosusko
: I’m not arguing for the tavern [laughter] I’m just asking a
general question.
CommissionerStreissguth
: It’s my understanding from discussion we had at the
meeting when we were considering this that it would just be a residential designation and
I would [audio cuts out] .. recollection is of that discussion.
CommissionerCockburn
: The applicant, though, wanted some mixed-use. [Audio cuts
out] … gets that, but that’s - what he would like would be some mixed-use, probably
along Wheaton Way, I would assume. Proponent, pardon me.
CommissionerKennedy
: Paul, at this point, once we create the designation, then don’t
we go back when we put the zoning package together and actually have this discussion
and talk about what’s included in the zone and what isn’t and finalize that? Isn’t this part
of the process, just the creation of the possibility, the creation of the designation, or am I
… [trails off]
PaulRogerson
: I wish I could give you answer that was that simple. Unfortunately I
think the truth is you’re setting a policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan. If it steers
you narrowly in one direction then you would have a difficult time justifying going
anywhere else when you develop that zoning. So what you don’t mention in the policy
document would be difficult to introduce at the zoning level because you’re now
inconsistent; you’re creating an inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the
Zone Code which is a “no-no” under the Growth Management Act. You want to be
careful to set policy direction the way you intend to at this point. I might add, as long as
I’ve got the microphone going, that you probably want to be very careful and consider
what impact decisions in this designation will have on the success of the adjacent centers
because this property is very close, intentionally close, to three of the most important
centers in the city. So what you allow in this designation, then, won’t be as strongly
supported in the marketplace in the centers.
Commissioner Kosusko
: Maybe to help us, Paul, if you could maybe describe the
boundaries of this area. Does it in fact cross Old Wheaton Way or is it only on the west
side of Old Wheaton Way?
PaulRogerson
: This is pretty easy – the property that is currently suggested for this
designation is essentially the Bremerton Gardens residential area so that’s entirely on the
water side of Old Wheaton or Lebo, I’m not sure what it is at that point, frankly. But it’s
on the water side of the arterial only.
Commissioner Kosusko
: So by saying that you’re saying that the - I guess you’re
saying that the Harrison Employment district in the Manette Center both reach to the
edges of that, or is there a gap in between.
PaulRogerson
: There’s, I think, a common boundary with the Harrison Employment
Center or very near. There’s more of a gap between this designation area and the
Manette Neighborhood Center, but even that gap is only a matter of a few hundred or a
few thousand feet.
Commissioner Kosusko
: From my recollection I thought when we discussed this plan
designation, it would be something that actually touches those centers and completes the
loop. That’s kind of how I remember the discussion, because I’m a little uncomfortable
just picking out a piece of property and giving it a plan designation and I’d rather it be a
larger plan issue where, in fact, if it is linking these two centers then it should in fact
touch the two centers. I don’t know how much larger that makes it or what, but if we’re
talking about supporting a Freedom Trail … shouldn’t it kind of cover the extent of the
Freedom Trail.
Commissioner Kennedy
: My understanding was that, in fact, that it would be on the
waterfront side, attached to the trail, between the two bridges so that you could make a
loop so that it’s contiguous, that it goes all the way around to allow for that density.
[Audio cuts out here]
Commissioner Streissguth
: [No audio] … focusing on a single property that fits the
criteria for this designation and I would maybe like to remind the Commissioners that
there may in fact be other properties out there that fit this criteria. We had a particular
issue brought to us that we felt was an opportunity; something we kind of missed in the
plan to provide some linkages that support the goals and policies in [audio cuts out]. It
wasn’t my understanding that the designation actually attached both sides of the water
between the bridges. It was my understanding - it was, in fact, a smaller area as indicated
on the map we have here tonight.
Commissioner Kosusko
: Centers, because the centers extend…[trails off]. I would be
more comfortable as a planning designation if, one, it encompassed more than one piece
of property and, two, I think it does what we - how we describe it which is to link those
centers along the east side of the Narrows.
I’d like to make a motion to amend our previous motion to extend the plan area of the
CCSR to in fact link the Manette and Harrison Employment Centers along the west side
of Old Wheaton Way.
Commissioner Kennedy
: I second that. Can I second an amendment to my own
motion? [General agreement from the other Commissioners].
Pam Wilson
: We have a motion on the floor to amend the previous motion to also
extend the plan area of the CCSR to link the Manette and Harrison Employment Centers.
It has been properly seconded. And the question: Commissioner Cockburn: [Yes];
Commissioner Kennedy: [Yes]; Commissioner Kosusko:
Commissioner Kosusko
: Point of order. What are we voting on here? Are we voting
on the full motion?
Pam Wilson
: The original motion of recommending this to City Council plus the
amendment…
Commissioner Kosusko
: So we’re doing our final vote here.
Pam Wilson
: Yes
Commissioner Kosusko
: And nobody has any more discussion…I guess it’s just me
[laughter]. I don’t. Yes!
Pam Wilson
: Commissioner Nelson: [Yes]; Commissioner Streissguth: [Yes];
Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf: [Yes]. That motion has passed, thank you.
PaulRogerson
: [This is] Staff, I thank you for your action and want to remind you all
that this Comprehensive Plan will begin the public hearing process in front of the City
Council in November – I believe the first hearing date is November 3, I don’t want to
make that formal announcement without being certain. This plan now goes forward very
quickly to City Council so for the Planning Commissioners and the public, I invite you all
to begin attending City Council meetings and the next round of public hearings moving
towards adoption hopefully December 1. Thank you.
VI. Business Meeting
A.Chairman’s Report:
None.
B. Director’s Report: (PaulRogerson
gave directors report) Chris, as some of
you may know, is currently across the block at the old City Hall briefing the City Council
on the zoning designations that are coming along quickly behind this Comprehensive
Plan. The reason that’s important, I think, is because you all should know that you’re
beginning to hear zoning that implements this Comprehensive Plan in public hearings
next month, and the Council’s starting to get up to speed and certainly you’re already up
to speed so the zoning effort, the implementing zoning is coming along quickly and it’s
another thing for everyone, the public and the Commissioners to keep track of. Thank
you.
Commissioner Streissguth
: Paul, just for the public that’s here, would you like to give
the schedule for that zoning - when we’re going to be discussing that - the calendar for
that.
Paul Rogerson
: I want to work from a memo. There’s been a bit of a flux with the
public hearing schedule so let me qualify these by saying I believe this is the current
schedule. The current schedule includes a session before the City Council – that’s the
first public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan on November 3. On Tuesday, November
9, the Planning Commission will have a workshop session on the zoning provisions,
implementing the Comprehensive Plan. On Tuesday November 16, the Planning
Commission is holding a public hearing on the zoning package that implements the
Comprehensive Plan. On Wednesday, November 17, the City Council will hear an
overview on those new zoning regulations. And on December 1, the City Council will
have its final public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan, theoretically and hopefully
leading to adoption on that date. And then in December, the fun only continues – on
December 15 and again on December 22 there will be a hearing before the City Council
on the zoning. So there’s a full slate of public hearings both before this body and the
City Council on both zoning and the Comprehensive Plan over the next six weeks.
C. Old Business:
None
D. New Business:
Commissioner Streissguth
: I see in the handout we have a letter. Does staff want to
provide any introduction to the letter?
PaulRogerson
: I apologize – the letter is from a property owner in the vicinity of the
Northwest Corporate Campus who is essentially, and I’ll summarize very quickly, asking
that their property be designated as part of the Northwest Corporate Campus which it is
under Scenario 3, so this property owner’s request should be satisfied or they should be
happy that you’ve now adopted and continued to send that scenario forward as your
recommended alternative.
Dri Ralph, Environmental Planner, City of Bremerton
: Commissioner Streissguth,
could I interject into Old Business really quickly? At your regular meeting a week ago, I
talked about appointing or suggesting a Planning Commissioner to help with the Critical
Area Ordinance update, and I think after that meeting I did have a couple of volunteers. I
wanted to make sure that that was the case and also to re-recognize the fact that the
County is having a meeting pertaining to Best Available Science at Central Kitsap Junior
High School tomorrow evening from 6 – 9 PM. If any of those said volunteers wanted or
had the opportunity to attend or anyone else. If you can, great; if you can’t, that’s fine as
well. Do I indeed have volunteers? [Commissioners gesture] Excellent! I’m seeing
indications of Jessica Kennedy and Linda Streissguth as volunteers, yes? [Commissioners
Kennedy and Streissguth agree]. Thank you.
VII. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for
November 16, 2004.
Respectfully submitted by:
_______________________________________
Executive Secretary
Approved by:
_______________________________________
Linda Streissguth, Vice-Chairman