HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeb 2 3CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
City Council Meeting Date: February 2, 2009
Regular Business Meeting
Study Session
Other: (specify)
Department: Legal
Contact: John Watts
Agenda Bill: AB09-013
Agenda Item: IX. A
Date Submitted: 1/28/2008
Phone: #385-5047
.....................................................................................................................
SUBJECT: Ordinance 2999, Amending Port Townsend Municipal Code Chapter 19.05,
Sections .040, .050, and .170 Relating to Critical Area Appeals
.....................................................................................................................
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT:
Consent
_ Resolution
_
X_ Ordinance
_ Staff Report
_ Business
_ Proclamation
_ Contract Approval
_ FYI
Other
Public Hearing (see note below)
_ Legislative
Quasi-judicial open record
Amount Budgeted: $
Expenditure Amt: $
Contingency Req'd:
Supplemental Req'd.
Dept/Budget Code:
Quasi-judicial closed record
Quasi-judicial closed record appeal
NOTE: If the Public Hearing is quasi-judicial in nature, then the appearance of fairness and
conflict on interest rules apply. Except at the public hearing, communicating with other
councilmembers, and contact with proponents or opponents must be avoided
......................................................................................................................
SUMMARY STATEMENT: City Council on January 5, 2009 approved first reading (7-0) of
Ordinance 2999 relating to critical areas ordinance (CAO) appeals process. At the meeting,
David Goldman provided comment and suggested an amendment to 19.05.040 (E) (1) to add the
words "or its buffer" after "area" so the phrase reads "that a site is, or is not, within a critical area
or its buffer," to provide internal consistency. The City Attorney supports the change, and the
change is shown on the attached draft ordinance. The change does not affect the overall changes
in the draft ordinance. The overall changes (1) remove an existing appeal to the City Council (on
whether critical areas are present or not), and changes it to an appeal to the Hearing Examiner,
(2) consolidate any appeal by third parties (neighbors) on the issue of presence of wetlands with
an appeal of the project (thus removing potential multiple appeals - one to City Council on the
presence of critical areas, and another to the Hearing Examiner on the project permit), and (3)
retain an intermediate appeal right by the owner on the issue (and saves the owner the cost of
CAO permitting and special studies if the owner successfully appeals a requirement to obtain a
CAO permit).
David Goldman on Jan. 5 also took exception to the following statement in the Jan. 5 agenda
bill: "The City determined a CAO exemption was allowed because the project was developed
outside the wetland and the 80' wetland buffer." The project boundary included wetland buffer.
No development (buildings, roads, utilities, trails) was proposed within the wetland or buffer
(except for a fence to mark the edge of the buffer).
[NOTE: The following is copied from the Jan. 5, 2009 agenda bill.] The City Council on
November 17, 2008 approved a recommendation of the CDLU Committee to revise critical area
ordinance (CAO) appeal processes consistent with the City Attorney's recommendation to the
CDLU. The ordinance now before Council revises the appeal process in two limited ways. (The
attachment to the ordinance sets out code sections in full; proposed changes are in
strike/underline and only occur at pages 3, 6 and 7.) First, the ordinance changes an existing
appeal to the City Council (on whether critical areas are present or not) to an appeal to the
Hearing Examiner. This makes the appeal process consistent with other administrative appeals
of CAO issues (for example, CAO permit requirements), namely, they are heard by the Hearing
Examiner.
Second, the change consolidates any appeal on the issue of presence of wetlands with an appeal
of the project. This removes potential multiple appeals (one to City Council on the presence of
critical areas, and another to the Hearing Examiner on the project permit). Allowing multiple
open record appeals conflicts with provisions in GMA. GMA requires permit processes "provide
for no more than one open record hearing and one closed record hearing [with exceptions not
relevant here]" RCW 36.70B.050 (2).
The revisions continue the existing process of allowing the owner to make an intermediate
appeal of a determination that wetlands are present, before having to undertake CAO permit
requirements. If an appeal by the owner is successful, and the property is not subject to CAO
permit requirements, then the owner avoids having to undertake needless and potentially costly
CAO permit requirements, including, special wetland or engineering studies. Because this
intermediate appeal is at the owner's option, it does not violate the prohibition on multiple open
record appeals (since the owner can avoid multiple appeals by choosing not to appeal, and
instead consolidating appeal issues in one appeal).
The ordinance also does not change the existing appeal process on appealing the final permit,
including CAO permit issues. Anyone (owner or third parties/neighbors) can appeal the final
permit, including the applicability of the CAO. The change only limits any intermediate appeal
by third parties/neighbors before the final permit.
By way of recent example, third parties/neighbors appealed the City determination to apply a
CAO exemption and not to require a CAO permit for the Kate's Meadow PUD project. (Kate's
Meadow is a proposed 20 unit PUD application, located 2 blocks north of Hastings, south of 301°
St., east of Gibbs Street and west of Thomas Street). The City determined a CAO exemption
was allowed because the project was developed outside the wetland and the 80' wetland buffer.
Third parties/neighbors appealed the City determination in connection with the City's final
approval of the PUD. The ordinance does not change this right of appeal. The draft ordinance
continues the existing process (namely, appeal allowed, but appeal must be made of the final
permit itself; no intermediate appeal allowed that could result in multiple, piecemeal appeals
unless initiated by the applicant). (Aside: While the Hearing Examiner agreed with third
parties/neighbors that a CAO permit was required for a confirmed existing wetland, the Hearing
Examiner denied the appeal to require a CAO permit for possible wetlands in Thomas Street, and
agreed with the City's condition to require further monitoring before deciding if wetlands exist in
Thomas Street and that a CAO permit was required. The Hearing Examiner also agreed with the
City's approval of the PUD, and denied the third parties/neighbors appeal that the PUD failed to
provide public benefit or otherwise meet the PUD criteria.)
The proposed revisions to the CAO deal with a procedural "clean up" only in two limited appeal
areas. Other proposed clean ups to the CAO, that affect substantive requirements, would require
Planning Commission review.
ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance 2999, amending Port Townsend Municipal Code Chapter 19.05,
Sections .040, .050, and .170 relating to Critical Area Appeals.
.....................................................................................................................
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A
.....................................................................................................................
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to adopt Ordinance 2999, amending Port Townsend
Municipal Code Chapter 19.05, and Sections .040, .050, and .170 relating to Critical Area
Appeals.
.....................................................................................................................
ALTERNATIVES: Take no action. Refer to committee or staff for further action. Postpone
action.
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY:
Resolution No.
Ordinance No.
uepartmenr uirector or
Name of ncil Corn ttee & Date of Motion Approved
�D Other
CITY CLERK'S USE ONLY
COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN
Continued to
Referred to _
Failed
I DISTRIBUTION AFTER COUNCIL ACTION
City Attorney
Ordinance No. 2999
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
AMENDING PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 19.05, AND SECTIONS .040, .050, AND .170
RELATING TO CRITICAL AREA APPEALS
RECITALS:
PTMC 19.05.040 (E) of the critical areas ordinance (CAME) states a director's
decision that a site is or is not within a critical area is appealable to the City
Council. Other permit appeal processes provide for open record appeals to the
hearing examiner.
The Council determines to amend the CAO to provide that any appeal should be
to the Hearing Examiner (consistent with other appeals of city permits), and (to
meet GMA requirement that there be no more than one open record appeal in
permit processes) be consolidated with an appeal of the permit on the
development proposal, with one exception. The exception would be to allow the
owner to appeal a determination that a development proposal is subject to the
CAO before having to undertake CAO permit requirements. If an appeal by the
owner is successful, and the property is not subject to CAO permit requirements,
then the owner avoids having to undertake needless and potentially costly CAO
permit requirements, including studies.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Port Townsend ordains
as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 19.05 - Critical Areas, and Sections .040, and 050,
and .170, of the Port Townsend Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows
(text in strikeout is deleted, text in underline is added):
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A
SECTION 2. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or its application
to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, or the
application of the provision to other persons or circumstances, is not affected.
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days after the date of its
publication in the manner provided by law.
Ordinance 2999
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend, Washington, at a
regular meeting thereof, held this second day of February 2009.
Attest
Michelle Sandoval, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
Pamela Kolacy, MMC, City Clerk John P. Watts, City Attorney
Ordinance 2999
Critical Areas Ordinance (portions)
(Removes intermediate, pre -final permit, appeal to City Council
other than by applicant)
19.05.040 Critical area permit requirements — Exemptions, nonconforming
structures, application requirements, special reports, and advance
determinations.
Pursuant to this chapter, a critical area permit is required for any development
proposal whenever any portion of the site is within a critical area or required
buffer area or whenever the director makes a finding that a development
proposal is likely to significantly impact a critical area (regardless of its location).
A single-family residence which requires a critical area permit is exempt from
SEPA review.
A. Permit Required. Unless exempt from this chapter, no person, party, firm,
corporation or public agency shall undertake any development proposal, as
defined in PTMC 19.05.020, within a critical area or its buffer, unless the work is
in accordance with a valid permit from the city issued pursuant to the provisions
of this chapter.
B. Minor Critical Area Permits.
1. Minor Critical Area Permits. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
chapter, the DSD director may, subject to making the findings set forth below,
issue a minor critical area permit, with conditions or limitations as determined by
the director. Minor critical area permits may be granted only where the director
makes the following findings:
a. The proposed activity is minor in nature (such as utility crossings or
minimal new landscaping) or creates only temporary impacts, and will have no
off -site impacts; and
b. The proposed activity is to be conducted in an isolated, self-contained
area where there is no danger to private or public property and minimal impact to
the environment; or
c. The proposed activity is a critical areas restoration or enhancement
project not otherwise required for mitigation of project impacts; or
d. The proposed activity involves the relocation of electric facilities, lines,
equipment or appurtenances, not including substations, with an associated
voltage of 55,000 volts or less; or
e. The proposed activity involves the relocation or installation of natural
gas, cable communication, gas and telephone facilities, lines, pipes, mains,
equipment or appurtenances; provided, the utility involves a conduit of two
inches or less, a trench of two feet in width or less, and a construction corridor of
five feet or less.
Minor critical area permits shall be conditioned to ensure that impacts to the
critical area do not occur, and all activities conducted under the minor critical
area permit shall also be carried out in a manner consistent with all laws and
ordinances of the city of Port Townsend, including but not limited to Chapter 5,
Clearing, Grading and Erosion Control of the Engineering Design Standards
Manual which requires implementation of BMPs to control erosion and
sedimentation. Minor critical area permits shall be processed as Type I permits
and must be accompanied by the fee set forth in Chapter 20.09 PTMC. Minor
critical area permits are not subject to the notice requirement of PTMC
19.05.05Q(C).
Ordinance 2999 AttachmentA
Critical Areas Ordinance (portions)
(Removes intermediate, pre -final permit, appeal to City Council
other than by applicant)
C. Exemptions. The following development shall be exempted from the
provisions of this chapter and the administrative rules; provided, however, that
for subsections (C)(2) through (14) of this section, the activities shall be
conducted in a manner consistent with best management practices (BMPs) and
the city's engineering design standards. Further, if the director determines that
the activity needs to be limited or conditioned to ensure that impacts do not
occur, a minor critical area permit pursuant to subsection (A) of this section shall
be required. Exemption from a critical area permit does not grant approval or
authorization for any work to be done in any manner which may violate any laws
or ordinances of the city of Port Townsend.
1. Actions necessary when the director determines there is an emergency
that threatens the public health, safety and welfare. Emergency repairs to water,
sewer, stormwater, electric, petroleum gas facilities, communications facilities
and telephone utility services will not require permits nor the approval of the
director.
2. Remodeling, reconstruction or replacement of structures and
improvements that do not meet the requirements of this chapter; provided, that
such activity does not increase the potential impact to a critical area or its buffer.
3. An application for a building permit for a lot within a development for
which a critical area study meeting the requirements of this chapter has been
prepared and accepted by the city; provided, that the previous study evaluated
the type and extent of development proposed to occur on the lot; and provided
further, that the proposed development adheres to the recommendations
contained within the study. Other studies, such as SEPA documents or studies,
may also be accepted by the director if found to meet the requirements for
critical areas studies.
4. Existing agricultural activities. If a site has remained idle for more than 10
years from the date of the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter
(Ordinance 2319, October 19, 1992), it is no longer considered agricultural.
5. Maintenance or reconstruction of existing opened roads and associated
storm drainage facilities which would be exempt under WAC 197-11-800(2)(a),
(b), and (c); provided, that reconstruction does not involve significant expansion
of facilities.
6. Maintenance or replacement of existing city utility lines; provided, that
replacement occurs within the same right-of-way or easement.
7. Ordinary maintenance and replacement of electric, natural gas, cable
communications and telephone lines and facilities. Substantial rebuilding of an
entire line segment shall be exempted where plans for the development are
submitted to the director along with a schedule for the work and it is verified that
the work consists only of replacement of structures already in place with similar
facilities.
8. Routine landscape maintenance of existing landscaped areas, including
selective pruning of trees and shrubs for safety and view protection, weeding,
and planting, provided natural drainage patterns and topography are not altered.
This does not include clearing or grading in order to develop or expand such
2 Ordinance 2999—AttachmentA
Critical Areas Ordinance (portions)
(Removes intermediate, pre -final permit, appeal to City Council
other than by applicant)
activities in critical areas nor alteration of areas designated for retention as a
condition of permit approval. Use of pesticides and herbicides is discouraged.
9. Preliminary mapping, survey work and subsurface exploration that result
in insignificant disturbance of vegetation and soil.
10. Land clearing ordered by the director city--eettneil for abatement of a
public nuisance.
11. Removal of noxious weeds as listed by the state in Chapter 16-750
WAC; provided, that no heavy equipment is employed.
12. Removal of invasive species as part of a restoration project designed to
improve the quality of a critical area and conducted in a manner accepted by
agencies with jurisdiction over the critical area.
13. Removal of dead or diseased trees and vegetation within 50 feet of a
permitted structure; provided, that the applicant receives permission from the
Department of Fish and Wildlife for removal of vegetation used for nesting and/or
roosting by a priority species.
14. Development and construction activities located outside a critical area,
and which is proposed to occur at a distance which is substantially greater than
the applicable buffers and setbacks required under the provisions of this chapter;
provided, that the director finds that no useful purpose would be served by the
requirement to obtain a critical areas permit in the case at hand.
D. Nonconforming Structures and Improvements. Structures and
improvements in existence on the date the ordinance codified in this chapter
becomes effective and that do not meet the setback or buffer requirements of
this chapter for any defined critical area shall be considered legal nonconforming
uses.
E. Application Requirements and Delineations.
1. All development proposals shall require the applicant to identify whether the
site involved contains any of the critical areas defined in this chapter. Where
either the applicant indicates a critical area is present, the area is mapped as a
critical area, or the director has a reasonable belief that a critical area is located
on the site, the below -listed requirements apply to the application. These
requirements shall not apply if the applicant conclusively demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the director that critical areas or buffers are not actually located
on -site. Whenever the director determines that a site is, or is not, within a critical
area or its buffer, that determination maV be appealed stall GGRSti' to a final
deeisieR appealablPte the Gity GaURcil under the provisions of PTMC
19.05.050(F). Notice of a final decision shall be given as provided in PTMC
19.05.050(E). A request for an advance determination regarding the presence or
absence of critical areas on any property may be made by a property owner or
person with consent of the property owner under the provisions of subsection
(E)(2) of this section. These requirements serve to identify and document critical
areas on a site. They include technical reports and surveys, temporary field
marking, and delineating critical areas on single lots and subdivisions. The
following is an outline of the steps required by the applicant in the critical area
permit process. These steps supplement and augment the development permit
3 Ordinance 2999—Attachment A
Critical Areas Ordinance (portions)
(Removes intermediate, pre -final permit, appeal to City Council
other than by applicant)
application process set forth in the Land Development Administrative
Procedures, Chapter 20.01 PTMC.
a. Staff Site Visit. If there is reason to believe a development project may
involve a critical area, a member of the city DSD staff will visit the site to
establish the probable existence or absence of a critical area.
b. Preapplication Consultation. Any person intending to apply for a critical
areas permit is required to meet with the DSD staff during the earliest possible
stages of project planning in order to discuss impact avoidance, minimization or
compensation before large commitments have been made to a particular project
design.
c. Prepare a site inventory and survey with five-foot contours, showing all
existing natural and built features. The site survey is to be used as a base for the
site construction plan. The survey requirement may be waived or modified by the
director due to a determination that site factors do not require the specificity of a
survey.
d. Provide a site construction plan delineating critical areas and
significant vegetation (e.g., trees with a six-inch diameter at breast height).
Unless the director waives one or more of the following information
requirements, a site construction plan shall include:
i. On four lots or less, a plan description and maps at a scale no
smaller than one inch equals 20 feet. On more than four lots, plan description
and maps shall be no smaller than one inch equals 50 feet. In each case the
plan description maps shall show the entire parcel of land owned by the
applicant and the certified survey boundary of the critical area on the parcel. The
certified survey boundary of wetlands will require delineation before the site
survey;
ii. A description of the vegetative cover of the critical area and
adjacent area including significant species and native vegetation;
iii. A site plan for the proposed development showing the location,
width, depth and length of all existing and proposed disturbed areas, structures,
roads, stormwater treatment and installations for the whole site, including those
proposed to be located within the critical area and its buffer; utility locations and
clearing and trenching locations should be identified along with the location of
any existing utilities to be connected to the site;
iv. The exact location and specifications for all development activities
including delineation of all disturbed areas, the amounts of filling and grading
and methods of construction;
v. Elevations of the site and adjacent lots within the critical area and
its buffer at contour intervals of five feet;
vi. Top view and typical cross-section views of the critical area and its
buffer to the same scale as required in subsection (E)(1)(d)(i) of this section;
vii. Specific means proposed to mitigate any potential adverse
environmental impact of the applicant's proposal.
e. If a critical area is confirmed to exist on the site, an applicant may be
required to provide a critical area special report prepared by a qualified critical
area consultant. Special reports shall identify and characterize any critical area
4 Ordinance 2999 Attachment A
Critical Areas Ordinance (portions)
(Removes intermediate, pre -final permit, appeal to City Council
other than by applicant)
as a part of the larger development proposal site, assess any hazards to the
proposed development, assess impacts of the development proposal on any
critical areas on, or adjacent to, or adversely affected by proposed activities on
the development proposal site, and assess the impacts of any alteration
proposed for an critical area.
i. Contents of special reports may differ, depending on the type of
critical areas a specific parcel may contain.
ii. For all such areas, reports shall be determined to be complete by
the director, and (s)he may request more information as needed in order to
protect the public and environment, and to ensure that the development is
compatible with the land.
iii. The specific requirements of such reports shall be identified at the
preapplication consultation and may be required to be supplemented at the
discretion of the director.
f. Waivers of Special Reports. The director may waive the requirement
for a special report if there is substantial evidence showing that all the following
are present:
i. There will be no alteration of the critical areas or required buffer; and
ii. The proposed development will not impact the critical area in a
manner contrary to the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of this
chapter; and
iii. The minimum standards required by this chapter are met.
g. Exceptions to Special Reports. No special report is required for the
following development proposals:
i. Any development or remodel of a structure or improvements when
no alteration of the critical area will occur as a result of the remodel activity;
except, any associated construction for additional parking or impervious surface
greater than 250 square feet in the aggregate will require a special report.
ii. A residential building permit for a lot which was subject to a
previous special report; provided, that the previous special report was completed
within three years of the current. proposal, and adequately identified the impacts
associated with the current development proposal. A new report may be waived
if the existing report appears to adequately represent and address current site
conditions. The director shall make such field investigations as are necessary to
determine if the criteria for an exception are satisfied.
h. Field marking is required for all development proposals.
i. Prior to the preconstruction meeting, the applicant shall mark the
following on the site to reflect the proposed site construction plan: the location of
the building footprint, critical area(s) boundaries, the outer extent of required
critical area buffers, areas to remain undisturbed, and trees and vegetation to be
removed;
ii. Obtain the director's approval on the field markings before
beginning any permitted activities. Field markings are intended to prevent
disturbance of critical areas and buffers and may include such items as
temporary fences. Detailed requirements may be specified in the procedures
manual prepared by the DSD;
5 Ordinance 2999 AttachnientA
Critical Areas Ordinance (portions)
(Removes intermediate, pre -final permit, appeal to City Council
other than by applicant)
iii. Maintain the field markings for critical area(s) and areas to remain
undisturbed throughout the duration of the permit.
i. A preconstruction meeting at the development site is required for all
projects.
i. The meeting is to be attended by the applicant (or applicant's agent)
and city staff, to review specific project details and methods of construction.
Subcontractors such as those conducting grading or excavation work may also
be required to attend the meeting. Applicants are encouraged, but not required,
to allow attendance by interested citizens.
ii. No construction activity, including land clearing or grading, shall be
permitted until the information required by the appropriate critical area section is
reviewed and approved by the director.
j. For critical areas, development proposals which contain only aquifer
recharge areas, frequently flooded areas or seismic hazard areas, the director
may waive compliance with the application requirements and delineations
requirements of this section and compliance with the performance standards for
development contained in PTMC 19.05.060. The director must be satisfied that
the performance standards provided for in the individual critical area regulations
for a specific environmental category are met and no purpose established under
this chapter would be furthered by requiring compliance with application
requirements or the performance standards for development.
2. Advance Determination. A property owner or person with consent of the
property owners may request an advance determination regarding the presence
or absence of critical areas on a particular parcel outside of the normal
permitting process. A request may be made upon payment to the development
services department of the initial filing fee. The advance determination shall be
based upon existing conditions at a particular site and shall be binding only as
long as conditions on the property do not change to include features which meet
the definition of critical areas. Should the director be unable to make a
conclusive determination from a site visit and review of available information, the
applicant may be requested to provide, at the applicant's expense, additional
information, reports or studies similar to those identified in subsection (E)(1) of
this section to allow a conclusive determination to be made.
The process for determining the presence or absence of critical areas on a
and appeal to hearing examiner).
(Ord. 2929 Exh. A § 4, 2006; Ord. 2899 § 1, 2005; Ord. 2892 § 1, 2005;
Ord. 2688 § 3, 1999; Ord. 2535 § 3, 1996; Ord. 2319 § 1, 1992).
19.05.050 Critical area permit administration — Permit processing, public
notice, reasonable use exceptions, appeals, fees, and notice to title.
(portion)
6 Ordinance 2999 AttachmentA
Critical Areas Ordinance (portions)
(Removes intermediate, pre -final permit, appeal to City Council
other than by applicant)
E. Notice of Final Decisions.
Notice of a final decision on any critical area development permit or reasonable use exception
shall be mailed by the director to the applicant and to any individual who has filed a written
comment on the application with a return address identified on the comment. Final decisions shall
also include final determinations of the director regarding the presence or absence of critical
areas. Notice of final decisions regarding an advance determination, or within the context of a
permit application, of a decision regarding the presence or absence of critical areas shall be
provided by mail to the permit applicant and by mail to any person filing an Individually written
comment or requesting notification of such decisions from the director on a specific application.
F. Appeals and Stay During Pendency of Appeals.
1. Any person entitled to receive notice under Chapter 20.01 PTMC of a
final decision of the director on a critical area development permit or reasonable
use exception, or on an advance determination that a site is, or is not, within a
critical area, may appeal such final decision by following the appeal procedure
for Type II permits outlined in Chapter 20.01 PTMC. Any appeal of a final
decision involving determination of the presence or absence of critical areas
must be filed within 14 calendar days after the notice of the decision, or within 21
calendar days if a SEPA determination of nonsignificance is issued concurrently
as part of the permit decision, as further set forth in PTMC 20.01.210._
An appeal that a site is or is not within a critical area under PTMC
19.04.040(E)(1), or of an advance determination under PTMC 19.04.040(E)(2),
shall be deemed an appeal of the development permit and consolidated with an
appeal of the development permit; except that a property owner, or person with
consent of the property owner, may, in order to determine the applicability of this
chapter to the development (and to avoid having to obtain a critical area
development permit if the proiect is not subiect to this chapter), have the appeal
determined prior to issuance or denial of a permit on the development proposal.
An appeal by the property owner, or person with consent of the property
owner, prior to issuance or denial of a permit on the development proposal shall
be noticed in the same manner as the underlying proiect, and as provided in
PTMC 19.04.050(E).
2. Construction under any permit issued by the city shall be stayed until the
expiration of any appeal period or the final resolution by the city of any appeal
which has been filed under this chapter.
7 Ordinance 2999 AttachmentA
Critical Areas Ordinance (portions)
(Removes intermediate, pre -final permit, appeal to City Council
other than by applicant)
19.05.190 Limitation of actions
Any final decision under this chapter shall be
final and conclusive unless timely appealed by following the appeal procedures
of Ch. 20.01 PTMC. , within 30 days of the date the decision is issued, a paFty E)
(Ord. 2899 § 1, 2005; Ord. 2319 § 1, 1992).
Ordinance 2999 AttachmentA
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
City Council Meeting Date: February 2, 2009
X Regular Business Meeting
_ Study Session
Other:
Department: City Attorney Contact: John Watts
Agenda Bill: AB09-015
Agenda Item: IX. B
Date Submitted: Jan. 28, 2009
Phone # 379-5048
.....................................................................................................................
SUBJECT: Resolution 09-007, Authorizing Acquisition of a Public Access Easement from
the Northwest Maritime Center, and Payment for Streetscape Design Services
.....................................................................................................................
CATEGORY: BUDGETIMPACT:
_Consent _X_ Resolution Amount Budgeted: $1,000,000_
Ordinance _Staff Report Expenditure Amt: $
_X_ Business _Proclamation Contingency Req'd: $
Contract Approval _FYI Supplemental Req'd.
_Other Dept/Budget Code:
.....................................................................................................................
SUMMARY STATEMENT: This matter comes before the City Council to take action on a
Resolution that further implements downtown tourism infrastructure and the public access
improvements. The Resolution authorizes the City Manager to obtain additional public access
dedication and improvements and other benefits as part of the Northwest Maritime Center
(NWMC) development and in support of a waterfront partnership between the City and NWMC.
As part of the public access dedication, NWMC would develop a public outdoor waterfront plaza
at the Northwest Maritime Center site as a gathering spot for residents and visitors alike. The
area of the access easement is shown on the map attached to the draft Resolution.
By Resolution 08-041 (Nov. 10, 2008, 6-0, King excused), Council earmarked $1,000,000 of the
$7,500,000 bond approved June 16, 2008 by Ordinance 2978 to obtain additional public access
dedication and improvements and other benefits as part of the NWMC development. Resolution
08-041 authorized the City Manager to proceed to implement and construct the projects
identified in the Resolution, including, downtown tourism infrastructure (Pope Marine upgrades,
waterfront esplanade, wave gallery relocation, and visitor plaza conversion).
The value of the public access easement has been recently appraised by Nick Veenstra of Clarke,
White, Veenstra (Edmonds) at $940,000 (August 13, 2008). Mr. Veenstra is an experienced
appraiser, and has done work in the City over the years for the City and other entities. He also
valued the 2004 dedication by the NWMC to the City along the shoreline. In response to
inquiry whether the national and local economic conditions affected the appraisal, he stated in a
Jan. 16, 2009 email:
I understand your concerns regarding the credit freeze and its impact on commercial real
estate values. In the local Port Townsend market, I have not seen any market evidence
of declining values. However, banks have become increasingly wary of the ability of
borrowers to repay loans, as reflected in increasing loan loss reserves across loan
classes. Tighter lending standards now in place have had a dramatic impact on
development loans, refinances and transaction loans across the commercial/multifamily
housing landscape, an impact that will curtail the supply pipeline over coming quarters.
This will help prevent the type of significant supply -demand imbalance that developed
during the Late 1980sfearly 1990s cycle, thus benefiting owners of and investor; in
existing commercial and multifamity housing properties. As a result, potential borrowers
who can offer as collateral, leased -up properties generating steady. cash flows are likely to
receive a friendlier reception at commercial banks than borrowers seeking loans based
on less sound collateral. This holds with premium development sites like the Northwest
Maritime Center parcel as well, a downtown, waterfront location, which has a restricted
supply. Therefore, I don't believe the current economic climate affects the value
conclusion of the August 13, 2008 appraisal
In addition, the draft Resolution authorizes payment to the NWMC up to $60,000 representing
the value of services paid for by NWMC toward the streetscape design and construction
drawings of the portion of the Water Street and Monroe Street abutting its property, which
design and construction drawings benefit the City.
[Note: The following is copied from the Nov.10, 2008 agenda bill.] This matter comes before
the City Council to take action on two Resolutions. One resolution authorizes the City Manager
to proceed with certain capital projects (Projects C, D, E, J, K, L, and M on the map attached to
the draft Resolution). The second resolution gives design approval to a design for one of the
projects (Project K, the waterfront esplanade between Quincy and Pope Marine, including the
area around the tidal clock).
The City Council, with input from the (
projects to help position the community f
three year capital investment strategy to g
heritage, upper Sims Way and Howard Slit
shown on the map attached to the draft R
road and sidewalk improvements, touri
access improvements. The actions and p
June 2, 2008, June 16, 2008, and Octobe
the City Council Finance and Budget Cox E
have been identified on the adopted 6 yea
the City's 2008 CIP.
'ity Manager, has identified a series of actions and
)r sustained economic success. The action plan is a
?ow from three main economic "anchors" — maritime
eet , and Fort Worden. The "Projects" are listed and
elution ("City Project Legend'). The projects include
n and infrastructure improvements, and waterfront
eets have been discussed at City Council meetings on
6, 2008. Projects and financing were discussed with
n ttee on April 21 and May 29, 2008. These projects
Transportation Improvement Plan, 2008-2013 and on
To finance the Projects, the City Council approved Ordinance 2978 (June 16, 2008), providing
for the issuance and sale of limited tax general obligation bonds of the City in the principal
amount of $7,500,000. In adopting the Ordinance, the City Council determined that it was and is
in the best interest of the City to constrict the identified Projects. The City has also obtained
federal grants totaling approximately $13M to help finance the Projects.
[Note: The following is copied from the June 2 2008 agenda bill.] This matter comes before
the City Council on a "first touch" of draft terms of an agreement between the City and the
NWMC. In return for City financing of public improvements in the vicinity of the NWMC site,
the NWMC would:
Dedicate additional public access and right of way (shown as A, B, C and J (pier) on the
attached map; previous dedications were areas D, E and H on the map);
Provides Maintenance of public access;
Writes and secures grant to establish a mooring buoy field in partnership with the City;
• Provide administration services to manage city waterfront facilities (mooring buoy field,
City Dock, Pope Marine Building, and Union Wharf).
[Note: The following is copied from the Feb 5, 2007 Agenda Bill.] The City, in conjunction
with the Maritime Center, received a Department of Transportation Grant to address streetscape
issues in the northerly portion of the Historic Downtown. Makers Architecture and Urban
Design was selected through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to facilitate the public process
to assess existing conditions, coordinate with the agencies, committees and groups with interests
in the area, hold 2 public workshops and prepare recommendations leading toward the
installation of improved streetscape facilities.
The study area for this Plan focuses on the northeast corner of the historic commercial
downtown. It is bounded by Quincy Street, Washington Street, the Point Hudson Marina and the
Port Townsend Bay. Recommendations on six focus areas are included in the proposed Plan.
The focus areas provide additional design detail due to current conditions and/or future
development plans. These areas include: Water Street adjacent to the proposed Northwest
Maritime Center, the area surrounding the Jackson Bequest, the Quincy Street end by the old
ferry dock, Madison Street at Memorial Field, the Quincy and Washington Street intersection
and Monroe Street between Water and Washington Streets
The attached Draft North Downtown Streetscape Plan represents the results of the planning
process to date. The plan has been subject to community review, has been presented to the Arts
Commission, the Historic Preservation Committee and Tree Committee. Comments from all
advisory boards have been integrated into the Draft Plan. In addition, City Staff and Fire and
Police services have been consulted. A SEPA Determination of Non -significance for the
proposal was issued on January 31, 2007. Notice for the Public Hearing was published on
January 24, 2007.
Council members may note that the Draft Plan title refers to the East Historic Downtown
Streetscape Plan. Subsequent to the publication of notice for the public hearing on this plan, the
HPC recommended that the title be renamed to more accurately reflect the location of the study
area. Staff respectfully recommends that the plan be renamed consistent with this
recommendation.
[Note: The following is copied from the Feb 20, 2007 Agenda Bill.]
Consistent with Council direction at the February 5, 2007 meeting, staff has meet with both the
Tree Committee and the Historic Preservation Committee to review specific issues associated
with the draft plan. As a result of these meetings, two appendices providing more specific
guidance on street trees and curb extensions have been prepared and are included in the revised
draft plan as Appendix A (Street Tree Criteria) and Appendix B (Curb Extension Criteria).
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 09-007, Authorizing Acquisition of a Public Access Easement
from the Northwest Maritime Center, and payment for Streetscape Design Services.
.....................................................................................................................
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: None.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to approve Resolution 09-007, Authorizing Acquisition
of a Public Access Easement from the Northwest Maritime Center, and Payment for Streetscape
Design Services.
ALTERNATIVES: Take no action; Defer action: Refer to a Committee.
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY:
Department Director or
Name of cil Committee & ate ofMotion
City Mant
er
City Attorney
CITY CLERK'S USE ONLY. -...
COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN
Resolution No.
Continued to
Ordinance No.
Referred to
Approved
_ Failed
Other
DISTRIBUTION AFTER COUNCIL ACTION
RESOLUTION NO. 09-007
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND,
WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
FROM THE NORTHWEST MARITIME CENTER, AND PAYMENT FOR
STREETSCAPE DESIGN SERVICES
1. Since 2000, the City has supported the efforts of the Northwest Maritime Center
(NWMC) to acquire, clean up and redevelop the Thomas Oil property for public benefit; and
2. Located on a two acre waterfront site in the Port Townsend National Landmark
District, the Northwest Maritime Center property was designated as "slum and blight" by HUD
and as a level 2 hazardous waste site by Washington State Department of Ecology. Due to its
location, the property's blighted condition had effectively blocked revitalization of the abutting
properties in the eastern section of the historic downtown. The City served as a co-sponsor and
fiscal agent on a $500,000 HUD Brownfields Economic Development Initiative grant (City
Resolution No. 2000-036) for site remediation; and
3. On July 19, 2001, the state IAC awarded the City $328,909.00 to be used to partially
fund the purchase of real property interest upon the NWMC property, with the City providing a
50% grant match in cash and in -kind services (IAC Contract #00-1551A); and
4. On December 17, 2003, after cleanup of the site, the Northwest Maritime Center
dedicated 4 lots (Lots 1, 3, 5, and 9 of Block 4 of the Original Townsite of Port Townsend) to the
City of Port Townsend in a shoreline public access easement for public recreation purposes. The
area of the easement is shown as Parcel D on the attached map. The easement is recorded under
Auditor's file No. 485849 (June 17, 2004). The value of the property easement was appraised at
$600,000. This agreement between the City of Port Townsend and the NWMC was instrumental
in helping the NWMC to acquire .the former Thomas Oil property for use as an interpretive
Maritime Center, dedicated to maritime educational and cultural -related purposes. The
agreement further states that "The NWMC intends to develop the Maritime Center as a joint
venture with the City of Port Townsend, and the Port of Port Townsend"; and
5. The 2003 NWMC dedication of shoreline property connects other City and Port
waterfront properties and effectively lays the groundwork to begin to implement the
"Waterwalk," a key priority in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan; and
6. The Northwest Maritime Center capital facility project ($8.1 million) represents a
significant commitment of private resources toward the revitalization of the City's National
Landmark Historic District and helps to expand the City's tourism infrastructure, visitor services,
and employment opportunities; and
7. The City of Port Townsend, Port of Port Townsend and Northwest Maritime Center
are collaborating on a demonstration streetscape project (project cost of over $1 million) that
connects public and private properties and furthers the revitalization of the eastern end of the
Resolution 09-007
historic downtown. The NWMC played a key role in securing $500,000 in federal funds for the
City towards this streetscape project. In addition, the NWMC paid over $60,000 toward the
design and construction drawings of the portion of the Water Street and Monroe Street abutting
its property, which design and construction drawings are intended to benefit the City; and
8. On June 16, 2008, the City Council approved Ordinance 2978 that provided the
authorization of the sale the issuance of a $7,500,000 general obligation bond to support road and
sidewalk improvements, tourism and infrastructure improvements, and waterfront access
improvements in the historic district; and
9. By Resolution 08-041 (November 10, 2008), Council earmarked $1,000,000 of the
$7,500,000 bond approved June 16, 2008 by Ordinance 2978 to obtain additional public access
dedication and improvements and other benefits as part of the NWMC development and in
support of a waterfront partnership between the City and NWMC. Resolution 08-041 authorized
the City Manager to proceed to implement and construct the projects identified in the Resolution
including the public access improvements at the NWMC site. As part of the public access
dedication, NWMC would develop a public outdoor waterfront plaza at the Northwest Maritime
Center site as a gathering spot for residents and visitors alike; and
10. The City and NWMC recognize that successful and timely redevelopment of the
tourism infrastructure projects identified in Ordinance 2978 benefit the economic and social
welfare of Port Townsend and Jefferson County, and represent an historic public/private
partnership to shape the Port Townsend waterfront and historic district for the next century; and
11. As its part of the public/private waterfront partnership, the NWMC has agreed to
dedicate an additional 15,745 square feet of waterfront uplands on its property to the City in a
new perpetual public access easement, over parcels identified as A, B, and C on the attached
Exhibit A. The appraised value of the proposed easement is $940,000. The NWMC (and
successors) would construct improvements (benches, signage and public amenities) within the
easement, and maintain the area, and hold the City harmless from public use of the area; and
12. The NWMC's new facilities and public access improvements will enhance and
expand the annual Wooden Boat Festival. It is the largest festival on the Olympic Peninsula,
attracting over 25,000 people annually and generating more than $2 million in revenues to the
community. The new facility and public access improvements will enable the NWMC and its
partner organizations to expand marine trades demonstrations, educational offerings, and
recreational and visitor activities on a year-round basis; and
13. The City and NWMC are working towards a Memorandum of Agreement related to
the development and management of the tourism infrastructure and public access improvements
that connect the two entities. The NWMC recently received a $95,000 federal grant that is co-
sponsored by the City to establish a mooring buoy field between its property and City Dock. The
parties intend the MOA will provide for a management agreement with the City for the NWMC
to manage docks, waterfront and public access areas and the mooring buoy field to provide better
visitor service on weekends and to save City operational costs; and
Resolution 09-007
14. The City and the NWMC recognize the unique and historic opportunity for the
citizens of Port Townsend, Jefferson County, and the greater Puget Sound region to provide for
the redevelopment of the former "brownfield" site as a regional maritime educational and
cultural center with significant public access opportunities, all of which require a higher degree
of public coordination and support; and
15. The acquisition by the City for the NWMC's public access dedication recognizes the
public benefit and value of the historical, cultural, educational and recreational programs and
activities that the NWMC intends to provide on its property; and
16. The NWMC desires to convey the easement for public access to the City and in
return the City desires to acquire it for the appraised value, on terms set forth below;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Port
Townsend as follows:
A. The City Manager is authorized to execute all necessary documents to accept a public access
easement over parcels identified as A, B, and C on the attached Exhibit A from the NWMC for
$940,000, subject to: The NWMC (and successors) would construct and maintain improvements
(benches, signage and public amenities) within the easement area, and maintain the area, and
hold the City harmless from public use of the area; The area shown as A and B shall remain
open to the public at all times (except during closures for repairs); the area shown as C shall
remain open to the public, but may be closed for repairs, and for temporary short-term occasions
for special events on terms negotiated by the City Manager.
B. The City Manager is authorized to compensate NWMC up to $60,000 representing the value
of services paid for by NWMC toward the streetscape design and construction drawings of the
portion of the Water Street and Monroe Street abutting its property, which design and
construction drawings benefit the City.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend at a regular meeting
thereof, held this 2nd day of February 2009.
Attest:
Michelle Sandoval, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Pamela Kolacy, MMC John Watts
City Clerk City Attorney
Resolution 09-007
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND Agenda Bill: AB09-016
City Council Meeting Date: February 2, 2009 Agenda Item: X.A
X Regular Business Meeting
_ Study Session Date Submitted: 02/28/09
Other: (spec) Council Retreat
Department: Administration Contact: David Timmons Phone: #379-5047
.....................................................................................................................
SUBJECT: Resolution 09-006, authorizing the City Manager to award and execute a contract
for the purchase and installation of the Jefferson Audio Video System (JAVs)
.......................................................................................................
CATEGORY: BUDGETIMPACT:
Consent
_X_ Resolution
Equipment
$11,472.30
_
Ordinance
_ Staff Report
Setup & Installation
5,980.00
X Business
_ Proclamation
Shipping
400.00
_ Contract Approval
_ FYI
Sales Tax
1,465.99
Total
$19,318.29
_Other
_ Public Hearing (see note below)
Dept/Budget Code: Equipment Rental
.....................................................................................................................
SUMMARY STATEMENT: This Resolution authorizes the City Manager to allocate funds
from the Equipment/Rental Fund to purchase an audio and video system to replace the current
system in Council Chambers. The proposed system is a self -operated (by meeting staff)
"turnkey", low maintenance system which will provide an improved signal to PTTV for meeting
broadcasts and will simultaneously record the meeting on CD or DVD. The Jefferson County
Courts have been using the system successfully for about a year. The proposed funding source
would be the Equipment Rental Fund as a lease to the City Council Furniture, Equipment &
MachineryFund. Total equipment cost is $11,472.30, with onetime setup, installation,
shipping and sales tax amounting to $7,845.99
.....................................................................................................................
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 09-006, authorizing the City Manager to award and execute a
contract for the purchase and installation of the Jefferson Audio Video System (JAVs); Quote
from JAVs
......................................................................................................................
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A
.....................................................................................................................
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to approve Resolution 09-006, authorizing the City
Manager to award and execute a contract for the purchase and installation of the Jefferson Audio
Video System (JAVs) and allocate funds from the Equipment/Rental Fund for the purchase.
.....................................................................................................................
ALTERNATIVES: Delay action; remand to staff or committee
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY:
Department Director or -
Name of Council Committee & Date of Motion
City Njanager
City Attorney
COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN
Resolution No. Continued to
Ordinance No. Referred to
Approved Failed
Other__..
DISTRIBUTION AFTER COUNCIL ACTION
RESOLUTION NO. 09-006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT
FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF THE JEFFERSON AUDIO VIDEO
SYSTEM (JAVs)
WHEREAS, the audio and video recording equipment in the Council Chambers
is several years old and requires increasing maintenance and replacement; and
WHEREAS, Council and Planning Commission meeting broadcasts would be
enhanced by better broadcast signals to PTTV; and
WHEREAS; the City deems it important to have consistently good video and
audio quality as well as a self -operated, turnkey, low -maintenance system; and
WHEREAS, the package determined best suited for the City was found to be the
system currently in use by the Jefferson County Courts, known as Jefferson Audio
Video system (JAVs); and
WHEREAS, JAVs is the developer, distributor and sole source vendor of various
digital audio/video equipment and software applications; and
WHEREAS, other municipal entities including Jefferson County have declared
JAVs a sole source provider; and
WHEREAS, staff has researched other total turnkey packages for audio video
systems which do not have the features of JAVs; and
WHEREAS, State law and the City's own purchasing ordinance requires
purchases of materials and supplies over $15,000 a year to be competitively bid; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35.23.352(9) authorizes sole source purchasing without
calling for bids; and
WHEREAS, RCW 39.04.280 allows competitive bidding to be waived in certain
circumstances, including, where purchases are clearly and legitimately limited to a
single source of supply. RCW 39.04.280 is applicable to code cites under 20,000
population like Port Townsend by RCW 35.23.352(9); and
WHEREAS, the statute requires a resolution by Council declaring an exemption
from bidding under the sole source provision,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Port
Townsend:
1. Jefferson Audio Video Systems, Inc. is declared the sole source of the JAVs system
and has a fixed installation cost of $19,320.00.
2. Consistent with the approved budget, the City Manager is authorized to allocate
Resolution 09-006
purchase and installation costs from the Equipment/Rental Fund and lease the
equipment to the City Council and execute necessary agreements and related
documents for the purchase of the JAVs package through Jefferson Audio Video
Systems, Inc. The package includes the elements which will:
• facilitate video and audio recording and broadcast of City meetings;
• provide a turnkey integrated system to capture, log, store and deliver the
meeting record;
• create automatic backup on CD or DVD;
• include a Safeguard maintenance program.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend at a regular meeting
thereof, held this second day of February, 2009.
Attest:
Pamela Kolacy, MMC
City Clerk
Michelle Sandoval, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
John Watts
City Attorney
Resolution 09-006
Tarr Epn NW EM Innr Cnarb=W
Jefferson Audio Video Systems, Inc.
13020 Middletown Industrial Blvd.
Louisville, KY 40223
Phone:502-244-8788
Fax.502-244-3311
www.jays.com
Quote To:
WA Jefferson Co City of Port
Mark Pail
250 Madison Street
Suite 1
Port Townsend, WA 98368
mpeil@cityofpt.us
QUOTE # GRFSQ1069
Date
01 /21 /09
Sales Rep.
Gabriel Schmitz
Quote provides a JAVS Precision Plus system. System includes, AutoLog 6, PDR with multi -track and 2 cameras. The
city will provide the workstation to run the AutoLog software. The epsbng PA system, microphones, and cabinet will be
reused. The amp and EQ may need to be replaced after evaluation during install.
Qt Part # Descri ption I I Unit Price Ext. Price
WA City of Port Townsend
1 AVP-8420 N
JAVS PrecisionPLUSTM E4 Audio Video Processor
$4,500.00
$4,500.00
(NTSC)
- 8 Audio Input
- 4 Direct Channel Outputs
- 2 PA Outputs (1 +Noise and 1 -Noise)
- 1 Mix- Audio Ouput
- 2 Video Input
- 2 Switched Video Output
Kit contains the following software:
- JAVS MixerControlTM
1 XLR MIC BIG
Regular -Sized XLR input Cable for the Precision E4
and PrecisionPLUS E4 for JM96 & PRO42 Mics
1 CBL-8410-DC
Formed -Connector Breakout Cable (Digital Capture)
For the AVP-8410.
1 JAV-E4RM
E4 Rackmount Kit with 2 Blanks
$100.00
$100.00
1 JAV-MDA3V
Three Output Composite Video MDA - Mini
$180.00
$180.00
Distribution Amp
1 AL60-SW-Sing)
Autolog 6.0 Courtroom Logging Software
$1,100.00
$1,100.00
e
-Required for Each Courtroom
-Includes CaseScheduler Software
-Requires SQL CAL when Connected to CaseServer
1 JAV-VS3100P
IP Audio/Video Encoder
$375.00
$375.00
-Built-in Server for Case Monitoring Centralized
Logging Applicaions
1 JAV-FS108
Netgear 8 Port 10/100 Fast Ethernet Switch w/Auto
$58.00
$58.00
Uplink.
1 PDR-100MT
JAVS Primary Digital Recorder with Multi -Track
$1.895.00
$1,895.00
Capability.
-XP Embedded, ODBC Compliant.
-30OGB Hard Drive
All orders are subject to JAVS standard Tenns and Conditions. Page 1
Ot Part # Description Unit Pricel F Ext. Price
1
JAV-H915RM
Custom Clamping RackMount for the PDR
$164.00
$164.00
9
PT-120
Push To Talk Box (Precision and CT-V Systems Only)
$135.00
$1,215.00
2
JAV-7017
Low Profile Color Video Camera (NTSC)
$600.00
$1,200.00
2
JAV-VM550
FAInon 5mm to 50mm Varifocal Zoom Lens. With
$200.00
$400.00
Filter When Needed.
2
JCM4400
5" Light Duty Wall and Ceiling Camera Mount for
$25.00
$50.00
JAVS Camera
1
PS2
JAVS Camera Power Supply - Multiple Cameras
$50.00
$50.00
100
JAV-CATSP
CAT 5E Cable (Plenum)
$0.35
$35.00
100
25825
75 Ohm Video Cable, Plenum Rated
$0.48
$48.00
100
25291
Shielded Audio Plenum Cable
$0.22
$22.00
8
JAV-RJ45
Connector RJ45
$2.00
$16.00
12
JAV-BNC
Video Connectors, BNC
$2.15
$25.80
11
XLR3P/M/F
Microphone Connectors
$3.50
$38.50
1
JAV-LABOR
Labor for Setup & Installation
$5,980.00
$5,980.00
1
Shipping
$400.00
$4,00.00
SubTotal
$17,852.30
Sales Tax
$1,465.99
Total
$19,318.29
Thanks,
All orders are subject to JAVS standard Terms and Conditions. Page 2
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
City Council Meeting Date: February 2, 2009
_ X _ Regular Business Meeting
_ Study Session
Other: (specify)
Department: Legal
Contact: John Watts
Agenda Bill: AB09-017
Agenda Item: XI. A
Date Submitted: 1/28/09
Phone: #385-5991
.....................................................................................................................
SUBJECT: City Manager Evaluation
.....................................................................................................................
CATEGORY: BUDGETIMPACT:
_ Consent Resolution Amount Budgeted: $
_ Ordinance ' Staff Report Expenditure Amt: $
X_ Business Proclamation Contingency Req'd: $
Contract Approval _ FYI Supplemental Req'd.
.....................................................................................................................
SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City Council undertook a regular review and evaluation of
the City Manager's performance. Council delegated the initial process to Mayor Sandoval and
Councilors Randels and Medlicott (who withdrew and was replaced by Councilor Butler).
Council has reviewed the evaluation in executive session. (Executive session is allowed to
review performance of a public employee, RCW 42.30.110(1)(g).). The matter comes before
Council in open session to approve the evaluation.
.....................................................................................................................
ATTACHMENTS: Evaluation
.....................................................................................................................
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A
.....................................................................................................................
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to approve the City Manager Performance Evaluation.
......................................................................................................................
ALTERNATIVES: Take no action. Refer to committee or staff for further action. Postpone
action.
CITY CLERK'S USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY:
COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN
Resolution No. Continued to
Ordinance No. Referred to
Dep t Director or
ame Council o itt & Date of Motion
Approved Failed
Other
City Manager
DISTRIBUTION AFTER COUNCIL ACTION
City Attorney
December 2008
City Manager Evaluation
KUDOS First:
The city council wishes to thank the city manager for a job well done in 2008. We recognize David's
passion, professionalism and hard work. The city manager has done an excellent job of recognizing the
citizen's values and achieving their goals through the initiative and bonding processes. Also, there was
very good attention to detail in regard to being accountable with the funds coming from the levy
initiative during the budget cycle. We feel cautiously optimistic that we are in good financial shape
despite the world economic downturn and acknowledge David's leadership on this. We feel fortunate to
have a city manager of his caliber.
Previous Specific Recommendations (2005)
Communication: a)"Communicate more with the council both collectively and on an individual basis"
Better all around though more one on one with individual councilors would be good. see below
b)"Use press releases more to inform the citizens of ongoing and prospective
city programs, projects and development"
c) "Continue to take the high road in communications with citizens, the media
and the council."
Communications to Citizens and Media: Generally improved, though still not enough use of press
releases on a regular basis which in one instance may have helped (post office) clarify to press and
public while city manager was out of town. Press releases in general may also help keeping public
engaged and informed so misinformation can be better managed. Letters to the editor or letters directly
to city manager/council frequently come from said misinformation and as such lead to the next issue....
Communication with the public can still be a little heated, overnight reflection on an email response
might be of benefit. We acknowledge this passion reflects well on the city manager's dedication, but
being proactive with the community may eliminate some of this problem. Better use of website (better
website!) for information (i.e.: taxation), is an underutilized tool. We recognize that government and the
citizens it serves often have a difficult relationship particularly under the fiscal constraints of a small city.
Council Relations and Communication: Generally good. New councilors may need more one on one
interaction especially in regard to work plan issues and budget understanding. Outreach by city manager
to all councilors individually would be beneficial though time constraints are understandable. In general,
jargon should be avoided when conversing both to councilors and the public.
d)"Keep council informed of actions by individuals that may hinder your job
performance
Performance Hindrance: Pressure from Individuals has eased. Council works well with city manager
Staff Supervision: Morale is important among all staff; it would be good to have fun with staff (company
picnic?) as one means to this end. Accountability and equitable consistency is important for all staff.
Would still like to see more information about evaluations if they occur.
City Organization: Responsive to the DCD dept. as part of the industry changes. Citizens are expecting
changes in Parks and Code enforcement staffing and city manager is being responsive.
Direct Customer Service: Good, though occasional grumblings about DCD.
Personnel Management: City attracts high level of expertise which speaks highly of management. Issue
with allowing problems to go on for too long; being reactive as opposed to proactive with problems or
personnel. Need to hold dept.heads more accountable for council policy.
Finance: Excellent job with bonding for infrastructure. Kudos to all. Less jargon, more layman friendly
info would be helpful on budget.
Planning: Does a good job with long range view, overview of goals for city. Urge better use of all
advisory boards effectively and timely. Be better at actively engaging council on long range view,
particularly with implementation of comp plan and where we are falling down on the job.
Specific Department Concerns: DCD always. Long range planning staffing issues are concerns in this
coming year.
Other (odds and ends): More use of technology for scheduling and contact management urged for
communication /email system. Looking forward to less paper usage. A change of name would be of
particular help to one councilor!
Other Specific Recommendation for the upcoming year:
Review of all work product before going public or to council unless entirely unfeasible.
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
City Council Meeting Date: February 2, 2009
X__Regular Business Meeting
Study Session
Other:
Department: Planning Contact: Judy Surber
Agenda Bill: AB09-014
Agenda Item: XIII.A
Date Submitted:
Phone: 379-5084
.....................................................................................................................
SUBJECT: Alternative Electric Management (AEM) Committee Recommendations
concerning local public electric utilities
.....................................................................................................................
CATEGORY: BUDGETIMPACT:
_Consent
Resolution
_Ordinance
Staff Report
—Staff
_Business
_Contract Approval
_ FYI
X Other: Committee Recommendation
Public Hearing (see note below)
_____Legislative
_Quasi-judicial open record
Amount Budgeted: $.
Expenditure Amt: $
Contingency Req'd: $
Supplemental Req'd. _
Dept/Budget Code: _
_Quasi-judicial closed record
_Quasi-judicial closed record appeal
NOTE. If the Public Hearing is quasi-judicial in nature, then the appearance of fairness and
conflict on interest rules apply. Except at the public hearing, communicating with other
councilmembers, and contact with proponents or opponents must be avoided
..................................................................................................................
SUMMARY STATEMENT
On October 6, 2008 the Alternative Electric Management Committee (AEM) provided an
overview of the Hittle study and the Utilipoint study examining the feasibility of a public electric
utility.
Since October 2008, the citizens voted in support of Proposition #1, authorizing Jefferson
County PUD #1 to evaluate and then, if feasible, to form an electric utility for Jefferson County.
Similar efforts failed in other jurisdictions.
In light of the ballot results and recent meetings with Bonneville Power Administration (BPA),
Hittle and Associates has provided revised data to the PUD #1 and to the AEM. The committee
has discussed how the City might support or provide a complement to the efforts of Jefferson
PUD #1 in the evaluation and possible formation of an electric utility. Their recommendations
are provided in the attached letter.
...............................................................................................................
ATTACHMENTS
January 14, 2009 letter RE: Committee Recommendations concerning local public electric
utilities
.....................................................................................................................
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
None, this is an informational item.
.................................................................................................................
RECOMMENDED ACTION
None, this is an informational item.
.............................................................................................
ALTERNATIVES
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY: I COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN
Resolution No. Continued to
Ordinance No. Referred to
Approved - Failed
Other:
DISTRIBUTION AFTER COUNCIL ACTION
City Attorney
�o Qop* roomy City of Port Townsend
�o Alternate Electric Management Committee
Date: January 14, 2009
To: Mayor Sandoval and Members of the City Council
From: Alternative Electric Management Committee (AEM)
RE: Committee Recommendations concerning local public electric utilities
Background
In February 2007 the Port Townsend City Council authorized the formation of the
Alternative Electric Management Committee by resolution 07-009, with the task to:
` ... review and update the recommendations and information in the (PSE) Franchise
Report, and explore issues concerning alternate energy management Specifically the
committee should provide a recommendation on whether the city should take further
steps to form an electric utility..... "
In addition, the resolution
"Authorizes the City Manager to solicit proposals for expert feasibility study on alternate
energy management, including formation of a municipal utility, for further Council
consideration and action. "
In a letter to you dated February 29, 2008, we urged the city to
"... collaborate with other local public entities to carry out a study assessing the feasibility
of establishing a public electric utility in Jefferson County as a whole (excluding areas
served by another electric PUD) and/or in the City of Port Townsend alone, as soon as
possible. We urge the city to meet and work with the Jefferson PUD, the County and the
Port to develop an appropriate scope of work and associated funding to accomplish the
task."
This past November, 2008, after a tremendous effort by a well-informed group called
Citizens for Local Power, Jefferson County citizens voted strongly in support of
Proposition #1, authorizing Jefferson County PUD #1 to evaluate and then, if feasible, to
form an electric utility for Jefferson County. Support in the City was by 63.5%. Earlier in
the fall, the PUD had commissioned Hittle and Associates to carry out a preliminary
feasibility study.
Possible advantages of the formation of a local, public electric utility have been clearly
spelled out in various reports by Hittle and Associates, and include long-term lower
electric rates, improved local control and administration, and the addition of up to as
AEM Committee Recommendation
January 14, 2009
Page 2 of 2
many as 60 local jobs in support of public electric utility functions
How the City might support or provide a complement to the efforts of Jefferson PUD #1
in the evaluation and possible formation of an electric utility has been a topic of
considerable discussion at the AEMC, and is the focus of this list of recommendations.
Recommendations
1. We advise the City to continue to provide adequate staff support for the Alternative
Electric Management Committee. This is a critical time for substantial opportunities in
the area of local electric management.
2. We advise the City to actively support Jefferson County PUD#1 in their efforts to
further evaluate the costs and benefits of forming a local electric utility for Jefferson
County. This support may include staffing, funding or other forms of collaboration.
Sharing of information and resources will benefit all of the citizens of this county,
including those in the City of Port Townsend. We advise specifically that the City share
electric franchise information and PSE performance data with Jefferson PUD 41, and that
the city encourage the County to do the same.
3. We do not recommend that the city further study the idea of forming a municipal
utility district (MUD). The latest information from Bonneville Power Administration and
Hittle and Associates does not appear to justify the cast of further studies at this time.
We urge the City to move quickly in implementing our recommendations. Local electric
utility provision is currently a hot topic in the community and the PSE franchise expires
in 2010. This is the ideal time to move forward.