Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011212 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session the 12th day January 2012 in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, Chair Julian Ray presiding. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners present at roll call were Julian Ray, Monica Mick-Hager, Cate Comerford, Jerauld Fry, Gee Heckscher, Sarah Bowman, and Steven Emery. Staff members present were Development Services Department Director Rick Sepler, Senior Planner/Planning Manager Judy Surber, Public Works Director Ken Clow, Parks and Recreation Manager Jeremy Bubnick, City Attorney John Watts, and Deputy Clerk Erin Lundgren. CHANGES TO AGENDA Chair Ray noted that the Executive Session scheduled for later in the meeting may not be necessary and may be cancelled. Motion: Steven Emery moved to approve the agenda with the possible change noted by Chair Ray. Jerauld Fry seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0 by voice vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DECEMBER 8, 2011 Commissioner Bowman noted that the spelling of the word "property" needs to be corrected on page 6, in the second sentence of the second paragraph. Motion: Gee Heckscher moved to approve the minutes of December 8, 2011 as corrected. Steven Emery seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0 by voice vote. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 2011 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS - GROUP II (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 8, 2011) Chair Ray explained the hearing procedures and introduced Senior Planner/ Planning Manager Judy Surber who reviewed the 2011 Comprehensive Plan amendments - Group II. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 12, 2012 Page 1 of 11 Staff Presentation Ms. Surber reviewed the exhibits and staff report which includes the staff recommendation and findings and conclusions for each of the Comprehensive Plan amendment items. Public comments received to date are also included along with the staff response. She noted that the City issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) on November 23, 2011. At the close of the comment period, one appeal was received on the Beech Street rezone, docket item #1.3. Since the City Council placed the item on the docket, the Council was approached about this appeal and elected to remove the Beech Street rezone from the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Docket. Thus, Rick Sepler, the SEPA responsible official, will be modifying the DNS to remove any references to the Beech Street rezone. The Development Services Department now considers the appeal issue resolved and has offered to refund the appeal fee to the appellants. There are also revisions to the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan that were suggested by the City Council in relation to item 2.5 Kah Tai Lagoon Park Policy Language. When reviewed by the Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board (NMTAB) staff was directed to review the Decatur Street trail only. A staff report was presented explaining the background of this trail which is mapped along the eastern side of Kah Tai Lagoon behind Kah Tai Care Center. The issue is that much of the trail is located within the wetland or wetland buffer which is a very sensitive area, and whether or not it is feasible to build a trail in that location without significantly impacting the habitat. Ultimately, the NMTAB recommended that the Decatur Street trail be removed from the maps and that there be a short extension within Lawrence Street and Garfield Street. If the Planning Commission, and subsequently the City Council, decide not to approve item 2.5, then the recommendation of the NMTAB for Decatur Street trail would fall by the wayside unless tied to another item. Therefore, it is being suggested that the Decatur Street trail also be tied to item 3 which is the Parks Functional Plan because removal of the trail has merit and is supported by other goals and policies. Item 2.4 Add Two New Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Goals and related policies regarding Administration & Operations, Budget & Funding Ms. Surber explained that there has been no change since the meeting of November 3, 2011. After answering a clarifying question she noted a correction to the staff recommendation. The findings and conclusions to support the recommendation are also included. Item 2.5 Kah Tai Lagoon Park Policy - (LUP11-015) This item is proposed by the Friends of Kah Tai to add a new parks and recreation policy to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan regarding Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park. It relates to item 2.6 which includes staff suggested alternative policy language. The staff recommendation is to deny the Friends of Kah Tai suggested amendment item 2.5 and approve the alternative language with modifications. After reviewing the modified alternative language, Ms. Surber explained that a map of the Kah Tai Park area is included for reference and she noted that the Kah Tai Park boundary is currently under Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 12, 2012 Page 2 of 11 dispute by the Port of Port Townsend. Item 2.6 Kah Tai Lagoon Park Policy Alternative Language - (LUP11-055) This item includes alternative policy language to item 2.5 as noted above. Item 2.7 Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Clarify the Relationship Between Comprehensive Plans & Functional Plans Ms. Surber explained that this amendment includes language to clarify when a functional plan must go through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process and when it does not. The language that is suggested by staff would make it clear that if a functional plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan then it does not need a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Two comment letters were received. In response to those comments, staff is proposing an additional policy 6.1.1 to the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element. It also clarifies that this will not only apply to the adoption of a funtional plan, but also to revisions to a functional plan. Item 3 Adoption of Amendments to Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan (LUP11-034) Ms. Surber stated that an additional six comment letters have been received on this item since it was placed on the docket. The staff response, which is primarily from the Parks Manager, addresses those comments. She pointed out that there was a question about whether or not there was an inconsistency with an appendix in the Comprehensive Plan. For the reasons that are set forth in the staff report, staff does not feel that there are any inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and there is no reason to repeal or amend the appendix. It is also suggested that the Planning Commission's recommendation on the Parks Plan update include the removal of the Decatur Street trail as recommended by the NMTAB. City Attorney John Watts commented on a legal issue relating to the proposed language in item 2.5 outlined on page 11 of the staff report. Generally, the proposals state that Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park should be preserved for passive outdoor recreation only. On page 18 of the staff report he presented a summary of some legal principles outlining why he believes the adoption of any of the language proposals numbered 1 through 3, are likely going to create a legal issue for the City under the "takings" law. Takings is a legal doctrine that requires a government to pay compensation for property if governmental action takes private property or another jurisdiction's property, for public use. It is analogous to the concept of condemnation or imminent domain. If government wants property for a public purpose, it either has to buy it or negotiate the purchase of easement rights. If a regulation takes away all uses of another person's or entity's property, then this can be a "taking" and require the government to compensate the owner. Concerning the Port's property, the property either is or is not subject to the federal regulation/restriction referred to as 6(f) protection. This protection is a grant restriction placed on property affected by a federal grant under the Land and Water Conservation Act. Property subject to these types of grants are restricted to outdoor uses only. The grant that was made back in the 1980's should have concluded with a determination, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 12, 2012 Page 3 of 11 covenant, map, restriction, deed or some record to document the terms and application of the federal grant. Since that did not occur, the State Resource and Conservation Office (RCO) which administers the grant on behalf of the federal government, made a determination in September 2011 that the Port property is subject to 6(f) restrictions. The National Park Service (NPS) concurred with this determination. As previously stated, the determination is now being appealed by the Port of Port Townsend. Should the court decide that the Port property is not subject to the 6(f) restrictions, then the Port could apply to the City for a redesignation of the property which is currently designated as Park and Open Space (POS). If the City now designates this property in the Comprehensive Plan as one of the alternatives listed under item 2.5, then the City would be saying the property could only be used for open space or park purposes. In his view, that would be no different than the City designating private property as park use only, thereby, restricting any other economic use. That would clearly be a "taking" and that principle would apply to the Port property if it were not subject to 6(f) restrictions at the conclusion of the lawsuit. If the court decides that the Port property is subject to 6f restrictions and can only be used for outdoor passive recreation uses, the proposals under item 2.5 to preserve the property as open space only, would likely result in a taking of the property. The reason for that is even under the 6f restrictions there are a variety of eligible outdoor uses that are allowed as a matter of right. What those uses might be would be determined by the Department of the Interior and a variety of factors would be considered. Mr. Watts discussed this proposal with the attorney for Admiralty Audubon and after reviewing the attorney's arguments, he was still not persuaded that the proposal as drafted would not involve the City in a potential takings issue. He also reviewed his opinion with the Washington Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC), a non- profit organization which provides legal advice to local government agencies, and they concurred with his opinion that the City would be getting into an area that would likely result in a "taking." There are also opportunities under the 6(f) restrictions for a property owner to apply for a conversion of the property. Such conversions are also subject to approval by the Department of the Interior of the National Park Service. Such a determination could lead to the removal of 6(f) restrictions from the property. The proposals in item 2.5 that would put an open space only designation or restriction on the property would take away the opportunity under 6(f) and likely result in a "taking." For these reasons he has advised the Development Services Department staff that he cannot recommend that the Planning Commission approve any of the proposals under item 2.5. Staff's alternative proposal in item 2.6 would serve as a placeholder in the event that the Court decides the Port property is subject to 6(f) restrictions at the conclusion of the pending litigation. Mr. Watts added that the Planning Commission can recommend to the City Council that any of the language proposals in item 2.5 to designate property as open space, be applied to the City's property within the 6(f) boundary. Additional public comments provided to the Planning Commission for their review were discussed by Mr. Watts. He pointed out that aside from any question of 6(f) restrictions or not, the property around the lagoon is protected by other regulations such as the Critical Areas Ordinance as it applies to wetlands, and the Shoreline Master Program as it applies to shoreline areas. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 12, 2012 Page 4 of 11 Mr. Watts was asked his opinion about language that includes the term "in perpetuity" and how binding it is in the future. He responded that it is fine to use the term "in perpetuity" but, in reality it is simply a statement of a current vision or a current situation and cannot be binding on a future City Council. In fact, periodic review of the document by the City is required under the Growth Management Act. A future City Council could determine that another designation or policy should apply. The only way to ensure the language "in perpetuity" does not change is if there was a legally binding convenant placed on the property involving a third party, which is the situation that has been discussed regarding the 6(f) restriction. In terms of process, it was noted that this is a continuation of the hearing on the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The Appearance of Fairness rules apply to items 2.5 and 2.6 relating to the Port property. Mr. Watts noted that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applies to matters that affect private property or another jurisdiction's property. For that reason, the City has designated the process as it applies to items 2.5 and 2.6 as "Quasi-Judicial" in nature, triggering the Appearance of Fairness requirements. For the record, Chairman Ray asked all Commission members to disclose any appearance of fairness issues such as property interest or ex parte communications. Commissioner Bowman stated that she signed a petition for the Friends of Kah Tai Lagoon. She does not feel that it impacts her ability to be fair, but if others feel differently, she will be happy to recuse herself from the Kah Tai issues. Commissioner Mick-Hager stated that she receives Friends of Kah Tai emails. Years ago when the park started she helped plant the buffers that were the raw soil on Port land. She has never given money to the Friends of Kah Tai or attended their meetings. She feels she can honestly look at all the information and make an impartial decision. Chair Ray asked if any member of the audience has any objection to the participation of any members of the Planning Commission for any reason? Eric Toews, Planning Analyst for the Port of Port Townsend asked the nature of the petition that was signed by Commissioner Bowman. Commssioner Bowman replied that it was in support of the efforts of the Friends of Kah Tai for the preservation of Kah Tai Lagoon. After Commissioner Bowman confirmed that the petition had nothing to do with the pending lawsuit, Mr. Toews stated the Port has no objection to her participation in the matters relating to Kah Tai. Hearing no other comments, the Commission proceeded with clarifying questions to staff. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Chair Ray opended the hearing for public testimony. Larry Crockett, Director, Port of Port Townsend stated that Mr. Watts gave a very clear legal brief of the situation. As additional reinforcement he stated that the Port previously provided a copy of a City resolution that was passed in 1997 which acknowledges that at the end of the 30 year lease between the City and Port which expires on July 31, 2012, the Port has the right to petition the City for a rezone of its 20 acres adjacent to Kah Tai. Regarding the takings issue, he discussed a court case involving the Port of Whidbey and Island County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 12, 2012 Page 5 of 11 which resulted in the County having to pay the Port for their development rights in order to maintain the Port's property as open space. It has been demonstrated many times that property owned by public entities is subject to the same rules as private property when it comes to takings issues. Jim Todd of Port Townsend stated that he is disappointed that staff does not support the proposed blending of the two amendments to the park plan. It seems to him that the blended language made a perfectly good statement of what the City wants. The only thing that bothers him about the staff presentation is that this is a Comprehensive Plan and not an ordinance. It bothers him to hear all this stuff about takings. This is just a plan. It is his understanding that the Comprehensive Plan is supposed to represent what the community feels at a given time. The feeling of the community at a given time was expressed in the suggested blending of the two amendments. He wants to make sure the Commission received his comment letter dated November 14, 2011. He strongly recommends the following two items be incorporated or modified: 1) include a key finding on the strong community feeling about wildlife and wildlife habitat; and 2) include in the plan appendix, the unabridged questions in the community survey, the corresponding answers, and the findings for legitimacy in terms of the statistics. All the information should be in one place. As it is now, it has been modified and abridged. The actual data should be unabridged with no other opinion added to it so individuals can come back and read it. Eric Toews, Planning Analyst, Port of Port Townsend submitted written comments and additional materials to insure the Planning Commission's record is complete. He reviewed the submitted materials which include the following documents: 1) Compilation of the oral and written comments the Port previously submitted concerning the City's legislative process on both LUP11-015, the Friends of Kah Tai amendment, as well as LUP11-055, the staff alternative policy amendments; 2) a copy of a detailed legal memorandum prepared by the Port's Attorney Carolyn Lake to Jim Anest of the Washington State Resource and Conservation Office (RCO) analyzing whether or not encumbrances exist on Port lands leased to the City at Kah Tai; 3) Five data disks containing a compilation of documents obtained through public record requests by the Port of Port Townsend relating to the history of the formation and development of the nature park and the properties located in the area of the lagoon; 4) a letter and attached map exhibit from Larry Crockett, Executive Director, Port of Port Townsend to Jim Anest, Washington State RCO relating to the "Project Boundary" of the original federal grant project in 1981; 5) a letter to Kaleen Cottingham, Director, Washington State RCO to Heather Ramsay, Program Manager, National Park Service (NPS) recommending a 6(f)3 boundary for the Kah Tai Nature Park that includes Port property; 6) a letter from Michael Linde, Leader of Community Assitance Programs, NPS to Kaleen Cottingham, Director, Washington State RCO regarding finalizing the 6(f) boundary at the lagoon nature park; and 7) a copy of the Quiet Title action filed by the Port of Port Townsend in federal District Court in response to the purported 6(f) boundary determination issued by NPS. The Port reasserts the factual, procedural and substantive issues they have consistently raised throughout this time consuming, costly and unnecessary legislative process. They contend that the process concerning LUP11-015 and LUP11-055 is deeply flawed and that the substance of LUP11-015 in particular is profoundly objectionable and would expose the City to legal peril. Consistent with their earlier testimony, although they recommend the rejection of both LUP11-015 and LUP11- 055, the Port appreciates staff's attempt to craft alternative policy language that is substantively more defensible than LUP11-015. While expressly not abandoning their prior Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 12, 2012 Page 6 of 11 objections, the Port does support staff's revised alternative policy language and concur that it helps to reduce the City's exposure to legal risk. Rick Jahnke of Port Townsend stated that last February when he submitted the application for the Kah Tai Comprehensive Plan amendment on behalf of the Friends of Kah Tai, there was no record in City files of how the park was formed or of its connection to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Nor was there any guidance in the Comprehensive Plan concerning the obligations that came with the acceptance of the federal funds used to create the park. The proposed amendment was to remedy that situation. Now there is an extensive record. We have the RCO ruling, the NPS ruling, City resolution 11-039 which includes extensive recitals that permanently places in the City records many of the important facts. Despite this progress however, there is still an absolute need for our local planning documents to provide accurate guidance for future management of the park. The LWCF and RCO manuals are clear that acceptable uses for park lands are determined by the original grant documents that justified the initial funding and that any use which contravenes that original intent is not allowed without approval of NIPS as stated by the City Attorney. But as a point of clarification, it is not just for outdoor recreation undefined, it is defined by the original grant documents. The City's recommended alternative language for this amendment is relatively silent on what those acceptable uses are, thus, implicitly relying on procedures in the manuals to determine those uses. However, since the Port has yet to admit the existence of the grant documents or the contract documents, it is not clear that without explicit language in the Comprehensive Plan, that the future management of the park will not lead the City and Port into conflict again next August when the lease has expired and the Port takes full control of their land. He stated that Mr. Crockett of the Port pointed out during his testimony that the resolution adopted by the City in 1997 states that when the lease has expired the Port can apply for a rezone of the property. However, Mr. Crockett did not point out paragraph two of that same resolution which states that all future City Councils have a right to ignore that request. He questioned how explicit this needs to be right now and stated that if there wasn't a lawsuit it could probably be easily answered. While he respects Mr. Watts a great deal, the City's alternative language has significantly changed through this process and they have incorporated many of the ideas that citizens have brought to them. He asked that the Planning Commission not lose any of the ideas and that they forward the various language proposals to the City Council to let this process continue over the coming months. Maybe we will get lucky and the lawsuit will be dismissed and maybe we will learn some more as well. Then the City Council will be in a better position to provide the.best language that will protect and provide guidance for the management of the park. Nora Regan, President, Friends of Kah Tai, stated that the Friends of Kah Tai have proposed an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the language of intention and protection for Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park as required under the terms of the 1981 National Park Service contract signed by both the City and the Port. The development and maintenance of this park has been the focus of hundreds of volunteers and generous supporters for almost 40 years. The amendment proposed by the Friends of Kah Tai honors these citizens and their hard work. It deserves your consideration. Regarding the City's draft Park Functional Plan she stated that the plan is verbally sparse, unnecessarily elimininating descriptions found in the 1999 plan that provided information on the vital history and chronology of how the park system evolved. Our parks need to be protected as well as maintained with definitive guidelines outlined in the Park Functional Plan and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 12, 2012 Page 7 of 11 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In her opinion, this plan has failed with respect to the public process. Julie Jaman, Treasurer, Friends of Kah Tai submitted written comments and stated that if in fact the Port or anybody wanted to go to the RCO/NPS and ask for a conversion of any sort, the RCO/NPS would first come back to the City and ask to look at the City's planning documents to confirm the vision and intention of this community, As people have been saying, the vision and intention of our community must be reflected in the City's planning documents. She also commented on the Parks Functional Plan stating that she noticed the name "Kah Tai Lagoon" became an issue for City staff, but, if they look at the 1999 plan they will see that it was adopted into the Comprehensive Plan and is referenced on many pages. In terms of public process, there is one meeting noted in the 'Table of Contents' and the advisory board minutes from January through April do not show that there was any public comment and they are not aware of any other public meeting that was held. It appears that there was a decision made to completely rewrite the 1999 Park Plan, but, there is no line in/line out copy of the document to show what changes were made. The plan seems to disregard the direction from Growth Management about showing your work. Municipalities must show their work when creating public policy via planning documents under the Growth Management Act (GMA). We can't see it and we can't find it. An executive decision made to this Parks Functional Plan not only eliminates the history of the community involvement over the last 100 years, starting with the creation of Chetzemoka Park, but also denies that history and the culture of this historic Victorian seaport. The plan refers to making the document 'user friendly', however, the existing 1999 Functional Plan has been vetted by the public and needs to remain part of the proposed Functional Plan to keep it user friendly. When making a document user friendly, one must consider who the users are. The concept of a plan being user friendly must rest on the validity of institutional memory which the planning document records. Our history is lost if it is not codified in easily available public records. The users include: members of the public, engaged citizens in the community, volunteers, City leaders who make policy, and the ever changing and evolving staff who implement the plan and may have limited historic memory of the community involvement. A decision to replace the existing Functional Plan without valid public process would have caused a major problem if it had happened during the time of the Park Commission. Under the direction of City staff the entire cultural context of the parks planning has been completely changed. The necessity of history, culture and heritage is confirmed by the draft policy, but it was a very costly exercise for the Friends of Kah Tai to show that it is not actually included. The draft Parks Functional Plan is starved for a lack of real process. She concluded by commenting on level of service and stated that the planning of the parks is not about control. It is about fulfilling the community needs by agencies with multiple mandates yet existing to serve the same public (ie. schools, Fort Worden, etc.). Margaret Lee of Port Townsend stated that Mr. Watts quoted from a letter submitted today by Nancy Dorgan. She wants to emphasize the phrase "community values should prevail." In order for that to happen we must bring about the greatest possible public participation. That is why this Comprehensive Plan amendment process is so important and why she does not like the idea of the Functional Plan being separated from the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. She also commented on the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan as is relates to Decatur Street stating that she feels it is a poor idea to extend the trail in different ways to the lagoon itself. She hopes the Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 12, 2012 Page 8 of 11 will attach this item to the Parks Plan and that there will be an opportunity for public participation. The City held a meeting the other night where future plans were discussed. One of the things they talked about was holding public forums. She strongly encourages that these public forums take place and that one of them be devoted to the Kah Tai Park issue to give people the opportunity to comment. The community has not had that opportunity yet. The design for the park has not yet occurred, so it is premature to put new paths along the edge of Kah Tai when the whole plan has not been formalized. Rosemary Sikes, President, Admiralty Audubon stated that she and other members of the Admiralty Audubon hired an attorney to review the citizen's amendment because they wanted the most legally defensible language they could get that would define the intent of the park. Their attorney recommended using language from the grant documents and resulted in the following proposed language: "Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park shall be designed and maintained so as to allow only passive outdoor recreation uses that preserve and enhance the natural habitat of the lagoon, wetlands and uplands." This language was not pulled out of a hat. It came from the grant documents. Admiralty Audubon supports this language and they hope that it will be considered by the Planning Commission. She commented on the Parks Functional Plan and stated that Parks and Recreation Manager Jeremy Subnick did a great job putting the plan together by listening to citizen concerns and making changes to the document to reflect those concerns which she thinks should be incorporated into the plan. Additionally, she supports removing the Decatur Street right-of- way from the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan between Garfield Street and Lawrence Street. Ron Sikes of Port Townsend stated that he supports the position of the Admiralty Audubon. He feels it is important because it deals directly with the intent of the creation of the park as well as the obligations of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It binds both parties, the City and the Port, to carry out the intent. Right now that land is federally protected and federal law overrides state and City laws. He added that it is important that we protect not only our Victorian heritage, but also our natural heritage. The Kah Tai lagoon has been critical for populations of wildlife and migratory birds in particular. It is a remnant of that great heritage that we all enjoy today and we should take great effort in protecting it. He also supports the removal of Decatur Street from the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan between Garfield Street and Lawrence Street because it would impact the lagoon and wildlife in a significant way. It is important that any planned trails have an adequate buffer and that they do not cause a diminished use by birds. Mr. Sepler explained that the Planning Commission held a workshop on these amendments where public comments were solicited regarding these issues. The meeting tonight is not the only opportunity that has been provided by this Commission or other bodies regarding these plans. Nor does this curtail further opportunities for participation. The process allows comments to be submitted, considered and evaluated. If found to be fair, they are incorporated. Staff appreciates the comments received at the hearing tonight and they will be fairly weighed and considered before any action is taken by the Planning Commission or by the City Council. Ms. Surber added that staff tried to incorporate the public comments as much as they could within the limitations of the law. She stated that all changes to the Comprehensive Plan are adopted by ordinance and she noted that the Planning Commission could recommend that the language proposed by Admiralty Audubon be applied to City-owned properties within the 6f boundary. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 12, 2012 Page 9 of 11 Mr. Watts explained that the Comprehensive Plan acts as a form of restriction on uses of property because of the consistency requirement under the Growth Management Act which requires that planning documents must be consistent with development regulations. That is the basis for his opinion regarding the language proposals in item 2.5. He added that although the language proposed by Admiralty Audubon is based on language from the grant application materials, it assumes that the Port property is subject to the 6f boundary. That determination has not yet been made by the Court. We cannot say that federal law overrides, because the application of that federal law is being determined by a federal judge. He noted that the City is vigorously involved in the lawsuit and is defending the City position that the 6f restrictions do apply to not only the City property, but the Port property as well. While the City believes there is every basis that the Court will make that ruling, until the ruling is made, the 2.5 proposals, in his view, should be put on hold. Chair Ray recessed the meeting at 8:09 p.m. At 8:17 p.m. Chair Ray reconvened the meeting and members asked clarifying questions. Hearing no further testimony, Chair Ray closed the public testimony portion of the hearing and noted that the hearing will be continued to Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers for deliberations, findings, conclusions and recommendations on all of the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Groups I and II. Staff will review all the comments and materials submitted and provide a response in their staff report at the next meeting. Commissioner Mick-Hager asked if the Commission could get their meeting information packets earlier than the Friday before the meeting to allow adequate time to review the volume of materials? She also requested a copy of the 1997 City Council resolution that was referenced earlier during testimony provided by a representative of the Port. Commissioner Bowman asked what Mr. Watts meant by 'put on hold' as it relates to Mr. Jahnke's testimony and the proposals of the Friends of Kah Tai? Mr. Watts replied that he will add some comments to the staff response that will be provided at the January 26, 2012 meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Executive Session was cancelled. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. UPCOMING MEETINGS Thursday, January 26, 2012 - Continuation of Public Hearing re: 2011 Comprehensive Plan Deliberations, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations - Groups I and II Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 12, 2012 Page 10 of 11 Nomura Rezone (LUP11-025) Cherry Street Rezone (LUP11-026) Establish Alternative Parcel - Specific Zoning (LUP11-027) (Amended by City Council on 12/19/11) Emissions Policy Housing Action Plan and Housing Action Plan Network (HAPN) Committee Policy Public-Private Partnerships/Public Development Authority Add Two New Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Goals and related policies regarding Administration & Operations, Budget & Funding Kah 'Tai Lagoon Park Policy - (LUP11-015) Kah Tai Lagoon Park Policy Alternative Language - (LUP11-055) Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Clarify the Relationship Between Comprehensive Plans & Functional Plans Adoption of Amendments to Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan (LUP11-034) ADJOURN Motion: Steven Emery moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Gee Heckscher seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0 by voice vote. Attest: tanning ► waaIssi air City Clerk's Office Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 12, 2012 Page 11 of 11