HomeMy WebLinkAbout081006 MinutesCity of Port Townsend
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Thursday, August 10, 2006 — 7:00 PM
City Hall Annex, Third Floor Conference Room
Meeting Materials:
EXH. 1 Planning Commission Revised Agenda — August 10, 2006
EXH. 2 Wassmer Staff Memo, Transient Accommodations and Accessory Dwelling Units, to Sepler
and Yarberry, dated August 8, 2006
EXH. 3 Excerpts from Port Townsend Municipal Code, pages 17 -32.3, 17 -39, 17 -35, and Director's
Interpretation re: Tourist Home PTMC Cite 17.16.050 dated August 7, 1995
EXH. 5 Ordinance 2155, dated June 20, 1989, relating to Zoning, Defining Bed and Breakfast Inn and
creating new sections of the PTMC (17.08.043 and other sections), and amending sections ( 17.08.240
and other sections)
EXH. 4 Guest Sign -In Sheet
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Chair .Randels called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
II. ROLL CALL:
Planning Commission members present were: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Alice King, Roger Lizut,
George Randels, Julian Ray, Liesl Slabaugh, and George Unterseher. Cindy Thayer was excused.
Staff: Rick Sepler, Planning Director.
At Chair Randels request, in keeping with tradition, Mr. Ray gave a brief self - introduction since he was
attending the Planning Commission meeting for the first time.
III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
Chair Randels asked if anyone wished to suggest changes to the agenda. There were no changes. Mr.
Randels moved and Mr. Lizut seconded that the agenda be approved as written. The agenda was
approved, as written, all in favor.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Review of the draft minutes of July 20, 2006:
Section III, paragraph 1, line 6 — change to "community development block grant ":
Page 4, at paragraph "Page 30 ", tenth line, Affordable housing policies ....... change "embeds" to
"embodies ". Mr. Randels moved and Mr. Lizut seconded that the minutes be approved as corrected
The minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July 20, 2006 were approved by the Planning
Commission, all in favor
Review of the draft minutes of July 27, 2006:
Typographical corrections were made on pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10.
Page 4. Mr. Randels requested that Mr. Sepler assist in revising the record of Mr. Owen's remarks
concerning FAR 3. The paragraph was subsequently amended by Mr. Sepler as follows: The C-11 zone,
the red ... Residential. Instead of using FAR, it establishes a maximum floor area for any building in
the district. The maximum building height is 35 feet.
Mr. Randels moved and Mr. Lizut seconded that the minutes for July 27, 2006 be approved as
written. The minates of the Planning Commission Meeting of Jidy 17, 2006 were approved, all in
favor.
V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT:
Chair Randels asked if any member of the audience wished to comment on any matter, prior to opening
the New Business portion of the meeting.
Michelle Sandoval, Port Townsend, WA
Ms. Sandoval said she wished to comment, as a private citizen, about transient accommodations and
accessory buildings. She said that she felt very strongly about these issues for a variety of reasons. She
recalled that when the amnesty was passed that allowed certain property owners to continue use of
ADUs, the intention was to support affordable housing. She said that is still an important issue. She
recalled that when she and Mr. Emery served on the Affordable Housing Needs Assessment Task
Force, it was the perpetual nature of affordable housing that needed protection, and that is applicable to
the whole ADU (accessory dwelling units) law. ADUs have become integral to the overall affordable
housing strategy and solution. Allowing transient accommodations (in ADUs) would take that right
out. It might possibly make the main house more affordable for those paying the mortgage, but a huge
segment of our population would not be able to have these $500 or 600 per month rentals available.
Furthermore, many people who would not otherwise think about it will be tempted to build ADUs if it
becomes legal to rent by the day at rates of $85 —100 per day. She recalled the experience of returning
to visit a California beach town where she had once lived, and finding that the entire community had
disappeared, completely replaced by transient accommodations. Virtually every property owner had
moved out in order to rent out their properties at $1500 to $3000 per week. She noted the additional
problem of the lack of enforcement, despite the regulations that have been on the books in Port
Townsend for years. She said that instead of stopping those who break the law, we give amnesty to
that. Ms. Sandoval said she was opposed to it "for the soul of the town ", but also as it relates to the
upcoming policy initiatives for the housing needs assessment. She stressed again that she was
speaking as a private citizen and not as a voice of the City Council. As a realtor, as well, she sees
people doing this with their homes, not just with their ADUs. She said that it was also dangerous, in
terms of safety. She cited the case of a property owner who is "gone for weeks at a time, and rents out
her whole house, as well as an "approved ADU ". She added that there have been disruptive incidents,
with no one left in charge as would be required for B & B's, and with renters who could not or would
not take responsibility for the situation.
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None
VII. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Transient Accommodations in Accessory Buildings — Briefing and Commission Discussion
Leonard Yarberry, Director, DSD
Chair Randels asked staff to open with the history and background of the transient accommodation
issues.
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes — August 10, 2006 Page 2 of 9
Mr. Yarberry distributed copies of the Port Townsend Municipal Code, 17.08.60, page 17 -32.3. (Exh.
3). He said that this issue had come before the Council on July 10 as an in -box request from a citizen
asking the Council to look at the definition of a Tourist Home. He read the definition of Tourist Home
from PTMC 17.08.60. He pointed out the definition of Transient Accommodations on the same page;
which covers a larger variety of accommodations than the tourist home. The question posed to Council
was whether the 1989 date was still valid and what was the reasoning for the date. Subsequently,
during the July 17 regular City Council meeting, the issue was moved forward to the Planning
Commission, i.e. to assign review of the zoning code relations regarding tourist accommodations and
accessory dwelling units to the Planning Commission and request that they fit this into their work plan
as time is available.
Mr. Yarberry said that in researching the history, he found Ordinance 2155 that was passed by Council
in June of 1989. This was the earliest mention found of the Tourist Home, and has basically the same
definition of "what we have now ". He said he does not know the exact reason for the June 1, 1989
date, but that obviously it corresponds to this ordinance. The rationale seemed to be that if a dwelling
was built before that date, it should be " grandfathered" in. This relates to accessory out buildings. The
way the tourist home provisions are written in the code, you may have a tourist home within your
residence. You may have one or two guest rooms within your primary residence and you may rent them
out, regardless of when your home was built. It seems that the intent was clearly to prevent people
from building out buildings after 1989 to be used exclusively as tourist homes. As Ms. Sandoval (as
private citizen) said that that may very well relate to the ADU provisions that came forth in the same
time period.
Ms. Slabaugh asked "Was the ADU provision right at the same time, or was it after that?" Ms.
Sandoval responded that she thought it was after that. Mr. Sepler said that he was employed by the City
as of 1990, recalled that it was after 1989, and that it was a chance to use adaptive reuse of existing
buildings without changing the scale or character of the neighborhood. The intent was to set a bar;
adding new things after that date was considered an alteration of the fabric because it would change the
open spaces and spaces between buildings.
Chair Randels said that his reading of this definition was different than what he had been told
previously. He said it had been his understanding that the grandfather clause applied not just to an
existing structure, but also to an existing use. Thus, an instance was considered grandfathered or
permitted only if you had actually been using the structure as a transient accommodation prior to that
date. However, the language refers only to the date of the structure. Mr. Yarberry replied that that was
one of the questions that had arisen in the Council discussion. The verbiage talks about a structure that
was lawfully established. Council had discussed whether that was physical structure or also use. He
said that as he searched through historical documents, he could not find anything containing "whereas"
clauses, that would explain the background and intentions.
Ms. King stated that this was not just a generic grandfathering. She said this was specific; they wrote
this, so they were not just talking about grandfathering in general. She said "I think you are exactly
right; they are saying to prohibit people from building an ADU and renting it out — they wanted to stop
that." She added, "But they were saying, "If it's already there, even if it hasn't been used, you can go
ahead and use it.' "' She said that this doesn't have anything to do with grandfathering an existing use —
that it's a new ordinance.
Mr. Randels said that the other question he had was "Does a tourist home have to get a specific kind of
CO? Mr. Yarberry replied, "A Conditional Use Permit ". Mr. Randels: "And does that include with it
some kind of linkage with the taxing jurisdictions that would apply to transient uses ?" Mr. Sepler said
that, as he understood it, when one applies for the business license, if there are additional taxes or
permits required, they (city staff) take care of it at that time. Mr. Randels asked about ongoing taxes,
and requested that those issues be added to the list. He said that additional information was needed on
how exactly the linkage is established and maintained. Mr. Unterseher interjected that the list must
include enforcement as well, and Mr. Randels said that was included with the points he was raising.
Mr. Unterseher added that he knew of many places that have no licenses or permits at all, but that
nothing is being done about those situations.
Mr. Sepler said that a preliminary survey had been done of those accommodations that are advertised;
that item will be later in the discussion. He said that the first question is "Is it still valid to say we don't
wish to permit the construction of a new tourist homes" "Is this date still valid, or have circumstances
or conditions changed such that this should be amended ?" Ms. King interjected with a comment, " But
people can still do this in their own home." "So, if someone wants to rent out a bedroom in their brand
new Victorian, they can do that" Mr. Sepler said, "It's building a second structure on the lot ". The
stipulation regarding the use of the kitchen was mentioned by Ms. Slabaugh. Ms. King mentioned that
ADUs would have a kitchen, and asked how one would be able to say that renters weren't using the
kitchen,
Mr. Sepler asked "What data would help the Commission? Mr. Randels said that the advice of the City
Attorney might be needed. He said that he thought the date was significant because it was just prior to
the enactment of this ordinance. He stated that "somebody felt that at least equity called for allowing
either pre- existing dwellings or uses. "I read it that what they wrote was dwellings but they may have
meant uses. But, in any event, they felt that they couldn't make illegal, what was already in existence,
as of the day of the enactment of the ordinance. So, if that were the case, and if it were constitutionally
required at that time, and the legal situation hasn't changed since that time, then it seems to me that we
have to stick with that date:' Ms King: "Why would we change the date ?" Mr. Randels said, "To
outlaw it altogether, but then I would expect there to be a problem with that."
Mr. Sepler said that, as he recalled, there were a number of ordinances adopted between 1989 and 1993
that had a threshold date, and to be fair, it was a political expediency. The wisdom of Solomon, the
compromise, was to allow those in opposition, those who had something to lose, to retain that, but to
draw the line there. Mr. Yarberry added that from the staff perspective there are other issues besides
the 1989 date related to construction. "The way this is currently written, you can get a conditional use
for a tourist home within your house, if you want to rent out a bedroom or two. You can also do an
addition to an existing building, and get a major conditional use for that, as a tourist home. So, in
essence, the way it is written, you can build a new addition strictly for the purposes of a tourist home,
but you can't build an accessory building strictly for the purposes of a tourist home. "So, that would be
the other question, i.e. Is there any problem with that? We are looking for the philosophical direction."
Mr. Ray said that he had several questions regarding the enforcement issue. "You mentioned
something about an informal survey based on advertised versus permitted." He asked what the costs
would be for city administration to start to police this or enforce this in some way. He said that he was
aware, as were others, that many people were doing this under the radar, so to speak. "How do we
survey that and what are the costs associated with those options?" Mr. Yarberry said that as this issue
is processed through the Planning Commission and through the City Council, if so directed, staff would
evaluate all that would be entailed: what is needed for licensing, physically tracking, and what
resources would be required. He said that staff needs to know what the scope is in order to estimate the
costs.
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 10, 2006 Page 4 of 9
Mr. Randels said that the Commission would be also want to hear staff recommendations regarding
additional tools that would be useful in dealing with this. He cited an example from Seattle where a
fine of $5,000 had been instituted for those in violation of ADU regulations. He noted that other tools,
including those that offset cost or generate revenue should be considered.
Ms. Slabaugh said that she wished to clarify the options. "One is to throw out the date, and apply the
restriction to every ADU, regardless of when it was built. You also brought up the question of whether
we should be having tourist homes — that was put on the table for the Planning Commission to discuss
and provide some direction on. Do you have any sense of the options or a limited number of
scenarios ?" Mr. Sepler said "Yes, once the concerns and questions are identified, staff can come back
with a series of interventions. And, for the enforcement, have a follow up on that. First, the Planning
Commission would say what it wishes to achieve, and then staff can come back with different
approaches that would achieve that. For tonight, we are looking for guidance. If you think things are
fine, that there is no need for interventions, that is one thing. If you identify things like the rentals,
uses, inappropriate uses, then we would need to look for other techniques." He noted that Port
Townsend is not alone, and that another community, Newport Beach, has a 56 page manual to deal with
transient housing and enforcement, because they have over 1,000 homes by the beach that are rented.
He said that San Juan County has a significant problem and have gone through an extensive process.
He said that those related materials could be provided as a starting point, and to derive three or four
basic approaches to be considered.
Ms. King said that she thought one of the most significant factors was affordable housing, as Ms.
Sandoval had noted, but that adding on tourist homes was not an issue. "That's not tourist homes, that's
just bedrooms, that's not taking away (residences). It's the small ADUs that someone can actually live
in, that can be affordable housing, that we are trying to preserve. Mr. Randels added that that is
whether or not it's a separate building. She said that, with regard to add -ons, they are still bedrooms,
and that is not diminishing affordable housing. She said she didn't have a problem with the current
regulations, including the ability to rent out ADUs on a month to month basis, 30 or more days.
Mr. Unterseher said he did not see a definition of the term "Tourist ". He asked, "If I wanted to trade my
home for a month with someone in Europe, would that be allowed ?" Mr. Sepler said that with transient
accommodations, he would be in great shape: transient accommodations are less than a month.
Mr. Sepler summarized, stating that he understood that the Planning Commission would like to have
more information, would like to see how other communities are dealing with the whole suite of issues,
and would appreciate if staff would prepare a small set of approaches for consideration. Mr. Emery
suggested that if the current approach is retained, that at least it should be clarified, since it is confusing
to many people. Mr. Yarberry added that he thought that perhaps staff could bring forward some
modified definitions to help define the legally established process. Mr. Randels added that "whereas's"
should be added, as well. Mr. Sepler said that recitals were not done until the late 1990s. He noted that
staff may need to look at the whole suite of definitions and how they interrelate: transient
accommodations, bed and breakfast; guest house, detached bedroom, etc.
B. Briefing and Commission Discussion: Transient Vacation Rentals
Rick Sepler, Planning Director
Mr. Sepler distributed copies of EXH. 2; He described the issue of past and current interest in and
instances of short term (daily, weekly, less than 30 day) rental of single family residences,
condominium units, and ADUs in the residential district. He said interest in and actual instances of
these are increasing. He said the DSD staff person who deals with this has documented that there are
two or three inquiries per week. Potential buyers of houses, condos, apartments are asking if they may
legally rent these units out, and that issue is "obviously factoring into the decisions they are making
economically, to purchase or not purchase. The answer is based on the municipal and state codes."
"Transient accommodations" are less than 30 days in tenure. He said that there is a body of case law on
the subject, related to both sides. However, the bottom line is that if you wish to rent something out, it
needs to be more than 30 days.
Mr. Sepler said that the concern is not only regarding the rental of single family dwellings, but also in
the commercial district. He said that many of the office buildings downtown are being converted from
offices to residential, and there are many inquiries about this. It is less clear in the downtown,
especially C -III zoning, whether it is legal or not. A case in point: the City approved and permitted two
accommodations, the one above Park Place for nightly rentals, and the other is above Elevated Ice
Cream. By the same logic, since they are basically single family accommodations, or apartments, one
could construe that condominiums could be rented. He said it was not clear in the code, and he would
need to do additional research. He stressed that these are currently permitted and therefore not illegal,
but that the code is not perfectly clear. He said that with approximately 40 to 50 housing units going in
downtown, this becomes more of an issue.
Mr. Sepler said that transient accommodations bring visitors and visitors help the local economy.
However, vacation rentals, especially those in residential districts, can generate an intensity of use not
typically found in a residential district, such as outdoor noise, increased car trips, increased traffic, and
increased number of cars parked on the street. While the net impact is not necessarily negative, many
shoreline communities have had problems. He mentioned Manzanita and Cannon Beach, two examples
of communities where steps were taken to limit the number of rentals. Currently, Port Townsend
allows Tourist Homes (conditionally - MC 17.32.3), Bed and Breakfast Inns ( conditionally — MC
17.7), and Guest House or detached bedroom, outright, although transient rental is limited. ADUs are
allowed and some are used for transient accommodations. Of the 22 units that are listed for transient
accommodations in the PT Guide, only 8 have permits for those uses, according to City records. Mr.
Sepler noted that there may be one or more cases where a permit predates City records, or there is some
other explanation than an outright violation. Mr. Randels said that this only includes the most visible,
and there are many others who are not openly advertising and who are less likely to have permits. Mr.
Sepler responded that advertising is the lifeblood of the rental business and those who do not advertise
are less of a problem due to lower volumes.
Mr. Sepler said that the approach would be to look at the validity of the current policy. The Planning
Commission is charged with examining the policy and determining whether this is still valid, as is or
with modifications. If valid then it might be in the best interests of the City to recommend a clarifying
amendment on the uses. For example, augment the Use Table to specifically prohibit or allow certain
accommodations where the Table is now silent on the matter, ie. weekly or nightly rental of single
family homes. If the approach should be revisited, then the limitations or conditions under which uses
are permitted must be defined. He suggested the possibility of limiting the number of rentals via a
Binding Site Plan, a contract used in the establishment of condominiums, of which Aldrich's is an
example. Mr. Randels said that that could subsequently be changed by the owners. Ms. Sandoval
noted that banks or lending agencies often require such a limitation. Mr. Randels said that it was
helpful to know about the existing approved transient accommodations downtown, and that he believed
the City would do well to establish their own rules limiting the number and density of such facilities.
Mr. Lizut requested that, as possible, staff include the anticipated consequences for each of the options
that would be listed for the Planning Commission to consider. He said that since risk is the probability
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes --A UgLISt 10, 2006 Page 6 of 9
of occurrence times the consequence, this would help the Commissioners evaluate the options.
However subjective, Mr. Lizut said that he still believed it would be helpful to at least identify all the
factors for those who did not have a great deal of background in this area. He said that staff was better
positioned to make those guesses. Mr. Sepler said that typically the staff would prepare the options,
with pros and cons for each, and a recommendation. The Planning Commission would then choose one
of the options or a hybrid of two or more of the choices, or come up with its own. He said that the role
of staff is to organize, analyze and "digest" the problem down to a set of options. Before that step
occurs, however, there should be an understanding of "how much tourism is OK" and " is the current
pool of accommodations adequate, does it need to be increased, or is there already a surplus of tourist
accommodations ? ".
Ms. King asked how difficult it is currently to get a transient accommodations permit. In reviewing the
memo from staff (EXH. 2 ), she was confused about the reasons certain permits had been denied. There
was a brief discussion about the difference between a transient accommodation and a tourist home, the
significance of the presence of a kitchen, and the state regulations prohibiting transient
accommodations in a residential district. Ms. King and Mr. Emery each spoke of the need for more
quantitative information about the types and occupancy rates of the current pool of accommodations.
Mr. Sepler recalled testimony at City Council on prior ordinances. He said that the owners of motels
and hotels were indifferent to increases in rooms. Bed and Breakfast operators were most opposed to
increases. He said that there are instances during the summer when there are no vacancies anywhere in
town, and that the Chamber of Commerce can provide statistical data in that regard. He defined the
issue as whether or not to wait for a new hotel to be built or to select a hybrid model, allowing a certain
portion of additional rooms to come from smaller accommodations such as B & Bs or Tourist Homes.
Mr. Yarberry said that the types and quantities of accommodations should be surveyed, assuming that
there is a range of personal preferences among tourists for commercial hotels /motels, B & B's and
Tourists Homes.
Mr. Unterseher reported an incident where 23 students with 18 cars rented a room, and voiced concern
about parking problems in residential areas. Mr. Sepler acknowledged the challenge of balancing
potential parking, traffic and noise problems with the income benefits for B & Bs and Tourist Homes.
He noted that currently there is some non - compliance but that there is no "hue and cry" relating to the
status quo.
Mr. Lizut returned to the question of how much tourism is enough. He said that the driving
consideration is economic impact. He asked staff to provide any information they could find related to
economics. Mr. Sepler recalled a study comparing RV visitors to those who used hotel or tourist
accommodations. He said that RV visitors spent only an average of $11 per day (in addition to RV
fees) versus much higher spending for those who rented rooms and took their meals in restaurants, etc.
He also pointed out the question of whether property owners should be granted additional rights to rent
out as they see fit.
Mr. Ray stated that a great deal depends on how the community deals with these issues. He cited the
example of the Outer Banks in North Carolina, which has evolved into a big economic engine but
totally lacking in community. He said that the philosophical basis is very important. He and Mr. Lizut
agreed that having the economic data is important for understanding the tradeoffs.
Mr. Sepler summarized his understanding of the Planning Commissioners' requests. He said that
packets of materials would be assembled, including information from other communities for reference.
Staff will supplement the information already provided with additional tourism data from LTAC and
industry statistics, as well as a discussion of anticipated benefits/impacts for the full range of options.
Mr. Unterseher asked about the relevance of time - sharing to this topic. After a brief discussion, Mr.
Sepler agreed to include any available relevant information on time - sharing. Mr. Emery also suggested
a search of local newspaper archives for articles related to the 1989 date.
Mr. Sepler reported that a draft schedule had been prepared, but Mr. Randels confirmed that it had not
yet been e- mailed to Commissioners. Mr. Sepler said that this would be on the agenda at the next
meeting. It will include Shoreline Plan, adoption of standards for Stormwater into the CAO, Housing
Needs Assessment, and other ongoing planning issues.
Additional Comments:
Relating to the schedule, Mr. Randels said that he wished to explain to Ms. Sandoval (as a City
Councilor) why the Planning Commission had postponed decision and recommendation on the
Stormwater /CAO issue. He said that the late hour objection and pending litigation by Ms. Dorgan
seemed of sufficient importance to wait for advice from Mr. Watts.
Ms. Sandoval stated that she wished to add to her earlier testimony. She said that even though she had
strong personal opinions regarding the need to restrict or seriously limit transient rentals in residential
districts, as a City Council member she appreciated the need to understand and weigh the economic cost
and benefits. She also noted, referring to EXH. 2, that in several instances, homeowners who had
withdrawn or had been denied permits were now operating in violation of the regulations. She
reminded that there are negative economic impacts from that situation, and therefore enforcement
should be a major consideration. Mr. Randels expressed his total agreement that enforcement must be a
high priority. Ms. Sandoval said that there is a zone in the County's Comprehensive Plan, Small Scale
Tourist and Recreational Zone, that has not yet been used. She said this can be applied anywhere, but
that the approval process is stringent, involving an evaluation of the costs and benefits on the
neighborhood. She said she had spoken with others about the potentiality applicability to the
Palindrome property. She added that if it is determined that Port Townsend needs additional
accommodations, then this, along with very heavy fines for violators, may be an appropriate part of the
solution. She said that meanwhile, the (illegal) short term rental of private homes, not just ADUs, was
increasing and becoming more of a problem.
Mr. Ray asked if there were examples of other communities that were doing this really well, suggesting
that Port Townsend could build upon a successful model and expend its resources in improving it even
more. Ms. Sandoval said that she only knew of negative examples and that perhaps that by the time
communities become aware, it is usually too late. Therefore, in her opinion, the time for addressing this
in Port Townsend is now. There was a brief additional discussion mentioning the San Juans, Orcas
Island, Manzanita and Cannon Beach. Mr. Sepler added that Port Townsend had the advantage over
most of the other communities in that there is a standing regulation clearly saying it is not allowed now.
If the current policy is affirmed, then the next step is to acknowledge the fragile nature of the current
status. Mr. Randels added that an enforcement philosophy that relies solely on complaints is
unacceptable.
Ms. Slabaugh pointed out that perhaps the definition of Tourist Home was a problem. She said that
although renting out bedrooms was permitted, and use of a kitchen was not, this was impossible to
monitor and enforce_
There was general agreement that there are probably 100 to 200 instances of homes being rented out,
most of which were "under the radar", but in violation of city or state regulations. Ms. Sandoval added
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes — August 10, 2006 Pagc 8 of 9
another consideration, that being the potential shift in dynamics of the people who are purchasing here.
She said that certain people will not buy a second or third property here, if it is not legal to rent it out.
But, if it is legal to rent the property out, people will buy properties as investments instead of as their
own residence.
Chair Randels asked if there were any other comments or questions. Ms. Slabaugh asked that the staff
attempt to provide not just economic data, but any experience from other communities about the
process and outcome. She observed that in attempting to preserve certain values (of community and
quality of life), there would be strong opposing economic forces (profit and return on investment), and
she wondered how Manzanita and Cannon Beach had faired in this. She asked what the result would be
if and when Port Townsend began to enforce regulations that are now overlooked. There was
additional discussion of whether implementation of the Small Scale Tourist Zone, within limits, would
be a good way of working with the economic forces.
Mr. Sepler reminded that whatever steps are taken, there will he reactions and consequences.
Aggrieved parties will come to City Council meetings to voice their disagreement. He said that the
situation is dynamic and there will reactions no matter what action or inaction is taken.
Ms. Sandoval also suggested that whatever forms of accommodations are allowed, Transient
Accommodation insurance should be a requirement. Mr. Emery added that the health and safety
aspects should also be included.
VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS
Next Meeting: August 24, 2006 CAO Update (Hearing Continued from 6/27)
IX. COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Sepler informed the Commissioners that a Training Session would be scheduled for new
Commissioners when Mr. Watts, City Attorney, returned from his vacation later in August.
X. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Lizut moved that the meeting be adjourned, and Mr. Randels seconded, with all in favor. Chair
Randels adjourned the meeting at 8:18 PM.
/l.
George Randels, Chair
Gail Bernhard, Recorder