HomeMy WebLinkAbout08191996 PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF AUGUST 19, 1996
The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this 19th day of August, 1996,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Julie McCulloch presiding.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present at Roll Call were Bill Davidson, Dan Harpole, Diane Perry-Thompson, Ted
Shoulberg, Ian Keith, Kathryn Jenks and Jean Camfield. Also present were City Clerk Pam Kolacy,
City Administrator Michael Hildt, Police Chief Jim Newton, Assistant City Attorney Mary Winters,
Director of Public Works Bob Wheeler, Bob La Croix, Water Quality, Director of Building &
Community Development Dave Robison, Building Official Rob Sears, Assistant Fire Chief Tim
Aumock, Library Director Linnea Patrick, and Sheila Avis, Minute Taker.
INTRODUCTIONS and/or RECOGNITIONS
Summer interns were introduced and commended for their work throughout the summer:
Francesca O'Keefe and Brie Roberson, Building & Community Development; Becky Lloyd, Police
Department; Ashley Crest and Noah Piper, Water Quality Department.
Mayor McCulloch read a proclamation designating August 25, 1996, as Joseph Wheeler Day in Port
Townsend. She noted that Mr. Wheeler is retiring after serving as Director of the Centrum
Foundation for many years, and spoke about his contribution of service to the City. She announced
a reception in Mr. Wheeler's honor following the Marrowstone Music Festival Concert at Fort
Worden August 25, 1996. The reception is open to the public.
PRIORITY PRESENTATION
There was none.
AGENDA CHANGES OR ADDITIONS
The following were added to the Consent Agenda:
· Memorandum from Assistant Fire Chief Tom Aumock requesting approval of purchase of High
Pressure Air Compressor (funding received under 1996 Supplemental Budget)
(Councilmember Keith requested the memorandum for purchase of the air compressor be
discussed and moved from the Consent Agenda to unfinished Business Item C.)
· A letter dated August 14, 1996, from Quent and Joy Goodrich to Channeling Communications
Councilmember Davidson requested the two Public Hearings be reversed and the ordinances under
Unfinished Business A and B also be reversed. The order of the Public Hearings was left unchanged.
Councilmember Camfield stated she would abstain from items D E and F on the Consent Agenda
because of her relationship with the School District.
CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Camfield made a motion to approve the following items on the Consent Agenda as
amended which was seconded by Councilmember Harpole and passed unanimously by voice vote.
Approval of the following Bills and Claims:
010 Current Expense $ 21,968.72
094 Garbage 43,065.00
110 Street 12,685.67
120 Library 1,821.85
130 Park 8,548.32
150 Hotel/Motel Transient Tax 4,000.00
180 Capital Improvement 124.62
411 Water-Sewer 105,583.52
412 Storm and Surface Water 50,436.87
500 Equipment Rental 3,430.71
610 Firemen's Pension and Relief 218.88
614 Fire Dept Pump Test Pit Fund 104.30
Total $ 251,988.46
Approval of Resolutions:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-111
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT
TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO
THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH POLARIS ENGINEERING
AND SURVEYING TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF THE DISCOVERY ROAD REPAIR PROJECT.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-112
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A MEMORANDUM
OF UNDERSTANDING WITH PUD #1 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY REGARDING
THE JEFFERSON COUNTY WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-113
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
2
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PORT
TOWNSEND SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE CITY USE OF ITS POOL FOR THE
CITY RECREATION PROGRAM.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-114
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A RENTAL OFFICE SPACE
AGREEMENT WITH THE PORT TOWNSEND SCHOOL DISTRICT IN
EXCHANGE FOR IN-KIND SERVICES
RESOLUTION NO. 96-115
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
TO ENTER INTO AN INTER-AGENCY COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH
THE PORT TOWNSEND SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 50 FOR AN AFTER-
SCHOOL RECREATION PROGRAM, EFFECTIVE UPON AGREEMENT
SIGNATURES OF BOTH PARTIES.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-116
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
ADOPTING THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Communications:
A letter dated August 4, 1996, from W. C. Henry, Attorney at Law, Port Townsend requesting his
letter to the Editor together with the Editor's response be printed in The Leader correcting a
statement falsely attributing a quotation by him degrading the Port Townsend Police Department
regarding Officer Lohner. (For information.)
A letter dated August 5, 1996, from Lewis D. Matthews, Renton, Washington to Police Chief
Newton commending the Port Townsend Police Department and in particular Officer Ed Green for
his professionalism and attitude during a boating incident August 2. (For information.)
A letter dated August 5, 1996, to Mayor McCulloch and copied to Council from Dyrk Lansdon
regarding Code City status for Port Townsend. (For information.)
A letter dated August 5, 1996, from Kenneth M. Uznanski, Jr., Manager, Rail Office, Washington
State Department of Transportation regarding rail system improvements, noting that open houses
will be conducted to present more information, revised rail corridor plans, and answer questions.
(For information.)
A memorandum dated August 14, 1996, from Public Works Director R. Wheeler regarding Progress
Payment No. 4, Tri-Area Well Upgrade and project activity summary Construction Status Report by
Seaboard Construction, Inc., Contractor. (For information.)
A letter dated August 8, 1996, from Louise Frombach, 1306 Cleveland, Port Townsend, and the
reply dated August 14, 1996 from Mayor McCulloch answering concerns with possible dump fees
for trash and yard waste at the City's compost facility. (For information.)
An undated copy of the Crime and Policing in Port Townsend COPAB survey presentation given
to City Council August 5, 1996, by Hendrik Taatgen. (For information.)
Final Version of the City of Port Townsend 1997 Budget Calendar, dated August 14, 1996, from City
Treasurer S. Thompson. (For information.)
A letter dated August 14, 1996, from Quent and Joy Goodrich, Port Ludlow, Washington, in support
of the franchise application of Summit Cablevision. (For information.)
This concludes the Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
STAND1NG/ADHOC COMMITTEE REPORTS
Housing and Community Services. Councilmember Perry-Thompson
August 13, 1996
Discussion items:
· Ordinance on Garbage Collection
Youth AdHoc Committee. Councilmember Perry-Thompson
August 15, 1996
Discussion items:
· Boiler Room -- soup kitchen and job services programs to continue
Developing Mentoring Program
Hope for temporary quarters for 1 year, then permanent
Water Advisory_ Committee. Councilmember Jenks
Sub-Committee -- WACTREE (City's timber properties)
Set meeting -- September 6, 1996, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Agenda: Tour (Meet at Haines Place -- notify Anne at Public Works)
Finance Committee. Councilmember Davidson
August 9, 1996
Discussion items:
· Sheri Robison Tourism Advisory Group Community Fund requests --Total requested $3,700 from
$7,000 fund balance. All four requests met criteria and were approved:
Wooden Boat Foundation; Greater Port Townsend Bay Kinetic Sculpture Race; Sustainable
Development Council and Skookum; Mainstreet Program of Port Townsend
· Bob Wheeler -- Equipment Rental Fund regarding 1997 Budget Cycle; discussion to be continued
· Replacement for Randy Drackett, Civil Engineer; salary ordinance to be presented at the
September 3 Council meeting
August 14, 1996
Discussion items:
· Utility Rate Study
Scope of work -- Economic Engineering Services (EES) for 1997 Utility Rate Study
Scenarios for water and waste water rates:
1) Base Budget, or 0 percent increase budget, plus Capital Projects for 1997 from CIP.
2) Also Base Budget, plus Capital Projects from the 1997 CIP, plus increments
Both include System Development Charges (SDCs) to pay future CIP projects
and not used for debt service.
Randy Pendergrass will be working with EES on these projects in preparation for the City to run
its own utility rate studies.
· Impact fees
Set meeting -- September 11, 1996
Agenda: Water and Waste water
Set meeting -- September 18, 1996 (Extended)
Agenda: Review of proposed 1997 Capital Budget and Utility Rate Studies
Set meeting -- September 19, 1996
Agenda: Additional scenarios
Set meeting -- September 25, 1996
Agenda: Final Recommendations for the Mayor
Public Safety_ Committee. Councilmember Jenks
August 9, 1996
Discussion items:
· Emergency Management Plan
Amended to establish committee
Council's role in emergencies -- Decision making level
1) Food and shelter and where to go
2) Ordinances to put response in place
Set meeting -- September 5, 1996, 4:00 p.m.
Agenda: Makeup of Emergency Management Committee
Set meeting -- September 26, 1996, 2:30 p.m.
Agenda: Public Safety Facility representative sites with Mr. Blackstone
Transportation. Councilmember Camfield
August 14, 1996
Discussion items:
·
Set meeting -- August 20, 1996, 10:00 a.m (Meet at Pope Marine Park)
Agenda: Handicap Accessibility Tour
5
Parks, Recreation and Property_. Councilmember Harpole
August 8, 1996
Discussion items:
· Union Wharf policies -- Dave Robison will take lead to prepare policy workshop in the fall
· School contracts -- as approved on Consent Agenda
· Park & Recreation Functional Plan update -- targeted for early October
· Railroad Span
Parks & Recreation Commission. Councilmember Harpole
Discussion items:
· Golf course -- met to set strategy
Preference to extend contract with Mr. Early for 1 year.
Benefits include:
Park & Recreational Functional Plan (Community input)
1 year track record of financial recording (Stacey Thompson working with this)
Management form study (Chair Jim Farmer and Tim Caldwell suggestion)
MOTION Harpole Request the City Attorney's Office have discussions with Mr. Mike
Early to see if he is interested in extending the terms of his contract to
manage the City Golf Course for one year until October 31, 1997.
SECOND Davidson
Discussion: Councilmembers Keith and Shoulberg voiced concem with the surprise
element and expressed uncertainty. Councilmember Harpole apologized, but said if Mr. Early is not
interested, they have to do something quickly. Councilmember Camfield noted the City does not
own the equipment, but more important there have not been good records. She spoke of successfully
extending a lease on a far better footing and being able to decide what to do with the golf course.
Councilmember Davidson said other reasons expressed at the meeting were that the City is ill
prepared what form to take when the lease is over. He said this represents a good opportunity for
additional time needed to determine conclusions. Councilmember Jenks suggested working on a list
of potential strategies and having further discussion, rather than making a decision.
Attorney Mary Winters spoke of the short term difficulty and need to come to decision soon.
Councilmember Shoulberg suggested the City could do some leasing of golf carts, etc.. There
was further discussion about cost analysis and financial concerns, and Mr. Wheeler expressed
concern at the time it would take to do the cost analysis.
VOTE After next Public Comment period.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Julie McCulloch reported material for Code City status has been prepared for public hearing
September 3, 1996.
STAFF REPORTS
Library_: Director Linnea Patrick
Reported there is no Council representation scheduled for the next Library Board meeting. Mayor
McCulloch volunteered to attend, due to lack of an available Council member, It was announced
pie and ice cream will be served at 6:00 p.m. in honor of Library Board Member Gwen Howard,
whose term is expiring and has chosen not to take another term after many years of service on the
Library Board.
Police Department: Police Chief Jim Newton
Had to leave to attend the School Board Meeting.
Fire Department: Assistant Fire Chief Tim Aumock
Reported Fire Chief Scott thanked people for their cards and concern and said he would be back
from his illness after doctor's release in September. Mr. Aumock said the ambulance bid had come
in under budget and they are doing a review of the bid.
Councilmember Jenks expressed gratitude to the Fire Department for Mr. John Marr who had
recent concern of a fire in the woods.
PUBLIC COMMENTS/QUESTIONS
Mayor McCulloch opened the meeting for Public Comments/Questions. There being none, Mayor
McCulloch closed the Public Comment/Questions portion of the meeting.
VOTE ON MOTIONS MADE DURING COMMITTEE/STAFF REPORTS
Mayor McCulloch opened the meeting to the Public for comment on the motions made by Council
during the Committee/Staff reports.
Golf course vote--
VOTE By voice -- 5 in favor, Councilmembers Shoulberg and Keith opposing.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Cable Franchise Agreement (See Unfinished Business for Master Cable
Non-Exclusive
Ordinance)
Councilmember Harpole made the presentation and stated the Cable Advisory Committee appointed
by Mayor John Clise began gathering the community's preference for Cable TV in Port Townsend
in February 1992. He said the past 2 years the franchise has been in negotiation and commended
Councilmember Shoulberg, Assistant City Attorney Mary Winters and consultants for their
7
assistance. He noted the minimal cost of setting up a small local television studio, and its benefits
to the community.
Mayor McCulloch opened the hearing to the public:
IN FAVOR:
PROPONENT -- Stephen Weed, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, of Summit
Communications, and Managing General Partner of Port Townsend Cable TV, Limited Partnership.
Mr. Weed thanked Councilmembers Shoulberg and Harpole and the consultants, stating they were
shrewd negotiators, but good. He said they had negotiated the highest technically advanced system
with the lowest cost..
Councilmember Jenks asked regarding improvements in satellite dishes of the early 90's. Attorney
Mary Winters cautioned the proponents have an expired Conditional Use Permit which will be
forthcoming as a quasijudicial matter, and Council should limit their discussion of the issue. Mr.
Weed said it will be required to upgrade their system.
Mr. Dave Dein, Washington State Manager for Summit Cablevision, said within the next 2 years
they would have an upgraded system to provide a minimum 70 channel capacity, that they are adding
public, educational and governmental (PEG) access channels at a cost of $0.45 per month to the
subscriber. He said the subscriber should expect a small increase in their cable bill because an
increase of City tax for cable service from 3% to 5% for a total increase of $1.60 including the PEG
cost and the basic Cable. He indicted it is a good agreement and positive to the community.
Councilmember Shoulberg noted for the public record, there is no tax on the cable agreement. He
said the City has the ability to level tax, but has not done that.
Mr. Dick Shipman thanked Council and Summit Cable for the agreement and the forward-looking
attributes. He suggested that with new public access, they have a public advisory board, so the
Council not be seen as running that channel. He spoke of Channel 8 improvement and the improved
telecommunication atmosphere and suggested that Summit display a schedule in the paper. He said
he is in favor of the ordinances and franchise agreement and thinks it will be an exciting 15 years.
A letter of support for the franchise agreement dated August 14, 1996, was read from Quent & Joy
Goodrich, Port Ludlow.
Mr. Mark Welch, Chair, Cable Advisory Committee, thanked Summit and Councilmembers
Shoulberg and Harpole. He said we have to be flexible, that to project the furore of information is
very difficult. He spoke about PEG and suggested some of the franchise fees go to the O&M budget
for the support of the PEG channel. He said they are going to have to forge some new alliances to
get the message out for the community to make this successful, for people to help operate it and
support it. He expressed a couple of concerns:
1) Part 76 subparagraph K -- some level of Signal calls should be assured for the franchise
2) Page 6 paragraph 15 -- other services. Suggest 25 "cable customers," rather than "cable systems."
Mr. Lon Hurd, Consultant, 3H Cable Communications, said the signal strength meets standards.
Mr. Robert Force said he had worked with TV and kids at the Chimacum School and cited several
exemplary results. He thanked Summit for being good partners and for bringing this franchise to the
community.
OPPOSITION: There was none.
Mayor McCulloch closed the hearing to the Public; Council discussion was deferred until after
the next public hearing.
Appeal of BCD Director's Determination. Case COD96-00015. Madge Wallin (Code
Enforcement Notice and Order dated June 3. 1996)
Director of Building & Community Development Dave Robison outlined the appeal hearing process.
The appellant requested that the Notice and Order be reversed.
Mr. Robison stated the key appeal issues:
1) Has Ms. Wallin complied with the conditions of the height variance?
2) Has the Appellant complied with the Uniform Building Code (UBC)?
He then read the Chronology of Events, beginning page 3 of the Staff Report and Recommendation
in the Administrative Appeal of the Madge Wallin Notice and Order as well as the Building Official
requests on page 14.
Notice of Appeal, City of Port Townsend, a, Washington municipal corp. v. Ms. Madge Wallin dated
June 11, 1996, was entered as Exhibit 13. Attachments to Exhibit 13 were copied and distributed
to Council later in the evening. Attorney Winters noted that only the contractor letter and the cover
letter from Mr. Swift are new; the other two documents are already in Council packets.
Councilmember Jenks asked regarding the May 2, 1995, John D. Swift submittal referenced on page
6 of the Staff Report and Recommendation and the notation of an out of date seal/stamp. Mr. Sears
stated his office called and found the stamp was valid and would be updated.
APPELLANT'S PRESENTATION:
Mayor McCulloch cautioned that aesthetics would not be considered as part of this hearing.
Attorney Don W. Taylor, Olympia, Washington stated that in 1993 a variance application was
granted that imposed three conditions:
1) All fences existing or proposed at heights greater than 6' shall apply for a building permit. (Mr.
Taylor said there was only a portion of the fence at that time that exceeded 6' and that was the
portion that paralleled the north boundary of what used to be the garage, the property to the
south.)
2) The subject portion of the fence which is in excess of 6' in height shall not be further increased
in height. (He said that has not happened.) The remaining portion of the fence shall conform
to the setback and height restrictions set forth in subsection 17.36.010, Fences and Hedges of
the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC). (He said he believes the remaining portion of the
fence does conform with setback and height restrictions.)
3) The applicant shall submit a report on the fence by a licensed and registered
Washington State engineer. The report shall address engineering for vertical and horizontal
stability, wind and seismic considerations, as well as any surcharges placed on the fence due to
changes in grade.
Mr. Taylor said this fence was built in 1993 entirely on Madge Wallin's property and was also built
entirely on the grade of her property as it existed in 1993; there was no change in grade of this
property as regards this fence. That portion that parallels the northerly wall of the building on the
property to the south complied with the height restrictions at that time.
Mr. Taylor said Ms. Wallin had three things to do:
1) Apply for a building permit;
2) Have an engineer review the fence and give a report stamped by a licensed engineer of vertical
and horizontal stability, wind and seismic consideration.
3) Pay any surcharges due to changes in grade.
Mr. Taylor said the Building Department is bound to the 1993 commitments and cannot bring in new
issues; when you have a building permit you have vested rights. He indicated Mrs. Wallin's
engineer is registered in the State of Washington and takes responsibility along with her for the
structural integrity of the wall, that his engineer's license in the Sate of Washington implies his being
an expert.. He said Ms Wallin has homeowners insurance, to protect her that if anything was to ever
happen with respect to any part of her building that would harm anybody. He said he submits she
has complied.
Councilmember Jenks asked why Ms. Wallin hired engineers, Swift and Tillman. Mr. Taylor said
he sent Mr. Swift from Olympia.
Councilmember Keith asked regarding new issues Mr. Taylor said the Building Department raised.
Mr. Keith asked regarding Mr. Taylor's statement that the engineer takes responsibility for the wall.
Mr. Taylor said the engineer takes responsibility for his certification. Discussion followed.
Councilmember Davidson said Variance Condition 1 states that all fences existing or proposed at
heights greater than 6 feet shall apply for a building permit. Mr. Taylor said they applied for a
permit, but never got it; he said it's an after-the-fact application. Councilmembers Davidson and
Camfield pursued the discussion regarding requirements of a building permit.
Councilmember Jenks said that Mr. Taylor had said that the variance condition violations were
paraphrased, but she wanted to note they are exactly as written on page 9.E. 1. of the Staff report and
10
recommendations.
Councilmember Keith referred to a letter from Mr. Sears to Mr. Taylor dated May 10,1996 (Exhibit
9-1) and asked regarding the statement, "This letter was issued without the benefit of a field
inspection." He questioned if Mr. Swift made a field inspection, and Mr. Taylor indicated he had
driven Mr. Swift to the site for a field inspection. Mr. Sears referred him to page 8 of the Staff
Report and Recommendations for clarification.
Councilmember Perry-Thompson again questioned Exhibit 9-1 and said she is not clear regarding
the statement, "... engineering and plans provided by J.D. Swift, P.E., are not adequate for obtaining
a building permit."
Mr. Sears stated that initially the City took the engineering that was submitted; Mr. Crandall, a third
engineer, looked at it. Mr. Sears said he and Mr. Crandall then went into the field to see if what
Mr. Swift submitted was what was in the field. Mr. Crandall in his letter of May 3, 1996 based on
a field inspection of the wall, indicated the wall does not meet the requirements of the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) and therefore a building permit could not be issued. Mr. Sears concurred with
Ms. Perry-Thompson's questioning that Mr. Crandall is a licensed engineer, and that Mr. Crandall
did not agree that the wall was stable. Mr. Sears noted that Mr. Crandall is in the audience and
available for questioning.
Councilmember Jenks asked regarding the license for Mr. Veda, the contractor. Mr. Taylor said it
is his understanding Mr. Veda was licensed and bonded when he performed this work.
Councilmember Keith referred to a letter from Mr. Veda in which he gave some data but made no
mention of the depth of the footing. He said in Mr. Swift's engineering it shows the depth of
footings to be 8" and asked where Mr. Swift got that information. Mr. Taylor said he dug out along
side the footing to measure it.
Councilmember Shoulberg asked Mr. Sears if he inspected the rebar. Mr. Sears said he was there
with Mr. Crandall when he made his inspection. Mr. Shoulberg asked Mr. Sears if the footing was
already poured, and he did not have any way of verifying if it was correct. Mr. Shoulberg questioned
if at the time of their inspection was there an 8' wall; Mr. Sears said there was at least an 8' wall,
depending from where you measured it. Mr. Harpole asked Mr. Sears for clarification of how he
measured. Mr. Sears said when these measurements were made for the variance, it was measured
from Ms. Wallin's property. He explained the UBC would define this wall as a retaining wall
because of what it holds back on one side, the differential height. Mr. Keith said that he believed
from an engineering standpoint the height of the wall would be from the base of the footing to the
top of the wall. Mr. Sears concurred and also answered that the height of this wall was about 10-1/2'
in some places and over 6' in others except for the 3' that are in the 20' setback. There was further
discussion regarding the process of measuring and heights of the wall.
Councilmember Jenks asked regarding the invoice shown on Exhibit 13. She said the invoice was
for $6,225, but the check was for less and asked if they were satisfied with his work. Mr. Taylor said
11
she was, but she should ask Ms. Wallin. Ms. Wallin said the difference of money was something
they traded.
Ms. Wallin referred to a signed statement from a mason, Hans Rau, who did other work for her, but
she said he did nothing on the wall, and that she had fired Mr. Rau. She said the work on the wall
was done by Mr. Dick Veda. She handed in a packet of material which was entered as an exhibit.
Councilmember Jenks asked Ms. Wallin if she hired Mr. Tillman to ascertain the integrity of her
wall? Ms. Jenks referred to a letter dated November 2, 1993 from Ms. Wallin to Ms. Bloomfield
noted in the Chronology of Events, Page 5, stating Mr. Tillman had been hired to do variance
required engineering for the wall. Ms. Wallin said Mr. Tillman was not hired, he offered to take her
papers to City Hall and that although he did not want to take it she paid him $100 to do that and for
some time she had spent in his office.
Mr. Sears read from the November 2, 1993 letter from Ms. Wallin to Ms. Bloomfield. He also read
an excerpt from a letter from Mr. Tillman dated November 5, 1993 requesting an extension of the
November 5th deadline to November 15th to allow Ms. Wallin's review of his material after her
return from being out of town. Mr. Sears said they had taken that to mean Mr. Tillman had been
hired by Ms. Wallin to do the engineering on the wall. He said subsequent to that they received all
of the paperwork Mr. Tillman generated in proposing an engineering fix to the wall as it stood to
make it stable.
Expert public testimony to support City Staff.'
Mr. Andy Crandall, expert engineering witness hired by the City to assess the engineering of the
wall. Mr. Crandall said he is an engineer registered in the State of Washington, owner of Polaris
Engineering in Port Angeles, also certified as a plans examiner by the International Conference of
Building Officials, the organization that writes the building code.
Mr. Crandall said by the UBC definition this is a retaining wall in that it supports differential soil
heights on the different sides of the wall, and by definition the height of a retaining wall is measured
from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall. He said based on those definitions this wall
is: a) a retaining wall greater than 4' high which requires engineering; b) greater than 6' high for its
entire length.
Mr. Crandall said that Mr. Swift's design for an 8' high fence was sent to him, and he could see
there were obvious errors. Mr. Swift's design shows the vertical reinforcing at 36" on-center in an
8" x 16" block. The openings in the block are in an 8" modulus, so it could be 32" or 40" on-center.
Mr. Crandall said later he was told it was 32" on-center, and thought it marginal, but ok; they had
a little more than they need for an 8' fence (not a retaining wall).
Mr. Crandall said he was asked to go out and look at the site and he saw a retaining wall up to
10' high, that has nothing to do with the plans Mr. Swift submitted. Mr. Crandall said based on an
analysis using the actual dimensions of what was built on the site, there are real significant problems
with the wall from a structural standpoint, and being a masonry wall it is heavy and the type of thing
that could hurt somebody if it falls down. He indicated there is a significant hazard.
12
Councilmember Camfield asked Mr. Crandall if he stated it was out of plumb. Mr. Crandall said
it leans away from wall and property, towards the Carriage House. Ms. Camfield asked what does
it do to the structure of the wall and its safety? Mr. Crandall replied it tends it make it more
unstable. He said the fact that it's leaning away from the side of the higher earth may be the result
of some displacement of some retained earth, or it may just have been built that way; at this time
there is no way to tell.
Councilmember Shoulberg asked if the drawings submitted by Engineer Swift were done after the
fact? Mr. Crandall said that he believed so.
Councilmember Harpole asked according to UBC code requirement, what would be a typical
violation of something being out of plumb. Mr. Crandall said there is nothing in the code allowing
any variance; it is to be built plumb.
Councilmember Keith asked regarding the footing, that Mr. Swifi's drawing shows an 8" x 16"
footing, and it shows the wall centered on the footing. He asked Mr. Crandall if that is what he
found. Mr. Crandall said it was not the case. Mr. Crandall said they verified it; he had a t-shaped
steel crow they used to verify the dimensions of the footing as well as a shovel. He said the footing
appears to be 4" to 5" thick and indicated code requires 8" thickness. Mr. Cmndall stated the picture
in Attachment A, Page 2, shows a horizontal reinforcing bar running through one of the cells. He
said there are vertical rebar in grouted cells which you can see. He submitted a photograph, Exhibit
#17 which shows the top of the wall with a cell filled with grout to within 2" or 3" of the top of the
wall; he said he can certify the top 2" to 3".
Mr. Shoulberg asked if Mr. Crandall had the opportunity to view Ryan Tillman's solution to the
wall? Mr. Crandall said from his memory it involved building buttresses from the wall at certain
intervals which would involve destroying part of the wall, and indicated that it would have worked.
Councilmember Perry-Thompson asked on which side were there buttresses? Mr. Crandall said on
one side, Ms. Wallin's side.
Mr. Sears asked Mr. Crandall to give his qualifications. Mr. Crandall said he has been a registered
engineer in California for 18 years, Washington 9 years, Oregon 6 or 7 years, graduate of CA. State
University, Fresno, graduate of Miami University of Oxford, Ohio; has been working as a Civil
Engineer, primarily in the design of structures involving concrete and steel for about the last 15
years, most of his work has to do with large industrial structures used in manufacturing or retail
sales. Another significant part of his work is in plan checking for various jurisdictions, e.g. Sequim,
Port Angeles and Port Townsend.
Mr. Crandall answered questioning and said the most probable failure for this wall is where the wall
joins into the footing. He said if vertical rebar goes the whole length, which he assumes it does, the
vertical reinforcing to develop their strength in the footing needs to go so far into the concrete and
have a hook on the end so it won't pull out. He said the footing is too thin to allow for that required
distance; they need to be 4" into the footing, but to protect the rebar from corrosion it needs to be 3"
13
up from the dirt; you have a minimum 7" footing plus the thickness of the rebar. He said in this case
they are dealing with 3" to 4" footing; either the distance into the footing is too lime or the cover to
protect the reinforcing is too little. Mr. Crandall said he does not know whether or not there is rebar
in the footing, but even if there were the footing is too thin. He said that coupled with the fact that
it is not centered on the footing also affects the wall. He said the most critical is the thickness of the
footing. He could verify that even if you could chip away and fred rebar there is not enough concrete
there to hold it.
In Support of City Staff.'
Mr. Dave Ross who resides next to Ms. Wallin's wall said he is a credentialed, retired civil engineer
after 32 years of construction engineering. He said during the course of the construction of the wall
he saw no rebar in the footing of the wall. He said you can field verify fight now that in some places
the footing is a mere 3-1/2" to 3-1/4" thick. He said in some places it has not even been excavated
into the soil, it has been poured on top of the forms; some places you can still observe the form
boards are still in place and left to decay. That is just as far as the footings go. The actual blocks,
the concrete masonry units that were put in there were not reinforced in a horizontal direction for the
first 4 feet. He said you could also observe this by putting a stick down inside of it or a light down
inside of it and you will not observe any rebar down in the lower 4' of the wall. He also said there
were no vertical bars sticking up. He did observe that the bars laid in a horizontal direction were
butted to one another but there was not an adequate bonding.. He said the top of the wall has never
been sealed; there are two voids. He said it is a very dangerous attraction for kids getting arms and
legs in there and should be sealed immediately, regardless of what happens. He said his
recommendation is that the wall should be removed, even if it is 4' high.
Councilmember Shoulberg asked Mr. Ross how he knew there was no rebar. Mr. Ross replied he
saw the footing being poured and there was no rebar. Mr. Shoulberg asked what he observed
regarding tieing; Mr. Ross replied there were no vertical bars sticking up out of the footings and
affirmed he observed this during construction.
Councilmember Jenks said to Mr. Ross there is one major issue that the wall is unsafe. You live
next door. She asked if Attachment A, Page 2, lower photo with lawn chairs. Mr. Ross said that is
his neighbor's yard. She asked him if he ever felt unsafe; he replied that he did.
Mr. Ross suggested if there is real concern with the rebar they could do an ultrasound, or non-
destructive testing with x-ray.
Expert witness of those in supporting Ms. Wallin's appeal: Mr. Taylor said it is in the record.
Members of the Public supporting Ms. Wallin's appeal:
Ms. Mary Finch, 53rd and Iatndes, Port Townsend. She said the fence looks marvelous, that it is a
tremendous asset to the City.
14
Councilmember Jenks asked if in a public hearing a person say can what that want. Attorney
Winters affu'med Mayor McCulloch's statement that comments were to be limited to issues of the
hearing, that other comments could be made at the Public Comment portion of the meeting.
Ms. Lynn Nobel spoke to the appearance of the wall. She said the wall had been standing for 3 years
and indicated this is also an issue of art, that these other issues should also be considered.
Staff rebuttal:
Mr. Robison asked to allow Mr. Crandall to speak. Mr. Crandall said regarding the issue raised of
non-destruct testing, it is very expensive. He said if rebar is there, it is off-center and there is not
enough concrete in the footing.
Councilmember Shoulberg asked according to Mr. Ryan Tillman is there an engineering solution
even with the inadequate footing. Mr. Crandall said yes, it can be accommodated, that he believed
Mr. Tillman's statement covered that.
Councilmember Keith asked regarding Attachment B, Page 1, Exhibit 7. Mr. Sears said they were
pictures Ms. Wallin had submitted for her variance and they put in those pictures to show that if you
look at Exhibit 8 the wall had been increased in height after the variance had been granted, that the
wall over 6' was only for the portion next to the carriage house. Mr. Keith said in Exhibit 7 the wall
steps down to the nose where it is being advanced there, and he sees no footing at all in that
photograph. Mr. Sears said there may have been cold joints in that footing; they could have poured
it in sections.
Appellant Rebuttal:
Mr. Taylor said there are two ways to test for the rebar. The builder who actually built it said he put
it in, and someone is trying to say it isn't there. It should be tested then. Mr. Taylor said that Mr.
Ross testified with regard to the variance at two previous hearings Mr. Taylor attended, and he did
not remember Mr. Ross stating any concern about rebar in the footing or in the wall. He said there
is a record of that prior testimony, and he asked that Council take a look at it. Mr. Taylor said Mr.
Ross was unhappy because his house was too close to the property line. Councilmember Perry-
Thompson reminded Mr. Taylor the main problem is not the rebar but the thickness of the footing
and that the wall is not centered on the footing.
Ms. Wallin said she saw the rebar put in and paid for it. She said she has not calculated how much
cement went into the footing, but said she knows that footing is adequate. She further discussed her
concerns and said she had not put a cap on the wall because she wanted people to know there was
rebar in the wall. She questioned her freedom as a citizen.
Councilmember Jenks asked about the receipts in Ms. Wallin's packet, Exhibit 14. Ms. Wallin said
the receipts for Mr. Rau's work were for the barbecue and the fountain. She said Mr. Veda put in
15
all of the foundation and built the wall. He had to go to Alaska; she said Mike Bradley and Jimmy
Lavitt put the blocks in at the back to complete the wall.
Hearing Closed to the Public.
Councilmember deliberation:
Harpole noted the primary issue as public safety. He spoke of violation of the UBC and issues
pointed out on BCD Staff Report and Recommendations, pages 12 and 13 and said Council has an
obligation and responsibility to uphold the UBC as an element of our freedom. He expressed regrets
for Ms. Wallin, but recommended removing the wall or bringing it up to code.
Shoulberg reluctantly agreed and asked if a finding could be that they give Ms. Wallin time to
comply. He said they must affirm the building official's order, but asked what process happens next.
Attorney Winters outlined the process and said it is at the time of decision that penalties begin.
Jenks referred to the various statements and testimonies that the wall is unsafe. She suggested
giving Ms. Wallin time and that the City not require Ms. Wallin to pay for the separate engineering.
Keith spoke of the three engineers, two indicating one thing, and one another thing. He said
Council has to decide which one they f'md most credible, and in view of the fact the one Ms. Wallin
is relying on has not taken into account all forces on the wall and the thickness of the footing, he
finds they have to put their reliance on the other two engineers and uphold the City.
Davidson noted two issues: The wall was built in such a way that it required engineering and
a building permit prior to construction. The reason they added to the municipal code is public safety.
He said Mr. Swift did not do an as-is design, but an as-it-should-have-been-done design. Mr.
Davidson said it is apparent to him that the wall is hazardous.
Perry-Thompson said it is beautiful, that is not the issue; that it is not the good of the many. She
said we are here to follow the laws. She referenced UBC, Sections 1 and 106, that a building permit
must be obtained, not merely applied for. She said they were unfortunate things that happened and
difficult things have come from that, that has caused a nuisance, a safety hazard. Something has to
be done about it.
Camfield said this is the second of a series of agonizing events, but noted the chief reason they
are elected is public health and safety. She apologized to Ms. Wallin, and said she was sorry it had
to come to that.
Shoulberg again noted they all want relief for her and want an engineering solution. He
suggested they give her time to develop an engineering solution, but said it has gone on along
enough. He said he wants performance bonding, give her reasonable amount of time. Attorney
Winters explained there is no lien authority for bonding.
Councilmember Camfield asked if they could hear from the BCD? Mr. Robison made a suggestion
from a rough, a condition for relief based on some of the discussion. "The appellant shall obtain a
building permit that demonstrates adequate engineering consistent with the engineer's
recommendation contained in Exhibit 9-3. An engineering solution to comply with the UBC shall
be obtained within 30 days. Ifa permit is not obtained, the City would abate the wall and place a
lien on the property for the cost of the abatement and for professional services rendered." Attorney
Winters added, that under the enforcement ordinance, if the City has to either abate work or assesses
16
penalty, the lien is against the property, and is a joint and separate personal obligation of any person
in violation. She said that is the authority within their enforcement ordinance.
Councilmember Shoulberg said he does not want to go to court. Councilmember Jenks asked if the
property owner could voluntarily abate the wall. Attomey Winters said that is what you would do
first.
MOTION Shoulberg Deny the appeal and the appellant (per the recommendation of the
Building Official, the BCD or appropriate person) be given 30 days
to come up with an engineering solution, and that the appellant be
ordered to abate the wall, and the appropriate City procedures be
followed if the wall is not abated.
Discussion: Procedures were discussed. (Motion withdrawn.)
MOTION Jenks Referencing the Staff Report, Page 3.B.2.
Relief Requested NO. 1, That the Notice and Order be sustained and
affirmed and that the Council makes a factual fmding that Ms. Wallin
has failed to comply with the variance conditions and the Uniform
Building Code;
Relief Requested No. 2, The appellant shah obtain a building permit
that demonstrates adequate engineering consistent with the engineer's
recommendation contained in Exhibit 9-3. An engineering solution
to comply with the UBC shall be based on Exhibit 9-3 and shall be
obtained within 45 days beyond the reading of Findings of Fact and
Conditions at the next Council meeting. A permit shall be obtained
and corrective action completed and a final inspection issued within
150 days contingent on the 45 day period with the engineering
solution, otherwise the City would abate the wall and place a lien on
the property. Daily civil penalties shah be imposed effective upon
entry of Findings and Conclusions pursuant to PTMC 20.10.070 until
Ms. Wallin has fully complied with the Notice and Order or at such
time as the wall has been abated and until such time $100 per day fine
be imposed upon her;
Relief Requested No. 3, That Ms. Wallin not be required to reimburse
the City for Polaris Engineering inspection costs associated with the
reviewing her permit submittals heretofore;
Relief Requested No. 4, that the Building & Community Development
Director be directed to pursue all remedies to abate the "fence" and
pursue all remedies in accordance with PTMC 20.10.140.
SECOND Camfield
Discussion: Councilmembcr Harpole questioned Relief Requested No. 3, engineering fees--why
costs were incurred. The variance conditions were clear and were not followed and required the final
engineering sen/icc. Councilmembcr Shoulbcrg agreed the engineering was not followed and Ms.
17
Wallin needs to pay, not the taxpayers. Councilmember Davidson also agreed with the analysis.
VOTE 6 opposed; Councilmember Jenks in favor
MOTION
SECOND
VOTE
Shoulberg The same motion be made with the exception of changing Relief
Requested No. 3 to read "That Ms. Wallin be required to reimburse
the City for engineering inspection costs associated with reviewing
her permit submittals in accordance with Table l-A, "Building Permit
Fees," page 1-11, Chapter I of the Uniform Building Code."
Davidson
UNANIMOUS in favor
During the making of the motion Mayor McCulloch reopened the hearing for the limited purpose
of addressing Mr. Crandall on how much time it would take to craft a solution.
Mr. Crandall said 45 days should be adequate for Ms. Wallin to find an engineer, to have the
engineer design a solution and to prepare the documents adequate to making full application for a
building permit; construction time could take another 120 days tempered by weather conditions. Mr.
Harpole asked Mr. Crandall that with 60 days (45 days plus 15), if they were to grant 150 days, do
he think that would meet the needs. Mr. Crandall said he would think so.
The appellants had no comments and the Mayor closed the limited purpose hearing.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
ORDINANCE NO. 2536
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND GRANTING A NON-
EXCLUSIVE CABLE FRANCHISE TO PORT TOWNSEND CABLE TV
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ("OPERATOR"), AND PR_OVID1NG FOR
FRANCHISE FEES, TERM OF FRANCHISE, SERVICE AREA, TECHNICAL
STANDARDS AND EVALUATIONS, REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, ACCESS
CHANNELS, AN ACCESS EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES FUND, RETURN
LINES, A SYSTEM UPGRADE, PENALTIES, AND BOND AND INSURANCE
PROVISIONS IN CONNECTION WITH OPERATING A CABLE SYSTEM FOR
THE DISTRIBUTION OF TELEVISION SIGNALS, AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO SIGN A 15-YEAR RENEWAL FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH
THE OPERATOR
The Mayor read the ordinance by title.. The ordinance was previously read at the July 1, 1996,
meeting.
Councilmember Harpole brought up that Mark Welch had requested using 25% of the cable
customers rather than 25% of cable systems. Councilmember Shoulberg said Summit Cable would
prefer to leave it 25% of cable systems. After discussion it was determined to leave it as is.
18
Councilmember Davidson pointed out the Franchise Agreement, Section Fl4, last sentence,
"subsection B, below" should read "subsection 2, below." Other discussion of clarification followed.
It was pointed out the Fire Hall was overlooked and will be added to the list of public buildings to
receive free basic service on Page 8.
Councilmember Harpole made a motion that the Council adopt Ordinance No. 2536 as amended
which was seconded by Councilmember Perry-Thompson. Ms. Kolacy again read the ordinance by
title. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
ORDINANCE NO. 2637
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND ADOPTING A
MASTER CABLE ORDINANCE GOVERNING THE PROVISION OF CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS WITHIN THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND;
PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS, APPLICATION AND FRANCHISE FEES,
PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS, MINIMUM CONSTRUCTION AND
SAFETY STANDARDS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY REGULATIONS, NOTICE TO THE
CITY PRIOR TO INCREASING RATES, TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP,
REVOCATION OF FRANCHISE, AND OTHER FRANCHISE PROVISIONS
APPLYING TO ANY CABLE FRANCHISEE OPERATING IN THE CITY OF
PORT TOWNSEND
The ordinance was read by title. The ordinance was previously read by title at the July 1, 1996,
meeting.
Councilmember Camfield asked if there were any objections with her involvement in the Port
Townsend School District. Attorney Winters said this is legislative and it would not conflict.
The ordinance was amended to correct typographical errors on Page 10, 5.14.080, second line in both
occurrences, franchises changed to "franchisees."
Councilmember Shoulberg made a motion that the Council adopt Ordinance No. 2537 as amended
which was seconded by Councilmember Davidson. Ms Kolacy again read the ordinance and the
ordinance passed unanimously by roll call vote.
Air compressor from Consent Agenda:
Councilmember Keith asked about a shared cost with other entities and that the City not pay the full
cost of $15,000. Assistant Fire Chief Aumock said they had budgeted $10,000, Fire District #6
$2,500; and a $2,500 promissory note another Fire District.
MOTION Davidson
The bid for the air compressor be accepted in the amount as identified
on the August 15th memo from the Fire Department and with the
understanding that $5,000 will be reimbursed from other Fire
Districts.
19
SECOND Harpole
VOTE UNANIMOUS to approve
NEW BUSINESS
ORDINANCE NO.2543
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDING
CHAPTER 2.64, VACATION AND SICK LEAVE FOR CITY EMPLOYEES, OF
THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE, TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES TO
EMPLOYEE LEAVE POLICIES PURSUANT TO NEGOTIATED LABOR
AGREEMENTS AND TO ADOPT A FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
(FMLA) POLICY
Mayor McCulloch read the ordinance by title. Councilmember Davidson made a motion that the
first reading be considered the second and the third be by title only which was seconded by
Councilmember Perry-Thompson and passed unanimously by voice vote. Ms. Kolacy again read
the ordinance by title.
Councilmember Davidson made a motion that the Council adopt Ordinance No. 2543 which was
seconded by Councilmember Shoulberg and passed unanimously by roll call vote.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was none.
COUNCILMEMBERS GENERAL DISCUSSION
Councilmember Perry-Thompson reminded about the upcoming Brothers Four Benefit.
Councilmember Harpole spoke about the State Arts Commission and their notice of Port Townsend
being the smallest city in State with their own TV Station.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, at 11:34 p.m., Mayor McCulloch adjourned the meeting.
Attest:
Pamela Kolacy
City Clerk
20