Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12162002 Con't from 12112002CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING OF DECEMBER 11, 2002 (DECEMBER 16, 2002) The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in continued session this eleventh day of December, 2002, at 6:00 p.m., Mayor Kees Kolff presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present were: Joe Finnie, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Michelle Sandoval, and Alan Youse. City Attorney John Watts stated that another appearance of fairness issue has arisen. On Friday, December 13, Nancy Dorgan gave Mr. Watts the originals of some notes apparently made by two council members during the Wednesday evening public hearing on the Kelly Transit rezone matter. The notes were apparently recovered from Councilmembers' wastebaskets. One note appears to be an exchange between Council member Masci and Council member Finnie. Ms. Dorgan has asked about the appropriateness of Councilors making and exchanging notes during a quasi-judicial land use hearing. Mr. Watts stated he has reviewed the issue with attorneys at Municipal Research Service Center and provided them with a summary of the notes. Mr. Watts said that MRSC made the following comments with which he agrees: first, council members are free to make notes to themselves in quasi-judicial proceedings or legislative matters; second, notes, even if exchanged between council members, do not create an appearance of fairness violation; third, the better practice in quasi-judicial proceedings, even if not required by the appearance of fairness rules, would be to avoid doing anything that could be perceived as indicating bias or prejudgment such as exchanging notes; exchanging notes may give the impression that the decision maker has an undisclosed bias or prejudice or is trying to influence another member's decision other than by public comments; fourth, in all matters, the better practice is to maintain courtesy and decorum and avoid creating any impression of disrespect to others; fifth, that at the start of a quasi-judicial proceeding and continued hearing such as tonight council members should state whether they have any appearance of fairness issues to disclose; finally that notes made by Council members are not public in the sense that if the city received a public records request the city would not have to disclose them; if a public records request were received, the documents are exempt from public disclosure under the categories of "notes" or "drafts." Mr. Watts stated he has reviewed the notes Ms. Dorgan turned over on Friday and in his opinion the notes do not constitute facts that need to be placed on the record with one possible exception of a note ("Note #1") which is believed to be in Council member Masci's handwriting and which states "I did, I wanted all of Third Street to be C-II." He asked Mr. Masci if he cared to elaborate and then asked if that note or any other note City Council Public Hearing Page 1 December 16, 2002 (Continued from December 11) indicates a bias that would render any council member unable to make a fair and impartial decision regarding the matter at hand. Mr. Masci stated that none of the notes render him unable to make an impartial decision. He said the note referred to a past vote on rezoning in the area and is not relevant to the issue of the Kelly rezone. Mr. Watts state all the other notes seem to be opinions or to deal with process matters with one other exception referred to as Note #2 which states "it will go down 3-2, they can't resist this, needs 4 to pass, any other combo other than 4-1 fails it." Mr. Watts asked if note #2 indicates any prejudgment, bias, or ex parte communication with any other Council members in connection with voting or how votes might be made. Mr. Masci stated it does not. Mr. Watts stated that all of the other notes seem to be a matters of personal opinion. He stated he spoke with Ms. Grahn, a representative of the appellants and she wished to preserve the nature and content of the notes as a possible basis for appeal should the Council decide against the appellant's position. He stated that should an appeal be made, then these documents, the contents of which are in a submittal from Nancy Dorgan which is in the City Attorney's file, could be submitted to any court or appellate reviewing agency for purposes of determining whether or not they would create an appearance of fairness issue. Other than that, he stated he does not believe reading notes 3-10 is appropriate, relevant or necessary because in his view they do not create an appearance of fairness issue that would require Mr. Masci or Mr. Finnie to recuse themselves. Mr. Watts stated it would be appropriate for the mayor to ask if any council members have appearance of fairness issues to disclose, then to proceed and see if any audience members has any objection based on disclosures made or not made. Ms. Sandoval asked if it is appropriate for other members of the Council to speak to the issue of appearance of fairness regarding a fellow council member. Mr. Watts replied that the objection, if any, to appearance of fairness, needs to come from a member of the public. He stated that, in his view, appearance of fairness is for the benefit of the appellant and it is up to them to exercise or not exercise an objection. Mr. Finnie stated he had made several notes to himself and that he does so every week regarding things he may want to pursue with questions; some end up not being pertinent as the meeting goes on. He said he looked at a couple of notes from Mr. Masci, then returned them or threw them in the wastebasket. He stated that none of the notes given to him by Mr. Masci indicate any prejudgment or bias nor would any affect his ability to render an impartial decision. City Council Public Hearing Page 2 December 16, 2002 (Continued from December 11) Mr. Youse stated he doesn't think anything dropped in the trash can is necessarily meant to be public knowledge. He said he wrote notes too but happened to keep them with him or used them as bookmarks. He stated they are not necessarily meant for public view and he finds it disturbing that people are going through the trash to pick up notes. Mayor Kolff asked if any council members have an interest in the property or issue, or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing, or have any disclosures to make. There were none. He then asked if anyone in the audience objected to his or any other Council member's participation in the rest of these proceedings. Nancy Dorgan stated there seem to be differences of opinion about the appearance of fairness doctrine, even among attorneys, as it relates to passing notes. She stated her personal opinion is that exchanging information and opinions, particularly during public testimony, certainly violates the doctrine. She is disturbed as to the disparaging comments which were shared and stated it is inexcusable behavior and believes the Cotmcil members should bow out from the proceedings. Ande Grahn: stated it is rare that there is evidence available when a concern about appearance of fairness exists. She stated their concern is whether a reasonable person would assume there was a predetermined bias. She stated she appreciates the preservation of the evidence in case of an appeal. She asked to include exhibit 9 or 10, a note that refers to "surplus, entering into a sale and maybe clearing and grading permits." She stated this is communication which appears to directly relate to the project. She stated her concern is that this is communication which should occur in open discussion as opposed to being off the record. In terms of Exhibit "1" she asked for purposes of the record that the author and recipient declare themselves because that is actually the e__sx parte communication. She would like to have the record of the meeting referred to by the note (which she states shows no record of votes). She wants that information clarified. If it were Council member Masci who prepared the memo referring to the surplus process, this brings us back to our original Concern about his participation with the Transit Board prior to the change in representatives and whether he is privy to information that hasn't been entered into the record. She stated it is not known what the city's full interest in approving or not approving the rezone is and thinks that the note may reveal a bias on Mr. Masci's part regarding prior negotiations or negotiations which haven't been entered into the record. Mr. Watts asked Mr. Finnie regarding "Exhibit 10," a note referring to surplus of property, whether it is in his handwriting. He also asked if Mr. Finnie had any recollection as to whether he shared that note with anyone last Wednesday evening. Mr. Finnie stated these are notes he makes to himself in the course of Council meetings and this one related to the sequence of votes he was trying to remember happening at the Jefferson Transit Board. He said the note ("Exhibit 10") to himself about surplusing property, a purchase and sale agreement, and a clearing and grading permit, were City Council Public Hearing Page 3 December 16, 2002 (Continued from December 10 personal notes made early in the proceedings around the first time the issue of the Jefferson Transit actions came up. He stated they were private, after they were made he got answers that satisfied his concerns, and that the notes were not shown to anyone in the room. Mr. Watts asked Mr. Finnie about Exhibit "1" and whether that note was shown to him Wednesday evening. Mr. Finnie stated he does not recall seeing that note; he has no recollection of it but that doesn't mean he didn't see it as he was busy at the time. He stated whether or not he read the note, it is not relevant to the proceedings and would not have affected his vote had he seen it. Another objection was raised from the audience. Mr. Watts stated that if any objections relate to the same material, then the record is preserved for purposes of a subsequent appeal or hearing so unless there is new information, the Council does not need to hear the same objection again. Having many people make the same objection is not necessary to the preservation of the appeal. Jeff Kelety: stated that he wishes it to be known that questions and answers passed between council members. He added that he expects those people who come up to testify before the council be accorded respect and that there will be no communication among Councilors that would denigrate their testimony and have a marginalizing effect upon it. Paul Mackrow: entered an e-mail from appellant's attorney Gerald Steele into the record in which Mr. Steele states his opinion that, based on the description of the notes he received, he finds them to be ex parte to the council member who received the notes and therefore they should be made available to the public and the public should have another chance to address appearance of fairness issues and ask for recusal. He also wrote that in regard to the comment regarding wanting a commercial rezone on a particular street and a derogatory comment about members of the public opposed to the project, those raise questions about the appearance of fairness doctrine if either Council member appears to have held a bias. He stated that the Council members involved should be asked questions related to appearance of fairness and if it appears they had bias or if the notes affected their ability to hear the matter, they should recuse themselves. He also stated that the Washington constitution protects garbage coming from a private home in a closed container. This is based on protecting the private affairs of a citizen. Here the container was not closed; it was a public and not private garbage container, the container was always in a public area and the activity to be protected was not a private affair. He concludes there was not a breach of privacy in retrieving the notes. Ande Grahn stated they would like the author and recipient of note #5(f) ("do we have to like the opponents" "this presentation is the least relevant") declare themselves as there is concern that this is a statement prejudicial to the information councilors were receiving. She stated the language seems prejudicial and it cannot be known if the person City Council Public Hearing Page 4 December 16, 2002 (Continued from December 11) who wrote or received it had their opinions of the information they were given altered by fellow council members. Mr. Watts asked Mr. Finnie about note "5 F" - and whether it is in his handwriting. Mr. Finnie stated it is not in his handwriting. Mr. Watts asked if he remembers seeing the note at last Wednesday's hearing.. Mr. Finnie stated that he never saw the note and if he had, it would not have affected his ability to make a decision on the matter before the council. Mr. Watts stated that his opinion, which was shared by MRSC attorneys, is that appellant's objection based on appearance of fairness is not well taken and that none of the notes are sufficient to require Mr. Masci or Mr. Finnie to disqualify themselves from the proceedings. Mayor Kolff stated that the public hearing would now commence where it left off last Wednesday evening and said that the proceedings at the point where public testimony is open solely for the purpose of the Council being able to ask further questions and receive further clarifications from those in attendance regarding only the questions raised at this session. He opened the floor to Council questions to anyone who has testified up to this point. Ms. Sandoval inquired of staff how long a traffic study is typically good for. If transit were to have reapplied for their permit for expansion purposes, would the five-year old study have been applicable? Mr. Randall stated he does not believe the traffic study had an expiration date. It is the discretion of the Public Works Department to determine what data is available relating to individual projects and whether or not they think conditions have changed sufficiently to warrant a new study. If Transit were to expand at this point it would be the City Engineer's discretion as to whether a new traffic study would be required. He added he cannot say whether a speculative transit project would have the same study applicability. Ms. Sandoval asked, regarding the SEPA process itself, is it typical that you would look at the worst case scenario vs. worst case scenario for each zone as opposed to some other factors? Ms. Surber stated that the typical comparison is the range of potential uses in one district compared with the range of potential uses in the proposed district; and the question of whether the uses in the new zone be much more intense than the current zone.. Ms. Sandoval asked if traffic impacts are also looked at as worst case scenarios. In regard to Mr. Breskin's comments on the implications of PI vs. C-II, what are the City Council Public Hearing Page 5 December 16, 2002 (Continued from December 11) different levels of implications for those two different zones. She asked if there is any consideration given to worst case scenarios. Ms. Surber stated that staff made the determination that because the level of intensity is equivalent in both districts, that was the end of it. The analysis borrowed from Jefferson Transit was for the site specified Kelly commercial building and that was the comparison. Ms. Sandoval asked if the SEPA was site specific. Ms. Surber stated that in regard to the traffic analysis, it was to draw information from those agencies and compare them with the Kelly proposal and the number of employees listed on the Environmental Checklist. Ms. Sandoval said that in past rezones there were questions about having commercial zoning 200 ft deep as an objective. There was also a statement about this rezone going 75' beyond the recent rezone. She asked how much farther beyond the 75' from the last rezone is this? Ms. Surber stated that the Kelly proposal is about 100 feet deeper than the existing commercial on the other side of the street. Ms. Sandoval stated that she has heard many say that it was determined during the last round of amendments that the Council stated there would not be extensions beyond Third Street. She asked if that were a finding in the final document. Ms. Surber stated that she did not recall that that had been a finding. Mr. Kolff asked staff what is the definition of a "spot rezone." Mr. Watts stated that a spot rezone is where a small parcel is carved out of a larger parcel and receives a zoning definition that is wholly at variance with the surrounding larger designation; generally it would be inconsistent with the Comp Plan so if the Comp Plan is changed, the spot zoning doesn't exist. He stated that it is his view the present rezoning would not be spot zoning because there is nearby adjacent commercial property and there is also a likelihood that property owned by Jefferson Transit to the north which has industrial use now would likely revert to commercial if Transit vacates. Mr. Finnie stated that in the testimony last Wednesday as well as in Planning Commission minutes, there was a discussion of a de facto establishment of an LID which would conceivably result in a traffic light on Sims Way. He asked if this were accurate, and what would trigger the event and who would be the participants in the decision. Ms. Surber stated that a no protest agreement carried over from Transit mitigation measures, is recommended for this project as well. Because the light is on Sims Way the requirement could come from DOT or from the city Public Works Department and they City Council Public Hearing Page 6 December 16, 2002 (Continued from December 11) would have to establish the limits of the LID and assess the fair share contribution. She also said that given the feedback we have received from Public Works, if there is an LID this project would be a contributor. Ms. Sandoval asked Joe Breskin to elaborate on his statement about the comparative traffic studies. Mr. Breskin stated that he spoke about the fundamental difference between uses in the PI zoning district and the C-II district, but stated he does not believe he spoke to a difference in the traffic studies Ms. Sandoval asked staff whether the recent Planning Commission assessment based upon the update which stated that enough commercial land is available: how would this rezone be consistent with that assessment. Ms. Surber stated that the Planning Commission assessment said a couple of things staff is trying to balance. One is that our growth rate is not as much as expected and therefore we are looking at the way we calculated how much commercial land we need; specifically said also that the commercial land lacks infrastructure and the Planning Commission has concerns about why it is not being developed; also in another portion of the assessment there is a need to emphasize economic development and job creation. They were definitely showing concern that commercial land is not being developed. Mr. Randall stated that only one acre has been developed for a commercial project since 1996; the Planning Commission, in trying to understand this, hit on lack of infrastructure as being an area of concern. Mr. Randall confirmed that the survey was done in the spring, and does not recall that it was presented to the City Council. The Comp Plan states that the Planning Commission will do the assessment. Mr. Kolff said that staff had commented that you were certain or quite sure that the Transit property would eventually be rezoned as C-II. He asked what was the basis of that assertion and is this from conversations with Transit? Mr. Randall said that at the Planning Commission hearing, testimony by Jefferson Transit Manager Dave Turrisini about Transit's plans and my intent was to reflect what Mr. Watts has said, that if the land were surplused, and you look at the map, there is since there is commercial zoning to the north, east and west, it is likely that if that land were surplused it would not be zoned R-I, II or III, but C-II. He added that this was based both through personal conversation and testimony before the Planning Commission, Transit was strongly looking at relocation and pursuing avenues to do that. Mr. Kolff asked if there had been any discussion of mitigation efforts to prevent buildings from becoming larger than 20,000 square feet that are currently proposed? Ms. Surber stated she does not recall that there were any mitigations prohibiting future expansions but that expansion would require additional review under SEPA. City Council Public Hearing Page 7 December 16, 2002 (Continued from December 11) Mr. Randall stated that the Council sits as a SEPA appeal authority and is able to add or change mitigation measures. Mr. Finnie referred to Mr. Turrisini's comments on page 7 of the Planning Commission minutes. He stated that when you take a look at the entire envelope of the Jefferson Transit property and extract the piece under discussion tonight, what is the description of the property and if it was zoned C-II, what is frontage, streets bordering, etc. Mr. Randall stated the entire footprint of Jefferson Transit less the Kelly property is block 261 and the north half of vacated Fourth Street plus parts of McClellan Street. If that were the only part under discussion it would be bounded by CII on north, CII to the west, and the ravine as a barrier and C-II to the east. Mr. Kolff asked if anyone in the audience had clarifications to add regarding anything presented so far this evening. Ande Grahn began to speak to Mayor KolWs question regarding a potential request from Transit for a rezone. Richard Shaneyfelt objected to her testimony noting that Transit is a co-applicant on the application. Ms. Grahn stated the Planning Director was making an assumption about 260 and 261 would be CII but wanted to point out in relation to 280 and 281, properties to the east, west and south are all residential. Shirley Rudolph: to clarify questions regarding other commercial availability: she stated the answer is that the use of Mr. Kelly's business is "secondary commercial" not high retail, high volume frontage; if you go to secondary commercial properties and look for those which have at least one and one half acres, there are none available for sale. She stated as Mr. Kelly's real estate agent, she looked at everything and even tried to analyze property which was not on the market. She stated this was the only property that fulfilled the need which had infrastructure. Richard Shaneyfelt, attorney for Mr. Kelly, stated that contrary to Mr. Breskin's statement, P-I zoning does not indicate "public protection." The important point is that this property, as we all know, is not going to be used for a P-I purpose; there will be a rezone and it will start at Sims Way and it will be something other than P-I and if Jefferson Transit doesn't have the opportunity to make it something other than P-I, they are essentially going to have a useless piece of property and it could be argued that this would constitute a taking. He added that this is property which has changed in designation many times in its history. Paul Mackrow: in clarification of a question by Ms. Sandoval regarding last year's rezone, it was in terms of the expectations of the neighborhood, referred to in the staff City Council Public Hearing Page 8 December 16, 2002 (Continued from December 1 0 report presented to the city council after the planning commission hearing, "staff does not recommend extending the C-II zoning further south due to the existence of a single family neighborhood whose residents have expressed concerns .... " Mr. Randall stated that staff believes this matter is distinguished from that finding because the property we are looking at now is not dealing with that that rezone. We were looking then at 278 and 279 and farther east, never at Block 280. The attempt last year was to clarify the current use of the property. Ms. Mackrow said that the rezone last year did include 14 lots that fronted on Third all the way down to Hendricks and were removed from the staff recommendation prior to the council hearing. She added there is not documentation in the record that guarantees job creation, this is simply hearsay and speculation. There being no further clarification comments, Mayor Kolff closed the public testimony part of the hearing. Mr. Watts provided draft documents to support either approval of the staff SEPA determination and Planning Commission recommendation or approval of the SEPA appeal. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to approve Resolution 02-061 of the Council denying the SEPA appeal and affirming the SEPA decision approving Site Plan B, incorporating the Planning Commission and Public Works recommendations in the document dated December 10 with one exception acknowledging that Exhibit "B" leaves out three conditions the Planning Commission recommended the additional recommendations are the staff recommendation on the stormwater LID and recommendations from Public Works for mutual easements (#6). Mr. Watts clarified that all conditions recommended by Planning Commission and Public Works regarding Site Plan "B" and one additional condition in the draft document which is in the package for tonight (paragraph 6 on Site Plan B) to provide for future coordinated development with property retained by Jefferson Transit -- shall provide access to Hancock and shown in Site Plan B with mutual easements with Block 261 for coordinated future parking and access with redevelopment of Block 261; a condition of cross easement for parking and access. Mr. Youse seconded Mr. Masci stated he wished the record to reflect that he is in agreement with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and in favor of denying appellant's request for an appeal of the MDNS. Ms. Sandoval stated that Planning Commission really tried to craft this resolution for this neighborhood; what concerns her is that it was Planning Commission rather than staff. She stated it is interesting they had gone through SEPA and many concerns which the City Council Public Hearing Page 9 December 16, 2002 (Continued from December 11) Planning Commission ultimately looked at it seems that staff didn't look at and she is perplexed about this. She also mentioned that she appreciated Ms. Hersey's comments and the information presented from the Planning Commission. She stated it has also given her pause because Jefferson Transit has stated they wouldn't want to stay in that location because of traffic considerations yet the traffic considerations weren't looked at closely regarding the impacts on the neighborhood of the proposed project. She repeated that the Planning Commission did a tremendous job, particularly regarding the site mitigations but she does have concerns about the traffic. Mr. Finnie stated he believes that the City Council's job is to improve the lives of the citizens of Port Townsend, do good and do as little harm as possible. He stated he is very conscious of the economic environment of the City and County, particularly problems related to a lack of access to post high school education, job skills training, transportation delivery systems, etc. He said that as Chair of the Higher Education Project he has seen how a community can affect change but it doesn't happen overnight; he has observed the frustration of those who want jobs and job training and can't get them. He stated he has weighed the evidence carefully and found appellants' arguments principally qualitative with merit. He said the Planning Commission's recommendations and staff's response satisfied many but not all of his concerns. Mitigation measures required were persuasive to him as they demonstrated that the city is sympathetic to the issues of the neighborhood and so created mitigation measures beyond those which would be required. He has heard people ask why the proponent can't find another spot. He stated his understanding that Mr. Kelly is the buyer and many businesses shop around for business locations; often the city is approached for financial concessions. It is clear altematives were found wanting and he has no doubt the applicant made an economic based business decision. Mr. Finnie added he applauds that, the city doesn't need another dreamer to move in and make promises to start a business here and then leave us high and dry. He said that the city is at a disadvantage because we have not put enough utilities in the earth to support our own Comprehensive Plan. While the city is competing for this and the next business, business owners know the economics as well as we do. He stated that he has heard concern about the impact on property values but does not feel qualified to offer an opinion on that; he also stated he believes in Port Townsend and has demonstrated that from the level of investment he has placed in the town. He stated that it seems that the C- II use seems to be potentially less intrusive than the current P-I zoning. He said that a good job has been done on mitigation measures. The applicant has projected twenty family wage jobs; the idea there would be no impact from the new business insults the intelligence of the residents. After these considerations, he supports the Planning Commission and will not vote to uphold the SEPA appeal. Mayor Kolff stated that it is clear the Council will not get through these proceedings before 7:30, the time of the start of the regular meeting. He asked for a consensus on how to proceed. After polling the members, it was agreed that the hearing would proceed for a maximum of 30 more minutes. City Council Public Hearing Page 10 December 16, 2002 (Continued from December 11) Mr. Kolffthen noted he has been on the fence about this decision ever since he heard it was coming up and is concerned about some things he has heard; he stated that it seems we as a city could have done much better at dealing with potential impacts and the public could have been involved earlier in the project. He stated that unfortunately we are paying the price for previous councils not putting in infrastructure. He added he is worried about the worst case scenario and would like more mitigations like limiting the building size on the property in the same way the proponent has agreed to a height limitation so that in the worst case C-II buildout we will not be confronted with the same issue. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to amend the motion by adding the following to the list of mitigations: no further building footprint will be allowed on this particular parcel beyond the 20, 000 square feet proposed. Mr. Masci stated that some of the site plan issues will self-limit the size of building, including parking, impervious surface, etc., and he doesn't know without that information if the motion is necessary. It may be that the building cannot escalate to a certain size. Mr. Kolff stated that if additional Transit property also becomes C-II, then some of that impervious surface requirements can go up to the northern portion of the area and more encroachment may happen. He asked why the Council can't guarantee to this neighborhood that they will not be seeing a 30,000 or 40,000 square foot building in the future. He understands that this has not been discussed with the owner. Ms. Sandoval stated it is difficult to separate the SEPA from the rezone, and reading all this, it is evident Planning Commission had the same dilemma. She stated she thinks this is premature. It would have been different is block 261 had come in and asked for a rezone as that is directly adjacent to commercial property and this is not. Even in 1975, before there was zoning, the area was residential. She added this would presuppose that Blocks 260 and 261 will be commercial; if that were tree then she could understand taking a look at this. She stated she is hesitant about this project; she believes it extends too far into the residential zone and that the proposed building is out of scale for the site. She stated the council must concentrate on leadership skills to get infrastructure into commercial zones. Ms. Sandoval also stated that the Comprehensive Plan we are supposed to be implementing requires good separation between residential and commercial districts. Mr. Masci stated he would not accept the mitigation amendment as a friendly amendment. Second: Ms. Sandoval then seconded the motion. Vote: the amendment to limit the size of the potential building footprint to 20, 000 square feet carried, 3-2, by voice vote, with Masci and Youse opposed. City Council Public Hearing Page 11 December 16, 2002 (Continued from December 11) Vote on the main motion to deny the SEPA appeal and adopt all mitigation measures as part of the action on the Comp Plan and rezone, carried 3-2, by voice vote, with Kolff and Sandoval opposed Motion: Mr. Masci moved to affirm the findings of the Planning Commission relative to the Comprehensive Plan amendment on the Kelly/defferson Transit rezone with all additional mitigations presented by Planning Commission and staff. Mr. Finnie seconded Mr. Watts reminded the Council that an ordinance is required to accomplish this action and will need a total of four votes to pass (majority of the seven member, council). Ms. Sandoval stated that she welcomes Mr. Kelly and his jobs to Port Townsend and does not doubt the need for jobs but does not think that as an elected official that is what the proposed amendment is about. She stated it is about the merits of the SEPA and the merits of the rezone; she stated she is not willing to let an economic based decision be carded out solely on the backs of this neighborhood. She added that if the town wants to have more jobs, it needs more infrastructure and we all have to carry that weight. She stated she is opposed to the rezone because based on the recent assessment of commercial lands within the city, it would be inconsistent with the Comp Plan. She also said she fears the precedent this would set, and added this neighborhood has been through its fourth rezone. She said she would love the hard work of staff, EDC and Chamber to be worth something and would like us all to get together to take the leadership and put infrastructure in the ground, but finds the proposed amendment inconsistent with many Comp Plan land use policies. Mr. Masci stated he is a business resident of the neighborhood and it is his understanding that the Gateway Plan encouraged C-II zoning all the way down to Third Street and that those pieces of land should return to commercial designation. He stated that the P-I property was a car lot when he first came to Port Townsend. He said that because of the geography of the land, this is a logical extension into the neighborhood and would provide a barrier to further infiltration. He feels the compatibility with the Land Use Element of the Comp Plan has been dealt with adequately and eloquently and shows that this is a reasonable use of the land. Mr. Finnie stated that his perspective echoes Mr, Masci's. Mr. Kolff stated he will not support the rezone because of process concerns. It must be done in a way that supports the rights of all citizens. He added that if we have a problem we must deal with it as a community in a way that is fair to all citizens. If the Comprehensive Plan needs revision that is one thing, but it should not be done in a spot rezone fashion. Mr. Watts raised a procedural point which is that an entry of findings decision and document denying the rezone must be entered without a majority decision to support if only two members recommend denial. He stated the best we can do for creating the City Council Public Hearing Page 12 December 16, 2002 (Continued from December 10 decision document is for the two members who voted to deny the rezone to move for adoption of the decision document which denies the rezone and indicate they would support it and the other three stated they will not support it. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to approve the findings, conclusion and decision denying the Comp Plan Amendment for the Kelly/Transit rezone. Mr. Kolff seconded. Mr. Kolff amended the motion to delete the two references to outdoor storage which were not part of the appliCation per Mr. Watt's comment. Vote: the motion failed, with 3 votes in favor (Finnie, Masci, Youse) and 2 opposed (Sandoval, Kolff). Motion required 4 votes in favor to carry. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Attest Pamela Kolacy, CMC (d City Clerk City Council Public Hearing Page 13 December 16, 2002 (Continued from December 11)