HomeMy WebLinkAbout12052005
.
RT TOWNSEND
COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE REGULA SESSION OF DECEMBER 5, 2005
CALL TO ORDER AN~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The City Council of the City of Port TOvfnsend met in regular session this fifth day of
December, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the P4rt Townsend temporary Council Chambers in
the Cedar Room of the Waterman & K*tz Building, Mayor Catharine Robinson
presiding. I
R~LL CALL
Council members present at roll call w~re Frank Benskin, Freida Fenn, Kees Kolff,
Geoff Masci, Laurie Medlicott, Michellej Sandoval, and Catharine Robinson.
,
i
Staff members present were City Attort' ey John Watts, Long Range Planning
Director Jeff Randall, Senior Planner J dy Surber, Police Chief Conner Daily, Public
Works Director Ken Clow, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy.
,
.
CHANGES ~O THE AGENDA
,
i
There were no changes to the agenda.!
,
COMMENTS FROM THE PU~L1C (consent and non-agenda items)
James Fritz: water rights and land usel issue, suggested consulting an expert before
signing anything with the Department qf Ecology.
I
CONS~NT AGENDA
,
,
Motion: Mr. Kolff moved for approval ff the following items on the Consent Agenda
(with correction of typographical errorsiin minutes). Mr. Masci seconded. The
motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by vorce vote.
,
Approval of Bills. Claims and Warrants I
Vouchers 96160 through 96317 in the amount of $179,013.10
Vouchers 1118051 through 1118059 in the amount of $90,665.58
Vouchers 1122051 through 112~052 in the amount of $68.62
Vouchers 1205051 through 120~059 in the amount of $107,833.49
.
Approval of Minutes:
October 24, 2005;November 171 2005; November 21,2005;
November 28, 2005 i
i
,
,
,
i
City Council Meeting
,
i
~age 1
i
December 5, 2005
.
PUBLIC H~ING (CONTINUED)
SHORELINE MASTER PROG~AM UPDATE, RESOLUTION 05-046
I
Mayor Robinson noted that the hearin~ is continued and the public hearing rules of
procedure apply as read previously. j
Senior Planner Judy Surber reviewe the packet materials and noted the discussion
items that remain on the table. She provided written materials including a table
regarding the Existing Shoreline Ma~er Program and Urban Waterfront Plan and
what they encourage in the urban w~terfront designation.
i
Mr. Benskin referred to the bar graph which presents options as A and B and asked
what is the possibility of retaining bqth A and B and letting the developer choose
which menu to work from. Ms. Surper replied that the current language allows
either option. I
,
,
In answer to Ms. Sandoval's questpn, Ms. Surber stated that Indian Point is the
most likely area to be affected, bu~the rules apply to all urban designations.
I
Ms. Sandoval asked why this is sd specific about what trade-offs are as opposed to
the nebulous restoration trade-offlwhich has been discussed. Ms. Surber noted that
this shows what is possible but it ~oes not designate definitive trade-off "value" -
there is a proportionality betweenl restoration and flexibility.
Ms. Sandoval asked whether resioration occurs for incentives or bonuses and does
the restoration have to take pla~ in the urban designation or can it be anywhere
along the shorelines. I
Paul Inghram of Berryman & H~inigar, stated that in Chapter 14.10, an evaluation
process for restoration projects s put forward. Discussions at the Planning
Commission set a percentage r set of items to be listed but in some cases may not
be able to support; for examplel in exchange for bulkhead removal, the developer
may propose a park or public tccess amenity where another may propose
ecological restoration type imp ovement. They couldn't come to a clear and simple
standard; what is in the plan is 14.10 which talks about how to evaluate whether or
not something offered is an aRpropriate restoration project or not.
.
.
Ms. Sandoval asked if there i~ any language in the Plan which provides for where
restoration can take place. ~r. Inghram stated that at this point it is open and there
is no direction saying it has t1 be on the same site. There were a variety of different
restoration opportunities Iiste~ and some thought we don't want to restrict someone
to their site if there is no prirrje restoration opportunity there.
I
Ms. Sandoval asked if there/is a hierarchy of locations for restoration projects or if
they just need to be within t~e city limits. Mr. Inghram stated the list is in the
I
!
City Council Meeting
Page 2
December 5, 2005
.
regulation. Ms. Surber added that the e projects are above and beyond the
mitigations and requirements which ar already attached to the project.
Mr. Inghram noted that staff did not w nt to limit restoration projects to the site;
some key enhancements may be available in the public right of way adjacent to a
site; you could probably say that it ju~t needs to be within the city limits.
I
Mr. Randall noted that at the planning level, staff is not able to "score" the items, as
this would be impossible until it can t6e determined at the project level when a
proposal is made with science provi~ed which will show the impact to the area.
I
In answer to Ms. Fenn's question r~garding who comes up with objective measure of
the value of the restoration being o~ered, Ms. Surber noted that the staff would
make recommendations to the Heq'rings Examiner and the Hearings Examiner
decision would go forward to the Dt"artment of Ecology. They would determine
what the actual value in their eyesr._ould be.
Ms. Sandoval asked if building blqcks or urban designation for restoration benefit
incentives seem to be specific an~ would engender fairly large changes, yet we don't
have a scoring method for restoqtion, how do you determine what percentage of
extra benefit the developer woul1 received. She stated that she understood the
process. I
Ms. Surber stated that the dedi~tion of 25% may be waived in whole or in part -
that would be the bargaining chip that would have to be worked out at the project
level. Mr. Inghram also noted ~at the chapter is applicable to shoreline restoration
in general, not just private developments; so the evaluation criteria would often be a
means of evaluating what pub lib projects would be first in priority if the City were to
get funding. !
I
Mr. Masci asked for c1arificati<b of the wording in Chapter 14, page 30 regarding
priorities. Mr. Inghram stated /t is meant to indicate that of the nine items, a suitable
project would be five - and if, /When evaluating two different projects, one does a
better job of meeting the criteria than the other, it would be the higher priority of the
two. '
I
i
Ms. Surber added that anotir example would be to guide staff in seeking grants.
She suggested that the sect' on on page 30, Chapter 14, could be re-worded to say,
"when evaluating potential rojects, the following nine criteria should be considered
in assessing priority. " i
,
,
Ms. Robinson asked about,khe reference on the following page to the Lower
Columbia scorecard; she a~ked if the City should adopt that while developing our
own. Mr. Inghram stated ~hat considering the differences in geography, theirs would
not be applicable to Port TFwnsend, that it was mentioned as a format and a tool.
I
I
!
i
.
.
City Council Meeting
I
I
i
I
Page 3
December 5, 2005
.
Mr. Masci stated he would rather see tlis reference in the appendices than in the
document. Ms. Fenn asked how the corecard would be developed.
.
Ms. Surber stated it is up to the Coun il to determine if there were certain items they
wanted to send to staff or ad hoc co mittee and they could work on that; she added
staff hoped to put together a volunte r group to monitor conditions on permits and
these criteria could be discussed at ~ committee level if directed.
i
Ms. Sandoval asked if she anted to~arter for 75% additional benefits, how would
she be directed to a restoration proj ct. Ms. Surber stated staff would try to direct
the applicant on a site within the dri cell first, and second would start looking
geographically beyond that if there ere no specific opportunities within your drift
cell. It would be a case-by-case b~sis.
I
Public comment I
I
Larry Crockett: provided written ocument showing other jurisdictions regulations
regarding RVs as a permitted rec ational use within the shoreline. He stated that
an enormously successful public rocess has gotten us to this point and the Port is
eager to move on. He stated th t once the Council has adopted the plan and asked
staff to send it on to the Dept. of cology, the Commissioners would be willing to
draft a supporting letter. He stated it is a compromise document but workable for
I
the Port. i
,
i
Jeffree Stewart, Department of I:cology: noted that from the DOE perspective, the
local process was exemplary. IHe complimented staff on their excellent work and
on making the process so inclu~ionary. He added that it is a legal option for the
DOE to conduct additional public hearings, but he would probably not recommend
thatfor this plan. i
Scott Walker: recommended ~hortening the setback for public walkways adjacent to
first floor residential facilities, ~tating the same result could come by making sure
public access is clearly delin$ted.
,
There was no further public qomment.
I
The Council began a series pf motions relating to the December 1, 2005 staff report,
listed tentative approval items and outstanding discussion items.
r
Motion: Mr. Ko/ff moved to ~pprove Item 1, View Corridors (Exhibit 32b to include
arrows at Gaines, Scott amli Walker Streets. Mrs. Medlicott seconded. The motion
carried unanimously, 7-0, tjy voice vote.
i
Motion: Mr. Kolff moved tP approve Item 11, regarding Unlisted non-water oriented
uses at Point Hudson. M~. Sandoval seconded.
.
City Council Meeting
I
,
,
I
,
i
I
Page 4
December 5, 2005
.
Ms. Fenn stated she believes this is to lenient and the proportion should be
reduced. Ms. Surber noted that the p rcentage is not permitted outright.
,
Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-Q, by voice vote.
i
Motion: Mr. Kolff moved for apProv~aOf Item 12, "Artwork" at Point Hudson. Mrs.
Medlicott seconded. (It was noted a efinition is needed in "C" prior to the table.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by ice vote.
I
Motion: Mr. Kolff moved for approvaf of Item 14, amended definition of "drift cell."
Mrs. Medlicott seconded. The motiof1 carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote.
Motion: Mr. Kolff moved for approv~ of Item 22, clarifying the interplay of CAD
buffers and 200-foot setback. Ms. obinson seconded. The motion carried
unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. ,
Motion: Mr. Kolff moved for approvk, of Item 23 regarding archeology (DR 6.4.3).
Mrs. Medlicott seconded. The motiFln carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote.
I
Motion: Mr. Kolff moved for appro~al of Item 7, Chapter V.27.35 relating to purpose
of the Urban designation. Mrs. Me,'dlicott seconded.
I
i
.
Ms. Sandoval stated she would Iik~ to finish the discussion about Indian Point before
acting on this. i
i
Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to t~ble the motion. Mr. Kolff seconded. Motion
carried, 4-3, by voice vote, Benskin, Masci and Medlicott opposed.
I
,
.
Motion: Mr. Kolff moved for apprfJVal of Item 8 regarding establishment of a
maximum size for any single restcjurant in Point Hudson. Ms. Sandoval seconded.
I
Ms. Fenn stated she agrees with ~he principle of making the sizes consistent
throughout the area although sh~ would have preferred a smaller maximum.
Ms. Robinson also stated she wquld prefer a smaller allowance but would settle for
consistency. I
Vote: motion carried, 6-1, by vqice vote, Robinson opposed.
!
Motion: Mr. Kolff moved for apJroval of Item 9 (Chapter 5, p 56, line 23), regarding
adaptive re-use. Ms. Sandova/~econded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by
voice vote. I
Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to apJrove Item 98, Chapter V, page 58, line 22) regarding
Point Hudson new developmer/t. Mrs. Medlicott seconded.
I
,
!
I
I
City Council Meeting
Page 5
December 5, 2005
.
Mr. Surber noted that the references to a mixed-use facility need to be struck.
Vote: motion carried, unanimously, 7-p' by voice vote.
Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to approve It~m 13, change in Use Table, Chapter 5, page
74, row 2. Mrs. Medlicott seconded. IThe motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by
~fue~re. i
I
I
Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to ado~ Item 18, with a change to add the words
"over water" to each reference to "aba doned structure." Mr. Kolff seconded. the
motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by v ice vote.
!
Consensus: make edit staff suggestttd in Chapter 14, page 30: "when evaluating
potential projects, the following nine criteria should be considered in assessing
priority. " !
.
i
Mr. Kolff also suggested removing th~ reference to the Lower Columbia Estuary
scorecard as a tool for evaluating pro eels. Ms. Surber stated it is a good model,
for format and criteria and there is no harm in directing a future committee or planner
to something accepted by the scienti~c community as a good example.
I
,
Ms. Sandoval suggested adding a p~ragraph about crafting a scorecard to Chapter
4.8.4. Ms. Fenn stated she believed lit should be in a different section from the tax
incentive. I
Ms. Sandoval suggested adding 4.8.6 a paragraph that refers to crafting a
scorecard. Ms. Robinson asked if th~ reference to Columbia Estuary could be
parenthetical ("a good example..") Ifn Chapter 14, page 31, could add "for example"
at the beginning of the last sentence!.
Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to add 4.8. P reference to developing a scorecard and to
add "for example" at the beginning df the last sentence in 14.10. Ms. Robinson
seconded. The motion carried unarimously, 7-0, by voice vote.
Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved that 1nder Chapter 4.8, Restoration Adaptive
Management Element, add under pplicies an additional policy 4.8.6 with language
consistent with the language modifi~d on page 31, i.e., "the City shall develop a
project score card as a tool to develop.... ... " Mr. Kolff seconded. the motion
carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice rote.
Mr. Kolff stated he would like a sta~dardized method of stating an exception.
,
,
,
Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to chang, the language in the first column to read "except
for the Commander's House, whic~ is permitted." Ms. Sandoval seconded.
City Council Meeting
I
I
i Page 6
i
I
December 5, 2005
.
.
Mrs. Medlicolt asked what would happ n if the name of the building were changed.
Mr. Watts said the phrase is descriptiv of a location and not a business name. He
suggested that, rather than wordsmith, staff make that clarification when the SMP is
transmitted to DOE and the cleanup c n occur after the DOE recommendations
have been considered. I
I
Mr. Randall stated the Commander's ~ouse name would not change; staff can
clarify the Pilot House with a note indiiating description or map.
Vote: the motion carried unanimously,! 7-0, by voice vote.
i
Ms. Robinson stated that she has ale~' ed staff to the changes necessary to the
resolution to make it consistent with th direction of the Council so far, including
removing references to mixed-use fac lities. Mr. Surber stated that strikeout and
underline would be completed prior to the next meeting.
Motion: Mr. Masci moved for approv~1 of Resolution 05-046. Motion failed, 2-5,
Masci and Medlicott in favor. i
!
Consensus to continue the public heiring to December 12, 2005 (leaving the
hearing still open for public comment. .
RECESS
.
Mayor Robinson declared a recess a 8:15 p.m. for the purpose of a break.
R CONVENE
i
,
,
The meeting was reconvened at 8:3q p.m.
,
i
OR~INANCE 2906
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY O~ PORT TOWNSEND AMENDING THE PORT
TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL! CODE, CHAPTER 10.32, BICYCLES
City Attorney John Watts reviewed t e packet information. He noted that the draft
ordinance presented contains decisi n points and changes based on the Council
comments and questions which wer posed at the November 7 meeting, when first
reading of the ordinance was adopt d.
.
He noted that the City is required to have adoption of the state bail schedule on the
books ($27). On top of that would be mandatory fines and penalties imposed by the
state legislature which must be imp~sed unless waived by the court. A standard
$27 '"fmctIDn e"d, "p be'", $81 " I'~' portio", em ws''''' by the C,"rt ,"d tho"
I Page 7
i
!
I
I
City Council Meeting
December 5, 2005
.
funds go to state mandated programs. Violations of local rules such as mandatory
helmet violation which allow more disc etion in the current draft are set at $10 - $50
depending on the number of infraction within one year.
Mr. Watts also provided an e-mail fro~' the City's insurance authority regarding
liability for riding without a helmet; he tated that is would not affect the
apportionment of liability but may affe t a damage award.
He stated that the Council must also cbnsider whether and when helmets would be
required for users of the City's skateb~ard park.
i
I
Public comment: i
I
Douwe Rienstra: stated he is distres~ed at opposition to the mandatory helmet
requirement as helmets make a big d/fference in preventing closed head injury; he
stated he spends a lot of time trying t? get kids to wear helmets and this would set a
great example. I
I
Gordon Missel!: ordinance is unneeejed, poorly conceived and not what bicycle
riders want. i
i
,
Jim Todd: addressed the issue of allpwing bicycles on sidewalks, and supported
including all sidewalks rather than selected sidewalks to be closed to bicycle traffic.
Anna Smith: stated most kids don't ~nderstand the risks of not wearing a helmet and
education will help that; she stated s~e doesn't know if a law would be the best way
to implement, but is in favor of the w~rning system, with enforcement put off into the
future.
.
,
Bill Dentzel: stated there is no urgerit need to pass a local helmet law; parents must
supervise children and adults shou'1 decide for themselves.
Lew Stock: said Council should ado~t recommendation of the Non-Motorized
Transportation Advisory Board (NMtAB); the ordinance would criminalize behavior
with no evidence it makes citizens ~afer.
Charles Espey: presented a petitio~ with 224 signatures opposing the ordinance;
stated the real, not imaginary probl$ms should be assessed.
.
,
Jane Whicher, commenting for NMtAB: stated the group advocates an education
program rather than mandatory hel et law. She asked for a delay of one year prior
to implementation so NMTAB has 'me to bring in volunteers and find funding, then
reassess the issue. :
Peter Lauritzen, also member of N~t1TAB: spoke in support of education and stated
he personally supports mandatory Ihelmet requirement; in the community where he
!
City Council Meeting
,
i
I
I
i Page 8
I
I
I
,
December 5, 2005
.
lived previously, the Jaw proved an eff ctive way to increase helmet use. He likened
the helmet law to the seatbelt law; and noted that both California and Oregon have
mandatory requirements statewide for outh.
Frank Converse: don't feel need to p*ss a law; Council should not second-guess
decisions of bicyclists. .
Robert Frank: presented another pag~ of names for the petition.
!
i
Otto Smith: stated that a mandatory h~lmet law would affect all in a positive way; it
would set a good example as bicycle *ccidents affect the entire community, not just
the individual. He stated we are all re!sponsible for the safety of the community's
children. i
,
i
Kristen Smith: stated a bicycle helmet) saved her from serious injury and that a
mandatory helmet law would be wort~while even if only one person were
encouraged to wear a helmet. i
!
Matthew Dillon: questioned why this risk was prioritized above others; Council
should consider the larger scope of ppblic health and safety.
Scott Jaster: supported education rather than law.
.
,
Marc Downing: stated people should ~ave the freedom to choose and youngsters
should not be made criminals for not wearing helmets.
,
!
Bill Dwyer: stated the law can't be enrorced without deterioration between bicycle
riders and the police force. i
i '
David McCulloch: urged the Council to delay the decision while details can be
worked out. He added the definitio~ of "bicycle" in the ordinance does not seem to
cover's children's bicycles. Law is 9ne avenue but, speaking for the Port Townsend
Bicycle Association, this would not be the first choice. He asked why there is no
comprehensive bike education progrbm in Port Townsend even though the non-
I
motorized plan was adopted in 19981 He asked the council to make other efforts to
improve cycling conditions and then think about the helmet issue; he said he would
,
rather see enforcement of ignoring S(lop signs or not having lights on bicycles at
night. .
Sam Maynard: Council should liste~ to the people opposed to the helmet law;
rationale for the law doesn't exist. sked if anyone has sued the city over a bicycle
accident which involved not wearing a helmet.
i
Bene Hoffman: stated he believes ~e can make the decision of whether or not to
wear a helmet himself. !
!
.
City Council Meeting
Page 9
December 5, 2005
Phil Dio,",ore, "'~ doo'l O""'-ffli!;tari~ tn. I~"
Forest Shomer: talked about his perso~al experiences and bicycle accidents.
Jeanne Baldwin, Jefferson County Pu~lic Health: stated that a survey of Port
Townsend and Chimacum 8_12th grad~rs showed only 50% wear bicycle helmets.
She said the Health Department would! assist as much as they can with the
education program. :
.
Linda Pfaffman: speaking as a privatelcitizen, stated her passion is traffic safety and
it is unfortunate when we have to legislate health and safety issues, but in fact we do
because parents are not always wise ~bout how they raise their children. Seattle
passed bicycle legislation through the realth department rather than legislative
system. The seatbelt law, booster se~t and child safety restraint laws have saved
many lives. '
Ian Jablonski: stated that at some poiJt there must be personal responsibility for
their actions and their children's actiorys.
!
Jon Muellner: stated he would rather ~ave his child wear a helmet because it is
common sense, not because it is legal"y required.
Frank Durbin: stated passage would tfivialize the law and result in unnecessary cost.
There was no further public commentl
,
I
Mr. Watts clarified that violation of thE! mandatory helmet ordinance would be a civil
infraction, not a criminal infraction so ,S more like a parking ticket and the ordinance
does not "criminalize" behavior. '
.
!
He stated in response to another co~ment that the City has not been involved in
litigation over whether someone has pr has not worn a helmet when involved in an
accident. '
He added that helmets can be obtainl d through the traffic safety program, the
County Health Department, and othe sources. The Police Chief has indicated the
department's approach would cons is of an informal warning accompanied by advice
on obtaining helmets and perhaps bing able to provide a helmet at the time of the
stop - as opposed to a heavy hande approach is issuing a citation.
I
Police Chief Daily stated that helmet~ will be available through the Traffic Safety
Commission and some funding will *company the program from the Commission.
i
i
Ms. Robinson stated she understamjs from the many comments received that the
issue of personal freedom is import~nt to people but she also feels we are all role
models all the time and don't know Who is looking to us at any given time as a role
i
i
i
I Page 10
I
.
City Council Meeting
December 5, 2005
.
.
.
model. She stated that we have to ke p in mind that what one does is always
having an effect on someone else. He concern is the safety issue and what action
will get us the greatest safety for the m st people in our community. She
recommended that the City do what Isl nd County did and enact a helmet law as a
recommendation only; this is not enfor eable but states what the community norm is.
Then the City could embark on an edu ation program as the Non-Motorized
Transportation Advisory Board has su gested, with staff working with NMTAB and
the PT Bicycle Association, PT School ,etc.
Ms. Fenn stated she also agrees with the sentiments underlying the concern
regarding personal freedom and that t ere are other laws that are more invasive.
She stated she sees this as a public h alth issue and that a bicycle helmet has
saved her daughter's life twice. She b~lieves that a basic charge of the city is to
make these sorts of decisions about p~blic health and safety. She recommends
adoption and deferring citations for a ~ear, especially knowing that 50% of the
children do not now wear helmets. i
I
Motion: Ms. Fenn moved for adoptiOlf of Ordinance 2906. Mrs. Medlicott
seconded. I
i
Ms. Sandoval stated she agrees with ~any of the things Ms. Fenn said. She stated
she believes strongly in educating th~'PUbliC' She does agree this is a safety issue
but would rather not have it legislated in this matter. She stated she would like at
least two years of education prior to andating helmets.
,
Motion: Ms. Robinson moved to amebd the ordinance to make the helmet
requirement recommended only and 10t mandatory. Ms. Sandoval seconded.
,
Mr. Kolff stated he would feel the sa; way if there were any evidence that a
recommended as opposed to mandat ry requirement would have any effect. He
added the only way to sustain increas d use of helmets is by a mandatory law.
Mr. Benskin stated that many people ho spoke tonight are not role modeling by
wearing helmets; expecting them to c ange behavior is not likely. He stated that a
law would help them be the role mod Is they should be. He stated it is the Council's
job to encourage helmet participation and the ordinance is the best way to do that.
He added it doesn't make sense to tr st the well being of our children to people who
are not going to perform as role mod Is.
Vote: motion to amend failed, 2-5, Rtbinson and Sandoval in favor.
Motion: Mr. Masci moved to amend 110.32.060 to prohibit bicycle operation on all
sidewalks. Mrs. Medlicott secondedj
Mr. Masci stated that bicycles on the jSidewalks have been the single biggest source
of complaints from citizens, mostly s~niors.
,
City Council Meeting
i
i
!page 11
I
i
,
I
I
December 5, 2005
. Mr. Benskin spoke in favor of the moti n.
Mr. Kolff stated there are some streets where the street edge is not conducive to
bike riding, where bicycling might be s~fer on the sidewalk than on the street; he
suggested adding "when pedestrians Sire present" or possibly limiting to the
commercial historic district. '
i
Ms. Sandoval stated she has a concern on how to delineate sidewalks, for example
would asphalt trails be included. She ~dded that many of these are part of the safe
route to school for children. '
.
i
,
Mr. Benskin stated that the motion coyld be amended to "when pedestrians are not
present" and add something about sc~ool age children being exempted from
sidewalk riding. '
i
Public Works Director Ken Clow state4 that if you pass something like this, it needs
to be specific; the City has what appe* to be sidewalks that are multipurpose trails.
Banning bicycles may be contrary to t~e conditions of some of the grants.
i
Mr. Watts suggested leaving the issuej for now because of the issues raised and also
enforcement difficulties. He recommended letting the Non Motorized Transportation
Advisory Board and Transportation Cqmmittee weigh in; other non-motorized forms
of vehicles should be considered as w~lI.
Motion withdrawn by Mr. Masci with C~uncil concurrence.
I
,
Motion: Mr. Masci moved to omit references to "recreational vehicles" under
10.32.010 for the purpose of keeping (he ordinance specific to bicycles only. Ms.
Sandoval seconded I
Ms. Fenn stated she believes this woLjld be a mistake in light of the opening of the
new skateboard facility and that the s*fety arguments apply equally to other
activities besides bicycling. i
.
,
Vote: motion failed, 3-4, Masci, Robirson and Sandoval in favor.
,
,
,
Motion to amend: Mr. Kolff moved thbt the ordinance become effective in terms of
enforcement of the helmet provisions fn July of 2007, to give the community 18
months to get grants and have a fUII$hOOI year of education, with the exception of
the skate park where helmets will be quired; the City shall also partner actively
with other community agencies and i dividua/s for a comprehensive bicycle safety
program and commit both staff and" ds to this endeavor. Ms. Sandoval seconded.
,
Mr. Benskin stated he is supportive b~t would prefer the date be changed to 2006 as
there is an urgency to the helmet law land this would still allow six months for an
!
City Council Meeting
,
,
fage 12
i
i
December 5, 2005
educational program. He said that en rcement should not be put out longer if we
. are concerned about kids and adults bing safe on our streets.
Vote on amendment carried, 4-3, Bens in, Masci and Sandoval opposed.
Motion to amend: Ms. Fenn moved tOt. hange the definition of bicycle wheel strike
diameter to include smaller models of icycles. Mrs. Medlicott seconded. The
motion carried, 6-1, Masci opposed.
Mr. Masci stated he has considered alllthe arguments advocating libertarian
principles relative to this ordinance and he does not dispute them; however he must
honor his oath as a healer and vote in favor of preventing brain injury, which he
believes is a higher duty. He added t~at you cannot statistically prove what doesn't
happen; this is a public health issue arid the public frequently doesn't understand
public health issues or the statistics be~ind them. Most patients he has seen with
these types of brain injuries have had ~heir treatment funded with public dollars. He
regrets the delayed implementation da~e; would like the education component, and
the ordinance can always be modified pr amended at a later date.
i
Vote on motion to adopt Ordinance 29P6 as amended: motion carried, 5-2, by roll
call vote, Robinson and Sandoval oPPfsed.
.
I
Motion: Mrs. Medlicott moved to refelr the sidewalk issue to the Transportation
Committee. Ms. Fenn seconded. T~e motion carried, unanimously, 7-0, by voice
vote. ~'
Motion: Mr. Kolff referred the entire 0 inance and the issue of the education
program to the Non Motorized Transp rtation Advisory Board. Ms. Sandoval
seconded. The motion carried unanifrously, 7-0, by voice vote.
~ECESS
Mayor Robinson declared a recess at 110:52 p.m. for the purpose of a break.
R~CONVENE
,
The meeting was reconvened at 11 :o~ p.m.
,
I
ORDINANCE 2915
,
I
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY;F PORT TOWNSEND ADOPTING THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 200 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL
FOR WES RN WASHINGTON
.
Public Works Director Ken Clow reviered the packet materials.
i
i
!
i
City Council Meeting fage 13 December 5, 2005
,
,
I
.
Motion: Mr. Masci moved for first rea ing of Ordinance 2915, and that Council
schedule a public hearing in approxim tely sixty days to get input from the general
public before taking final action to ado t the ordinance. Mr. Benskin seconded.
.
Ms. Fenn asked why the recommenda ion is not to include the optional guidance
section 2.6, financial liability and off-sit analysis and mitigation. She asked if these
could come back in the final ordinance if that is what the Council wishes; and
whether partial adoption of the manualjwill satisfy the pending appeal to the Growth
Management Hearings Board which s~eks to invalidate the City's Critical Areas
Ordinance (CAO) citing the City's contihued use of the 1992 Stormwater
Management Manual as a failure to in~orporate best available science for
stormwater management into the CAOI'
Mr. Clow stated that in terms of best atailable science, these two optional items are
not part of the base manual so it shoul~ not be an issue; the bigger issue will be the
timing of how we are proceeding. I
I
I
Mr. Watts stated that staff has not had] that level of conversation yet to know whether
the optional elements are critical to th~ appeal. He stated the appeal will take its
own course and the City is not under ~ny immediate Growth Board order or potential
adverse finding at this point. He stat1d that the process outlined tonight is orderly
and sufficient. I
i
Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-p, by voice vote.
i
i
WATER SY~TEM PLAN UPDATE
I
,
Public Works Director Clow passed o~t materials to the Council, including a bullet
point history of the plan and a schedul~ for the update. He noted that the plan is not
scheduled to be completely updated tlut will be revised to update certain sections.
He also provided a time line. I
The final comments from the consultant are expected after the first of the year;
County and Department of Health will also review and the City will initiate SEPA
process. A workshop will be schedu ed to update the Council on the plan status in
early 2006. Public workshops, open ouses on the plan will be part of the process.
Ms. Sandoval asked how the updatinq of System Development Charges ties in with
this. Mr. Clow stated this could be a reparate ordinance that does not have to fall
within the water system plan update. i
,
Mr. Clow noted there is a provision in Ithe city code that SDCs can be modified
based on the cost of living index and that has not been done up to now. It is
unrelated to specific capital projects, ~ut based on what is planned to support the
entire system. '
.
City Council Meeting
,
I
rage 14
December 5, 2005
.
Ms. Robinson asked about the pendin Forest Service permit. Mr. Clow answered
we keep hearing that they are close to ssuing their biological opinion. Whether the
permit can then be issued depends on he comments.
I
Motion: Mr. Masci moved to task the q,eneral Government Committee to review
Water Service Areas as part of the W~ter System update and provide a
recommendation to the City Council. "1r. Kolff seconded. The motion carried
unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. i
j
NEWIBUSINESS
i
CENTENNIAL C~EAN WATER GRANT
Mr. Kolff reviewed the packet material, Inoting that the Jefferson County Public
Health Department is submitting a fun~'ng application to the Centennial Clean Water
Fund for the Chimacum Creek Clean ater Project. A statement from the WRIA
#17 Planning Unit that this is the numb r one priority grant project will add points to
the overall score in the Department of ~cology ranking process.
Motion: Mr. Masci moved to authorizelKees Kolffto sign the Statement of Agreed
Priority as representative from the City ro the WRIA #17 Planning Unit. Mr. Benskin
seconded. The motion carried unanimtuSIY, 7-0, by voice vote.
PRESIDING qFFICER'S REPORT
.
,
Mayor Robinson distributed material re~arding the City Manager's evaluation to the
Council. She noted that three evaluaticlns are still outstanding. She asked they be
turned in by the end of the week, and a~ked for a volunteer to assist in summarizing
the responses. Ms. Sandoval volunte~red to assist.
I
i
A~JOURN
There being no further business, the mbeting was adjourned at 11 :27 p.m.
Attest:
Van, cp<~
Pam Kolacy, CMC
City Clerk
.
City Council Meeting
I
p~ge 15
December 5, 2005