Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06121996 MINUTES OF THE PORT TOWNSEND CITY COLrNCIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING: The Draft Transportation, Capital Facilities & Utilities Elements JUNE12,1996 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in workshop session this 1 lth day of June, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, Chair Pro Tem Dan Harpole presiding. Present were Jean Camfield, Kathryn Jenks, lan Keith, Diane Perry-Thompson, Ted Shoulberg and Bill Davidson. Mayor Julie McCulloch was excused, attending an Association of Washington Cities Conference. Director of Building & Community Development Dave Robison anc City Planner Eric Toews were also present and presented discussion items for the meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Harpole noted the order of business would to be do lines-in and lines-out, and he tumed the meeting over to Mr. Robison to facilitate. Mr. Robison discussed the upcoming meetings and hearings and started the lines in and lines out process beginning with the Transportation Element. TRANSPORTATION Land Use & Transportation Goal 1 and Policies 1.1 through 1.9 No commerds Interjurisdictional Coordination Goal 2 and Policies 2.1 through 2.6 Goal 2 Perry-Thompson Said she had a call stating that funding is continually being cut from the State and Federal levels for roads, and that they will be looking at creative ways to get Counties and Cities to participate in regional road projects. Not only will we get less funding, probably, for our projects, but they may be looking for us to help with regional projects. ShoulbergAsked about interjurisdictional funding. He said they should support the County in their effort to make up the decrease in Federal and State sources. He said they still have two revenue sources. Mr. RoNson pointed out Policy 2.5, and said if they wanted to make it broad they could say, ".... identify opportunities between Jefferson County and the City to maximize the benefits with limited financial resources." Mr. Shoulberg concurred. Arterial Street System Goal 3 and Policies 3.1 through 3.15 Policy 3.1 Robison Changed fairly significantly from the Workgroup's recommendation, based primarily on the concerns raised by the Planning Commission on the draft Arterial Street Plan. What you see under Policy 3.1.1 or 3.1.2 is a process to do an important detailed study on how we are going to provide access to the northwest quadrant of town - that area from San Juan over to the City Limits and above Hastings. He said there wasn't consensus at the public testimony level on the alignments to serve this general area, and the Planning Commission felt the Arterial Street Plan was not detailed enough to draw a hard line on the map to use those areas for future alignments in the northwest quadrant of town and suggested more detailed study and public process to take that to the next level. He said if you refer to the Planning Commission's memorandum, they strongly recommend that the Council allocate sufficient resources to have that done with the first Comprehensive Plan update in 1997. Councilmember Camfield asked for comment from the Transportation Workgroup members in attendance. Sheila Westerman Did not have a problem with that. JeffHamm Feels it is a reasonable approach to attacking the problem. Stated that one of his concerns is, whatever construction you do on those arterials that serve the northwest quadrant you not build too much capacity into the transportation system so as to discourage the TDM policies that we are trying to support. Councilmember Shoulberg asked if Discovery Road is an arterial, and Mr. Robison replied that it is. Mr. Shoulberg asked about it being widened. Councilmember Keith said it is being downgraded, from 19th to San Juan; Mr. Robison called it a sub-collector. He said from Sheridan out to the edge of town is the minor arterial; they would be limiting driveways and providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the arterial. Mr. Shoulberg asked if that meant taking a much wider easement. Mr. Robison said ultimately it means buying additional right-of-way width, and Councilmember Perry-Thompson asked if that meant a difference in level of service designation at Sheridan. Mr. Robison said the road between Sheridan Street and the City Limits would be developed at a minor arterial standard. He said without that you would have tremendous problems at the intersection of Sheridan and Discovery and also probably have level-of-service "F" along SR20 in many places; it will provide a relief to traffic coming in and along SR 20 because it will support higher traffic volumes. Councilmember Shoulberg asked how much right-of-way would have to be purchased? Mr. Robison said the standard is a 60 foot right-of-way; it is now 30 feet in some places and more in others. Mr. Toews said one of the reasons for some of the proposed changes in zoning along Discovery was to obtain the necessary right-of-way width within those new zones. Mr. Robison said fhat was one of the main reasons for t~he location of multi-family and commercial areas along Discovery, because these are fairly large parcels, and as they develop these parcels, they would be able to get as a condition of development the additional right-of-way necessary to upgrade this to a minor arterial. He said, hopefully, the City's involvement in the purchase of right-of-way to make that a 60-foot arterial would be limited to those areas that are already developed. Councilmember Camfield said that already happened at the end where the School District property was; it was traded. Policies 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 Keith Said he had some difficulty with these. He said if this decision really gets made in a hurry, it isn't a problem, but there not being a great deal of development pressure in that area at this point, he wonders how quickly 3.1.2 is going to happen, and are we really going to hold up the Comprehensive Nonmotorized Plan until that has happened? How well can we do 3.1.4 not knowing what the alignments are? Robison At a Stafflevel both between Public Works and BCD, they felt fairly comfortable that, hopefully with the resources they have now, unless the Council changes their priorities, they will be able to get the Nonmotorized Plan in draft form within the next year. In addition, that is when they really need to integrate the Draft Arterial Street Plan's recommendations for that northwest quadrant, because one of the goals of the Nonmotorized Plan is not to open all those rights-of-way in the northwest. That could affect the ultimate location and placement in the detailed alignment of any of those roads. One of the things they spoke about with the Planning Commission is the option in the Plan now, that if somebody came in on this 25 acres and wanted to do a PUD, at least they would have some lines on the map that they thought were the general location and could refine them to a SEPA and PUD approval to do further study based on that -- that fact that we are going to have that as an arterial, and if somebody came in with a PUD we might lose one of those options. That is the reason for 3.1.4. Councilmember Keith asked if they were saying the Comprehensive Nonmotorized Plan and the decision about the arterial would be completed within one year. Mr. Robison said they should be integrated and coordinated as closely as possible. He said it is one of the primary recommendations in the memorandum from the Planning Commission. Mr. Toews said it is the top priority. Mr. Keith said he is skeptical because of workload, and he can see the Council deciding this is not a high priority because there is a lot pressure in that area, and then the Nonmotorized Plan is held hostage. Councilmember Shoulberg suggested they drop the linkage between this decision about the arterials in the northwest quadrant and the Nonmotorized Plan. Councilmember Camfield asked if he meant the Nonmotorized Plan stand alone, and Mr. Keith said yes, or proceed. He said obviously it would have to be coordinated for that area as those decisions about the arterials are made. He said basically what this does, it means if Council decides that they don't want to push on the arterials, that nothing happens on the Nonmotorized Plan either. Mr. Harpole said, "But isn't it true the other way around?" Sheila Westerman commented she attended the Planning Commission meeting, and this was not the intention. The intention was to make sure that when you do look at the preferred option for road alignment in the northwest quadrant, you look at the Nonmotorized Plan. The assumption was that it would already be done. She said you could change the wording, but be clear on it. It was the other way around. Councilmember Keith said that maybe it ought to read the other way around. So integrate the selection of a preferred option for road ali,~enments with the Comprehensive Nonmotorized Plan? Councilmember Camfield said that makes more sense. Mr. Robison said that was actually the policy recommendation of the citizen workgroup. Chair Harpole asked if they should just change it then? 3 MOTION Camfield: Integrate the selection of the preferred option for road alignments in the northwest quadrant with the Comprehensive Nonmotorized Plan. SECOND Davidson VOTE UNANIMOUS Policy 3.15 Harpole asked if this is still happening, if it is an active committee? Councilmember Camfield said it has not been an active committee for about a year and a half, and there had been some comment about that, especially from the Street Department, because that was where they used to refer a lot of things that were in their way. Councilmember Jenks said they should check with Mary Winters about that policy. Mr. Robison said one of the reasons why, there is some fine tuning in the vegetation management, and what is a landmark, an historic tree within the design standards. He said those are going to be recommendations and will be in the Public Works StandardslVmnual, He said Public Works Director Wheeler thought they should keep this policy in there, so that the Tree and Brushing Committee, because of their experience, would at least have a chance to review those policy recommendations before they are adopted in the Public Works Standards. Councilmember Camfield said the last time she talked to Mr. Wheeler he felt the Tree and Brushing Committee was on hold, but that it should be resurrected after some of these standards were set. Mr: Robison said they would be reviewing the standards before they are adopted; Mr: Harpole said he didn't have a problem with leaving it. Councilmember Perry-Thompson said she would like to know Councilmember Jenks' concern in talking about it with Mary Winters. Councilmember Jenks sa_id it was not a concern; she thirdcs there axe legal issues with rights-of-way that the City Attorney has been very concerned about and Mary Winters has been quite clear about, and before this policy is completely finalized, she thinks a review with the City Attorney is probably in order. It was asked if that is going to be part of the standards. Mr. Robison said it would. Local Street System Goal 4 and Policies 4.1 through 4.8 Policy 4.4 Keith That change to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is the one we went over last night? Mr. Robison said it was. Nonmotorized Transportation - Pedestrian & Bicycle Systems Goal 5 and Policies 5.1 through 5.24 Policy 5.4 Keith Seems rather inflexible to him, for instance in a situation in which a bike path could be provided elsewhere or walkways elsewhere than directly along the collectors. Said he would rather see something broader like adequate bike lanes should be in the vicinity, or to provide. He said he generally doesn't like the idea of legislating that the bike lane has to be right there with the 4 car traffic, and thinks it can be somewhere else. If they have something that rigid in there, it seems like it reduces the likelihood that you have a pedestrian way or a bike way by a different route that doesn't have bikes right into the traffic. Councilmember Perry-Thompson asked, "Does this specify that it has to be on the roadway?" Mr. Robison said it does say it should be required on both sides of all arterials, but the intent is that it serve as a guideline. He thinks, however, in reality if you had a bikeway that went offthe arterial and through some scenic corridor, instead of along that arterial -- in fact, that is exactly what they are hoping to do in that area on Howard Street, between Howard and 20th Street. He said Howard Street between Discovery Road and Hastings is projected to be an arterial, and they were looking at, due to environmental constraints, possibly having the pedestrian and bicycle trail outside the roadway. He said he understands Mr. Keith's concern and thinks it could be worded differently. Councilmember Perry-Thompson suggested changing the word "on" to "along," and asked if that would make any difference? Mr. Toews suggested, "in proximity to." Mr. Keith said he would forget it if everyone thinks it is clear enough as it is. Councilmember Camfield asked if that would preclude his doing what he was talking about. Ms. Westerman said it is a "should" not a "shall." It was noted "shoulds" lead to "shalls" eventually. Mr. Robison agreed, "....in proximity to both sides of all arterials and collectors... "is good. Mr. Keith made a motion that Mr. Toews come up with some more flexible language for Policy 5.4. [No second or vote was called for.] Policy 5.11 Keith Had the same concern as with Policy 5.4. He said he feels less concerned about that one. Councilmember Shoulberg said "where practical" -- that's a good opening. Mr. Keith concurred. Policy 5.18 Keith Said he can't make sense of the phrase, "... higher density residential areas to nonmotorized facilities?" Ms. Westerman said the workgroup wanted to make sure when there are large public, semi-public and even private facilities, that the nonmotorized requirements that come with those projects link up, so that they are not isolated, and that we end up ultimately with everything linked together. Mr. Keith said he understood that -,vas the intent. He said it seemed muddy to him and if it makes sense to everybody, it's fine. Mr. Robison said they would circle that and provide some alternative language: Policy 5.19 Keith Noted, "Streets designated as 'not to be opened' should be preserved as open space, utility easements or part of the nonmotorized transportation network;" it seems to imply there will be no more street vacations. Mr. Robison it isn't there will not be any more street vacations; however, street vacations will probably be more difficult to obtain than they are now, especially in areas with steep slopes or open space corridors. He said he thinks it is one of the central recommendations by the workgroup, because we have 94 miles of platted rights-of-way, and the maintenance costs associated with maintaining and developing all those are pretty significant. He said they do also provide opportunities for stormwater control, open space, wildlife corridors, and 5 trail corridors. One of the major goals of the Nonmotorized Plan is to go through systematically and identify those that don't need to be opened for property access. Mr. Keith said he agrees, there are going to be situations in which a street that's designated not to be opened doesn't serve any of its functions. Mr. Hamm said he thinks the idea was to use the Comprehensive Nonmotorized Plan to identify those we wanted to keep as nonmotorized. Mr. Robison said that is the whole point, and Mr. Keith agreed. Ms. Westerman said it says "certain." Mr. Keith gave an example, if someone owns six lots, there are five streets on them and they are going to do a PUD, so those streets are not going to be opened. This is saying they can't do anything. There was some disagreement. Councilmember Jenks asked if there were maintenance designations for nonmotorized trails, policies; how are they maintaining them? She said last night they made a caveat for putting Parks Department motorized vehicles down trails and having that exempted from the motorized part, but is there a maintenance policy for these trails, and do we need one? Mr. Harpole cited Policies 5.15, 5.15.k and 5.10. Transit & Ferry Services Goal 6, Policies 6.1 through 6.16 Policy 6.10.c Keith What is the intent there? The 1/4 mile along the corridor on which the transit will run, 1/4 each mile each side on intersecting streets? Mr. Hamm said 1/4 each side; the standard of the industry is that most transit passengers will walk 1/4 mile. Mr. Keith asked if the improvements intended would be sidewalks to encourage transit? Mr. Harem said walkways of some form for access to transit lines. Mr. Toews said it probably should be a reference to "transit- supportive improvements," and suggested that "transit-related" be stricken and replaced with "transit-supportive." Councilmember Shoulberg said he is beginning to notice through these policy sections that there are a lot of things being required of multi-family development. He asked if they go through this and start calculating what the cost is to the developer, when does it loose its affordability? He said he is beginning to notice a pattern, that we are putting a lot on these multi-family units; so when you start calculating what it's going to cost per unit, how do you get affordable housing there if you're going to tack this on? What is the standard, 4 units, 8 units, 16 units, 24 units? At what point is there a cut-off, and do we make professional calls to say that 100 improvements would only be 2%, 5% of the total expenditure of the project? The City can choose what that 5% can be of the total project. Suppose you have six units, it's required of all residential developments of sixplex units let's say to provide appropriate transit-supportive improvements. These goals then can transfer the cost on a sixplex. Right now in the industry, you need at least 24 units to have a manager, to be self-sufficient. You're talking big scale development that would have to cover these kinds of costs, and some people in this town are doing small incremental projects. How do you differentiate? These are all good public purpose things, there is no question, but I know what the costs are for multi-family housing, and it's going to get very expensive, Mr. Robison said his point is well taken. He referenced Policy 6.10.a, "... five or more dwelling units..." they are trying to establish a threshold where you at least look and ask the 6 questions, if they do need tmnsit-suptxa'five improvements, and that threshold would be at the SEPA exemption levels. The SEPA notice would go out, and if the Jefferson Transit general manager thought that location needed to have a shelter out in front of it, we would have a policy basis to require that. Mr. Shoulberg pointed out that SEPA is an umbrella, that once you are involved with your project and SEPA comes down on you, unless there are tighter standards, you are caught in a net that you can't get out of, because you are under time pressures to start. You'd give anything at that particular point just to get rolling, and you know that just as well as I do. So, I would want some kind of limit on this, based upon the cost of the project, what public purpose things we could ask for. If we tally them all up, what is it going to do to multi-family housing? Mr. Toews said he thinks there are policies throughout the rest of the Plan; in fact they had directed development of some of that policy language yesterday evening in the hand-out, the Revised Housing Policy 8.3. He said it indicates that in reviewing and revising the Port Townsend Municipal Code to implement this Plan, "balance the need to promote housing affordability with the need to require development-related improvements that adequately protect public health and safety while reducing long-term operations and maintenance costs to the City." He said the balancing act comes in the implementing regulations where you look at what the costs to affordable housing projects will be. You also have policies that explicitly direct the City to provide incentives to developers and home builders who provide housing for low and moderate income households, including density bonuses, waivers of impact fees, and System Development Charges (SDCs). Mr. Shoulberg said you can't give that to anybody above 30%. Mr. Robison you can with density bonuses, you just can't waive SDCs. Mr. Shoulberg, said he wouldn't expect to waive SDCs; it's the ancillary development costs that he is becoming concerned about. He asked if the legislative intent is framed to create a quantifiable standard per unit cost, what that would mean? He would leave that up to the Council, the Staff, the development community, everybody to say, "O.K. make them spend a $5,000 per unit on Public Purpose Cost." Mr. Robison said that one of the things that they have to realize is that we are going to have "X" amount of multi-family housing that's adopted under the Comprehensive Plan. In a year the Planning Commission will be looking at how much was actually built during that year; what were the results of that? They will be doing some investigative work to see what the actual per unit cost was, what the standards were, are they too excessive and things like that. He said without some models to go by, it's hard for them to determine. They could take a figure out of the air, but without some experience it would be hard for them to justify. Mr. Shoulberg, said it's out on the table. Policy 6.14 Mr. Harpole asked if it isn't required by law that the ferry be handicapped accessible? Mr. Harem said the Ferry System is exempt from the ADA. Parking Management Goal 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.14 Policy 7.3 Councilmember Camfield said they had some discussion about how the Parking Plan had been developed to encourage rehab of historic structures through reduced restrictions on parking requirements. She said she realizes they are going to be reviewing the parking code, but she thinks they still need to have increased incentives for people to rehab those buildings as opposed to doing new construction. Mr. Robison said Staff has put together, based on Council direction at the January Retreat, three options for a new parking ordinance for Council consideration that they will probably be looking at in July or early August, and this policy helps provide that guidance. Those three options are: · No parking requirements for historic buildings that are listed as primary and secondary · Other incentives for new buildings up to a certain threshold · Plus a third option It was asked if it is still advantageous for someone to come in and do a rehab of an historic building as opposed to doing an infill? Mr. Robison said one option does, and one option does not. He said they thought they would provide the Planning Commission, the Council, and the community those options for that debate, that they heard testimony on both sides. Mr. Toews said one option would provide an outfight exemption for adaptive reuse and restoration of historic structures from off-street parking requirements. Councilmember Camfield said one of the only things we have going us for us is the historic buildings, and it is something we have to protect no matter how we do it. Councilmember Keith asked if the changes in the code are only for commercial? Mr. Robison said this is a quick fix until they can do a total overhaul of the parking code. The Planning Commission hasn't had a chance until last week to begin to look at that, and Staff hasn't had a chance to fine me the draft ordinances to get them back to the Planning Commission; they will look at doing that very soon. Councilmember Camfield asked, as this is written what effect is this going to have upon that document when it comes out? Mr. Harpole said it strikes him that Policy 7.3.2 talks pretty directly to the point that you are making. Councilmember Camfield said it does, but it doesn't differentiate between one being greater or being primary to the other. Mr. Keith said this is existing historic stmctures. Councilmember Camfield said it says, "... review, and where appropriate, reduce off- street parking requirements for new commercial development," and then it says, "Reduce parking requirements to provide incentives for the revitalization, adaptive reuse..." It doesn't say that is really more of a primary focus than providing for Policy 7.3.1. Mr. Robison said he thinks they will hear testimony on both sides, and in some of their initial research on how other jurisdictions handle it, they found that many waive all parking requirements and do not distinguish between the new and old. Councilmember Davidson said he thinks that is worth looking at, and Councilmember Shoulberg agreed. Mr. Robison said that is why they are looking at the range of those options and providing Council those options. The Planning Commission will complete its fact finding on that and will take testimony, because they have heard arguments on both sides of that. Mr. Toews said he thinks the policy as it is currently written, 7.3 in total, doesn't seek to prioritize one over the other, but it allows for a range of options to be developed and for Planning Commission, Council and the Community to figure out what option for reducing overall parking requirements is the best way. Councilmember Camfield said she doesn't want it to be more advantageous for somebody to tear down, or not fix up, an older building, because the costs of doing 8 that are justastronomicak She said she thinks there needs to be some incentive to do that. Mr. Toews said he thinks all the options that they have developed at a Staff level to be forwarded on to them, contemplate either a higher exemption level or an outright exemption in total for adaptive reuse and revitalization of historic structures. Mr. Davidson asked if anybody knew how many oppommities there are for refill with new commercial construction in the downtown. It was noted there are 14 infill parcels in the historic district. MOTION Jenks: Add to Goal 7 "act as a deterrent to adaptive reuse of downtown historic structures and new development." SECOND Shoulberg VOTE UNANIMOUS Councilmember Shoulberg, asked about Policy 7.3 itself, could they give him an example of flexible parking regulations that limit the amount of new impervious surfaces? Mr. Toews said that if you look in the water quality policies they reviewed previously, there are a number of examples, the use of pavers instead of the standard asphalt, parking under buildings, etc.. He said to encourage flexible regulations that allow a range of options is the intent behind the policy. The range of options, getting back to what Kate was talking about yesterday which we postponed, is the way you are going to start saying only one car per multi-family unit. There was discussion about grass as an alternative parking surface. Mr. Shoulberg disagreed and said it is every time you have a parking lot period. He said once cars go on it, the surface becomes impervious; it becomes so compacted that nothing gets through it. Mr. Hamm said one example of a flexible parking regulation is not to reduce the amount of impervious surface in parking, but that you would lower parking requirements if a program were provided by employers or a commercial property owner to get their employees at that site to be users of transportation altematives. Mr. Shoulberg said yes, but you are lowering the amount of spaces; that is the only way he can see you can do that, and he would want that done on all use categories. So there must be a public purpose when you allow the tradeoff, though, that is the public purpose on the other side of lowering the standard. He said he doesn't think you can reduce the impervious surface without lowering the number. Mr. Toews said he thinks Mr. Shoulberg is right, and that actually was the intent of the drafter, and it apparently didn't come through in the language. He said the idea was to not only provide more flexible off-street parking standards for downtown development, but development in general, and to overall reduce impervious surfaces through the parking standards. He spoke of more flexibility in numbers and options as to how you accommodate the parking that is required, the number of parking spaces that would be required of the developer by using alternative surfacing on locating parking under the structure. Mr. Robison answered Councilmember Camfield's question about creating an impervious surface once you drive a car on it, that over time it compacts and you use it all the time. Mr. Robison said they would reword that and bring it back to Council. Mr. Harpole noted that Policy 3.2 talks about reduced parking requirements, and about implementing flexible parking regulations. It seems that we are covering both sides of it. Mr. Robison said intent was to give us the direction on the ordinances we are working on. Mr. Toews said maybe they should use the word "reduced" instead of "flexible." 9 Councilmember Jenks asked about the current parking code if it is legal or illegal to park in more than one parking place at a time, like having an oversized vehicle park in two parking spaces. Mr. Robison said it was not addressed in the zoning code; it might be addressed in the parking enforcement. Ms. Westerman said if you are over the line you should get a ticket. A brief discussion ensued about RV parking, and where they are going to be allowed to park. Mr. Robison said they will address that in the new Policy 7.15 and bring that back to Council. Mr. Hamm said they had discussions with Public Works Director Wheeler and Mayor McCulloch about that issue and the objective was to first use an incentive; they are working hard with the Chamber of Commerce to encourage people to use the Park-and-Ride facility. Cotmcilmember Camfietd asked if the sign coming down the S Curve on SR 20 is effective? The consensus was it was inadequate. Mr. Hamm said the next step is to do a better job of sinage. Ms. Westerman said there was a lot of discussion about including in the revised parking ordinance maximum as well as minimum parking standards. She said they had discussed the fact that Safeway and Henery Hardware and some of the commercial projects that have gone in here recently have exceeded the parking requirements, that they don't really want to promote that and may actually prevent that in the future. She said she is not sure why this is reflected here, whether they didn't come to consensus, but she encouraged Council to direct Staff to draft something along that line to at least debate whether there should be maximum parking standards so we don't have regional type retailers that like to come in and build those huge, huge lots that exceed your standards. She said you are still not accomplishing what you want to do, which is reduce the impervious surface. There was brief discussion regarding large parking lots. Councilmember Perry-Thompson said Forrest Rambo had spoken a number of times about making people in Recreational Vehicles feel welcome. She said since they had been paying a lot of attention to a lot of other input, she hopes he will be agreeable with what they come up with here. Ms. Westerman said she didn't think anybody wanted them to feel unwelcome, but she said it is inappropriate and dangerous to park on downtown streets. Councilmember Camfield said you could direct them to Point Hudson where they could find a space. Councilmember Perry-Thompson said she agrees, but Mr. Rambo has taken a lot of time to make sure these people feel welcome: Mr. Harpole said Mr. Hamm's comments, and also on the transportation tour, they talked about that same thing as well. Really, the first step is going to be to assist those people in finding the Park- and-Ride. It is going to be to their benefit as well, because finding a parking space downtown for most of those vehicles during the summer is really difficult anyway. Councilmember Perry- Thompson said negotiating downtown is very difficult also. Councilmember Jenks asked if they wanted to change Goal 7 to add "adaptive reuse," it might be changed with the same wording in Policy 7.3 ".... do not act as a deterrent to adaptive reuse or new development . . ." She suggested if they wanted it to be preferential to new development then the wording might reflect that in both cases. It was determined they wished to wait for the options to be discussed in public hearing. Mr. A1 Scalf, County Planner, brought up the issue of Engineering Standards and discussion followed. Level of Service (LOS) & Concurrency Management Goal 8 and Policies 8.1 through 8.8 10 Policy 8.1 Councilmember Jenks said this is assuming that the City street standards which are developed have a lot of flexibility in them. Mr. Robison said that is correct; there is always a variance process. Policy 8.2.d Councilmember Keith said he thought the word "access" in next to the last line should be deleted. Policy 8.5 Councilmember Keith asked about Level of Service D (LOS D) and said here as, in a number of other places, he wondered about consistency with the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) as vastly amended. Mr. Robison said this is still consistent, and in fact the LOS D standard actually came from the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization for arterials into town that serve regional needs. He said the recommendation of the Regional Transportation Planning Organization comes out to LOS D. He said none of our other arterials or collectors are approaching LOS D, so they felt comfortable at this tirne with that level of service standard. Councilmember Keith said it didn't say arterials and collectors, it just says roads. Mr. Robison said basically arterials and collectors are all you measure. Rights-of-Way Management Goal 9 and Policies 9.1 through 9.8 Policy 9.3 Councilmember Jerdcs asked ifFPAs are delineated by size, timber that's cut? Mr: Robison said 5,000 board feet, or over two acres. She asked if this is only where it would apply? Councilmember Keith said he think~s her concern is that it they be sure it falls under one or the other, or both. She said, yes, it's only the big ones. Mr. Robison said it would probably be both. Councilmember Shoulberg reminded everyone that the property owners adjacent to the fight-of-way own the timber; Mr. Robison said, yes, in platted streets rights-of-way. Mr. Toews said it might not hurt to include a parenthetical note indicating when one doesn't apply and when the other one does. If it's less than 5,000 board feet a street development permit would still be required; if more, a street development permit and an FPA permit. Discussion ensued about rights to cutting the timber in rights-of-way. Councilmember Shoulberg said there is unclarity on this issue, and Mr. Robison said there is a City Attomey opirdon on this and they will copy it to Council, and told Mr. Shoulberg they would come back to this policy. Councilmember Jenks said she would like to see in there that their policy for rights-of-way management and maintenance is to not use chemicals, and that they can reference a study that's about to be referenced in the herbicide policy that has basically been used over the years to provide policy framework for the way the City manages rights-of-way. Mr. Shoulberg said the policy should be positive, and Ms. Jenks replied it should say, "Does not encourage the use of chemical right-of- way management," because there are other means -- you can plant, you can substitute, you can pull 11 weeds. Mr. Robison asked if that is on pubhc lands as opposed to public rights-of-way? Ms. Jenks said it is both in the policy that is coming before the Council next week. She suggested this be a new Policy 9.9. Transportation Financing Goal 10 and Policy 10.1 through 10.7 Mr. Robison said this is one of the recommendations from last night that the Planning Commission changed the order of priority on Policies 10.3.d and e. Councilmember Shoulberg suggested pulling 10.3.e out of the ranking, because it can never win with that weight. He suggested making it a separate policy to put it in a non-competitive category. Mr. Robison pointed out Policy 10.5 deals with revenues for nonmotorized projects. Ms. Westerman said that is a prioritization of different expenditures. She said if you do not change this you might as well pull it out as Councilmember Shoulberg suggested, because that is not choosing. Mr. Harpole said the Community Direction Statement is what is driving him to want to change these also, that it seems very basic to it, and he wants to clearly say this is the higher priority. MOTION Harpole: Reverse the order of PolicY 10.3.d and 10.3.e. SECOND Camfield Discussion Councilmember Davidson said that if you look at the Transportation Element, there are dozens of references to nonmotorized transportation, so that it has been given a high priority by the original workgroup, and the Transportation Improvement Committee which has been working on this whole issue for years. He said all of Policy 5 is noting but nonmotorized transportation (there are 24 policies); it is a very important thing to the workgroup, and he thinks it was wrong to reverse those priorities. Councilmember Perry-Thompson said the PT2020 Report also gave it very high priority; it is also in the Land Use Element -- it is everywhere. Councilmember Camfield said one of the reasons she feels so strongly about it is that even with that direction all these years, it hasn't happened. She said the only way to get it to happen is to prioritize. VOTE UNANIMOUS Policy 10.5 Mr. Robison pointed out the Planning Commission recommendation that 35% of the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) funds for nonmotorized improvements might be too large a percentage for nonmotorized improvements. He said he wanted to highlight that as they go through the Capital Facilities Plan. MOTION Shoulberg: Moved that as one of the possible methods of funding, Policy 10.2.e be abolished at this time. Discussion Councilmember Shoulberg said "establishing a street utility fund," in Policy 10.2.e. is a huge taxation discussion that he would like to deal with in a more comprehensive manner, and that this is a mandate. Mr. Toews pointed out that it is one of the options that may be examined and brought back for long-term funding. Discussion ensued. DIES FOR LACK OF SECOND 12 Implementation Policies Gval 11 and Policies 1 I. 1 through 11.6 ~nvr O CAPITAL FACILITIES AND UTILITIES ELEMENT Introduction (Pages ¥1II 1-3) Goal-1 - Capital Facilities, Generally No comments Goal 2 - Phasing of Capital Facilities & Utilities No .comments Goal 3- Levds of Service' Policy 3.3 Library' Director Lirmea Patrick pointed out there is an incorrect number in the table; it should be 3.75 volumes per capita. She said they corrected it in documents used for the Capital Facilities Plan discussions, but it did not get changed on the master for the Comprehensive Plan. Com-icitmember Keith said he thinks a tot of these did not get changed. Mr. Toews said he thinks a lot of them are going to change further based on the Capital Budget decisions, when they are recalculated for Level of Service. Councilmember Jenks said she would like to see a goal or policy' that says, "Capital Facilities will be expanded and planned for as the population expands, but that every effort will be made to have the expanded population pay for the Capital Facility." Mr. Robison said, growtsh to pay its OWT~ way. Iris. Jenks said you can't really say it that way, because there is a certain amount of planning involvec[ Mr. Harpole said Policies 2.2 and 2.3 touch on it. Ms. Jenks said this is partly being an impact fee issue, but also a planning issue, because then you would adjust your timing of Capital Facilities planning as closely as possible to when the growth is actually occurring, and cited the wastewater treatment plant as a good example. She said we have a capacity in the wastewater treatment system for 10,000; we have a population of 8,000 and she asked when do we start the planning, devote the Staff time and finances to planning for that next wastewater treatment need? Discussion ensued. Mr. Harpole said he does think Policies 2.2 and 2.3 address the issue and Mr. Robison said Policies 5.4 and 5.5 did also. Ms. Jenks said 5.4 and 5.5 addressed it, but she wanted to go a little bit beyond that, and said that when you invest too much time and energy ahead of time in planning for growth, sometimes you're wrong, and so you want to minimize the amount of time and energy if it's actual money spent on Capital Facilities or its planning effort, etc. She said you want to make it efficient and not do overkill. Mr. Robison said the goal of this Plan is to try to grow at a moderate pace on an annual basis to that projected population of 13,876 people over the 20 year period. He said that what you find is anything over a 2 to 3% annual growth you have a difficult time keeping pace with the in~astructure. Mr. Robison answered Ms. Jenks question about when to start planning for a new wastewater treatment plant, that the Wastewater Master Plan will give a clearer idea, and said we are only a few years away from capacity. 13 Goal 4 -Concurrency Management Mr. Robison said the chart will change. Goal 5 - Funding & Financial Feasibility No comments Goal 6 -- Consistency with Other Plans No comments Goal 7 - Essential Public Facilities Policy 7.3 Mr. Harpole asked the Planning Commission's reasoning in eliminating this policy? Mr. Toews said it is embodied within the Policy. Mr. A1 Scalf said with Public Facilities, just for Council's reference, they have a needs assessment consultant for Jefferson County and are calculating for the next 10 years that we will need twice as much space for our County services. Councilmember Camfield said that is probably time for the City too. Goal 8 -Unincorporated Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) Miscellaneous discussion. Mr. A1 Scalf said the County anticipates releasing their Comprehensive Plan September 1st. It was suggested their Plan could be adopted in a year and Councilmember Keith said it would make their adoption and our first annual review fit together quite nicely, so if there are consistency problems they could be sorted out. Mr. Scalf noted the County had similar concerns regarding affordable housing and hope to discuss them with the City as well as more specific scoping of the Glen Cove area. UTILITY GOALS & POLICIES Goal 9 - Utilities, Generally Policy 9.1 Councilmember Jenks questioned the term, "...to serve growth and development." Councilmember Perry-Thompson suggested rewording, assisting citizens or population and future growth development. Councilmember Camfield suggested, "address current needs," and Ms. Jenks concurred, "... to address current needs and growth and development." 14 Goal 10 - City Water Utility (Water Service - Generally) Mr. Robison said most of these changes came out of the water policies developed by the Council's Utility Committee Policy 10.3 Councilmember Shoulberg asked why the word "retail." Councilmember Jenks said they changed that in Committee. Councilmember Shoulberg said they have contractual wholesale customers, like Indian Island which is military and has the power to condemn our system. He agreed that if the note is included with the policy it will take care of it. Goal 11 - City Water Utility (Water Service - Out-of-City) Mr. Robison said the Planning Commission made no changes. No comments Goal 12 -- Water System Planning No comments Goal 13 -- Water Supply No comments Goal 14 -- Water Conservation Councilmember Perry-Thompson asked if this would be like a Public Works project? Policy 14.4 Councilmember Camfield asked if the use of greywater had been discussed? Councilmember Keith said that somewhere else there is a policy about the rate structure in terms of conservation. He said water conservation shows up in VIII-13 and VIII-15, 17.8. and suggested maybe that belonged in water conservation or maybe cross referenced. MOTION SECOND VOTE ltarpole: Insert Policy 17.8 under Goal 14, repeated as 14.5. Keith UNANIMOUS Goal 15 -Water Quality Policies 15.1 and 15.3 Councilmember Jenks said she thinks they might get a little bit more general about the water quality goal in 15.1 and the word retail she said she was referencing, specifically for the reason of 15 Policy 15.3, she said because where they really want to protect groundwater resources is the Out-of- City Service Area. She said they should be fairly clear about that. She said she would like to either change 15.3 to say"in the City and Out-of-City Service Areas," or change 15.1 to reflect that we're talking about both City retail customers and the Out-of-City Service Area. Mr. Harpole asked if they could get to that in the goal? She said, however they wanted to do it, she just wanted to make sure it's specific that the aquifer recharge areas they are talking about are out of the City as well as in, because it is much more of an issue out of the City. It was suggested, throughout the City's Service Area. Councilmember Perry-Thompson reminded about renumbering those policies. MOTION Jenks: Add the words, "throughout the water service area" to Goal 15. SECOND Harpole Discussion Mr. Toews added to the discussion, you want explicit reference throughout the rest of the policies that it is in city and out of city service area. He said they are looking at Goal 15. AMENDMENT Jenks: Amend the motion for Goal 15 to say, "To protect and enhance the quality of all surface and groundwater supplies." SECOND Harpole VOTE UNANIMOUS Policy 15.3 Councilmember Shoulberg pointed out that some of them worked 10 months to get that change in the critical areas ordinance for aquifer recharge areas, and now we are pointing out they are permitting septic systems over the aquifer recharge area. Mr. Harpole said he is glad that one is in there and thanked Mr. Shoulberg for his efforts. Goal 16 -- Water Supply System Performance No comments Goal 17 -- Water System Financing Policy 17.5 Councilmember Shoulberg asked what this meant? Councilmember Keith said if it requires a larger main someplace or additional storage capacity. Mr. Robison concurred. City Wastewater Utility Goal 18 -- Public Health & Safety Mr. Robison said these are some pretty big recommendations by the Planning Commission. Policy 18.1 Mr. Robison said that in the northwest quadrant there have been large parcels where people 16 don't want to hook up to the sewer; it's going to cost them upwards to $5,000, and they have no intention of subdividing their land. They have one-acre or five-acre tracts and a septic system that is adequate and functioning, and felt this would be a real burden. So, if there is a parcel over one- acre in size they are not required to automatically hook up to it if they are located within 500 feet, until the time they subdivide their property, or their system fails -- then they are required. Councilmember Shoulberg asked if they are required to design for double hookup? Mr. Toews said Policy 18.1.3.b applies. Mr. Shoulberg said 18.1 and 18.2 is a change from what we talked about. He said they had that discussion at the workgroup. Councilmember Jenks said the only question she would have about it is if the parcel doesn't perk, and wondered if anyone checks about perking since the City has sewer systems. Councilmember Keith noted the PUD does that. Mr. Toews said Mr. Shoulberg is fight, the workgroup had a lengthy discussion on this issue and opted not to craft such an exemption, but to make the policy highly restrictive and to encourage connection to the City's collection and treatment system. Mr. Robison answered the question of how many are involved, that they know of one and potential 50 to 100 tops, and everyone gets the standard review. Discussion followed about high density areas and mixed use centers. Goal 19 -. System Development & Management No comments Goal 20 -- System Development Phasing No comments Goal 21 -- Wastewater System Financing No comments City Stormwater Utility Goal 22 - Stormwater Quality No comments Goal 23 - Stormwater Quantity - Natural Drainage Systems Approach Policy 23.2 Councilmember Perry-Thompson asked if they can get "requirements" in there someplace or is it just going from "requirements" to "strategies"? (They crossed out requirements.) Councilmember Keith said he would prefer "strategies." 17 Goal 24 - Stormwater Facility Maintenance & Operation Policy 24. 2 Councilmember Shoulberg said to require private property owners to maintain stormwater treatment is an incredible burden on the City to enforce; it's just impossible. Councilmember Keith said there was the distinction between individual systems and things like the pond at Lynnsfield that we do want to monitor, so maybe it should be large scale commercial not private property owners. Mr. Robison said there may be a private property which has an impact so great from non- maintenance that you would want to go in and monitor, so this would give you that option. Mr. Shoulberg said if you get a complaint the City has the right to go in there, because the system is not performing as designed; you have that inherent right, if it's a public safety, health and welfare issue. And stormwater running down and causing erosion is definitely a public safety issue. Mr. Harpole asked, "But isn't the issue encouraging the owner to maintain?" Mr. Shoulberg replied, "That is better." Mr. Keith noted that if they say encourage, they cut off their opportunity to enforce. Mr. Shoulberg said enforcement is guaranteed, they signed the permit, they designed it and put it in according to the standards, and it has to function according to those standards. He said if it doesn't function, you will see it reallY quickly, and go after them. Mr. Robison said of lot of it is educational, so if there is a way, encourage private property owners through education. MOTION SECOND VOTE Jenks: Delete "Require" and reword to say, "Work with property owners .... Shoulberg UNANIMOUS Goal 25 - Stormwater System Financing Policy 25.2 Councilmember Jenks said Policy 21.3 wastewater system financing -- "Ensure that new development pays its fair share of the costs of wastewater system development through the use of system development charges." She said they agreed to present stormwater system development charges in the Stormwater Master Plan in draft form as a potential for Council. Councilmember Keith said that Policy 25~2 covers it. Mr. Harpole said that at first modification, if they adopt the Comp Plan, they would come and change this policy. Cable Television Goal 26 -- Quality of Service Policy 26.3.1 Mr. Welch suggested eliminating the word "frequencies" and instead of "establish" you might want to say "establish and ensure minimum standards for signal transmission." 18 Councilmember Shoulberg said when you use the word "ensure," that's implementation, but he likes that and the Council concurred. Goal 27 -Service to Public Buildings No comments Goal 28 -- Local Access Programming No comments Goal 29 -- Telecommunications Councilmember Shoulberg said they need to be aware of the little satellite dishes (direct TV) and anything else coming up with cable in the National Historic District. He said the federal government is preempting them, and he wanted to say something about the utility infrastructure not harming the aesthetics oft he downtown Historic District. Mr. Harpole suggested, "That they will not jeopardize the National Historic District." Mr. Shoulberg will attempt to obtain further information. Goal 30 - Electricity Policy 30.3 Councilmember Keith noted everywhere else they have the unnamed utility provided, and here they have named Puget Power. Mr. Toews suggested, "local serving utility." Policy 30.8 Councilrnember Jenks said in the existing agreement with Puget Power, local serving utility, they will only agree to not use herbicides in that current management cycle and that each future management cycle has to be renegotiated~ She said, if in fact the intention here was prevention of herbicide use, it needs to be stronger; maybe the herbicide policy will take care of it, in other pans, but if they are doing any cross referencing, and since they are talking vegetation management here, they may want to consider that here too. Mr. Keith pointed out the other piece of that is pruning. Ms. Jenks said herbicide is only one part of it, they may have do something else too. She also discussed the impacts of burying utilities, and what the vegetation management is. MOTION Jenks: Add a new policy that says we should continue to negotiate with the local serving utility for non-use of herbicides in maintenance of its rights-of-way. SECOND Harpole VOTE UNANIMOUS 19 Councilmember Shoulberg talked about direct buying wholesale customers, and said the City of Port Townsend can become a wholesale customer with Bonneville Power. He said we are 6 miles from the Bonneville Power transmission line; the City pays Puget Power a wheeling charge, fractions of a cent to go those 6 miles, and buy as a City all of our electricity wholesale -- we become a direct buying customer for Bonneville. Councilmember Keith asked if we buy the in-City infrastructure from Bonneville? Mr. Shoulberg answered that the City would buy direct from Bonneville; they would not become a utility. We would buy direct from Bonneville, and pay a wheeling charge for all of the City's wastewater treatment, the lights, everything that the City uses, like a wholesale customer and do not have to pay retail rates. MOTION Shoulberg: Explore with Bonneville Power and Puget Power the opportunity to become a wholesale customer, to efficiently maximize the use of City revenue. SECOND Harpole VOTE Jenks abstained Councilmember Shoulberg asked where solid waste is in all of this? Staff is to come back with additional policies. Councilmember Jenk~s said when the electrical grid was upgraded in the County, they put a substation in at Shine and rebuilt power lines, cut vegetation and did a lot of things from Shine into Hadlock. She said they tried to comment as individuals as the City Water Advisory Committee about the Shine substation, because that was the only thing they were allowed to comment on under SEPA. Puget Power, though they did a massive change in terms of the amount of electrical power and space they took, justified it as maintenance. She said she would like to see that never happens again, and wanted to know if anyone can suggest a way to keep that from ever happening again. She said this Policy 30.3 flagged this to her, and this could easily happen again where they will call it maintenance and upgrade their system, and we will not have the option to make any environmental comments under an environmental review because they won't have to do any environmental review. Discussion followed conceming what circumstance could trigger intervention. Ms. Jenks said she really did not know how to deal with it. Mr. Harpole said they should keep that issue alive. Mr. Robison said they might be able to include that in Policy 30.8. Goal 31 -- Energy Conservation Policy 31.5 Councilmember Harpole said he thinks it is great this policy is in here. Mr. Robison suggested continuing this to June 18, the Economic Development and have sufficient time to do the Land Use Map. 20 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at 10:05 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Dan Harpole adjoumed the meeting. Attest: Julie McCulloch, Mayor Acting City Clerk Sheila Avis, Minute Taker 21