Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07021996 MINUTES OF THE PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING JULY 2, 1996 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in workshop session this 2nd day of July, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. i,n the City Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Julie McCulloch, presiding. Present were Jean Camfield, Kathryn Jenks, Ian Keith, Diane Perry-Thompson, Ted Shoulberg, Dan Harpole. Bill Davidson was excused. Mayor McCulloch proposed culminating the Comprehensive Plan process with a celebration potluck Friday, July 26. Councilmember Harpole suggested inviting all the workgroups, past Council Members, past Mayors, etc., and having a visual document of those who have participated together, because the Comp Plan is going to be around for quite awhile. Mr. Robison noted the great discussions in the past three meetings. He said that we are now trying to get through the deliberations and final changes to each of the elements and review' and approve three preliminary lines-in and lines-out prepared by Mr. Toews. · Mayor Plan to make motions and be clear. · Itarpole Affordable housing and Multi-Family are not done yet. Suggested delaying for map discussion. · Robison If you make changes, then you have to make goal and policy changes to conform with the map. · Itarpole Possible strategy -- get through the elements. Put the Housing Element last. · Jenks Would like to present a land use idea; the map is incredibly important to a lot of people. Asked if not completed tonight could we have another meeting? · Shoulberg He said they could surgically change the map so as not change goals & policies. Worried when they will get to it. If we're not done, we won't be done. · Robison Noted the upcoming meetings and Council action proposed for the July 15th meeting. Would rather have additional meetings before the 15th than jeopardize grant money. ~ llarpole This is too important to rush, but also thinks they should be able to get it done. MOTION SECOND VOTE Harpole Move Agenda Item #5 to follow #8. Jenks Four in favor, two opposed - Shoulberg and Keith · Toews Draft//3 -- there are no new policies recommended by Council. _ LAND USE ELEMENT #1 3.13 · Jenks Why did you take out nonmotorized? Off-road is way more specific than motorized. ,, Keith . ,' Toews //2 No comments. //3 No comments Definition -- See//4. To allow Public Works vehicles access. You need to look at #1 and #4 together. //4 No comments Policy 7.3 Manufactured Homes Harpole We need to drat~ language that stipulates only those manufactured homes that pass the Washington Energy Code be allowed in all areas except the Historic District. Toews All manufactured homes, provided they comply with Washington State Energy Code or its equivalent. Thought the other issue that had not been laid to rest was roof pitch. Perry-Thompson Does that address other issues of houses that are moved or that were here already? Toews That is the policy change that is intended to address that problem. By making this change you would assure that recent vintage manufactured homes would be moved into the city. Keith It was his understanding that roof pitch would not be part of the goals & policies but part of implementation. It shouldn't apply exclusively to manufactured homes. Shoulberg Policy linkup for pitch of roof?. Keith There are several policies that talk about the character of the town, an eclectic mix of housing types that we could add roof pitch; Toews There is ample policy basis for making such a code change in the future, if you desire to do so. MOTION SECOND VOTE Perry-Thompson Adopt Policy 7.3 regarding Manufactured Homes with the provision they comply with the Washington Energy Code or its equivalent. Harpole 5 in favor; 1 opposed - Jenks Jenks Said she cannot vote to approve manufactured homes in town outside of Planned Unit Developments (PUD). She said if she had her way she would only permit modular homes and in a PUD; if at all, also. The major reason why she cannot approve manufactured homes within thecity limits is the economic impact she feels it will have to the independent builders in town, not aesthetics, not anything else but that they are not made here, and do not add any' money to the economy of our town when sold. She noted repairs to stick built homes is ali part' of the economy of the town. #6 No comments //7 7.11 Maximum and Minimum Densities * Harpole Strike the first sentence. The second sentence really does it in terms of policy. · Shoulberg The second half of the first sentence was one of the things they were going to discuss. · Keith Striking defers the decision to somewhere else. We are going to have minimum densities in R-W, so this policy can stand without having to decide at this moment about the R- III minimum. We have to do it sooner or later. * Shoniberg Why do you want to eliminate the first sentence? · ltarpole His assumption is going with the Planning Commission recommendation for no minimum densities for R-III, means there are only minimum densities for R-IV, so maybe it could be changed to,".., minimum densities for the highest density multi-family residential districts" rather than the "higher." He wants to stick with the Planning Commission recommendation of no minimum density for R-III, yet keeping the minimum density for R-IV. Without minimum dens/tv in R-III, by far the most plentiful of the higher density multi-family designations, 179 acres, keeps a whole variety of options open for those pieces of property. Doubts that the market will demand that much designated multi-family residential area. Without the market's ability to push that, he doesn't see a way to say they are going to push it, and require that those properties have minimum densities. · Shoulberg If there is less R-III, would you change? * Harpole Not unless it was half what it is now. ~ Perry-Thompson Takes care of it, with no minimum density. Won't have to think of downzoning later. Gives us more options. · Shoulberg If the market goes up on all these properties that have minimum densities because of the upscale people who are coming here -- reduce densities on R-III because they can afford to build more expensive dwelling units and have less on the block. It negates the goal of providing more land for affordable housing. If you create a minimum, you try to modify the market and say you believe that more units to the acre w/ll result in lesser cost per unit and therefore a lesser rent. Said his concern about not having a minimum density is that the more delightful parcels, the more expensive parcels of R-III, would mean they would move to another bracket, and you wouldn't get that choice that they are trying to move the market. Would like to reduce the amount of land. ,, Jenks The Northwest Quadrant has more of a village potential. There is a lot of building out there and a lot more proposed. Should be able to walk or ride their bikes to the store. Needs to have some commercial, some multi-family, mixed use ~:enter and just need to do the same thing we have done in the rest of town. You could consider moving some of the multi-family; if you wanted to keep the same amount of acreage, maybe you would want to move some. Make another village center; it is going to develop; it is possible it w/Il go upscale; it does need to have mixed uses of diversity. MOTION' Harpole SECOND Discussion: · Keith · Harpole. Jenks Adopt Policy 7.11 and establish maximum housing densities for residential districts, and minimum densities for the highest density multi-family residential districts only. Page VI 8, do we need to make further change? Maker of the motion change highest to high. Second did not agree. Maker -- go back to highest. VOTE UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor #8 8.9 Location of Regional Commercial Retailers MOTION SECOND Discussion: · Toews · Keith VOTE Jenks Shouiberg Delete Policy 8.9. There is a similar policy in the Economic Development Element. If deleted, it doesn't prevent this from happening.' Not earth shaking to delete it. UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor #9 No Comment #10 No Comment #11 No Comment #12 12.5.2 · Shoulberg Thought we had decided not to. · Jenks Did we decide not to use the ESA ordinance as a seismic hazard criterion? Toews The concern that you expressed initially is that you don't knoTM where the soils are that are subject to liquefaction. We are required to review development proposals under Chapter 19.05 PTMC that are within seismic hazard areas. · Shoulberg What is defined as seismic? · Jenks That is the issue that needs to be discussed. Toews was just saying the only criterion we have is the ESA ordinance. So what would really happen, is that we would potentially identify the ESA criteria as a seismic hazard zone; you would have to do some sort of research 4 to validate. It is not that it would automatically be located there, but that you would have to prepare a geotechnical report. ,, Toews The ESA ordinance, as it is currently written, prohibits the City from locating critical facilities within areas identified as seismic hazards under the ESA ordinance. · Shoulberg We have no identification except ancient data. · Toews What we have mapped essentially are bog deposits, and fill. · Keith o This doesn't say areas that are mapped as environmentally sensitive. · Jenks The ESA map is not the only an indicator. · Robison It's not tied to the map. It is tied to performance standards. The maps are only a guide to the general location of seismic areas in Port Townsend ,. Shoulberg Legislative intent is clear and if someone challenges those, it stands on the public record what you just said now. If we have to engineer around a seismic area, this may be the best to have an engineered solution. · Jenks You could probably do a variance process. · Robison Usually you have to have a geo-tech report before things of that nature can be approved. The intent, especially for critical facilities more than other development in the ESA, is to avoid the impact of locating it there because there is too great a risk to have a hospital, school, police or fire station in those areas. That is the intent of the GMA. //13 · Toews This policy is based on Jenks' concern that permit processing Regulatory Reform policies, didn't provide adequate emphasis on the fact that the City was going to continue to implement existing regulations intended to protect our natural environment. Jenks The assumption was not that they were doing something wrong, but wanted to make sure there was some language in there to do it. The wording is fine. #14 No comments #15 No comments #16 Regional Retailers MOTION Shoulberg Delete 16.2.1 SECOND Harpole VOTE UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor ,, Jenks Asked regarding her concerns for the NW Quadrant. · Shoulberg Put it in the map discussion. If it generates an open policy segment that's fine. · ltarpole The policy is already in place. · Toews It might generate policy changes, because you have policies directing that multi- family or higher residential development be located close to places of employment, arterials, etc. 5 If you change the whole zoning regime in the NW Quadrant to have commercial, places of employment, etc., then those policies wouldn't necessarily be consistent, with the map. Mayor Respectfully suggested altering the map by adding zones at this late date without the opportunity for public review is risky, at best. Concurred, but asked if you don't think it is appropriate for them to have a little store Jenks up there. Mayor Camfield Jenks Robison · Reminded Jenks that the Comp Plan is reviewed annually. ,. That opportunity needs to take place, but at the first annual review. ,, Was that discussed in the Land Use Workgroup discussions? · All five groups during the map charrettet chose to shrink this area just to a C-I neighborhood center. ,, Toews Their primary concern with locating higher density in that area was stormwater control and trying to retain a natural systems approach wherever possibie. * Robison They really wanted to limit densities here in respect for small town atmosphere. Perry-Thompson Agrees that to bring this up without public process might be inappropriate, but also there has been a great deal of public process here, and it has not been their intent. Said that would be her basis to leave it for that first annual review. At some later time if it appears there is a need out there, we can consider it. Toews Having gone through lines-in and the lines-out, perhaps you may discuss the testimony and determine whether any additional policy change are necessary. Itarpole Introductory changes. Are the introductions going to go away? Toews The introductory narrative, insofar as it is existing conditions information that formed the background for the development of goals and policies, will go away. In the Land Use Element, however, a lot of the background narrative is definitions of districts, and those are going to be carried through, but all the other, the future land needs, is going to be removed in the final draft, and the document will be primarily goals and policies. ,- Jenks Tim McMahan brought up lot consolidation. How are we going to dovetail the Land Use Element into the Comp Plan? ,, Robison The Land Use Element provides the basis for the zones and the policy direction. 'Lot consolidation would be one ordinance to implement the Land Use Map. Anticipate when we start putting together the Subdivision Ordinance, PUD Ordinance, Short Plat Ordinance and provisions and standards for all of those, we will also be bringing in a lot consolidation ordinance at that time. · Toews It is important to keep the two items separate though. One is 16t ~:onsolidation that is a result of reduction of densities in the R-I area. That's going to be accomplished through one small provision through the zoning code. The other issue is the Attorney General's opinion and what to do about ancient platted lots. That is going to be addressed primarily through the Subdivision Code. · Robison That is probably going to require a huge amount of public testimony. 6 Jenks - How do the Comp Plan's policies fit into that? Toews The Comp Plan provides the policy direction to say that in the R-I area ownerships that were comprised of three 5,000 square foot lots now represent at a minimum two building sites, one 5,000 square foot site, and one 10,000, or maybe two 7,500 square foot sites, 15,000 square feet total. In the R-[ area, they would have two building sites. That's what the policy direction regarding density says. You also have policy direction throughout the Plan that encourag?s PUDs, for more innovative site design and layout. Said he thinks that relates more to the issue of the Attorney General's opinion and what to do with ancient platted lots. MOTION SECOND VOTE Harpole Adopt the Land Use Element as presented in the-June 3 memorandum to Council from the Planning Commission and as amended in Draft t/3 of the Preliminary Lines-In and Lines-Out Approved by the City. Council and altered by Council this evening. Shoulberg UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT tt20 2.5 · Perry-Thompson Originally, what we had put in there was -- "and identify opportunity." MOTION SECOND VOTE Jenks Amend 2.5 and include "cooperate with the County and Port of Port Townsend" Harpole UNANIMOUS -- 6 in favor #21 No comments #22 Vegetation, Retention and Management Toews Robison discussed with McMahan and Winters regarding the policies that dealt with vegetation retention and management in platted rights-of way and they have recommended that Policy 3.15 be amended as shown in Draft #3. Jenks There was mention that this might be with the Transportation Committee. Camfield This was the ongoing discussion about the Tree and Brushing Committee. Until we resolve some things with McMahan and Winters we couldn't get back to reinstituting this. Said she does not know where it belongs. · Keith Said he would like more explanation regarding this and #28 on the next page. , Jenks Has been very involved in this issue. They asked Attorney Dennis McClerran for clarification, telling a property owner what they can do with the vegetation in an unopened right- of-way. His opinion was that the properly owner owns the vegetation including trees in their 7 portion, of the right-of-way, on their side of the center line. The City or U.S West or whoever has easements you cannot impede their easement rights, but the City does not have the right to tell them what to do with the vegetation because it belongs to them. Robison Points of Clarification - Jenks is essentially correct. The property owner has rights to the timber value on his half of the road. The City retains easement rights to the public right- of-way; however the City can come in and say we are going to regulate vegetation management within tho City right-of-way usually through a tree preservation ordinance. What can come out of Policy 3.15 is a Tree Preservation Ordinance, or a Landscaping Ordinance, etc. for City fights-of-way. He said what they may want to consider is who should do that. You may not want to do that tonight, and you could just change this policy to scratch "use Parks, Recreation and Property Committee" and just say, "Develop regulations regarding recommendations regarding l~ee and vegetation management." You wouldn't have to decide that now and could bring it up at a later date, either before the Transportation Committee or some sub-committee. Toews The reason Policy 9.3 was recommended to be stricken was because it presumed the outcome of the discussion of City Council committee discussions. Jenks Said she understands the Street Standards Ordinance will have vegetation management criteria. Robison For landmark trees, historic trees and species of local significance or unique trees and also for opening streets. MOTION SECOND VOTE Camfield Adopt Policy 3.15 changing the language to say, "Develop recommendations regarding tree and vegetation retention and management within the City rights-of-way." Perry -Thompson UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor tt23 No comments #24 No comments tt25 No comments tt26 No comments 1127 7.3 Shouiberg Said they could only reduce imperv/ous surface by reducing number of parking spaces. Toews' This is saying reduce the amount of construction of new impervious surfaces. In other words, reduce the rate of increase, is really what it amounts to. · Shoulberg If the policy said reduce parking requirements for historic structures or adaptive reuse of historic structures, that would be fine. He said he does not understand impervious surface. · Toews Said the intent of the policy is to provide direction and the development of a new parking code that reduces the requirements for parking, thereby encouraging new development and adaptive reuse, and at the same time reducing the construction of new impervious surfaces. · Keith Liked what Toews said. The policy is to develop and implement reduced parking requirements in order to achieve 1) encourage new development, and 2) reduce impervious surface. It is simply saying why do you want to do this? Suggested they change the wording in order to make it clear that there are two justifications. MOTION Keith Revise language of 7.3 to say, "Develop and implement reduced parking requirements in order to encourage the adaptive reuse of historic structures and new development and limit the construction of new impervious surfaces, while still providing for parking needs." SECOND Shoulberg Discussion: Jenks amount of cars. They have to go somewhere. · Perry-Thompson We are encouraging it. · Toews Said #50 addresses it as well. VOTE UNANI~IOUS -- 6 in favor Stated concern regarding reducing the parking requirement and still have the same We are not telling them to go to the Park 8,: Ride. //28 · Jenks Is this basically saying the City Attorney thinks you don't need a permit in order to open a street? · RobiSon · Keith Jenks Toews Jenks · Keith No. Only that you don't need a street development permit to cut one tree. It behooves us to get an ordinance to implement Policy 3.15 in a big hurry. For any timber cutting? The original policy would have addressed situations where an FPA was not required. So, it's below 5,000 board feet or 2 acres. Implement 3.15 right away. #29 9.9 ,, Jenks Would like to eliminate the word "Minimize" and leave in the word "eliminate." change to "Seek to eliminate" MOTION .lenks SECOND Shoulberg Revise new Policy 9.9 to read "Seek to eliminate the use... ' 9 Discussion.: * Perry-Thompson Didn't we talk about a few instances when the Public Works Department would consider it necessary? , Jenks Right, and they are in accord. VOTE UNANIMOUS -- 6 in favor #30 ~ Toews No Change This is a reversal of the order of the policy language. MOTION SECOND VOTE Harpole Adopt the Transportation Element as presented in the June 3 memorandum to Council from the Planning Commission and as amended in Draft 03 of the Preliminary Lines-In and Lines-Out Approved by the City. Council and altered by Council this evening. Camfield UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor Jenks Had a citizen comment she should have brought under Land Use. Change the wording "proposed open space" to "potential open space"on the Land Use Map. David Peterson recommended this. She said Mark Welch told her he was the one who wanted this changed to potential from proposed. Toews Said this was transmitted to them in the memorandum from the Planning Commission. He explained their concern that some members of the public had the idea that what was represented by these conceptual overlays, which only tried to show possible trail connections and where open spaces could be located, were the equivalent of zoning designations. This was clearly not the intent. CAPITAL FACILITIES & UTILITIES ELEMENT VHI-3 · Perry-Thompson Change bullet for Ms. Orabelle Connally · Toews This may be a policy conflict with adopted state law, rather than the county-wide planning policy. He will check. #31 No comments tt32 · Toews Clarification -- There was a formatting complication between his computer and Collettes. He said as soon as this is corrected and is ready he will forward the information to Council and it will depict the changed level of service standards. 10 #33 No comments #34 New Policy 14.5 14.5.1 Jenks o "... with such coSts shared by all system users." it a little more site specific. ,. Shoulberg It's broad enough: ~ Keith Broad enough. Wondered if they want to make #35 No comments Perry-Thompson (Backed up to Policy 18.1, VIII-15.) Wanted to make sure people who come with creative kinds of systems that work are not be kept from having them (wastewater). Does this allow systems that are not connected with City systems? Toews Look at the Planning Commission recommendation. They recommended exempting new single family residential development occurring on existing parcels equal to or greater than one acre. Perry-lhompson Then you have enough land to do something that works. But anything smaller than that... ,. Toews Right. And at the point of subdivision of an ownership like that, connection would be required. · Robison On Page 2 in the policies we just went over in the in the Land Use Element, it says, "Consider allowing the use of alternative, technologically sophisticated individual waste treatment systems." So there is policy language to support the use of that. 21.1 VIII-17 Perry-Thompson (Backed up to Policy 21.1, VIII-17) Why is the only part that says self supporting? Wastewater. ,. Keith Under Water Page VIII-14 it says self-supporting ,- Shoulberg Same for stromwater. #36 No comments #37 No comments #38 ,. Jenks Pleased to see that aesthetics got somewhere. Can we broaden it out the Historic 11 District.? Toews color. · Robison · .Jenks Really thinking that the small new satellite disks would be painted in the appropriate You can't regulate disks below 2 feet. Can we broaden the district? #39 o No comments #40 30.9 · Jenks Would like to change wording to, "Continue .... to eliminate..." The goal is to eliminate the use of pesticides, etc. We have bargained with Puget Power for many years not to use them; they don't use them. It's not a new thing. MOTION SECOND VOTE Jenks Alter the wording of new Policy 30.9 to say "eliminate" instead of "reduce." Camfield UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor #41 · Jenks Would like to broaden it out of the electric utility to any utility that uses rights-of- way in the City.., U.S. West and Cable Communications. · Keith This is in the section under electric. ~ Jenks Take that one back. Would like to say wherever they're talking in the Comp Plan about right-of-way easements with other utilities that we have a policy that at least talks about cooperating with them. She said minimizing is not just the issue, nOt just that they cut the trees, it's the way they cut them. · Shoulberg U.S. West and Cable basically follow the Puget Power poles. In practicality most of the damage done with the right-of-way is done by Puget poWer. It doesn't necessarily say electric. Why can it say what you want -- to continue to work with any utilities... · Keith If you look at the policy itself for the whole area · Toews One way around this is would be add it as a new Poli~y 9.8 under private utilities, generally. MOTION Jenks SECOND Discussion: · Robison Shoulberg Add new policy dealing with vegetation in the rights-of-way to a new section, Utilities Generally, section 9.8. and change wording (eliminate electrical utility in this policy under-Utilities Generally 9.8) and amend minimize to prevent the degradation and destruction and habitat in utility corridors. Suggested -- Cooperate with private utilities to minimize the felling of trees and 12 vegetat!on in the management of utility corridors in street rights-of-way. ,. Shoulberg Make it private and public utilities. ~ Toews Suggested further change. AMENDED MOTION: Put proposed new Policy 30.1 under a new general heading 9.8, Utilities Generally, to say, "Ensure that public and private utilities minimize the clearing of trees and vegetation in the management of utility corridors and street rights-of-way." Maker and Second agreed to change. VOTE UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor #42 ~ Shouiberg We need to change this. BPA is not the only one selling power. MOTION SECOND Discussion: ,. Toews Shoulberg Keith Substitute language in the new proposed Policy 30.11 referring to energy providers instead of the BPA. New revised policy: "In cooperation with the Bonneville Power Administration or other direct energy providers and the local electric serving utility, examine the possibility, of purchasing electric power directly from energy providers as a wholesale customer." VOTE UNANIMOUS -- 6 in favor #43 New Section ~ Jenks Asked if this had been reviewed by anyone - Planning Commission, work groups or anything? Toews replied it had not.. ,' Perry-ThompsonAsked if whenever it says solid waste if it automatically includes recycling. ~ Toews Yes. Recyclables are in the solid waste stream. ~ Jenks They are trying to encourage municipalities to use recycled materials. We might consider adding. · Perry-Thompson We have decided to talk about it as a possible policy. · Jenks It's a commitment of the City to use post-consumer waste recycled paper for 20% of its use of paper materials. · ShoulbergThat's a management objective, not a policy; a management objective to implement the policy. · Camfield There are State regulations to encourage. Keith There is policy here about putting things into the recycling system. There is no policy here about providing a market. He said this came up when they adopted the Recycling Plan. There was some language in that about the City purchasing recycled products and cost differentials that were acceptable, etc. Thinks that should be in here. Perry-Thompson Do we want to develop it at the committee and add it at a later time? Jenks Or make it real general. 13 · Harpole Asked if it is in there by Policy 32.6.2. Said he thinks there is language in thc Solid Waste Management Plan that directs further study of this. · Keith The whole goal would be to continue to participate with them. · Toews Suggested adding a policy that says ve~ generally, ='Seek to maximize the City's use of recycled products in City operations. · Jenks The reason to do this is to promote a market for recycled materials, so maybe the policy should say that we are working on a market for recycled materials. MOTION SECOND VOTE Keith Create new Policy 32.3 to read, "Seek to create a market for recycled goods by ensuring that the City maximizes its use of recycled products in its operations and renumber the subsequent policies. Shouiberg UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor MOTION SECOND VOTE Keith Adopt the Capital Utilities and Facilities Element as presented in the June 3 memorandum to Council from the Planning Commission and as amended in Draft #3 of the Preliminary Lines- In and Lines-Out Approved by the City Council and altered by Council this evening. Camfield UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor · ECONOMIC ELEMENT #44 No comments #45 No comments #46 No comments #47 New policy · Jenks Strike hand fabrication, a little too specific; 3.6.1. Leave out marine trades, because there are plenty of other traditional skills in this town in the marine trades. · Toews This is a sub-policy under marine trades. There are other policies in the element that deal with vocational training, generally. 14 MOTION' SECOND VOTE Jenks Accept Policy 3.6 as reworded, "Encourage the creation of marine trades jobs that are dependent on traditional skills, construction techniques and materials... ' Shoulberg UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor #48 No comments #49 Harpole Recommended new policy under Goal 6, Policy 6.5, the City will undertake developing a Comprehensive Cultural Plan. Recommended at public hearing by Toni Aspen. Thinks there is funding for this in the State Parks Commission. MOTION Harpole Add a new Policy 6.5, "The Comprehensive Cultural Plan." SECOND Camfield VOTE UNANIMOUS -- 6 in favor City will work to develop a #50 No comments #51 No comments #52 No Comments #53 NeTM Policy * Toews You have already adopted a similar policy under the Land Use Element. #54 No comments MOTION SECOND VOTE Shoulberg Adopt the Economic Development Element as presented in the June 3 memorandum to Council from the Planning Commission and as amended in Draft #3 of the Preliminary Lines-In and Lines- Out APproved by the City Council and altered by Council this evening. ltarpole UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor 15 Mr. Rob/son said at the July 8th WOrkshop they would kick off w/th the Housing Element and go to the Land Use Map. Councilmember Harpole Suggested tentatively looking at Wednesday. July lO, if needed. Jenks concurred. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at 9:30 p.m., Mayor McCulloch adjourned the meeting. '~ Attest: Julie Mc~ , ~v~ayor She/la Avis, Minute Taker 16