HomeMy WebLinkAbout06182001CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 18, 2001
The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this eighteenth day
of June, 2001, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend Council Chambers of City Hall,
Mayor Geoff Masci presiding.
ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmembers present at roll call were Joe Finnie, Vem Garrison, Geoff Masci, Syd
Lipton, and Alan Youse. Bill Wolcott was excused and Al Frank arrived late.
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
There were no changes proposed to the agenda.
PRESIDING OFFICER'S REPORT
· Mayor Masci read a proclamation declaring Amateur Radio Week.
He announced the Building and Community Development Department will be hosting a
free "Smart Code" seminar.
He then recognized the efforts of Steve Corra and Steve Wright of the Parks Department,
for their efforts at the Golden Age Club property.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
There were no items to report.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (consent agenda and items not on the agenda)
Ted Shoulberg: Regarding Tri-Area Water System transfer; suggested city have Public
Utility District submit tax proceeds to them as a condition of the transfer; or request that
the city be taken out of the PUD taxing district. Mr. Shoulberg's letter contained a
number of questions about various components of the transfer. The letter was included in
the council information packet distributed on June 11.
Ron Sikes: opposed to establishing a skateboard park in Kah Tai Park area
Janet Welch: supports keeping skateboard park at current site
Jenno Schuler: supporting skateboard park; opposed to institution of paid parking
Susan Parke: opposed to locating transitional living home in her residential area
Marilyn Muller: opposed to relocation of the skateboard park
Earl Boysen: opposed to "halfway house" locating in neighborhood
Linda Doe: 3241 Haines: skateboard park keep in downtown
City Council Business Meeting Page 1 June 18, 2001
Freida Fenn: Issued invitation to presentation on "Growth Management" by Brian
Derdowski Tuesday June 26
Gloria Bram: opposed to relocation of skateboard park near Kah Tai Park
Clarifications on public comment:
Mayor Masci noted the skateboard park issues will come before the council in July and
that no decisions have been made at this time regarding the facility.
Mr. Randall clarified that no permit applications have been received by the Building and
Community Development Department for any transitional housing units; he added that
any permit issued would be subject to a public hearing before the Hearings Examiner (for
a Conditional Use Permit).
PUBLIC HEARINGS (OPEN RECORD)
Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Formation of the Final Docket
Mayor Masci opened the public hearing and outlined the procedure. He stated that
because of the large number of people waiting to testify on proposed amendment #4, that
would be taken last. He added that the proposed amendments include both legislative
and quasi-judicial items and stated there would be adjustments for those changes in the
public hearing process.
He asked if any council members had any interests, financial or property, to disclose in
connection with any of the proposed hearing items.
Mr. Youse stated that he is an employee of Qwest (formerly US West) and one of the
items is a zoning issue which affects the company. He owns stock in the company as
well.
Mr. Watts noted that unless a large amount of stock is owned (2% of the total issue), state
law provides that a remote interest such as Mr. Youse's is not grounds for recusal. He
asked Mr. Youse if there were anything else that would prevent him from making a fair
and impartial decision. Mr. Youse said there was not. Mr. Watts stated there is no
reason to disqualify Mr. Youse from participating in the procedure regarding that issue.
Staff Presentation
Judy Surber, Senior Planner reviewed the Planning Commission recommendations
included in the council packet, referring also to the exhibits, marked A-X.
Suggested Amendment #1: Clarify Definitions of Unit/Bedroom and Various
Housing Types. Proponent: Building & Community Development Department.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Unanimous recommendation to place the
item on the docket.
City Council Business Meeting Page 2 June 18, 2001
Public Comment:
Collette Kostelec: stated she was not opposed to docketing the amendment but asked
why no specific language had been proposed.
Ms. Surber replied that the language will be crafted if the item is docketed and the
language would be presented for public hearing at that time.
Motion: Mr. Finnie moved to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation and
docket suggested amendment #1: "Clarify Definitions of Unit/Bedroom and Various
Housing Types." Mr. Garrison seconded The motion carried unanimously, 5-0 by
voice vote.
Suggested Amendment 02: Revise Goals and Policies which Imply a Specific Utility
Provider. Proponent: Building and Community Development Department.
Planning Commission recommendation: unanimous recommendation to place the
item on the docket.
Staff: The amendment would make the language regarding specific utility providers
more general. Existing language ("Puget Power" for example) may be construed to limit
the city's ability to contract with other utility providers in the future.
Public Comment:
Doug Millholland: supports docketing the amendment; referred to possible generation of
electricity from tides discussed by the Public Utility District.
Motion: Mr. Garrison moved to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation and
docket suggested amendment #2: "Revise Goals & Policies which Imply a Specific
Utility Provider" Mr. Youse The motion carried unanimously, 5-0 by voice vote.
Suggested Amendment #3: Add Policy re: Major Industrial Developments.
Proponent: Building & Community Development Department. Planning
Commission recommendation: unanimous recommendation to place the item on the
docket
Staff.' current policy within the city's Comprehensive Plan is largely silent on the issue
of Major Industrial Developments; the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee's
decision to pursue MIDs within Jefferson County makes docketing this item appropriate.
Public Comment:
Gloria Bram: opposed to providing any policy regarding MIDs within the
Comprehensive Plan.
Freida Fenn: opposed to amendment, stating it could create uncertainty in terms of what
kind of zoning could be near existing property; suggested it is much better to plan
through existing zoning and rezoning applications.
City Council Business Meeting Page 3 June 18, 2001
Michelle Sandoval: speaking neither for nor against but clarifying that she sat on the
County Planning Commission during the MID ordinance process. Clarified that city and
county would devise criteria, then the city as the designated Urban Growth Area, would
get the first application. If there were not appropriately sized parcel for a project and
then if proper zoning were not available in the county, the applicant would have the
option of zoning a place in the county. The probable result of instituting an MID policty
would be that a specific business could meet criteria of both the city and county, go
through a public hearing and get a specific rezone. The alternative would be to rezone an
in speculation that an application might come forward.
Motion: Mr. Garrison moved to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation and
docket suggested amendment #3: "Add Policy re: Major Industrial Developments. "Mr.
Youse seconded
Mr. Finnie spoke as a member of the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee,
noting that the three step process (try to site in city, try to site in county, then apply MID
protocol) is a logical solution which can finally be established now that the county has
adopted a comprehensive plan.
Mr. Randall added that the protocol would not apply to speculative projects or projects
like "business parks" but to one company which requires more land than can currently be
accommodated by zoning in the city or the county.
Vote: the motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote.
It was again noted that Item 4 would be addressed as the last proposed amendment.
Proposed Amendment 5: Resolve Zoning of US West Facility on Lawrence Street
Proponent: Building & Community Development Planning Commission
recommendation: unanimous recommendation to place item on the docket
Mayor Masci noted that the proposed amendment and the three that follow are quasi-
judicial rather than legislative items so the hearing process followed will be the open
recOrd quasi-judicial process.
Ms. Surber stated that the current office of US West (Qwest) is a non-conforming use of
the property. A revision to the zoning and land use tables will be necessary to allow
improvements and/or expansion of the facility.
Mayor Masci asked if the property owner wished to appear to testify. No one was
present from Qwest.
Proponents of docketing were asked to speak. There were none.
Opponents of docketing were asked to speak. There were none.
City Council Business Meeting Page 4 June 18, 2001
Those neither in favor nor opposed were asked to speak.
Collette Kostelec: Questioned Mr. Youse's participation in the decision.
Mayor Masci noted that the issue had been brought up early in the hearing and that Mr.
Watts had stated there was no legal need for Mr. Youse to recuse himself
Mr. Youse stated that he planned to recuse himself anyway.
Motion: Mr. Lipton moved to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation and
docket suggested amendment #5: "Resolve Zoning of US West Facility on Lawrence
Street" Mr. Garrison seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 4-0, with Mr. Youse
recused.
Proposed Amendment 6: Resolve Zoning of Abundant Life Seed Foundation on
Discovery Road. Proponent: Abundant Life Seed Company. Planning
Commission recommendation: unanimous recommendation to place item on the
final docket.
Staff.' Abundant Life Seed Company leases 2.5 acres of land off Discovery Road which
is currently zoned P-I, Public Infrastructure. This zoning is typically applied only to land
under public ownership; subject property is in private ownership and the zoning
effectively renders the existing agricultural use as nonconforming. Zoning and/or use
table could be amended to allow agricultural uses as well as proposed classroom and
office space. The property owner, William Gariss, supports docketing the item. Another
solution to the zoning conflict might be a farm ordinance overlay.
Proponent: Elsa Golts stated she would answer questions and gave a brief history of
Abundant Life Seed Co. Mr. William Gariss, property owner, also appeared to support
the amendment and favored the farm overlay.
Proponents:
Michelle Sandoval: on behalf of Abundant Life (working toward real estate transaction
on the property) supports concept to protect agricultural land by allowing uses
grandfathered to be legal nonconforming. Supported docketing the proposed amendment
as a step toward a "right to farm" ordinance
Opponents:
None
Other comments:
Applicant response: none
City Council Business Meeting Page 5 dune 18, 2001
Motion: Mr. Garrison moved to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation and
docket suggested amendment #6: "Resolve Zoning of Abundant Life Seed Foundation on
Discovery Road" Mr. Youse seconded The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
Proposed Amendment 7: Rezone Portions of Blocks 278 & 279, Eisenbeis Addition.
Proponent: Frank Vane. Planning Commission recommendation: unanimous
recommendation to place the item on the final docket.
Staff: Mr. Vane has proposed rezoning his property from R-II, single-family residential
to C-II, General Commercial. The has housed two businesses for many years and several
other businesses exist on block 279.
Proponent: Mr. Vane stated his case for changing to commercial zoning.
Speaking in favor:
None
Speaking in opposition;
None
Speaking neither for nor against:
None
Motion: Mr. Lipton moved to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation and
docket suggested amendment #7: "Rezone Portions of Blocks 278 & 279, Eisenbeis
Addition" Mr. Garrison seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote.
Proposed Amendment #8: Rezone Blocks 152 and 183 of the Eisenbeis Addition.
Proponent: Peninsula Builders, Ltd. (Owner of Block 183). Planning Commission
Recommendation: Unanimous recommendation against placing the item on the
final docket.
Staff.' The proposed amendment is to downzone the subject property from R-IV to R-III
to allow flexibility in the type of housing that can be built there. R-IV requires multi-
family development while R-III allows multi-family and/or single family-residential
development. The owner of block 183 contends it has been difficult to sell the property
under the current zoning designation. A technical conference has been conducted for an
assisted living facility, proponents of the project would like to retain current zoning. In
Planning Commission discussion, it was noted that multifamily zoning districts are an
encouragement to affordable housing; few acres remain available with this zoning. Two
blocks to the north, a formal application was made and paid for by property owners for a
similar downzone, however single family applications were already in process and some
infrastructure existed for single family development.
Comments from applicant:
The applicant did not appear.
City Council Business Meeting Page 6 June 18, 2001
Proponents:
None
Opponents:
Richard Spindor. Supports Planning Commission recommendation against placing the
item on the docket. Since applications were submitted for the rezoning, he has been
working on a package to place assisted living units on the property and working with
Community Action Council which is also in support of the current zoning. He stated he
believes this type of zoning is necessary for the community and hopes to provide senior
living units.
Gloria Bram: supports need for assisted living facilities.
Dave Hensel: noted he represented a client trying to find land with R-IV zoning and it
was difficult to find for that type of project.
Motion: Mr. Youse moved to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation not to
place the amendment "Rezone Blocks 152 and 183 of the Eisenbeis Addition" on the final
docket. Mr. Garrison seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote.
RECESS
Mayor Masci announced a brief recess at 8:15 p.m.
RECONVENE
The meeting was reconvened at 8:25 p.m.
Proposed Amendment #4: Remove Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) Language
from the Comprehensive Plan. Proponent: People for a Livable Community (PLC).
Planning Commission recommendation: docket an alternative to the proposed
amendment: recommend that the city review Jefferson County's current Urban
Growth Area proposals and supporting analysis, identify what the city's policy
position is, and amend the Comprehensive Plan to reflect that position. Approved
unanimously, 5-0.
Ms. Surber noted that docketing Planning Commission's altemative gives the Planning
Commission and the Council the ability to look at a range of alternatives, including the
amendment proposed by the PLC. She referred to several exhibits included in the packet.
Proponents:
Nancy Dorgan: presented amendment, explained history of the Comprehensive Plan
process and the evolution of the particular language proposed for deletion. Believes that
C-IV zoning is inconsistent with the wishes of the community.
City Council Business Meeting Page 7 June 18, 2001
Frieda Fenn: discussed in more depth "community vitality" plan; presented petition
against Hollywood Video. Listed other communities and and examples of projects
promoting and preserving local independent businesses.
John Lockwood: stated his belief that the Planning Commission's proposed alternative
does not meet the legal criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Believes the
county's current proposal is the worst development proposal to date; will provide undue
competition to local businesses.
Mayor Masci asked if any written materials had been submitted:
Ms. Kolacy referred to the following materials:
E-mail from Andrea Guarino, Linda Jarvis, Haden Starbuck of Artisans on Taylor:
support removal of "C-IV Regional Retail Zoning" from land-use document
E-mail from Clara L. Klug in favor of PLC proposal
E-mail from Laura Popenoe supporting PLC amendment
E-mail from Linda Jarvis (Folkart of the Earth) in favor of removing C-IV zoning
E-mail from Cheetah Linquester, Issac & Mirabel Moring: against expanding city limits
to Glen Cove
E-mail from Rebecca Westlake favoring removal of C-IV Zoning from land-use
document
Letter from Gary & Mary McDowell supporting removal of Glen Cove C-IV Regional
Retail Zoning provision in the land use document
Mayor Masci then requested public comment from the audience.
Proponents:
Pete von Christierson supports PLC proposed amendment, and adding community
vitality plan to Comprehensive Plan; remove C-IV regional commercial designation.
Stated current zoning covers all potential uses except those that serve a regional clientele;
said it is clear a majority of citizens don't want large scale retail stores and the effect of
such stores is to shut down the downtown
Gloria Bram: stated the city doesn't need major development.
Brian Hoffman: continue the discussion and review history of comp plan.
Arne Hansen: stated that a Glen Cove UGA would have a devastating impact on our
quality of life and also affordability. Providing infrastructure for UGA will be
prohibitively expensive for local taxpayers.
Dave Sheehan: urge council to adopt PLC amendment for reasons already expressed
City Council Business Meeting Page 8 June 18, 2001
Ruth Gordon: long range planning is a trust between community and legislators; urged
to docket PLC amendment and discuss further; do not change policy on direction from
staff rather than elected officials.
Mark Stevenson: Don't want regional commercial center with big box stores, light
industrial would be good.
Michael Pruitt: warned against gradually gutting the downtown commercial area.
Phil Dinsmore: offered background information on city and county process; stated that
public desire rather than political influence should guide policy.
Marityn Muller: believes the Glen Cove UGA designation would not be compliant with
state growth management law; must examine population statistics, which do not support a
need for expansion. States that Port Townsend residents want to preserve a buffer
between the city and an industrial park; FUGA language invites that type of
development; taxpayers would be asked to foot the bill for the destruction of downtown.
Mr. Frank arrived at 9:15 p.m.
Lynn Nadeau: strongly in support of PLC amendment being docketed. Impressed with
thoroughness and legality of the proposal.
Richard Berg: believes public has expressed desires regarding Glen Cove that seem to be
supported by the proposed PLC amendment.
Catherine Robinson: supported docketing and adopting the proposed PLC amendment.
Lois Barnett: Corporate influence would create a loss in culture and safety of
community.
Jack Scherting: gave examples of other communities (i.e. Auburn) annexed, taxed, and
taken over by speculators. Stated restrictions are necessary to avoid urban sprawl.
Nora Regan: commercial development osters redundant competition, costly
infrastructure development, disinvestment, degrades visual aesthetic, weakens sense of
place and community, and masquerades as form of economic development.
Jerry Chawes: People for a Rural Quimper. Relates experiences in New York; urged the
council not to put this blemish on our city.
Doug Milholland: asked the council to consider the informed wishes of the town and
docket proposed PLC amendment.
City Council Business Meeting Page 9 dune 18, 2001
Collette Kostelec: objects to staff trying to rewrite an amendment being proposed by an
applicant and then given a higher priority; believes there is confusion regarding the actual
recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Dana Roberts: Said that docketing the proposed PLC amendment ties no hands or minds,
but allows many citizens to take part in a local forum.
There being no further comment, the public comment periOd was closed at 9:45 .m.
Clarifications from staff:
Ms. Surber pointed out that the Planning Commission approved the minutes and
transmittal at the May 31 meeting, so there is no doubt about their intention.
She added that staff proposed alternative #4 because they agreed with PLC but were
concerned that showing all the proposed language deleted might be too narrow a scope to
be successfully docketed; staff feels this is an important issue to be addressed.
Mr. Watts noted that the intent of the Planning Commission is reflected in the approved
minutes and the transmittal.
He explained the recommended action:
1) move to vote on the PLC amendment (to docket or not)
2) move to docket the Planning Commission recommendation.
In reference to the legality of filing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, he stated that the
P.T. Municipal Code does refer to a May 1 deadline for those items to be submitted. A
separate process allows the Planning Commission to recommend an item by May 15 -
that item does not have to be specific or have specific proposed language. The effect of
voting on the Planning Commission's recommended amendment would be to waive or
ratify the waiver of that April 15 deadline and allow Planning Commission
recommendation to move forward and would be consistent with the authority of the
council.
If the Planning Commission recommended amendment is docketed and the PLC
recommended amendment is not docketed, the adopted proposal would allow the PLC
proposal to be reviewed during the public hearing and action phase of the Comprehensive
Plan amendment process and could result in that proposal being incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan. However, if the PLC proposed amendment is adopted but the
Planning Commission recommendation is not adopted, it would be procedurally
inappropriate to modify the PLC amendment into a completely different proposal.
Staff recommendation of putting forward Planning Commission does provide the
maximum flexibility for the comprehensive plan amendment process.
City Council Business Meeting Page 10 June 18, 2001
Mr. Randall responded to comment also. He stated that the county is proceeding to plan
for Glen Cove and the major reason staff included option #4 was due to concern about the
narrow scope of the PLC proposed amendment. If the city is not at the table with the
county, there will be less ability to influence the process. The Comprehensive Plan was
concerned about Glen Cove development and its effect on the city. An entire section of
the Comp Plan was not referenced by the amendment - for example the Economic
Development chapter has an entire section regarding the enhancement of the commercial
historic district - that is one small example of concern in the plan about the impacts of
Glen Cove development.
Mr. Randall then stated that the Comprehensive Plan recognized planning for Glen Cove
wasn't done. The time for joint planning management and annexation policies is now and
during the next 18 months. He feels strongly that if all language is deleted according to
the PLC amendment, the city is turning its back on the issue.
He added that planning staff has worked hard to implement mixed use neighborhoods
into the Comprehensive Plan, i.e. commercial, neighborhood commercial, and mixed use.
He also stated for the record that city staff had absolutely no conversations with the
Board of County Commissioners, but simply proposed the amendment to preserve the
city's options. He feels strongly that the item should be docketed but not in the form of
PLC amendment.
The council questions:
Mr. Lipton asked what happened to the PLC proposed amendment at the Planning
Commission level. Mr. Watts replied that it was not moved forward by implication since
it has not been recommended for docketing.
Mr. Finnie added that the PLC says time is of the essence; he asked what the county is
doing imminently that would have any consequence on Glen Cove status or FUGA
borders.
Mr. Randall noted that the county has tasked staff with a work plan with a deadline of 18
months to complete special studies, conduct public review process, etc. which will start to
occur this summer and fall. Information, proper studies and reviews are essential and if
the city is not involved in the process and only enters the discussion when adoption is
imminent, it will put the city in a poor position.
Mr. Finnie noted that next year the city will do its own five year review of the PT Comp
Plan; we are faced with a very sophisticated review process in 2002 at the same time the
county is targeting completion of the UGA process. Those two things are dovetailed to
be completed at the same point in time. He asked if the text of the amendment could be
changed to make it more specific and add the PLC concerns.
City Council Business Meeting Page 11 June 18, 2001
Mr. Watts added that there is flexibility at the council level to determine the final form of
the docketed amendments.
Mr. Youse asked whether docketing both versions would add significant work to the
process.
Mr. Randall added that it is clear council can modify docketed amendments as it sees fit.
He added that the two proposals are not necessarily inconsistent, but his concern is the
narrow scope of the PLC amendment.
Response to questions from proponents, public (limited to clarification)
Mr. Lockwood noted the PLC is well aware mixed use zoning; stated there is no specific
planning in Glen Cove because nothing has been adopted legally.
He asked if Mr. Frank would be able to vote since he arrived late.
Mr. Watts noted that since this is a legislative hearing, Mr. Frank is allowed to vote
legally. Mr. Masci stated that as presiding officer, he would allow Mr. Frank to vote.
Frieda Fenn: noted that the state legislature is looking at delaying the requirement to
review and revise city comprehensive plans for 2 to 5 years. It is not certain whether
those revisions will go ahead but could be required as late as 2007.
Nancy Dorgan: stated her opinion that city staff is trying to hijack the PLC amendment..
Larry Harbison: Chair of the Planning Commission Chair stated that the Planning
Commission's actions were truly set forth in the minutes and transmittal before the
council.
Motion: Mr. Finnie moved to docket proposed amendment #4 "Remove FUGA
Language from the Comprehensive Plan" contrary to the Planning Commission's
recommendation. Mr. Lipton seconded
Mr. Finnie stated that he proposed the motion because there is a question of legality
which may arise if the motion is not put forward. He also noted that the work done by
the PLC is excellent although flawed in a couple of areas and risky because it cuts
horizontally across the entire Comprehensive Plan. He will support the motion because
he does not know yet if a following motion will be amended to specifically include the
request of the PLC.
Vote: motion carries with 4 in favor, Mr. Garrison opposed, and Mr. Frank abstaining.
Motion: Mr. Finnie moved to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation with
an amendment, to docket an alternative to the PLC item, that the city review Jefferson
County's current UGA proposals and supporting analysis, identify what the city's policy
City Council Business Meeting Page 12 June 18, 2001
position is, specifically with respect to Glen Cove and the FUGA border and amend the
Comprehensive Plan to reflect that position. (Underlined language added) Mr.
Garrison seconded. The motion carried 6-0 with Mr. Frank abstaining.
At this point the public hearing was concluded.
RECESS
Mayor Masci called a short recess at 10:45 p.m.
RECONVENE
The meeting was reconvened at 10:55P p.m.
Mr. Finnie left the meeting during the break.
RESOLUTION 01-026
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND,
WASHINGTON APPROVING THE 2002-207 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
SUBMIT THIS TO THE STATE
City Engineer Dave Peterson presented the resolution.
Mayor Masci asked for public comment. There was none. There was no council
discussion.
Motion: Mr. Frank moved for adoption of Resolution 01-026. Mr. Lipton seconded.
The motion carried unanimously by voice vote, 6-0 (Mr. Finnie had left the meeting).
NEW BUSINESS
PROPOSAL TO ADOPT ORDINANCE ALLOWING HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGES
Mr. Randall noted that a Proposal has been received by BCD from two residents who
wish to operate a horse-drawn carriage business, which is currently not regulated by the
city. The packet contains the Port Angeles city ordinance which would provide a good
basis for a Port Townsend ordinance. He asked for direction from the council on how to
proceed and noted that the applicants were present to answer any questions about the
proposal.
Mr. Garrison moved that the Building & Community Development staff prepare an
ordinance for presentation at the continued meeting of June 25. Mr. Frank seconded
the motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote.
City Council Business Meeting Page 13 June 18, 2001
CONSENT AGENDA
Motion: Mr. Garrison moved to approve the following items on the consent agenda.
Mr. Lipton seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0 by voice vote.
mo
Approval of Bills, Claims and Warrants
Vouchers 76417 through 76589 and 76605 through 76766
in the amount of $830,571.12
Approval of Minutes
Business meeting of June 4
Special meeting of June 11
Authorize the City Manager to accept a Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Grant
in the amount of $20,000 to conduct a shoreline inventory and that staff proceed
with formation of a Shoreline Advisory Group.
Authorize the City Manager to execute Public Works Trust Fund Loan Agreement
No. PW-01-691-051 in amount of $1.2 million (rounded) for the WWTF Outfall
Capacity Expansion and Trust Sewer Line Replacement
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The executive session was continued to 5:00 p.m. on June 19.
CONTINUE
At 11:25 p.m.the meeting was continued to 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 19, for executive
session only and then to Monday, June 25 to conduct the remainder of business.
Attest:
Pamela Kolacy, CMC 0
City Clerk
City Council Business Meeting Page 14 June 18, 2001