Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08092004 . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF AUGUST 9, 2004 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council ofthe City of Port Townsend met in regular session this ninth day of August, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend temporary Council Chambers at Building 204, Fort Worden, Mayor Catharine Robinson presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were Frank Benskin, Freida Fenn, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Laurie Medlicott, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, Long Range Planning Director Jeff Randall, Water Operations Manager Bob LaCroix, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA . City Manager David Timmons said that Item G on the Consent Agenda (revision to Chamber of Commerce contract regarding L T AC) would be rescheduled to a future meeting after the Chamber has reviewed and made comments. Mr. Benskin requested that item C (Resolution 04-040 re skateboard park) and item F (purchase of Pink House) be removed from the consent agenda and placed under unfinished business. Ms. Sandoval requested that item D (resolution 04-041 re completion of Jacob Miller water line project) be removed from the consent agenda to unfinished business. INTRODUCTION City Manager Timmons introduced new Fire Chief Michael Mingee. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (Consent and non-agenda items) Peter Simpson: commented on the Port Townsend Film Festival's request for a fee waiver for the rental of Pope Marine Park Building and the Festival request to decorate Haller Fountain. CONSENT AGENDA . City Council Business Meeting Page I August 9,2004 · Discussion ofthe Film Festival Resolution was requested and that item was removed from the Consent Agenda to New Business. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved for approval of the following items on the Consent Agenda, with the following corrections to the minutes of July 19: on page 5, vote on motion to exclude Scout House from the agenda failed, 3-3, with Fenn, Kolff and Robinson olJposed: on page 8, motion to defer to task force failed, 4-3, Fenn, Kolff and Sandoval in favor. Ms. Fenn seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. Approval of the following Bills, Claims and Warrants Vouchers 805041 through 805047 in the amount of$72,148.51 Vouchers 90728 through 90882 in the amount of$ 572,697.27 Approval of Minutes July 12,2004 July 15,2004 July 19,2004 July 26, 2004 PUBLIC HEARINGS · Mayor Robinson reviewed the Council rules regarding public hearings and stated that the rules would be read only once but would apply to each of the scheduled public hearings. No Council member declared any interest, financial or property, to disclose in connection with any of the matters subject to public hearing. RESOLUTION 04-044 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON ADOPTING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ORDINANCE 2857 PROHIBITING COTTAGE HOUSING DEVELOPMNET APPLICATIONS PENDING REVISIONS TO COTTAGE HOUSING CODE Mr. Watts introduced the item, noting that Council approved ordinance 2857 prohibiting cottage housing development applications pending Council action on revisions to the Cottage Housing Code. In order to continue the interim prohibition in effect Council action on permanent regulations, a public hearing before the Council and adoption of a resolution containing findings supporting the interim regulations must take place. He added that Council has held two workshops and draft revisions are scheduled to come before the Council on September 20. Long Range Planning Director Jeff Randall stated that there is currently one active cottage housing development which has received City approval; another pending project has been abandoned and there may be one proposal coming forward pending adoption of regulations. The City Clerk advised that no written materials had been presented for the public · hearing. City Council Business Meeting Page 2 August 9,2004 . The hearing was opened for public comment. Mike Dawson spoke in support of the extension of the moratorium while remaining details of the ordinance are worked out. Dorothy Hensey also spoke in support of adoption of the moratorium extension. There was no staff response to public comments. Mayor Robinson then asked if any Council members had questions for speakers or staff. Mr. Benskin asked why this has taken so long to come back to the Council. Mr. Randall replied that the changes themselves are not complicated and that it is partially a workload issue for staff. Mr. Watts added that the legal notice had indicated that the ordinance with proposed revisions was available prior to this evening and that was an error; revisions should be ready well in advance of the scheduled September 20 public hearing. Hearing no further clarifications, the mayor closed public testimony at 6:55 p.m. . Motion: Ms. Fenn movedfor adoption of Resolution 04-044 containingfindings supporting prohibiting Cottage Housing Development applications pending Council action on revisions to the Cottage Housing Code. Mr. Kolff seconded. Mr. Masci stated he is generally against moratoria and will not support this one. Ms. Fenn stated she would continue to support an effort to include an affordability component within the Cottage Housing Development code. Vote: motion carried, 5-2, with Masci and Benskin opposed. RESOLUTION 04-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON ADOPTING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ORDINANCE 2858, A MORATORIUM ON THE FILING OF APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES, PERMITS AND APPROV ALS FOR ADULT BUSINESSES . City Attorney John Watts stated that the Council approved Ordinance 2858 prohibiting applications for adult businesses pending Council action on regulations and zoning for adult businesses. To continue the interim prohibition in effect until Council acts on permanent regulations, Council must hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution containing findings supporting the interim regulation. The purpose of the public hearing is to give the public an opportunity to comment on whether or not to continue the interim prohibition. City Council Business Meeting Page 3 August 9, 2004 . He added that adult entertainment is a form of protected first amendment expression and cities are not free to prohibit such businesses, however they can enact reasonable "time, place and manner" regulations on such businesses. He said that the Planning Department and Attorney's office are in the process of gathering information and research and will probably bring another extension to allow review and action next year. The City Clerk advised that no written comments have been received for the public hearing. Public comment: Clare Sherley: asked how long the moratorium would last and how long would a ban on such businesses be in effect. She stated there is an early version of a business plan in effect for an adult retail store to be located in Port Townsend at some point in time. She said adult businesses are not necessarily strip clubs, etc. but could be a business that would have heavy educational and community outreach. She stated such a business could empower sexuality and create a safe space for people to explore their interests. She noted that such a business does not have to be "sleazy" but can provide service to the community. She asked that the Council not disenfranchise future businesses that would benefit the economy and noted many people now have to go to Seattle to purchase items not available in Port Townsend. . Paula Starr: stated she does not want a prohibition on future adult businesses. She believes this is a liberal community which could benefit from and patronize an adult retail business. She added that there is a difference between adult entertainment businesses and adult retail businesses and that adult businesses can be tasteful and sophisticated. She added that this would be an economic benefit to the community and she has confidence this community has creative people who would support an adult business. Staff response: Mr. Watts stated this would extend the prohibition through November (the end of the first six-month period) and then it would be up to the Council to decide if they wanted a further six-month extension. He said it is true the moratorium could extend for several six-month periods but at some time the Council could not extend to the point it would amount to prohibition not sanctioned by the Courts. He added the prohibition applies only to businesses whose predominant stock in trade appeals to a sexual prurient nature; a bookstore that sells books some might find objectionable would not be affected by the regulations as long as those items were not the predominant stock in trade. He said the expected time frame for completion of an ordinance early next year; however the Council may terminate the moratorium at anytime. The object ofthe moratorium at this time is to preserve the existing situation and now allow vesting in locations that may be prohibited in the future. . In answer to Mr. Benskin, Mr. Watts stated that staff is assembling a wide variety or ordinances and court cases and will begin to work on a recommendation to the Planning City Council Business Meeting Page 4 August 9,2004 . Commission for examination of the zoning issues; likely the ordinance will come forward next year. He also stated that there should be adequate time for public comment and involvement. Mr. Kolff stated that he thought originally that the ordinance would target entertainers and patrons of an entertainment enterprise rather than something like a bookstore. He stated the ordinance seems much broader as it is being interpreted by the public this evenmg. Mr. Watts stated that the previous ordinance applied to live entertainments as well as "peep show" and retail businesses. Mr. Kolff asked if staff could address these as different issue, perhaps requiring different approaches. Mr. Watts stated that if the Council wants to allow adult retail to locate anywhere without limitation, that is easily accomplished, but not on the agenda tonight so staff could bring forward an ordinance addressing that issue to a future meeting. He added that MRSC did not draw a distinction between the two types of businesses in their definition. Another factor is how to separate from certain zoning designations such as. schools and parks. Ms. Sandoval suggested presenting the ordinance to a committee later this year. . Clarifications from the public: Paula Starr stated that the advantage ofa business where the majority of the inventory caters to prurient interests is that it limits access to those who wish to be there; for example, children wouldn't be allowed. She stated that having prurient material in a store in which it is not the predominant stock would mean having a mixed clientele and more room for people to be offended. Gary Gardner asked when the issue would be addressed again after November. Mr. Watts stated that action to extend would have to be taken by November and the action could be to extend another six months and adopt regulations in May. Staffwill work on this and clarify the process by November. Mayor Robinson declared public testimony closed at 7:20 p.m. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to adopt Resolution 04-045, adopting findings in support of Ordinance 2858, a moratorium on the filing of applications for licenses, permits and approvals for adult businesses. Mr. Benskin seconded. . Ms. Fenn noted that the public comment helped clarify some of the issues involved; she suggested addressing this priority at the January Council retreat. City Council Business Meeting Page 5 August 9,2004 . Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. RESOLUTION 04-043 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ORDINANCE 2862 WHICH APPROVED HISTORIC PRE S ERV ATION GUIDELINES ON AN INTERIM BASIS ORDINANCE 2871 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND RELATING TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION; ESTABLISHING HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR AWNINGS, MURALS, EXTERIOR PAINT COLORS, SIGNS AND SIGN FONTS, NEON SIGNS, AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS FOR PROJECTS SUBJECT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REVIEW . City Attorney Watts reviewed the contents ofthe Council packet. He noted that the Council referred the Historic Preservation Draft Guidelines to the Planning Commission for review and adopted the existing guidelines on an interim basis on June 21. The Planning Commission reviewed the guidelines at their July 29 meeting and recommended adoption on a permanent basis of the HPC guidelines now in effect as interim guidelines. Long Range Planning Director Jeff Randall reviewed his staff memo explaining the background of the guidelines, planning commission process and a summary of individual guidelines. He stated that the ordinance would amend the municipal code to recognize the HPC manual; it would also allow staff to make minor, non-substantial changes to the HPC Manual without Council approval provided the City Clerk would give the Council 30 days notice of any such proposed changes. Public comment Barbara Marseille: stated she has been on HPC for a long time and that the guidelines have developed as an evolving project with years of thoughtful collaborative work. She also gave a history of the development of the HPC color palette. Ken McBride: said the integrity of Port Townsend is its historical presence; in his years on HPC, he estimates 90% of applicants have been satisfied with the process and many have thanked the Committee for their assistance. He asked Council to adopt Ordinance 2870 this evening. . Joan Cole: said that the HPC guidelines should be looked at as the rules for the practical application of the bigger concept of the HPC ordinance. It is the way the Committee, City Council Business Meeting Page 6 August 9,2004 . staff and public know what to do to meet the intent of the ordinance. The guidelines are specific instructions for someone who needs a project reviewed. She encouraged adoption of the ordinance this evening. Albert Mendes; spoke in opposition to adoption of the guidelines. He stated many sections of the guidelines are flawed, but he concentrated on the neon sign guidelines. He stated that no bright colors are allowed and it is difficult for businesses that are trying to attract customers when they are unable to see signage. He asked what problem the current guidelines are intended to fix. He stated that no neon sign in existence will be legal under the code. He added if "open" and "vacancy" signs are allowed but others are not that this is a restriction on content, prohibited by state law. He also characterized the guidelines as an attempt to regulate taste - why just for neon and not other similar forms of expression. [written comments submitted for the record] Mimi Rosenberg: spoke against the ordinance, noting that with these regulations, businesses feel the government is working against rather than for them. She stated that if as a government we would help develop business rather than find things that hinder established businesses it would be beneficial. She said signage is necessary and is branding for a business. She said not one business owner sits on the Council and so they are speaking about things they aren't familiar with. She added that what happened at the HPC was beyond absurd and that this is not a small business friendly community when it comes to government. She said the city should go to business owners and ask what they can do to help and it can be done in a constructive way. . David Rosenberg: stated he has examined the guidelines and, as an attorney, feels they do not satisfy Constitutional muster. He said the obnoxious portions, which are content specific, would be overturned by a court if anyone felt they were offensive or overly restrictive. He added you can't have laws that say a sign saying "open" is okay but not a sign saying "espresso." He said commercial free speech can only be restricted in a content neutral way. He asked the Council to consider these guidelines and the utility they have currently but pull back from enacting them because they are fatally flawed. He proposed much more study and substantial revision before enactment. Staff response . Mr. Randall stated that the neon sign regulations deal with a situation which includes the existence of several non-conforming signs. He added this is because the guidelines have not been fully enforced because they have not been adopted by ordinance. In regard to the issue of regulating the content of commercial speech, he said the regulations say the content is limited to one square foot per sign but the actual content of the sign is not regulated. He said that the Code allows up to 12 square feet of signage for downtown businesses and the neon sign guidelines are an attempt to be more specific so every storefront doesn't have a large neon sign. He stated he did a walkabout of the downtown with Mr. Mendez today and counted 61 neon signs, with about a third in compliance. He listed Elevated Ice Cream, Salal, and Rose Theatre as businesses with conforming neon sIgns. City Council Business Meeting Page 7 August 9, 2004 . Mr. Randall stated that if the guidelines are adopted, staff does not plan to begin enforcement immediately and the starting point would be to take the sign survey to Planning Commission and HPC. He believes that with minor modifications made through the administrative review process a high percentage could comply. He stated that the requirement for subdued colors might not be realistic as it is hard to get neon signs in subdued colors; he added that one square foot is very limiting and that probably 80% of the signs surveyed are less than two square feet. Mr. Timmons stated that there are two sub-districts we are dealing with in the area by Swain's and the Fresh Press - they are out of the Downtown Historic District, but do fall into the review area by virtue of being in the Urban Waterfront District. The National Landmark District doesn't include Swain's, Subway, etc. but the zoning map indicates they are in the Commercial Historic District consistent with the Urban Waterfront map. Mr. Watts stated that the HPC guidelines, applied before adoption, do allow certain neon signage and do not constitute a total ban. In regard to the content neutral issue, he stated that it is not in his view a violation of the constitution; the regulations address different aspects of signage in different ways, including informational or directional signage that are under one set of guidelines, so are content neutral with respect to that type of signage. He does not believe this is a violation of any Constitutional rights. . Regarding the force of law, Mr. Watts stated that if the guidelines are adopted by the Council, they would become in effect part of the regulatory framework and would have the effect of law as they are a basis by which law would be viewed and determined to be in compliance. What the City strives to do is have regulations which are black and white that applicants, public and staff can all refer to so all are starting from the same game plan and rule book. All regulations should be as clear as possible and in a format easily referred to and used by all people using the guidelines. That would be the best practice and most legally compliant position the city could be in. Ms. Fenn asked Mr. Randall to clarify that the HPC does have the ability to look at all projects on a case by case basis and can make certain exceptions. Mr. Randall affirmed and said that this can be used to the point where, even if some things are prohibited, a variance can be requested in the case of a hardship or unique circumstance. Mr. Timmons noted that HPC decisions are advisory to the Director and there have been cases where the director has made decisions contrary to the advice of HPC, usually in favor of the business. Ms. Sandoval asked whether the Council will consider reviewing the entire sign ordinance for changes. Mr. Masci asked how the neon guidelines were researched and enacted. Mr. Randall stated that was done by HPC prior to his time with the City; he believes the purpose was . City Council Business Meeting Page 8 August 9,2004 . to discourage common, commercially available signage and to establish a size that was minimal and still effective. Mr. Masci asked why white is not on the color palette. Mr. Randall explained there are some off-white shades but that white itself is considered a very bright color. The criteria used would be based on whether or not the color is historically compatible. He asked if Ms. Marseille could contribute any insights to Mr. Masci's questions. Ms. Marseille stated that the color palette is simply a historic situation. She stated that during the Victorian era, white buildings were considered out of style and white just wasn't used. She stated that black and white historic photos do show some pale buildings but they were not bright white; white was not even used for trim. She added that the palette does include some off whites because people need variety and choice and so that is a compromise. Mr. Masci asked why neon signage was limited to one square foot. Ms. Marseille stated that the HPC felt very strongly about not wanting to see any more Costco "open" signs in the Historic District; it was felt they just didn't belong there and making the square footage a little smaller would accomplish that objective. Ms. Fenn asked staff to describe the parameters of "historically contributing" as that is the framework under which HPC conversations happen. . Mr. Randall stated that when HPC reviews an application that is the standard verbiage: is it contributing to the building? To its neighbors? A non-contributing factor would be a style or color completely in conflict. The term comes from the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Ms. Fenn asked if it is accurate to say that HPC is not arbitrating taste but rather determining whether something is historically contributing or not. Mr. Randall confirmed that was correct. Mrs. Medlicott asked if there are other Victorian color palettes in existence and whether these suggested guidelines have been in practice as though they were codified. She asked if that is so, what is the driver to codify them now. Mr. Watts stated that unless codified, they do not have legal effect; they are guidelines that may give the impression of having legal backing when they really don't. The driver is to give the guidelines that provide consistency to the design review process, the force of law. Mr. Timmons added that one ofthe complaints we have heard a lot is whether or not guidelines had been adopted by Council and when the research was done, it was found that some had been adopted and some had not so we felt this was housekeeping and if these guidelines are to be enforced, they need to be codified. . City Council Business Meeting Page 9 August 9,2004 . Ms. Marseille stated that there are not a number of palettes in existence; what HPC drew from was a more extensive research about the period. She stated there was not much information about commercial coloring, but what there was indicated it was very conservative. She added that the basic palette is 26 colors but because several different paint companies are allowed, the variety among the companies in regard to the same color makes for more choices. Ms. Robinson asked about the "painted ladies" of San Francisco, for instance - would those colors have been used in a commercial district. Mr. Marseille stated those colors are an outgrowth of the hippie movement and are creative but not necessarily accurate to the period. Mr. McBride said that HPC review does not involve the personal preferences of anyone on the Committee, or whether the Committee likes a project or not, but the standard is whether what is proposed is considered "contributing." Regarding white, he stated that the Committee has found sometimes that non-palette colors are not on the palette but may be contributing to a business or an already established logo. He said the Committee works closely to help people build, construct and rehabilitate within a contributing framework. Mr. Timmons noted that there were not a lot of choices and options for color in Port Townsend during the Victoria period as it was limited by our geographic isolation. . Clarifications from the public: David Rosenberg: regarding comment about old photographs, he stated those photographs will reveal numerous uses of neon on main street. Mimi Rosenberg stated that this issue is very important and needs maximum public input so should have two readings. Albert Mendes: stated that color palette choices are based on historic uses for buildings and sign colors would not be the same as building colors because they would need to stand out and attract customers. He also said that special permissions granted outside the guidelines do not make a level playing field. Mayor Robinson closed public testimony at 8:35 p.m. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved for adoption of Resolution 04-043, adopting findings in support of Ordinance 2862 which approved Historic Preservation Guidelines on an interim basis. Mr. Kolff seconded. Mr. Kolff stated he would support this but he agrees that public and business owners need another opportunity to look at this; he would like Mr. Randall to come back in September . City Council Business Meeting Page 10 August 9,2004 · with something that won't make two thirds of business owners automatically out of compliance. He would like the guidelines to be tweaked to satisfy both the HPC and business owners. Mr. Masci stated he would oppose the resolution on the grounds it is discriminatory and breaches citizen rights on a personal level. He suggested getting community involvement and process to determine a broader view of what "Victorian" means in the community. Mr. Benskin stated that other historic communities permit a lot of color. When colors are permitted subjectively, opportunities for creativity are lost. He said that buildings are important but vitality is more important and businesses must be encouraged to locate in the historic district; the City cannot continue to thwart the efforts of businesses. He added there is a ways to go with signs and he would like to see the color palette expanded. He noted that San Francisco has much brighter colors and is probably the Victorian city we are patterned after. He stated the guidelines need more work before he can support adoption. · Ms. Robinson stated that the bright colors in San Francisco come from hippie, not Victorian, days. She noted that the guidelines have gone through two advisory group processes, both HPC and Planning Commission so in her view have had sufficient public process. She will support continuation and has concern about not adopting guidelines because then decisions would appear to be capricious and may in fact be capricious. She stated the baseline is done, and we can now work with it and make changes if necessary. Mr. Masci proposed that if the measure passes, administration should consider an amnesty on neon signs since so many are out of compliance. He asked staff to document what is there and what is allowed before telling marginal business owners they have to junk their signs and get new ones. Motion to adopt Resolution 04-043 to continue HPC guidelines on an interim basis carried, 4-3, by voice vote, Benskin, Masci and Medlicott opposed. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved for first reading of Ordinance 2871. Mr. Kolff seconded. Mrs. Medlicott stated for the record that her opposition to adoption of the guidelines should not be construed as any sort of lack of appreciation for the HPC, Main Street or Port Townsend's Victorian heritage. Motion to amend: Mr. Masci moved to amend Ordinance 2871 by deleting all references to signs, neon signs, paint colors, and awnings. Mr. Benskin seconded. Motion failed, 2-5, with Fenn, KoljJ, Medlicott, Robinson and Sandoval opposed. Vote on main motion for first reading of Ordinance 2871: motion carried, 4-3, with Masci, Benskin and Medlicott opposed. · City Council Business Meeting Page 11 August 9,2004 · Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to put the issue of revision of the sign ordinance on the agenda at the beginning of 2005 so that it is included in the work plan for the year. Mr. Masci seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. RECESS Mayor Robinson declared a recess at 8:57 for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 9:10 p.m. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ORDINANCE NO. 2866 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 3.50 OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING A 1% FOR ARTS PROGRAM Mr. Watts stated the Ordinance was approved for first reading on July 6. The matter before the Council tonight is adoption. He reviewed the key features of the program as stated on the agenda bill. · Mr. Timmons noted that staff supports the ordinance and has supported public art unofficially. He said that the Arts Commission and staff have come up with a workable plan. Mr. Masci would like more specific language than "shall fix the amount of contribution" as that does not specify a maximum level. He suggested, "The target shall be 1 % of the eligible capital costs of municipal construction projects." Ms. Fenn asked about the shift from making the 1 % expenditure discretionary rather than required. Mr. Timmons said that means the Council has an opt out provision if it wishes on any particular project. Public comment: Nancy Newman, Arts Commission: thanked Council and staff for their work and encouraged a passage of the ordinance. She asked for clarification on Section 3.50.070, (municipal arts fund) and asked if that falls under the provisions describing Arts Commission responsibilities and process. She asked if that allows for placement in the City other than associated with a particular project and if that is the Arts Commission's decision. · City Council Business Meeting Page 12 August 9,2004 · Mr. Watts stated that the Arts Commission could make recommendations to the City Council on placement of public art not associated with specific municipal projects. Ms. Newman stated that if the ordinance passes, the Arts Commission looks forward to working together with the City to bring public art to Port Townsend. Glenn Paris Stamm: stated the Council should not have right of final approval, as that is unfair. Mr. Watts indicated that is where the decision-making framework ends up after the rest of the process. Mr. Timmons noted also that permanent placement on City property must involve a Council decision. Ms. Sandoval asked about avoiding the situation involving the Jackson Bequest where the artist retained rights to the work. Mr. Kolff indicated the top of page 5 and suggested clarifying that to read, "Once installed, art work is solely owned and maintained by the City. City Council has final authority to relocate, remove, or destroy, by City Council approval, following recommendation from the Arts Commission." Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved for adoption of Ordinance No. 2866 with the suggested amendments to 3.05.050, paragraph 1 and 3.50.060. final paragraph. Mr. Masci seconded. · Mr. Masci asked about borrowed funds and operations and maintenance costs. Mr. Timmons stated money from bonds can be eligible but some granting agencies will restrict monies. He said that operations and maintenance would come from the General Fund. Mrs. Medlicott asked about art on temporary loan and whether that would be covered by the ordinance; does the 1 % include gifting and other methods of acquisition. Mr. Watts stated the arts fund could be the source of donated money. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by roll call vote. Mr. Masci reminded Council that Council Rules require a vote to continue a meeting beyond 9:30 p.m. Motion: Mr. Kolffmoved to continue the meeting beyond 9:30. Ms. Fenn seconded. Motion carried, 5-2, Masci and Benskin opposed. · ORDINANCE 2870 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND RELATING TO PARKING, AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO DESIGNATE PARKING TIME LIMITS AND IMPOSE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES CONSISTENT WITH RECOMMENDATION OF THE DOWNTOWN PARKING ADVISORY City Council Business Meeting Page 13 August 9, 2004 . BOARD, AND SUSPENDING PARKING TIME LIMIT DESIGNATIONS IN CHAPTER 10.04 PTMC ON AN INTERIM BASIS City Engineer David Peterson and Kris Nelson ofthe Downtown Parking Task Force were present to review the ordinance. Mr. Peterson noted that the details were presented at the July 26 workshop. He added that the Advisory Board would like to start on a first phase of implementation while it focuses on long-term options. Tonight's ordinance addresses trial changes to parking time zones. Ms. Nelson described Task Force recommendations for changes to the downtown parking time zones. She added that extensive discussion and education has taken place with community members who work and live downtown and the recommendations are a result of trying to come up with the best compromise to accommodate everyone's needs. Ms. Nelson stated the biggest controversy concerns the parking lot in front ofthe Upstage, which contains 18 spaces. Under the new regulations, cars would not be limited to 2-hour parking between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. Public comment: . Mari Mullen, Director of Main Street program and a member of the Task Force, stated that downtown parking is a resource that must be managed and will require compromises. She stated she supports the work ofthe Task Force and also has feedback from merchants. Comments from Jackie at Twigs and Lois Venarchak of the bead store. Their concerns were primarily in regard to the Back Alley lot, which would go from 24 hour to 2 hour parking. Suggestion was to keep half the spots 24 hour or issue stickers for residents. There was also concern about the limitations of a two-hour as opposed to a four-hour time limit. Motion: Mr. Masci movedfor first reading of Ordinance 2870. Ms. Sandoval seconded. Motion was then withdrawn. Motion: Mrs. Medlicott moved to waive Council rules and adopt Ordinance 2870, authorizing the Public Works Director to designate parking time limits and impose construction permit fees consistent with recommendation of the Downtown Parking Advisory Board and suspending parking time limit designations in Chapter 10.04 PTMC on an interim basis. Mr. Kolff seconded. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to divide the question. Mr. Benskin seconded. Motion failed, 5-2, Fenn, KoljJ, Medlicott, Robinson and Sandoval opposed. . Vote on main motion to waive rules and adopt Ordinance 2870 èarried unanimously, 7-0, by roll call vote. City Council Business Meeting Page 14 August 9,2004 · WRIA POLICY ISSUES Public Works Director Ken Clow stated that staff is seeking Council policy direction on recommending in-stream flows for streams in the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 17 (Eastern Jefferson County). He reviewed the three alternatives identified in the packet material. He noted that staff recommends adoption of Option #3 - support very low in-stream flow restrictions on the Big and Little Qui1cene Rivers as well as supporting the need for further groundwater development in the Chimacum Creek basin and higher in-stream flow restrictions on other streams within the Planning Unit. There should also be reservations of ground water in other basins for future development of community/municipal water systems and allowances for single exempt wells. Ms. Sandoval asked how the city's senior water right impacts the Forest Service Permit. Mr. Clow stated that the City voluntarily leaves 27 cubic feet per second in the river now; if we say we believe the minimum flow should be higher that doesn't change our water right but could change how much water we can withdraw under other permits such as the Forest Service SUP. If we have gone on record as a city supporting a higher minimum flow for the Big Quilcene River other agencies and public interest groups could say that the city supported this higher level in the WRIA 17 process and therefore that higher minimum should be used in the SUP permit process which can set in-stream flows. · He confirmed that even though the city has a senior water right, the Forest Service permit conditions would prevail. Mr. Watts said that the federal government is applying the Endangered Species Act (ESA) since the pipeline crosses Forest Service land, and they can apply their rules under ESA, which trumps state rights. Ms. Sandoval stated we keep being told we have plenty of water for our growth expectation as well as to keep the Mill going - what does that translate into? Mr. Clow stated that the statement we have enough water for the future is based on keeping a 27 cubic foot per second minimum flow. If that went up to 60 cfs, we would have to start drawing on Lords Lake much earlier than we do now and could run low on water until the fall rains come. Mr. Timmons said the city does have the capacity for what we need for buildout but the water necessarily comes off the Mill's side of the equation. The Mill suffers from any diminishment of the stream flow. · Mr. LaCroix stated that the City was never able to deliver a million gallons of water a day to the Tri-Area because of all the miles of six-inch pipe in place. On a typical day, the City delivered less than half a million gallons. Since the Tri-Area went on well water all the surface water previously used in the Tri-Area has been left in the stream. City Council Business Meeting Page 15 August 9, 2004 . Ms. Sandoval stated that her concerns were predicated on a fear that the city could be forced into the decision of becoming the water purveyor for a huge part of the County and now she has heard that might not be the case. Mr. Timmons said the issue becomes a policy question in the realm of political reality. He stated there is no law now that prescribes a way for the County to take the water although we know the County has done legal research on ways to accomplish that. Mr. Watts stated there are two issues: whether or not there is legislation currently on the books that any jurisdiction has to provide excess water to another jurisdiction - the Department of Health says they do not have that authority. Another question is whether there is any authority of a county to condemn a municipal or city water right. A case could be brought forward addressing this issue, but we do not know of any precedent. Mr. Timmons stated that there has been an instance where a municipality condemned state land and the court upheld their action using the test of whether a higher public purpose was being served through the action. Ms. Robinson asked whether the City's senior water right over instream flow is recognized only by the state. . Mr. Clow said that the federal government could condition their permit to establish a higher instream flow if that is what they think is necessary for national fisheries, etc. This means they can set a higher instream flow that would in fact reduce the City's ability to use its full water right. Ms. Robinson asked if it is in the City's interest not to establish a minimum instream flow on Chimacum Creek that would keep the PUD from developing more wells to serve customers in the County. Mr. Clow stated the City is not bound to serve them, but there will be pressure to continue to provide water there. Mr. Timmons stated the City has received two requests for water. Mr. Clow said it is in the City's interest to have a viable water system there - if the PUD system fails or they are operating on the margin to provide water to customers, it could put increased pressure on the City to help provide water. He added that if the PUD is successful the City retains more flexibility in our water use. Mr. LaCroix stated that public water is about public health and when professionals are in charge you minimize the public health risk. . Public comment: Dana Roberts submitted written comments and encouraged the Council to adopt either option 1 or option 3; he stated that choosing one ofthose options lets us reserve water to City Council Business Meeting Page 16 August 9, 2004 . serve current and probable future residents given current county zoning. He added that land use recommendations should be made directly to the County rather than by working against reserving water to serve those uses. Council discussion: Ms. Fenn suggested either establishing a citizen's advisory committee on water or holding a roundtable discussion with various involved stakeholders. Ms. F enn stated she would support maintaining current instream flow restrictions on the Big and Little Qui1cene Rivers and would support the Department ofFish and Wildlife's recommendations for all other streams within the WRIA planning unit. She stated that PUD resources will be stretched by the current buildout in the County and the Council should be discussing these issues at Intergovermental Elected Officials and Joint Growth Management Steering Committee meetings, as they are essential long-term Issues. . Motion: Mr. Benskin moved to support instream flow restrictions on the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers as well as support for the need for further groundwater development in the Chimacum Creek basin and support for higher in-stream flow restrictions on other streams within the Planning Unit. There should also be reservations of ground water in other basins for future development of community/municipal water systems and allowances for single exempt wells. Mr. Masci seconded. Mr. Kolff asked for an explanation of the decisions and timing of WRIA 17 and the expected time frame for the renewal ofthe Forest Service permits. Mr. LaCroix stated that time will be up in December for the final unit recommendation to the Department of Ecology. Regarding the Forest Service process, he stated he thought we would have been done in January of2004; however the meetings have continued and the District Ranger who had been spearheading the effort has retired. Weare now waiting for completion ofthe biological opinion, and then the Forest Service will respond and set conditions in the permit and put it out for public comment. At this point we are probably looking at January 2005 as the earliest resolution. Mr. Kolff asked if our permit can expire before a new permit is in place. Mr. Clow answered that there are three permits. Two do not have expiration dates but open-ended permits are no longer issued. The last one expires in December of 2005 but the Forest Service has said they will continue to honor all the permits while we go through the process. . Mr. Timmons said the driver behind the permit process is the Forest Service; we have hired consultants to do work they would normally do, to expedite the process. Mr. Kolff asked about Ms. Mackrow's memo recommending the city do further studies and research. City Council Business Meeting Page 17 August 9,2004 . Mr. Clow noted this is a continuous process and part of it is the need to update the water system plan. The question is whether or not we want to restrict ourselves voluntarily; he stated he hopes the Forest Service does not condition the permit to an absolute 27 cfs minimum flow, but allows us to consult with the NMFS if we need to draw water below 27 cfs in an emergency. Mr. Clow said we have spent about $200,000 to date and the City simply does not have a blank check we can write every time someone suggests another study be done. Ms. Fenn stated she would support a policy of support for current instream flow restrictions on the Big and Little Qui1cene Rivers and support the recommendations of Fish and Wildlife for in-stream flows on all other streams within the WRIA 17 planning unit. She said she would like to make a stand for instream flow on other streams that would restrict development on many of them. Mr. Kolff stated that he agrees part of this would be to support higher inflow on streams other than the Big and Little Quil, but he is hesitant to identify a level such as Fish and Wildlife's. He said what we are looking for is general direction and in fact the final number and decision will come back to Council anyway. . Ms. Sandoval stated this is the biggest issue facing us and future Councils; she wishes citizens knew more about it. She stated the Council has failed by not participating as fully and collaboratively as the planning policies have stated we should regarding the future of water and the future of the County. She added that she understands it will come back to Council but looks as though there won't be consensus of the Planning Unit and that the Department of Ecology will probably set the flows. She can't support further groundwater development in the Chimacum Creek Basin. Ms. Robinson asked what is meant by "higher" in-stream flows on other streams. Mr. Clow stated that the wording is intentionally general and gives room for negotiation. Ms. Fenn stated she couldn't support a further need for groundwater development in the Chimacum Creek basin. A proposed friendly amendment by Ms. Fenn to remove the section regarding the Chimacum Creek Basin and strike the last sentence regarding reservations of ground water in other basins was not accepted. Vote: motion failed, 3-4, Fenn, KoljJ, Robinson and Sandoval opposed. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to support current in-stream flow restrictions on the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers and support higher in-stream flow restrictions on other streams within the Planning Unit. Mr. Masci seconded. The motion carried, 6-1, Benskin opposed. . City Council Business Meeting Page 18 August 9, 2004 . Motion: Mr. Masci moved that city staff enter into negotiations with stakeholders in the Chimacum Creek basin to develop comprehensive policies with regard to withdrawals from Chimacum Creek basin. Mr. Kolff seconded. The motion failed, 3-4, by voice vote, Fenn, KoljJ, Robinson and Sandoval opposed. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved that the City schedule a workshop on water issues and invite Fish and Wildlife and mill representatives and any other NGOs who have been participating in WRIAfor a roundtable discussion this fall on water issues in the WRIA 17 area. Mr. Kolff seconded. Mr. Masci stated this would be recreating a duplicate WRIA process. He said the staff has enough information to educate the council; he would support having a comprehensive internal workshop. Ms. Fenn stated there is a broader perspective than what we have received at our staff representation and she has been lobbied by other groups with information she had heard. She suggested a workshop on long-term water issues and ask other entities if they want to come and make public comment. . Mr. Benskin stated it would be up to the Council to decide about the content of such a workshop. Mr. Kolff said it would take time to bring forward a proposal about the format and content of a workshop. Ms. Robinson added that any Council member is free to attend WRIA 17 meetings as long as the Clerk is notified to determine whether a quorum will be present. Motion withdrawn by consensus. Mr. Timmons stated the Council has authorized staff to begin updating the Water System Plan and all policies will have to be revisited; there will be plenty of opportunity for the Council to address the issues again. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to appoint the General Government Committee as representatives to WRIA 17. Mr. Benskin seconded. Mr. Kolff stated it seems awkward to have an entire committee representing the Council at a meeting and trying to determine how to vote. Mr. Benskin stated that it may be awkward but he doesn't believe the Council has consensus on any of the issues and one person on the WRIA Board is not sufficient to represent the divergent views. Motion to amend: Mr. Benskin moved that two members of the General Government Committee be assigned as representatives to WRIA 17. Mr. Masci seconded. Ms. Fenn stated she would not support the amendment, as the goal is not to represent a broad spectrum of opinion. . City Council Business Meeting Page 19 August 9, 2004 . Mrs. Medlicott stated that no matter how many attend, the City still has only one vote. She strongly encouraged whoever attends not to represent one faction of opinion. Vote: motion failed, 3-4, Fenn, KoljJ, Robinson and Sandoval opposed. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to appoint Kees Kolff to the WRIA 17 steering committee. Ms. Robinson seconded. Motion carried, 4-3, by voice vote, Benskin, Masci and Medlicott opposed. RECESS Mayor Robinson declared a recess at 11 :35 p.m. for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 11 :40 p.m. PTTV CONSULTANT CONTRACT - SCOPE OF WORK OPTIONS City Manager Timmons stated that staff suggests delaying full staff report and action to the September 7 meeting. He suggested that public comment be taken from those who have waited to speak tonight. . Mr. Timmons emphasized that no recommendation has ever been made or is pending to close down the station. That issue has never been raised nor been part of any discussion. Regarding the Station Manager's contract, staff hopes to clarify some terms and conditions and has presented the Council with options. Allocation of time between public access, education and government needs to be looked at to avert future misunderstandings. Public Comment: Gary Lemons (PTTV Station Manager): asked the Council to preserve status quo and extend his contract through 2005; he suggested that soft commercial advertising on the station be considered as a source of extra revenue. Also speaking in favor of the status quo option: Karen Johnson Rebecca Rafuse Terry Segal (read a letter from Gary Nelson previously distributed to Council) Glenn Paris Stamm . Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to postpone staff report, further discussion and discussion of the PEG Access Advisory Board until September 7. Mr. Masci seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. City Council Business Meeting Page 20 August 9,2004 . . . Motion: Mr. Masci moved to delay all other items on the agenda (7Eforward, including items removed from the consent agenda and executive session) to the next meeting. Mr. Benskin seconded. Motion failed, 2-5, with Fenn, KoljJ, Robinson, Sandoval and Medlicott opposed. ORDINANCE 2869 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDING THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 17.30, HISTORIC o VERLA Y DISTRICT - DESIGN REVIEW, SECTION 17. 30. 085, DEMOLITION STANDARDS TO PROVIDE ADDED REVIEW BEFORE DEMOLITION OF AN HISTORIC STRUCTURE OCCURS Motion: Ms. Sandoval movedfor adoption of Ordinance 2869. Ms. Fenn seconded. Mr. Masci stated he would not support the ordinance without the original subarea plan exemption included. Ms. Fenn stated that Council had agreed that a definition of "independent expert" as referred to on page 6 is needed. Mr. Timmons stated that staff could bring forward an amendment to the ordinance in September which will add a definition acceptable to the Council. Vote: motion carried, 4-3, by roll call vote, Benskin, Masci and Medlicott opposed. RESOLUTION 04-040 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD AND EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND NEGOTIATE AND A WARD ANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS REQUIRED FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SKATEBOARD PARK PROJECT Mr. Benskin asked for an explanation of the services required. Public Works Director Ken Clow stated that this would entail any professional services needed to support construction; examples include surveys, geotechnical services, etc. He added that any contracts awarded must be within the approved budget. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to approve Resolution 04-040. Mr. Kolff seconded. There was no public comment. Vote: the motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. City Council Business Meeting August 9, 2004 Page 21 . . . PINK HOUSE - CITY PURCHASE OF LEASE INTEREST Mr. Benskin stated he removed the item from the consent agenda to ask whether the proposed amount is adequate reimbursement. Mr. Timmons noted the amount is based on two independent appraisals and the offer has been accepted by the Littles. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to authorize the City Manager to execute necessary documents with Robert and Christine Little for purchase of the leasehold interest in the Pink House at a price of $180,000. Mr. Masci seconded. There was no public comment. Vote: the motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. RESOLUTION 04-041 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO A WARD AND EXECUTE A SMALL WORKS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE JACOB MILLER (IVY STREET) WATER LINE PROJECT City Manager Timmons stated that this project is part of the City's mandate from the State Health Department. Motion: Mr. Kolffmoved to approve Resolution 04-041, authorizing the City Manager to award and execute a small works construction contract for the completion of the Jacob Miller (Ivy Street) water line project. Mr. Masci seconded. There was no public comment. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. RESOLUTION 04-042 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND ENDORSING THE 2004 PORT TOWNSEND FILM FESTIVAL, AND WAIVING RENTAL FEE FOR USE OF THE POPE MARINE BUILDING Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to endorse the Port Townsend Film Festival, waive the rental fee for the Pope Marine Park Building September 23-26, and allow for decoration of Haller Fountain during the festival. Mr. Kolffseconded. The motionfailed, 3-4, with Masci, Benskin, Robinson and Medlicott opposed. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to endorse the Port Townsend Film Festival, and waive the rental fee for the Pope Marine Park Building September 23-26. Ms. Fenn seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. City Council Business Meeting Page 22 August 9, 2004 . . . STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS The report will be discussed at the September 11 budget retreat. PRESIDING OFFICER'S REPORT Appointments to Downtown Parking Advisory Board Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to accept the Mayor's recommendation and confirm the following appointments to the Downtown Parking Advisory Board. Mr. Masci seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. Sam Kyle, Position 1, Term expires May 1,2007 Kristen Nelson, Position 2, Term expires May 1, 2007 Mark Cole, Position 3, Term expires May 1,2006 Marilyn Staples, Position 4, Term expires May 1,2006 Mari Mullen, Position 5, Term expires May 1, 2005 Scott Walker, Position 6, Term expires May 1,2005 FUTURE AGENDAS A retreat to address the 2005 Budget will be held on September 11. Ms. Fenn requested that the Point Hudson workshop be rescheduled, as she will be out of town on September 13. The workshop will be rescheduled. Consensus: there were no objections to canceling the remainder of the Council meetings for the rest of August. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 a.m. Attest: (j¡----.. ~ ¡ ,~ c / (/ J, "'- t0t4.-C.¿·",- h{i/1r~ /) v Pamela Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council Business Meeting Page 23 August 9,2004