Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout102005 . . . CITY OF P~RT TOWNSEND CIl{ COUNCIL I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF OCTOBER 20, 2005 CALL TO ORDER ANI!> PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port T oWf)send met in regular session this twentieth day of October 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend temporary Council Chambers in the Cedar Room of the Waterman & Katz Bl!Iilding, Mayor Catharine Robinson presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were Frank Benskin, Kees Kolff, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval. Excu$ed were: Geoff Masci and Laurie Medlicott. Unexcused: Freida Fenn. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Long Range Planning Director Jeff Ranqall, Long Range Planner Judy Surber, and Legal Assistant Joanna Sanders. Also present was contractor Paul Inghram of Berryman & Henigar. PUBWlC HEARING SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Mayor Robinson recommended that after holding the public hearing tonight as advertised that Council continue the public hearing to mid-November (possibly November 17) rather than Monday, OctQber 24 in order to allow more time on this matter. This would allow Staff an opportunity to respond to questions from tonight and receive additional public comment on the plan at that time, including providing additional information addressing any additional issues that arise. There was consensus by the Council members present to continue the public hearing on November 17. Mayor Robinson then read the rules of procedure for public hearings. She asked if any Council members have any interests, firlancial or property, to disclose in association with this matter. None were disclosed. Long Range Planner Judy Surber and wong Range Planning Director Jeff Randall presented the staff report and reviewed the packet of materials provided with the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The intent of the presentation was to provide Council a brief overview of the SMP. Once all issues are clear, Staff would return to review those list of issues. Ms. Surber explain~d that the primary reasons for the update (due City Council Business Meeting i I P~ge 1 October 20, 2005 . . . I I December 1) are because the existing program is quite old and needed to be updated and to provide consistency between the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, other development regulations, and the Critic~1 Areas Ordinance. The October 13 draft is the culmination of a four-year effort. The app,endices would be provided prior to the November meeting. She then explained ,the flow of the program adoption process, including review by the Planning Commission and listed the individuals and organizations involved in the Shoreline 4dvisory Group. Once there is Council review, there would be a review by the Departmllnt of Ecology. Ecology can then send the document back to the City for suggested modifications. Any appeal would go through the Growth Management Hearings Board. Ms. Surber outlined the three key policiE1s of the Shoreline Management Act: (1) must provide public access (both visual and physical), (2) provide for appropriate uses (water-oriented uses that are dependen~-related or enjoyment uses on shoreline, non- water-oriented uses that do not need to ~e located on the shoreline; foster appropriate uses that are dependent or related to the shoreline), and (3) provide for enjoyment and recreational opportunities. Because Environmental Protection is the foremost goal of the Shoreline Management Act, there is an emphasis on protection of the shoreline environment. Much of the effort on publiC access had already been done and was folded into Chapter 7 carrying over the ty,Io existing City plans (Urban Waterfront Plan and Public Access Plan). Those plans would be retired once the SMP is adopted. She then reviewed the key designations (aq4atic, natural, conservancy, shoreline residential, urban, historic waterfront, Boat Haven, and Point Hudson) and the major issues in those designations. Those present in the audience who were involved on the Shoreline Advisory Group (SAG) were introduced: Dave Robison, IDavid King, Gary Kennedy, Steve Chapin, Larry Crockett, Michelle Sandoval. Planning Commission members present were George Randels, Roger Lizut, and Stevfil Emery. Paul Inghram of Berryman & Henigar, a planning consultant was also present \0 answer questions. Jeff Randall noted that the appendices are primarily reference documents. He recognized the tremendous work by the!Shoreline Advisory Group and the Planning Commission and mostly the efforts of Judy Surber. He spoke about the City's participation in the Early Adopters Roun~table sponsored by the Department of Ecology. He clarified that the buildings * Point Hudson are not on the Port Townsend or National historic registers. While they miight qualify having been built in the 1920s and 1930s, they have not been registered. pi" letter was given to the Council from the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) with their comments on the use of the parade grounds as well as the Planning Commission's recommendations for the parade ground use. The Planning Commission recommendation came with a mixed-use building being a proposed use and the HPC is recommending this not be allowed to occur. The Planning Commission, after reviewing the record, receiving public testimony and discussing the issue, has recommended! approval of the Shoreline Master Program update. City Council Business Meeting PClge2 October 20, 2005 . Public Comment: Sebastian Eggert expressed his appreciation for the work done. As the chair of the HPC, he said they have not had time to review the document. If a primary part of the shoreline program is to secure as a priority public visual and physical access to the shoreline, they are concerned that a mixed-use building placed on the parade grounds would significantly reduce the sense of qpen space and block the view corridor to the shoreline. The spatial relationship around the existing buildings is important. While they do not object to the Port having a mixed+use there, they would prefer that a large building be placed in a proper context and back from the shoreline in the area behind the Cupola House and Commander's BElach House, rather than in the heart of the parade grounds, which is used for activities such as the Wooden Boat Festival. Putting in a permanent structure would in his mind ruin the feeling at Point Hudson. They would have liked to of participated earlier in the process. . . George Randels thanked the Planning Commission and the Shoreline Advisory Group for their hard work. He also thanked the :stakeholders, citizens and most importantly, Staff. He believes the document reflects, careful thought and artful compromise. The product pays homage to the past withou~ being bound by it. He urged the Council look at the product in that light. In particular, he believes they arrived at compromises on a couple of controversial sites. He believes the balance they have achieved is appropriate and justified and hopes the Council concurs. David King stated that his guiding principles aside from general support of marine trades in his activities on the Comprehensive Scheme Advisory Group for the Port and as a marine trades representative of the Shoreline Advisory Group, particularly in Point Hudson were the six principles brought forward and adopted by both the Port and City. He was also impressed by a presentation by Michael Sullivan by the Trust for historic Preservation sponsored by the City a YE1ar ago. He recognized the changing nature of marine trades in this community. He believes the Shoreline Advisory Group was a very collaborative process. Regarding the re<l:ommendation for a mixed-use facility at Point Hudson and calling it a resort was in re~ponse to the generally perceived desire to remove the RVs and in support of the firhancially self-supporting criteria of the Port's Point Hudson plan. He is willing to continue to help with this process. He noted that marine trades property is an endangered species in this community. Once lost, it is gone for good. Eric Toews spoke of his personal appreciation for the Planning Commission, Advisory Group and particularly Judy Surber and'City Staff for their expertise, good will, patience and tireless dedication in preparing the draft SMP. On behalf of the Port, they believe the draft reflects a broad range of comntlunity interests and is broadly consistent with Ecology's shoreline guidelines. As one of the largest landowners within Port Townsend's shoreline jurisdiction, and as a special government entity with a statutorily- defined mission and public purpose, the Port has taken a keen interest in this process. They have tried to be a team player and make a constructive contribution to the broader City Council Business Meeting I I PClge 3 October 20, 2005 . . . I public interest. There have been a myria~ of compromises made on many sides and the process has provided numerous opportuinities for interested citizens to become involved and playa meaningful role in shaping th~ content of this draft. One of the key policy matters already discussed is the proposed shoreline mixed use facility that the draft recommends be permitted conditionally either on the parade grounds or the so-called "back 40." The intent is to replace the income derived from RVs that have allowed Point Hudson to be self supporting - an adoptbd goal of both the City and Port. He reminded Council that putting greater limitations 0111 this potential replacement use than those already proposed in the draft, could makie it less likely to happen and the consequence of eventual replacement of the RVs less, likely. He asked Council to be aware in its deliberations that Point Hudson has been a dynamic and evolving environment through the years. Most of the buildings seen today date from the 1930s when the original quarantine station was constructed. Coast Guard engineering drawings and photographs from 1942, which are in thE! packets, show clearly that a majority of the structures once present at Point HudsOIl have either been moved or demolished. In fact within the Point Hudson east subdistrict only six of the 21 structures present in 1942 remain today. Interestingly, one of the s~ructures present during 1942 was 90-foot long classroom located on the parade grounds adjacent to Jefferson Street. RVs have been a feature of the landscape since the 1960s some 45 years, a duration that exceeds the life of many of the structures that have oome and gone over the decades. In sum throughout its history, Point Hudson has been an ever-changing setting. The challenge to our community is to find the means to foster responsible and positive change that supports the marine trades and preserves the essential character of the place, but allows a sufficiently broad range of uses to assure that the area is vibrant and economically viable. Larry Crockett, Director of the Port of Port Townsend spoke about the Port's involvement in the Shoreline Advisory Group. The Port has worked in good faith toward the product and its position has been consistent and well documented in the public record. There was much compromise by all parties and he gave accolades to fellow members and the Planning Commission. He suggested Judy Surber and Jeff Randall be formally commended by the City. The City and Port jointly approved that Point Hudson should be, among other things, financially self supporting. Around November 15, the Port would go out for a $5M bond issue for the Point Hudson marina renovation, public access, repair of needed infrastructure, and bringing the facility up to ADA codes. This additional debt service is on top of $600K plus expenses for the day-to-day operations of Point Hudson. He talked about the 40-years of deferred maintenance and noted that the Port's written comments included a spreadsheeU statement of operations since 2002. The RVs provide one third $f the revenue at Point Hudson and it is needed to keep Point Hudson moving forward, renovating the buildings and paying the debt service on the new marina. He noted this revenue also provides revenue to L TAC for visitors who not only enjoy the shoreline, but also spend money and time in the City. He thanked everyone for the good process. Mary Winters, Port attorney, concurred with all of the accolades. Speaking about the compromises, she mentioned her view ijs that there is a mythology that RVs have been City Council Business Meeting i P~ge 4 October 20, 2005 . . . ! a non-conforming use. While not a modJI of clarity, the current SMP when read in totality says overnight and day recreatio~al facilities are not only permitted, but a primary use and were allowed. This was,the thought at the time of the original plan and in 1994 when the Port Townsend plan wl:ls divorced from the Jefferson County plan. So there was ample opportunity for the City to make a different decision. She believes it is important for the Council to have this legal context when looking at the future of the RVs. Even though the Port has said in documents and publicly that they have looked at other jurisdictions and think that RVs brilil9 substantial numbers of people who might not otherwise enjoy the shoreline to the shores, at the shoreline advisory level the comfort level with calling them water-enjoyment 'Was not high. Calling them permitted, not being able to move at all, or increase was a cqmpromise. While not everyone was happy, everyone was happy enough and felt it worked. With regard to the replacement with the shoreline mixed-use facility, one issue t~at came up at the HPC and caused some consternation in the community is aboutithe size - the 12,500 square feet that is now a footprint limitation. This was not intended to alarm anyone, but was intended to help. If it is alarming, there is a policy that already limits any new development or redevelopment to the size, scale, bulk and dimension o~ existing Point Hudson station buildings. The Port was fine with this policy and was ndt advocating a square foot limitation that was not palatable. If you look at the Point HJdson draft plan you will see that on the use chart and in the text itself there is some possible future development right on the parade ground site. While not advocating it, she is providing the historical context that it wasn't always the community view that this arefl is in violent. Guy Hupy said as someone who has followed the process over the last four years, he agrees Judy Surber should be commen<iled for her efforts and thanked the Shoreline Advisory Group. He wished that there h;ild been discussion of the scale of the resort proposal this spring or in the fall when t~ere were specific public meetings on Point Hudson. The issue of the mixed-use fadility was not brought up in those particular meetings. In the October 13 draft, there ,is language relating to size and scale of this mixed-use facility. This language has not appeared in any other drafts available on the website. Between the October 6 and 13idrafts, the allowance for the size and scale of this transient hotel property have been ihcreased to allow for greater density of hotel rooms in this location. Since the Port im!licated they are not married to this, he encouraged the Council to review all of these issues. He offered to provide conceptual scale planning based on what is availablle under the new restrictions as far as scale and size. He reiterated what the Historic Pre~ervation Commission has stated about open space at the parade grounds and the importance of context to all of the Coast Guard Stations to have that open space. He u~ged them to keep in mind that the scale and square footage requirements are not se~ up to determine the shape of the building, therefore it would be allowed to be stretched out the length of the parade grounds to maximize exposure to the view. Dave Robison stated that having been i~volved in this process for 15 years, he has seen a lot of process regarding Point H~dson. As an illustration of this, he showed a headline from an old newspaper, whichisaid, "Whose shoreline is it? Port Townsend shorelines form the edge of town, but afe at the heart of most land use battles." This City Council Business Meeting pJge 5 I October 20, 2005 . . . process today should actually be seen a a success because it is not on the front page in an election season and there are not 0 lawsuits pending. He agrees with Mr. Randels that it is an artful compromise. e would love to see the parade ground left as open space long into the future, but he oted we grappled with the inherent tensions between responsible development at Point Hudson. As a SAG group member, there were five things they were wrestling with in terms of balance: When is, and how would we nurture the marine trades and the maritime educational uses at Point Hudson that give it its character, its charm and authenticity? How to remove the RVs from Point Hudson? How to preserve the historic bl!Jildings because they are part of our heritage, context character? How to promote shoreline restoration? Each of these points costs money and how do we do it in a manner that assures that Point Hudson would be financially sustainable over the long terntl? All are good community goals. From his perspective, one way is to look at a mixed-use development that was in keeping with the small-scale character, the historic context, etc. because this and the adaptive reuse could help especially on the east side to, provide some of the economic revenues that would allow us to subsidize some of the imarine trades and the maritime heritage uses that are critical to the long-term success of Point Hudson. II is a balance and the devil is in the details. Steve Emery: Referring to a copy of one of the original plans, noted that under the long-term options there is a building proposed for the new marine science center. He noted the building is almost as big as the new motel footprint that sits next to it. Personally, he would like to see a holistii: healing center in that space because he feels Point Hudson, besides water enjoyment, is a healing place. He feels it has a lot to offer in terms of ambiance, etc. He noted this; plan also has design guidelines. Mayor Robinson stated the opportunitie$ for public comment would continue and the hearing would be continued until November 17. Staff Response: Judy Surber thanked everyone for the ppsitive comments and for the dedication and patience of participants. Regarding the size of the building allowed at the parade grounds, originally the plan said there cQuld be mixed-use facilities as a means to see RVs on that site disappear. However, the zoning allows for a 2/1 ratio for construction of new development in this zoning district. !Given that this is about a 30K sq. ft. area, it could mean a building of 60K sq. ft. In the testimony before Council on the Point Hudson restaurant discussions, it was clear that there was concern about the size of any new development in Point Hudson. fin conversations with the Port, there was interest in being more specific about the size, which would be the same whether at the parade grounds or in the "back forty," a~d that size was a 12.5K sq. ft. footprint and again the overall area is about 30K sq. ~. City Staff could provide illustrations/visuals showing the impacts of a building of this size at Point Hudson. The updated plan should be available on the City's website in thei next few days and there are public inspection copies at the City administrative office and at the public library. City Council Business Meeting Paige 6 October 20, 2005 . Jeff Randall noted that the photograph r~ferred to by Eric Toews (included in the Port's written comments) shows quite a few ad~itional buildings on the site. This particular photograph is reflective of a life it had dLjring WWII when there were many temporary structures. Fort Worden had similar buildings on their parade grounds and in the open spaces between their buildings and they are now gone. Those buildings were temporary. He does not know if they had plumbing and they probably had simple electrical, but were not architecturally lik~ other buildings at Point Hudson or buildings at Fort Worden. Staff has made references to RVs being a non-conforming use and he agreed with Ms. Winters that in most SMPs recreational parks are considered a water- oriented/water enjoyment use. Because 'the RVs pre-date the City's Shoreline Master Program and never went through the su~stantial development permit process that a new RV park would go through nor are $ubject to the setbacks and vegetative buffer and view corridor, Staff referred to it as 1iI non-conforming use. He clarified that the references to the Point Hudson plan, wit~ buildings shown on the parade grounds, was never adopted by the City and therefore remains a conceptual plan. Ms. Sandoval asked whether the legal and Puget Sound Action Team reviews were forwarded to the Planning Commission. Ms. Surber concurred that the Planning Commission had an opportunity to review the legal opinion by Richard Settle, but only.had a brief look at the preliminary comments from the Puget Sound Action Team. There were only slight modifications to the Action Team's preliminary and final comments. . Ms. Sandoval asked whether there were modifications to the document based on comments by the Action Team? . Ms. Surber noted the Action Team's prOlposed changes regarding pesticide use were incorporated exactly as suggested. Staff did not agree with some of the other proposed changes or felt they were redundant and therefore did not incorporate them. She agreed to go through the Action Team's formal letter and indicate in the margins the comments which were/were not incorporated. Ms. Sandoval agreed this would be hel~ful. She then asked if Richard Settle's comments were incorporated. Ms. Surber indicated they were first disQussed with the City Attorney and changes were incorporated before the Planning Commission Review. Mr. Kolff thanked those who participate<ll in the Shoreline Advisory Group, including Councilor Sandoval. He asked for clarification when the shoreline mixed-use facility, previously called resort, came up in the process and when did the size specification appear and was there an opportunity for comment. Ms. Surber stated that the idea of a mixed-use resort was first discussed in the advisory group when looking for replacement revenue opportunities in a sunset of RVs at Point City Council Business Meeting Paige 7 October 20, 2005 . . . I I Hudson. Staff suggested that a mixed-u$e resortlhotel combination at the parade grounds might provide this revenue. Fu~her evolution of this idea in the advisory group came when the Port indicated they woulcil still be interested in removing RVs from the parade ground even if moving the mixedruse facility behind the Commander's Beach House. During Council deliberations over the text amendments on the restaurant size at Point Hudson, Staff understood size wa!j an issue and that the 2/1 ratios would be alarming. She worked with the Port to try to narrow down how big a building could be at the parade grounds. She believes October 13th was the first opportunity for the Planning Commission to review the proposed language. Mr. Kolff asked Ms. Surber to explain th~ 2/1 ratios in relation to the parade grounds. i Ms. Surber explained that if the SMP wais silent about the size of the structure then you would refer to the zoning, which for this cilistrict says you can have a building at a 2/1 ratio. So you take the size of the site anql double it. Because the Parade Grounds are approximately 30K sq. ft. in size, a 60K sq. ft. building would be allowed. Clearly, you would not be able to find a building of th\!!t size compatible with the historic/small scale character, but still there is a huge gap between what it is and the 60K sq. ft. So the question is whether there is a place where we would be more comfortable than 2/1. Ms. Sandoval asked whether the bulk and dimensional that we have for commercial would apply, which is the 40K square foot maximum. Ms. Surber said it would not. They would look at the MII-B designation. Mr. Kolff asked Ms. Winters to explain the Port's happiness with/understanding before the 12K sq. feet was set. Ms. Winters referred to Policy 5.13.9 that says buildings must be in keeping with the size, scale, and character of the originaL Point Hudson station buildings. This was brought up at the previous Council meeting (9/5/05). When it was raised that a limitation might be appropriate, the Port was willing to consider sizes that might work economically. While not advocating that there must be a size limitation, her feeling is that the size of the site was the best ide\!! - the 50% only lot coverage. She noted that the size issue was raised before the Oc~ober 6 Planning Commission meeting. The overall RV/resort topic was discussed at the SAG level. Ms. Sandoval recollected that she asked about bulk and dimension at the SAG level when the resort topic was discussed, but the size never got addressed specifically. Mr. Kolff asked how many RV sites are at the Point versus parade grounds. Mr. Crockett answered there are approximately 26 on the parade ground loop and roughly 48 in total. Mr. Kolff pointed out that roughly 22 wOlilld remain elsewhere and the majority of those are located on the point. He then asked Mr. Crockett to summarize discussion about City Council Business Meeting Page 8 October 20, 2005 . . . RVs on the point and whether this was i~cluded as another potential reason for having a mixed-use facility, and why was it decoupled. I Mr. Crockett noted that if a structure werb added to the parade grounds, the RVs would have to be relocated. The SAG and Plar1ning Commission discussed possible revenue sources to replace RV revenue. If, over time, other revenue sources come on line, the Port might do a revenue comparison and be amenable to removing other RVs. Mr. Kolff asked if there has been an effort to calculate what a 12K facility could generate versus the 26 RVs. Mr. Crockett noted that he does not fore~ee the Port being a developer of a mixed-use resort it would instead be another entity with the Port providing the land lease. Because a land lease does not generate much revenue, to come close to RVs revenues, the Port would have to do some sort of a percen~ge lease (for example, 5-6% of the gross sales). The 12.5K sq. feet is less than half of what the zoning code would allow on that site, but at some point you marginalize that project to the point that no developer would entertain developing it because after paying the Port it isn't profitable. However, if they moved the same facility to behind the Cl;Jpola House, it might allow a larger structure, but this would require further discussion ,and economic analysis. He indicated the "back forty" is close to five acres. Mr. Benskin said he was impressed with, the product and how the parties have worked together. He feels this is a real accomplishment. Mr. Kolff asked if it was an oversight notto invite the Historic Preservation Committee to the table earlier. Mr. Watts noted that the HPC requesteq an opportunity to comment in connection with the Council's review of the code amendment on the restaurant size at Point Hudson as well as to comment on the SMP. Counciil essentially granted both requests, but the reason they were not included earlier is that there is no defined responsibility that every land use action or code amendment that deals with downtown or the historic area should automatically be assigned for HRC review. The reviews are done on more of an ad hoc basis. Formalizing these respon$ibilities is something the City Manager recently commented should be addressed. While it could have been an oversight, it is something for which Staff is aware and could look at in the future. Mr. Randall noted that at one point the $AG was to have an individual from the Historic Preservation Society, which he recognized is different from the HPC. The designee was unfortunately rarely able to attend. Ms. Sandoval said she is the least familiar with restoration section and might have more questions later. She asked how Council ,would go through this document? City Council Business Meeting Page 9 October 20, 2005 . , Ms. Robinson noted that Council could clhoose to have a workshop, but the next opportunity would be a public hearing on! November 17. , Mr. Benskin was supportive of the workshop idea possibly before or after the next public hearing. He would personally like an oPRortunity to discuss the document with stakeholders. . Mr. Timmons reminded that this plan m~st also be submitted to Ecology and they might come back with suggested changes. Th$re could be a work session with a section-by- section review and then tentative agreefl!1ent one section at a time. He asked if Council would like to benefit from the additional written comments and those coming at the public hearing before holding the work s~ssion. Mr. Kolff expressed concern about addirlg another workshop to the current Council schedule given that only four Councilors!are present tonight. He suggested that before deciding on another workshop, continueiwith the planned hearing and see what the Council wants to do once they have hadia chance to review everything and hear from the public one more time. At that point, q;ouncil might decide there aren't that many difficult sections. . Mr. Watts noted that an alternative is th(\t a week before the November 17 hearing, Staff could summarize and respond to in writi~g for the Council packet questions, areas of concern, or issues brought forward by Councilors and the public. If there were a workshop following the November 17 hearing, there would not be much opportunity for the public to respond to those issues. If Council needed more time to discuss or deliberate on those issues, it could be on the November 17 or at a later meeting but not necessarily a workshop just further deliberation and action. Mayor Robinson asked Staff to respond ,and elaborate on how the draft SMP would affect Indian Point development. . Ms. Surber reviewed that the existing SHoreline Master Program 50% ground floor rule, means you have to have 50% of the gro~nd floor devoted to water-oriented uses. Also a previous property owner at Indian Point prought forward a Comprehensive Plan amendment and at that time, there was much discussion about what was viable at Indian Point. When beginning to identifylthe existing development patterns, zoning allowances, and opportunities for restor$tion work under the SMP, there was a strong push for more public access tying the Boat Haven to what we already have along the downtown waterfront. There was discus$ion about whether more flexibility was needed on the uses in the urban designation inciuding Indian Point and if so, what character to preserve. Public access and the public I/ersus private interface were thought to be extremely important. There was discussion of addressing it through setbacks and landscaping, etc. There was also discussion of whether the uses have to be the same as under the zoning code. When consid~ring some of the options for mixed-use development, the Planning Commissionifelt as long as the development overall provided for some water-oriented use it pid not matter where in the placement either City Council Business Meeting PaQe 10 October 20,2005 . . . , vertically or horizontally. There was also ~upport for allowing more flexibility in the mix of uses at this site to provide a restoration ihcentive. This topic was also discussed briefly , and in general terms at the Shoreline Ad~isory Group. The concerns were the same among all groups - determining the amo~nt of restoration and flexibility. The Draft SMP borrows language from that of planned U1nit developments, which says that you have to provide a public benefit and demonstrate that public benefit in order to afford yourself the flexibility from the general standards.' It would be a conditional use. She urged Council to read the particular language for the development regulations under the urban designation that allows for multi-family rElsidential or transient accommodations. It says restoration work would count as your water-dependent or water-related use. This is a method described in a white paper by Eric Laschever on how to incorporate restoration into Shoreline Master Programs. Paul Inghram of Berryman & Henigar, referring to the definition of a water enjoyment use, stated that if the idea is to encourage a mixture of uses and you want some to be water-oriented that the idea of preserving outdoor space for public use and environmental restoration is consistent with that definition of water enjoyment uses. Mr. Randall, guessing that the Council does not have the time to review the plan as thoroughly as the Advisory Group and Planning Commission, suggested Council quiz Staff, understand the big principles, how the plan works, how the City is implementing new provisions of the State law, and are 'comfortable with the document. He agreed we could go forward with the public hearing and have opportunities to receive comments in writing as was suggested, or in a workshpp setting, either he believes would get Council to the same place. Mayor Robinson asked about the concept of restoration as it relates to all of areas, not just Indian Point. Ms. Surber reviewed the long list of reprEilsentatives that participated in the development of Chapter 14 on Restoration, noting that they provided great input. Mr. Inghram explained the No Net Loss requirements under the new State rules and how environmental protection was a muCh stronger component of the Shoreline Management Act. Another aspect that has changed is that the State rules require planning for restoration of the shoreline environment over time. They say you must mitigate development impacts as you petmit new developments, but as a community you also need to plan for restoration other than what occurs in the development review process. This is a new aspect of the SMP Program. He read the "restoration vision" in 14.5 and suggested thinking about the opportunities for restoration and considering how the City would go about these restoration activities. Section 14.9 lists potential strategies the City could undertake in coordination with other organizations. One strategy on which there was a split vote on the Planning Commission was to consider a tax or fee system. These are the key things he would suggest Council review. He noted Ecology has reviewed the document, an<il while they have reserved the right to City Council Business Meeting i Pag~ 11 October 20, 2005 . comment until their official process, theylwere pleased with the restoration Chapter so far. ! Mr. Kolff noted that listed under restoratipn opportunities is "reconnecting wetlands off Larry Scott Memorial Trail to Port Townsend Bay." He asked if there were discussions also doing this with Kah Tai Lagoon and jf the Kah Tai Alliance had provided input because there were at one time some very specific plans from this group. Mr. Inghram said while he remembers this being mentioned early on, the restoration group did not focus on that. There were some questions whether it would be a restoration opportunity as it might be a detriment to other ecological functions that have developed over time. Ms. Surber said she attempted to get members of the Kah Tai Alliance involved and while there were some comments in the early stages from Paula Mackrow, there was not regular participation. Ms. Sandoval indicated Rosemary Sikes: attended several SAG meetings. Mr. Kolff urged Staff to contact the Alliance for their comments about the wetlands. Ms. Robinson asked if the list of restoration opportunities is considered to be exhaustive and how this list would work. . Ms. Surber said the list could be used as a mitigation tool. The list is intended to be the broad list. For restoration, there must bean incentive because there is no requirement to provide for restoration. Mr. Inghram said while it is meant to be ~n extensive it is not an exhaustive list. The list is based on the comprehensive inventory work done by Barbara Nightingale. It is a great place to turn to when people are looking for opportunities, but as time goes on, the list of opportunities would evolve. Ms. Sandoval noted that Advisory Groupi discussed that mitigation is very different from restoration and should not be confused. Mitigation is something that development would have to do in order to achieve No Net Loss. Ms. Robinson asked whether restorationiis up to the City. Ms. Surber said restoration could be done by the City through various capital improvements, nonprofit organizations, and/or through private development and the incentives provided. Mr. Kolff said related to Indian Point he understood some type of restoration work could be used as mitigation and asked for clarification. . City Council Business Meeting Pag$ 12 October 20, 2005 . . . Ms. Surber responded that you first hav~ to look at the impacts of development and determine the nexus for mitigation. Yourlmitigation has to be linked to the development impacts. As an incentive for restoration, lhey tried to allow for flexibility in uses in exchange for restoration. Restoration/Pulblic Access Incentives is described in Chapter 5, page 31. Ms. Sandoval asked for clarification of how Council would move forward with the process, since some Councilors are misSing. Ms. Robinson stated that she wished to continue to ask questions before deciding how to move forward. She noted that several people have alluded to the endangered nature of marine trades. With the focus on Point Hudson this evening and recognizing this plan is much broader than Point Hudson, she, asked how the SMP supports marine trades or not. If Point Hudson is being considered :more as "mixed use" than marine trades and if the needs are changing in terms of boat use and boat size, etc. then is the Boat Haven a better focus for marine trades. David King said he believes this community has two sectors of marine trades and it appears the SMP supports both. The commercial and more industrial marine trades are in the Boat Haven. He mentioned his difficulty understanding the East basin that is discussed in the SMP and the restrictions for only marine trades in that area so there would be a more receptive environment for water enjoyment uses as a transition into the area. He believes there is an extensiVe integration of marine trades in the community and provides a healthy environment in the west end. In the east end, there is not a chance for large-scale marine trades, but on the other hand it is a burgeoning education economy for cultural events with the Northwest Maritime Center, Wooden Boat Foundation and Sound Experience.. He thinks it is appropriate to incorporate more water enjoyment uses and diverse uses/non-water enjoyment uses. He sees that the Maritime Center is an extension of Point Hudson and he believes the SMP is supportive of these two ends of town. Although he i$ quite hopeful, he is nervous about restaurants as water-enjoyment uses - an attractive use of the waterfront commercial property that would ultimately lead to gentrification and exclusion of marine trades. His effort was to try to keep a broad support of marine trades. Mr. Benskin noted that on the map, the Port has defined its area of marine expansion out into the water. He asked if this is written in stone or could the Port expand along the shoreline. Mr. Crockett reviewed the options for marina expansion, which were explored during the Port's Comprehensive Scheme process, !one of which was expansion toward the Paper Mill. The environmental analysis by Landau Associates supported a floating breakwater, which would not only require less dredgirlg, but also have fewer environmental impacts. The project would involve the Corps of Engineers and federal funding would be required along with a feasibility study. He noted the Commission voted to support this expansion alternative, which was also supported bySMP. Once they begin the process of expansion it would be important to show this cooperation in support of that option. City Council Business Meeting pagf 13 October 20, 2005 . . . I Ms. Robinson noted that Council might c1ecide at the next public hearing to pass a resolution adopting the SMP. She asked!when there would be public opportunity to comment on any changes that might happen, since passage does not require two readings. Mr. Watts said following public testimony at the next meeting, Council could make changes and adopt the resolution without further opportunity for public comment and forward it to Ecology. Or Council could clpse public testimony portion of the Public Hearing at the next meeting on November 17, begin and carry over deliberation to a third meeting but not allowing further pUQlic testimony. This meeting would allow for further deliberation and changes to the diraft before forwarding to Ecology. After Ecology's review, the Council would ent~r into the first and second readings of an ordinance with opportunity for public comment on the recommended changes by Ecology. Mr. Timmons noted there would also be fI public comment period during Ecology's review. Ms. Robinson said her desire is not to have a moving target if at all possible, but to have the document remain as stable as possiQle. She asked whether Council wanted a SMP workshop or wait until the November 17 hearing. Mr. Kolff supported working through the $MP chapter by chapter, either in workshop or in a continuation at the hearing. He doesh't feel the need to have a workshop between now and then, but believes Councilors could submit written comments in order to make the hearing productive. He would leave it up to Staffs discretion if there were too many comments and they feel a workshop is needed. Mr. Benskin and Ms. Sandoval concurred they would support the next step being the continued hearing on November 17. Public Comment for Purposes of Clarification: Mr. Crockett noted that the Port's written :comments including a map from May 1942. He clarified that although many of the buildirlgs were built as part of mobilization for World War II and up through the Korean War, a number of the buildings were part of the original 1933 Coast Guard station. He would contend, having spent 30 years working in these buildings around the country, they I3re not significant in their architecture or style. Ms. Sandoval reminded that submission of written questions was supported as a way to have the most productive meeting. She $uggested an e-mail to absent councilors reminding them of this structure. City Council Business Meeting pag+ 14 , October 20, 2005 . . . Mr. Randall recommended establishing ~ovember 3 as the deadline for receiving written comments to which Staff would t~en respond in writing to be included in the November 17 Council packet. ' Mr. Timmons suggested all comments frpm Councilors be directed through the Deputy Clerk. It was noted that all public comm~nts would be routed in the same manner. Mr. Kolff asked that by November 3, Staff request from Kah Tai alliance their restoration opportunities. He also acknowledged th~ offers by Guy Hupy and Staff to model a shoreline mixed used facility showing bu!ilding square footage and height. Mr. Randall clarified that the desire is fo~ modeling of a potential building on the site with the square footage possible under the draft policy and regulations. Ms. Sandoval requested to have a bettet understanding of how the bulk and dimension would be dealt with if there were develo~ment at Fleet Marine. Mr. Benskin commented that a building of historical significance that is in private ownership and has not been mentioned iis on the northeast side of the "back 40" that he believes predates any of the buildings inl that area. Mr. Kolff said while he does not know oflany of the Port's immediate plans, he would like to have a list of priority issues the Pcj>rt is considering in the Point Hudson marina expansion with the money being bonde9' Mr. Randall confirmed that Council would like information on how the draft regulations work on Indian Point. Mr. Benskin asked what would be involvtad in cleaning up the Indian Point property and how a clean up might translate into development credits. Mr. Randall clarified that when we are t~lking about Indian Point we are not talking about it in a quasi-judicial development wermit review. Ms. Robinson asked whether key issue~ from the Settle legal opinion were covered in the document provided to Council. . Ms. Surber concurred. Mr. Watts noted the City was fortunate tp have the comments of Richard Settle, who was on the Governor's team to work thr~ugh the litigation/impasse that was part of the prior SMP. He is very knowledgeable anp helped write the current version of the WACs and his review was paid for as part of th~ State grant. Mr. Timmons asked if Staff might also look into and provide information about the existence of any archeologically sensitiv~ areas in the shoreline. He indicated he City Council Business Meeting I I paqe 15 October 20, 2005 . . . received a letter from the tribes urging there be a process of early consultation with them on any proposed shoreline develodment opportunity as a result of the Port Angeles experience. '1 Ms. Surber pointed out that the recommendations from the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare for the Commis~ion's review necessary revisions to any of the Comprehensive Plan or regulations that might need to be massaged because of the changes to restaurant sizes in order to ensure consistency. It also recommends coordination with the Department of Natural Resources on whether amendments to the City's harbor area are warranted. She hclS DNR maps showing these harbor areas if needed. Mr. Randall clarified that Chapters 2 and 10 go together. The shoreline exemptions are listed in Chapter 2. Chapter 10 covers aqministrative permitting and procedures. Ms. Sandoval reminded that Staff also aQreed to go through the comments by Richard Settle and the Puget Sound Action Team and specify for Council, which comments were and were not incorporated. FUTURE AGENDAS Thursday, November 17 - Continued Public Hearing on Shoreline Master Program. A[)JOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Prepared by: Joanna Sanders Legal Assistant Attest: CZ~.~fo City Clerk City Council Business Meeting Pag~ 16 October 20, 2005