Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/28/1995 2999 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington March 28, 1995 CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Sargent called the special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order SPECIAL MEETING: at 6:15 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mayor Sargent, Councilmembers Braun, Doyle, Hulett, McKeown, Ostrowski, and Schueler. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Manager Pomeranz, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Upton, B. Collins, J. Pittis, and D. Sawyer. Public Present: P. Kenealy, J. Hallett, L. Thomson, B. Longshore, J. Ortloft, B. Tumey, P. Turney, W. Sohlberg, M. Sohlberg, W. Kramer, R. Shea, M. Umbarger, D. Haft, R. Dearing, J. & J. Key, L. Jenkins, W. Kershes, V. & A. Murray, D. Lester, P. Tietz, J. Engebretsen, D. Zanon, Rev. P. Smithson, T. Puckett, P. Elofson, C. Hassell, G. McCormick, A. Wang, D. Butcher, D. Nehrbas, P. Bradley, J. Bradley, B. Bradley, K. Charles Sr., Rev. M. German, J. Garlick, B. Kalahar, S. Garlick. Mayor Sargent stated that, due to the complexity of the Regional Watershed Plan and the length of time it may take to fully address it, the agenda was going to be addressed in reverse order, with the exception of Executive Session. National Park Service 1. Agreement with National Park Service for Construction of Law Enforcement Agreement Training Facility Mayor Sargent reviewed the information provided by the City Attorney. Councilman Ostrowsld moved to authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with the National Park Service for construction and use of a law enforcement training center. Councilman Braun seconded the morion. Discussion followed, and Councilman Schueler expressed concern over the reimbursement of the $12,000 to the Criminal Justice Fund. He felt the need to have language requiring this reimbursement included in the agreement. Councilman Doyle felt that the agreement regarding the transfer of funds is the vehicle which states how the $12,000 is going to be reimbursed. Manager Pomeranz indicated the revenues will come to the City, and he did not see a problem with returning funds to the Criminal Justice Fund. Attorney Knutson stated that this was a budget issue; if the Council wants $12,000 returned to the Criminal Justice Fund, it can be accomplished with the year-end budget amendment or in next year's budget. After further brief discussion, a vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. Northwest Marine 2. Resolution Opposing Northwest Straits National Marine Sanctuary Sanctuary - Resolution No. 4-95 Mayor Sargent reminded the Council that a letter in opposition to the proposed Northwest Straits National Marine Sanctuary was reviewed at the last meeting, and it was the Council's desire that a Resolution also be prepared in this regard. Manager Pomeranz informed the Council that the letter had been sent out due to time constraints. Mayor Sargent read the Resolution by title, entitled RESOLUTION NO. 4-95 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, in opposition to the proposed Northwest Straits National Marine Sanctuary. Councilman Braun moved to pass the Resolution as read by rifle. Councilman Doyle seconded the morion. After a brief discussion, a vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. ' I ' 3000 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 28, 1995 Northwest Marine Attorney Knutson informed the Council that it was just discovered that a notice was Sanctuary - posted indicating that the Serenity House portion of the meeting would occur at 7:00 Resolution No. 4-95 p.m. this evening. In that there were people who had wished to attend and planned (Cont'd) on appearing at 7:00 p.m., Mayor Sargent suggested the Council move on to the Regional Watershed Plan and return to the Serenity House Rezone at 7:00. Regional Watershed Plan 3. Consideration of County's Draft Port ~4ngeles Regional Watershed Plan Mayor Sargent reviewed the information provided by the Planning Department, and invited Leanne Jenkins, Clallam County Water Quality Planner, to address the Council. Ms. Jenkins distributed copies of Chapter 412 WAC, the nine point rule that establishes how the Watershed planning process must be conducted and the agency . concurrence obtained. Ms. Jenkins provided a brief background of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, which commenced in 1986 with the development of a management plan directing counties to rank watersheds within their county boundaries and to conduct watershed planning. The County's planning process was conducted in conjunction with the Growth Management Comprehensive Plan process. It is one plan with two separate goals. Concurrence from agencies is only for the watershed policies portion of that plan. Watershed characterization was completed, and a Land Use and Watershed Committee was formed, with the City having two representatives on that committee. There were many field trips, discussions, meetings, etc. to arrive at the Plan. Items which the Plan must cover include: stormwater, marinas and boats, on-site sewage disposal, forest practices, agricultural practices, etc. Ms. Jenkins listed the many areas covered under these guidelines and described what is included in the individual chapters of the Plan. The agency concurrence process is unique to the watershed plan. Chapter 412 WAC lists what is expected of the agencies when they concur, and Ms. Jenkins read this section of the WACs aloud. The Plan deals only with the watershed policies and does not preclude the City from making comments on the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. It is not inflexible, and revisions can be made in an annual update. Ms. Jenkins indicated the plan was reviewed by the City's Stormwater Committee, Growth Management Steering Committee, Planning Commission and finally forwarded to the City Council. Currently, approximately 80 % of the agencies with responsibilities in the Plan have submitted letters of concurrence. Ms. Jenkins is hoping the Council will agree to such a letter this evening. Comprehensive Plan comments are currently being submitted through the SEPA process, with a deadline of April 14, 1995. The County Planning Commission will hold work sessions to make revisions to the Plan on March 29, April 12 and April 19. The Watershed part of the Plan will be sent to the Department of Ecology for review and once approved, it will be ready for implementation. Implementation is up to the individual agencies and the lead agency, which is Clallam County. There are numerous grant opportunities for watershed planning. Ms. Jenkins requested that Council authorize staff to write a letter of concmxonce, noting any comments the Council may have with respect to ability to meet responsibilities to implement watershed policies only. Other comments and text changes should be made during review of the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. Lengthy discussion followed, and Councilman Ostrowski expressed concern that there would be. a large price tag attached to this Plan. Ms. Jenkins stated that, according to her analysis, the cost will be approximately $2.5 million over 20 agencies over five to ten years. The estimated cost for the City as lead agency would be about $315,000, which would probably be covered almost entirely by grants. Senior Planner Sawyer distributed the first page of a sample letter of compliance to members of the Council; he offered to review the policies in detail, to which the Council agreed. Councilman Schueler noted the time, and in order to accommodate those who attended this evening to address the Serenity House Rezone issue, Mayor Sargent moved on to that Item. Rezone Request- 4. REZONE REQUEST- REZ 95(02)01 - SERENITY HOUSE OF CI_ALLAM Serenity House COUNTY, Eighteenth Street between ~D' and ~E~ Streets Mayor Sargent stated that, at the close of the public hearing on March 7, 1995, the Council was reminded that further discussion with the public on this issue was not -2- 3001 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 28, 1995 Rezone Request- allowed. However, there have been numerous letters to the Editor, as well as an Serenity House editorial, supporting the rezone and the Evergreen Village Project. There has also (Cont'd) been an offe[ of exchanse.,~f property to accommodate the project. Councilman Hulett informed the cotmcil that he received a phone call from an individual who offered to exchange property with Serenity House. Councilman Hulett referred this individual to Serenity House and the City Manager regarding this matter. Councilman Hulett also stated that he had reviewed the Planning Commission minutes on this matter and had listened to the tapes of the public hearing held before the City Council at its meeting of March 7, 1995. Break Mayor Sargent recessed the meeting for a break at 7:15 p.m. The purpose of this break was to give the Council members the opportunity to read correspondence regarding the exchange of property, as well as a letter submitted as rebuttal of certain input which has appeared in the local newspaper. Attorney Knutson indicated the acceptance of these letters was in keeping with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, as set forth in the State Statutes. When information is received by Couneilmembers outside the public hearing process, the City has a duty to disclose that information and allow input from the other side of the issue. The Council is in receipt of a letter from Serenity House which discusses why the property exchange is not a viable alternative for them. There is also a letter from opponents of the rezone that responds to issues raised in the media, such as the need for the Serenity House proposal and the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Sargent stated that the Council was charged with considering whether or not the rezone request would be in the best interest of the citizens of Port Angeles. She felt it was a difficult decision for both the Planning Commission and the Council, because so much of the testimony received was project specific, despite repeated requests to focus testimony on the rezone with reference to possible projects that would be permissible if the rezone was approved. Further, Mayor Sargent stated she had been advised by the City Attorney that any signs being held by members of the audience were illegal and should not be shown. Attorney Knutson stated that the reason for this is again due to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. The City Council should be basing its decision on testimony already received. If additional communication is received outside of that process, it would technically be a violation of the Appearance of Fairness Act. Councilmember McKeown moved to bring this item off the table. Councilman Braun seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Councilmember McKeown distributed copies of a statement she had written and noted her thorough review of the Comprehensive Plan to determine if it did, in fact, support the rezone. In reviewing the old zoning map, she discovered there were low and high density housing zones present, but no medium density zones. There appears to be an inadequate amount of bnildable land available for medium density zoning, and without rezoning lands to medium density, the zoning map would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In reviewing the housing element of the comPrehensive Plan, Councilmember McKeown found that the Plan stated the recognition of the importance of clean, available, safe, and affordable housing in the community. A study on housing was conducted, the results of which greatly influenced the goals and procedures in the Comprehensive Plan, which are to improve the quality, affordability and availability of housing for all segments of the community. Councilmember McKeown reviewed specific policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan which established that the City should develop a program to improve substandard housing, promote acceptance of low and moderate income housing, coordinate efforts to provide affordable housing, and encourage rapid review of low and moderate income housing projects. Councilmember McKeown also noted the need for City cooperation in assembling packages of publicly owned land which could be used for shelter or transitional housing. Adequate low income housing opportunities should be provided within the Port Angeles planning area, and the City should help support .the provision of transitional and temporary housing for the homeless and/or displaced families. Councilmember McKeown reviewed the pertinent utilities and public service elements of the Plan and found that the Plan states the City should participate as a financial parmer to support essential programs and services including low and moderate income housing programs. The land use element of the Plan has established a goal of having a community of viable districts and neighborhoods with a variety of residential opportunities for, and to attract people of, all ages, characteristics and interests. It was Councilmember McKeown's opinion that the property under 3002 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 28, 1995 Rezone Request- discussion would serve as a good buffer or transition between the high density Serenity House residential neighborhoods of apartment houses and the single family residential (Cont'd) properties and, additionally, would serve as a good buffer between the area zoned Light Commercial and single family neighborhoods. She felt if the Council failed to approve this rezone, the City would not be in compliance with its own Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember McKeown was in favor of approving the rezone request. Councilman Doyle requested clarification from the Planning Director as to whether the land use map was part of the adoption process for the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Director Collins stated that the land use map was a part of that process and was available at the time of adoption. Director Collins further explained that the map under discussion is the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map which designates land uses on the Comprehensive Plan. The City has not yet adopted a change in the zoning map on an area-wide basis. This was referred back to the Planning Commission in December and is still being reviewed. Councilman Schueler voiced his support for the rezone request and expressed his desire to discuss certain issues of importance, such as the opinion provided by the Legal Department of the University of Washington, which suggested that the City was bound to approve the rezone. In addition, Councilman Schueler felt the Council had gone along for several years with Serenity House in its efforts to develop this plan which would indicate that other Councils, besides the current Council, have generally approved of the planning process. For the current Council to change its mind at this juncture would be inappropriate. Councilman Schueler had heard it said that a vote on the request would be premature at this time, and he queried as to whether more discussion of the pro's and con's would be in order. At the March 7, 1995 Council meeting, the Council heard testimony from a number of people living in the area who expressed some valid concerns regarding infrastructure, a matter which will have to be addressed as the project evolves. Several people addressed the rezone, citing its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and expressed the need to move on this project without further delay. Councilman Schueler felt a negative vote would be extremely damaging to the project. He felt the probable consequences of such a vote were in need of further discussion. Councilman Schueler stated that those who spoke in favor of the rezone request went well beyond the rezone issue by effectively detailing the community need for the project. Currently there are homeless families who are in need of support, which is not presently available. How could a negative decision be defended in this circumstance? The large number of people who have supplied energy and dollars to this project deserve to be answered affirmatively, which cannot be done with a denial of the rezone request. 'He reminded the Council that, several months ago, this Council voted unanimously to approve the rezone for the Albertson's store in spite of very emotional and very negative input from a large number of people. He saw no difference between the two issues. Councilman Schueler asked for input pertinent to the legal opinion from the University of Washington. Attorney Knutson recalled that the letter indicated the City Council did not have any choice in the matter, because the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designated this area for multi-family. The legal interns who wrote the opinion had mischaracterized a recent Growth Management Hearings Board decision. Attorney Knutson stated that the law requires the Council to review the Comprehensive Plan and determine how this proposal fits within the Plan's provisions. The Council has findings before it, which will support either an approval or a denial. Both sets of findings address the Comprehensive Plan provisions that the staff and the Planning Commission members felt were relevant. In Attorney Knutson's opinion, the Comprehensive Plan's land use map is not the sole factor in determining whether or not the rezone must be approved. Mayor Sargent addressed Councilman Schueler's comments pertinent to the involvement of previous Councils; she indicated the original Serenity House request was for a donation of City property. The Council considered the request and decided it could not be gifted. Serenity House returned with a proposal to purchase the land. The agreement reached with Serenity House was made contingent upon approval of the rezone and obtaining funding. From the very beginning, there was opposition to the rezone proposal. Mayor Sargent never felt a rezon.e approval was a foregone conclusion. Discussion followed, with Councilman Schueler reiterating his opinion that a negative vote would be very damaging. Specifically, he referred to the testimony by the Sequim architect that there would be a problem if the rezone was denied, because there was a likelihood that the transitional housing would not occur. Many people testified that there were many homeless people in the community with no place to go. Councilman Schueler felt Council should be well aware of what was being done to this homeless segment of the population and what will happen to these -4- 3003 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 28, 1995 Rezone Request- people if the rezone is disallowed. Serenity House (Cont'd) Councilman ~t ~..~gith the information presented by Councilmember McKeown regardin~ a n~ for low to medium density housing. However, he disagreed with the comments regarding the Land Use Map referred to in the Comprehensive Plan. While on the Planning Commission, many rezones from single to multi-family in this particular area were considered, and there were several CUPs to allow duplexes. It was finally agreed that there were more than sufficient multi- family structures in this one area, that they should be spread out throughout the City and not concentrated. The Growth Management Act was adopted and involved comprehensive studies, work sessions and neighborhood meetings; there were notices in the paper advertising the meetings. In many cases, the meetings were not always well attended, as people thought there was nothing affecting their area. By virtue of this lack of public input, Councilman Hulett indicated he had a problem with the · Comprehensive Plan and the map designating this particular area for medium density. As a Planning Commissioner, he had been told that medium or high density apartments shouldn't be used as a buffer between residential and industrial zones, as the message would be they were expendable. Councilman Hulett expressed concern with adding a medium density zone to an area already heavily concentrated with multi-family housing. He felt that many of the area's residents did not get the message of how the area was addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. He expressed hope that the next time the zoning map is worked on people would take the initiative to find out how their property was zoned and how it might be rezoned. People need to be aware of these changes. Lengthy discussion followed concerning how the rezone request would or would not be supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Councilman Doyle stated that the Comprehensive Plan was forwarded by the Planning Commission and approved by the Council. The Planning Commission's Findings and Conclusions state that the rezone is not consistent with land use policies C-2 and C-3 of the Comprehensive Plan, that affordable housing opportunities are readily available in the subject planning areas, and the rezone is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In the Planning Commission minutes of February 8, 1995, there were two sets of Findings and Conclusions, one from the Planning Department which asked for the rezone to be approved, and one from the Planning Commission who voted 2 - 2. Councilman Doyle indicated the Commissioners wrote the Comprehensive Plan, and they were not in agreement that it would be a violation of the Comprehensive Plan by denying the rezone request. Mayor Sargent felt the problem was that the rezone was consistent with only some of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The policies of the Comprehensive Plan can be used to support or deny the rezone, which was the way the Findings and Conclusions were written. Mayor Sargent stated the rezone is not consistent with land use polices C-l, C-2, and C-3, and Capital Facility Policy A-9, and A-13 of the Comprehensive Plan in that existing services, such as streets and schools, are not sufficient. The Findings and Conclusions in favor of the rezone state it complies with some of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, so it is not 'cut and dried'. Director Collins explained that when the Planning Commission vote resulted in a tie, it attempted to devise Findings and Conclusions that would support denial. The Commissioners already had the Findings and Conclusions to support approval. Two of the Commissioners supported the Findings and Conclusions to support approval and two Commissioners supported Findings and Conclusions to support denial. The Findings and Conditions available to the Council to choose from were both produced by staff. Lengthy discussion ensued concerning the Findings and Conclusions, and Councilman Doyle reiterated the fact that the Planning Commission could not reach agreement as to whether the rezone would or would not be supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Councilman Doyle stated that he would likely vote against the rezone. The area is already saturated with multi-family units, and that is one of the largest problems with the rezone. He agreed that the project is a worthy one, and Serenity House needs transitional housing; however, he felt this would be the wrong location. He agreed that traffic concerns and school concurrency were issues which should not be considered as part of a rezone. Councilman Ostrowski stated much has been said about Sereni.ty House spending much time and effort on this project, and that is true. However, Council must bear in mind that people living in the area have also spent a lot of time and money on their property also. It is still predominantly a single family neighborhood, and the residents want to retain that type of neighborhood. He felt the rezone would have a significant negative effect on the property values, which would be unfair to these residents. In zoning areas that are marginal, the goals, policies and objectives of the -5- 3004 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 28, 1995 Rezone Request2 land use elements should take precedence, and that is one of the conclusions reached Serenity House by the Planning Department, that the rezone is not consistent with some of the land (Cont'd) use policies. Further, the zoning map has not as yet been adopted by the City. Piecemeal rezoning should not be encouraged, rather it should be more of a broad base, wide rezoning area. Councilman Braun reminded everyone that most people have the benefit of going home to a nice comfortable home. Many people in the community need the opportunity to have affordable housing or transitional housing. He felt this to be a golden opportunity to help someone out. Councilman Braun agreed there was valid testimony against the rezone; however, he questioned if this meant the Council would turn its back on our own people? What if roles were reversed? Councilman Braun indicated this is not about traffic or other problems, this is about people. Councilman Hulett agreed that it was about people, but only to a point. In dealing with a rezone, the subject is land. Councilman Braun inquired of Director Collins as to how much land in Port Angeles was zoned RMD. Director Collins stated that there was none at this time; there is one piece of property that is already developed. On the proposed map, the majority of land use changes are related to medium density residential. Discussion followed with regard to the appropriateness of having medium density serve as a buffer between high density and single family residential. Director Collins indicated the policy has shifted from years ag° when it was recommended not to have multi-family as a transitional zone. This has changed, and the proper policy at this point from the City's Comprehensive Plan and from practice, is to have more intensive uses whether they are commercial or high density residential go to less intensive uses, which may be medium density or RS-7, as opposed to suburban densities such as RS-9 or lower types of densities. The Comprehensive Plan map does show medium density both in areas adjacent to high density residential or commercial activities, as well as in areas that are just low density residential. In all instances except perhaps one, the medium density residential areas are adjacent to either commercial, industrial or high density residential. Councilman Doyle indicated that this project could fit into a medium, high density, or a commercial zone as well, to which Director Collins agreed. Councilman Doyle felt this would seem to indicate, therefore, that there are other areas in the City appropriate for the project, if the property is available. Director Collins responded affirmatively and stated the only district where there is no availability of property is medium density, because that has yet to be so designated. Mayor Sargent has attempted to look at issues from both sides and be fair. She reviewed testimony from the last meeting and recalled that the testimony in favor of the project nearly all came from developers, engineers, and architects for the · Serenity House project, in addition to social service workers and supporters. The opponents to the rezone stated their reasons to be saturation of the area with apartments already, impact on overloaded schools, increased traffic, and a negative impact on existing homes and property. The favorable reasons seem to be consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, but it is consistent with some policies in the Comprehensive Plan, not all of them. Mayor Sargent felt the testimony received from the neighborhood must be considered, as they want to continue with a residential area. She agreed with Councilman Ostrowski regarding piecemeal rezones. In the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan, Goal C, Policy 2 states it should be based on existing services, public facilities and transportation, and the testimony regarding this was negative. The Planning Department stated the rezone was consistent with a large number of comPrehensive Plan policies, but in examining some of the issues brought up by the Planning Commission, it appears this is not necessarily so. Mayor Sargent felt this was not an appropriate area for the rezone, but did agree there was a need for this type of housing in the community. She reminded the Council, based on a question raised at the public hearing, that the definition of a County resident is someone who has lived here for 90 days. Therefore, the people being helped may not necessarily be someone who has lived here for any length of time. In this instance, she felt she must consider those who are already established in the area. Councilman Schueler moved to approve the Serenity House rezone request, citing Findings 1 - 16 and Conclusions 1 - 7. Councilmember McKeown seconded the motion. A vote was taken on the motion, with Councilmembers Braun, McKeown and Schueler voting in favor, and Mayor Sargent and Councilmembers Doyle, Hulett, and Ostrowski voting in opposition. The motion, therefore, failed. Councilman Hulett moved to deny the rezone request, dting Findings 1 - 21 and Conclusions 1 - 6, as set forth in Exhibit "A", which is attached to and becomes a part of these minutes. The motion was seconded by Councilman Ostrowski. A vote was taken on the motion, which carried by a majority vote, with Mayor Sargent and Councihnembers Ostrowski, Hulett, and Doyle voting in favor, and -6- 3005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 28, 1995 Rezone Request- Counciimembers Braun, McKeown, and Schueler voting in opposition. Serenity House (Cont'd) Break Mayor Sargent recessed the meeting for a break at 8:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m. Regional Watershed Plan 3. Consideration of County's Draft Port Angeles Regional Watershed Plan In continuing the discussion of the Regional Watershed Plan, Planner Sawyer offered what he felt might be a better approach. In light of the Planning Commission's recommendations and staff's concerns, he felt staff could draft a letter of concurrence in the format suggested by Ms. Jenkins, and bring it back to the Council at a future meeting. This would give the Council more time to review the policies and present a better organized review of the document. After limited discussion, Councilman Ostrowski moved to direct staff to draft a letter of concurrence for Council consideration at the meeting of April 18, 1995, and for Council to present input to staff, in writing, of any areas of concern needing to be addressed in this letter. Councilman Doyle seconded the motion. Further discussion ensued, and Planning Director Collins suggested all comments from the Council should be given to Senior Planner Sawyer. A vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. ADJOURN TO The meeting adjourned to Executive Session at 8:58 p.m. to discuss a matter of EXECUTIVE SESSION: litigation for approximately 15 minutes. RETURN TO OPEN The meeting returned to open session at 9:15 p.m. SESSION: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. -7- 3006 Exhibit 'A REZONE REQUEST - REZ 95(02)01 - SERENITY HOUSE OF CLALLAM COUNTY~ Eighteenth Street between "D" and "E" Streets: Findings & Conclusions for Denial: Findings: 1. The proposal by Serenity House is to rezone 2.3 acres of property including a portion of 18th Street and the 17/18 Alley from Single Family Residential (RS-7) to Residential Medium Density (RMD). 2. Serenity House is requesting the rezone in order to provide transitional shelter housing for approximately 20 families per year to be housed in a multi-family dwelling complex. 3. The area proposed for rezone is the east eight lots (56,000 square feet) on the south half of the block located between 17th/18th Streets and D/E Streets including portions of 18th and "D" Streets and the 17/18 Alley (45,100 square feet) according to the application. 4. The rezone area including 18th Street is not developed, except for the two most easterly lots at the comer of 18th and "D" Streets where a duplex is located and the 17/18 Alley, which is partially improved. The undeveloped portions of the site are forested. 5. The City does not zone fights-of-way, which instead when vacated are given the zoning of the adjacent property to which it is vacated. 6. The neighborhood to the east is zoned RHD, Residential High Density, and developed with apartment buildings, and the neighborhood to the west and north is zoned RS-7, Residential Single Family and developed as single family residential. 7. There are many affordable residential housing units already existing in the vicinity along "C" Street and Lauridsen Boulevard. 8. Since the subject site is vacant, except for a duplex on "D" Street, and neither 18th nor 17th Streets are improved between "D" and "E" Streets, the area proposed for rezone is an area where street improvements will be needed before any more development could occur. 9. The Clallam County Road Department maintenance and construction facility is located on the five most easterly lots south of 18th Street. Two single family houses and a duplex are located on the five most westerly lots south of 18th Street. Two single family houses have been recently built on the two most westerly lots in the same half block as the subject property, and one new single family house at the northeast comer of the 17/18 Alley and "E" Street is the only improvement to the half block north of the 17/18 Alley. 10. The area proposed for rezone is within a predominantly single family neighborhood. The rezone is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 3007 11. Testimony was received that schools in the area are severely overcrowded, which condition would be exacerbated by the proposed rezone. 12. Seventeenth Street is not improved, although single family houses are built along the north side of 17th Street with access from the 16/17 Alley. "D" and "E" Streets are improved, although improvements to "D" Street stop at 18th Street, which is a poorly maintained gravel road from "C" to "D" Streets. 13. Eighteenth and "D" Streets are not arterial streets. The subject site is not located on an arterial. 14. Testimony was received that existing traffic problems in the area are severe and would be exacerbated by the proposed rezone. 15. Testimony was received that the proposed rezone could have a significant negative effect on the value of property in the immediate vicinity. 16. The Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy A. 1 states: "The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map should be used as a conceptual guide for determining current and long range zoning and other land use decisions. The map's land use designations are intended to show areas where general land use types are allowed. The area between land use designations should be considered an imprecise margin in order to provide flexibility in determining the boundary of such areas. When determining appropriate zoning designations for an area near a margin, the goals, policies and objectives of the Land Use Element should take precedence." 17. The Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy C. 1 states: "Residential land should be developed on the district and neighborhood concept. Although such districts may be composed primarily of residential uses of a uniform density, a healthy, viable district should be composed of residential uses of varying densities which may be augmented by subordinate and compatible uses. Single family and multi-family homes, parks and open-spaces, schools, churches, day care and residential services, home occupations, and district shopping areas are all legitimate components of district development and enhancement. A neighborhood should be primarily composed of low, medium, or high density housing." 18. The Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan I_and Use Policy C.2 states: "Medium and high density housing should be located in areas of the community most suitable for such uses, based on existing services, public facilities, and transportation." 19. The Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan I_and Use Policy C.3 states: "Medium and high density housing should be served by arterial streets of sufficient size in order to satisfy traffic demand and to lessen neighborhood traffic congestion." 3008 20. The Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Policy A.9 states: "The City shall require concurrency at the time of development for the following utilities and services: * streets, * water service, * sanitary sewer service, and * electrical service." 21. The Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Policy A. 13 states: "If projected funding fails for a capital project listed as funded in the City's approved Capital Facilities Plan and development permits have been issued reliant upon that capital project for concurrency, the City shall take necessary actions to minimize further degradation of the impacted service or facility. This may include one or any combination of the following actions: a) reduce the level of service standard, b) increase funding by increasing revenues, c) reduce demand by revising the Comprehensive Plan I_and Use Map and/or Zoning Map, and/or d) reduce demand by reducing consumption (i.e., conservation)." Conclusions: 1. The rezone is not consistent with Land Use Policies C.1, C.2 and C.3 and Capital Facilities Policies A.9 and A. 13 of the Comprehensive Plan in that existing services such as streets and schools are not sufficient. 2. Although the proposed rezone is consistent with some of the Goals, Policies, and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the Plan's land use map, the land use map designations are not based on the detailed level of scrutiny to which the proposed rezone was subjected nor was public notice specifically provided to residents of the area during the Comprehensive Plan process as was required to be done for the rezone process. 3. Land Use Policy A. 1 of the Comprehensive Plan provides that "the Comprehensive Land Use Map should be used as a conceptual guide for determining current and long-range zoning and other land use decisions." In other words, the Comprehensive Plan does not require that the Zoning Map be an exact duplication of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. 4. Denying the rezone is in the public interest and does not preclude areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan as multi-family residential from being so rezoned during the upcoming area wide rezoning process as part of the implementation of the new Comprehensive Plan. The area-wide rezoning process is a more appropriate method than a piecemeal, parcel-specific process for fulfilling the requirements of the Growth Management Act, CH. 36.70A RCW (GMA), that development regulations be adopted 3009 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The area-wide rezoning process will allow for a broader perspective in determining which areas of the City should be rezoned in order to meet the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA regarding affordable housing, as well as private property rights. See RCW 36.70A.020(4) and (6). 5. Retaining the subject site as RS-7, Single Family Housing, is consistent with the City's Zoning Code, as amended to implement the new Comprehensive Plan, which provides that "land use designation on the Zoning Map shall be at the same or lesser intensity of uses and impacts on surrounding uses as the Comprehensive Plan Map." See PAMC 17.03.020. 6. Circumstances have not significantly changed since the subject property was zoned RS-7, in that ample affordable housing opportunities are available within the vicinity of the subject site. Adopted by the Port Angeles City Council at its meeting of March 28, 1995. Sargent, May(v) ,d ^ A~TTEST: ZI~.c~. Up~od~,-City C~erk