Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/18/19911921 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington June 18, 1991 CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Sargent called the special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to SPECIAL MEETING: order at 6:04 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mayor Sargent, Councilmen Cornell, Hallett, Lemon, Nicholson, Ostrowski, and Wight. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Manager Pomeranz, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Upton, S. Brodhun, M. Cleland, B. Collins, L. Glenn, K. Godbey, J. Pittis, B. Titus, D. Sawyer, B. Coons, G. Kenworthy, K. Ridout, B. Jones, T. Reid, and J. Hicks. Public Present: B. Offermann, C. Souders, L. Gustafson, M. & G. Bullinham, A. Charles, Sr., C. Shurland, B. Haselton, F. Freeman, R. & D. Addison, D. Charles, C. Eble, B. Bennett, A. Charles, L Albaugh, S. Drum, L. Fuller, D. Morse, T. Medly, S. Crouse, L. Beil, G. & M. Underwood. PUBLIC HEARING: Urban Growth Area Mayor Sargent prefaced the public hearing by stating only one hour has been Principles & scheduled this evening; however, if more time is needed to receive testimony, the Boundaries public hearing can be continued to the July 2nd meeting. No Council decision would be forthcoming tonight as the SEPA process has not been completed. Councilman Cornell questioned thc July 1st dc~,dline, and Mayor Sargent explained the Planning Commission's recommcndations of urban growth boundaries would be sent to the County with the note that City Council action will follow. Mayor Sargent opened the public hearing at 6:05 p.m. Planning Director Collins asked if he should briefly describe the proposed boundaries to which Mayor Sargent agreed. Director Collins then displayed a map showing the proposed boundaries, including an illustration of existing development outside the current City limits. The County map showed proposed land designations for given areas. The proposed western boundary would run along the east rim of the Elwha River Canyon, commencing at the International Boundary in the Strait south to where the canyon connects with Highway 101, then easterly to a point just prior to Laird's Corner and thereafter follows a section line which is also the north limit of the County's Forest I Zone land. This is also approximately where the power line comes through. The boundary then follows the west edge of the Tumwater Creek Ravine down to Highway 101 and up the east edge of the Valley Creek ravine until it meets the existing City limits. Where the existing City limits meet the boundary of the National Park, the line extends · eastward along the right-of-way or extension of Scrivner Road to the west rim of the Morse Creek canyon, then back to the International Boundary in the Strait, and westward to the point of beginning. This recommendation comes from the City/County Urban Regional Boundary Committee and the Port Angeles Planning Commission. Director Collins said the proposed boundaries are planned for the next 20 years and if areas outside the proposed boundaries wish to be incorporated into the City, the urban growth area boundaries would have to be amended. The proposed boundaries must be reviewed at least once each ten years and cannot be reviewed more than once per year. Councilman Hallett inquired as to the difference between today's County land use alternatives and what could occur if the land were brought into the City. Director Collins responded the existing land use processes of both the City and County -1- 1922 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 18, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) would remain in effect. The area outside the urban growth area boundaries would not be subject to urban development decisions. The existing land use laws are not Urban Growth Area changed by being included in the urban growth area. Annexation into the City Principles & would be decided by property owners. Boundaries (Cont'd) Councilman Cornell asked about the basic principles involved in establishing the boundaries in that he considered them to be more than just encouragement to bring those areas up to a certain standard. In effect, plan on annexing to the boundaries and getting the various areas up to urban standards. During the Planning Commission hearings, there were apparently people saying they did not want their areas annexed. Director Collins responded that the nature of the principles is to define reasons why areas should or should not be included. A community's desire to be included and have future urban development; or to be excluded and to remain rural in character ought to be considered, whether or not it is principle. Councilman Lemon asked when the boundary could next be reviewed and the boundary expanded, if that be the case. Director Collins responded it would take at least a year to have the boundary adopted. At any time during that period, either the City or the County could make changes to the proposed boundaries. After adoption, it cannot be reviewed more than once a year. It must be reviewed at least once every ten years. Councilman Wight indicated the Act requires local governments to establish the levels of community services in the existing areas and the Urban Growth Area and provide those services concurrent with any future development. Establishing this boundary is not a specific encouragement to grow. It is a requirement of local government to guarantee a level of urban development consistent with the level of service established by that government. If this proposal is accepted by the County, the City accepts the long-term responsibility of providing the infrastructure and services at a level established as acceptable for the entire community. As a part of this process, the City will have to decide the traffic burdens of streets and the number of acres of parks and open lands to be provided. YoAnn Laugatlies, 1868 Dry O'eek Road Comment: Reported on a meeting held at the Dry Creek School on this proposal, where she and her husband presented a petition which was signed by 27 individuals. She asked permission to read the petition and then submit a copy. Mayor Sargent gave permission to have the petition read into the record (a copy of which is attached to and becomes a part of these minutes). Ms. Laugallies' comments on behalf of the Dry Creek petitioners included various reasons why there should be a change in the proposed boundaries. George Brittenham, 1857 Edgewood Drive Comment: Submitted comments in support of the previous speaker, to the effect that the area on the Elwha Bluff includes a sizeable tree farm which will not mature for 50 or more years. It would be a shame to make a city out of that area. The plan appears to be similar to the Federal Timber Reserve Plan which makes a timber reserve out of the Forks Airport, while this plan wants to make a city out of a tree farm. Question: Councilman Cornell asked how intensively developed the area is on the bluffs at this time. Response: Mr. Brittenham responded about one house per five acres. Barbara Offermann, 145 Benson Road Comment: Said developers will develop, if given the chance, no matter where. She compared the original Townsite from 1890 with the current City limits, and then the projected UGA, calling that urban sprawl which will just invite developers in to grab everything. This will invite the destruction of the present area which attracts visitors from all over because of the current attributes. She would like to see the southern boundary of the area at Route 101 west of the Tumwater area. -2- 1923 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 18, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Urban Growth Area Question: Councilman Lemon asked if Ms. Offermann preferred the west Principles & boundary to be Benson Road. Boundaries (Cont'd) Response: Ms. Offermann said the boundary should be the south side of Route 101 west of Tumwater. Question: Councilman Lemon asked about the eastern boundary. Response: Ms. Offermann replied she was not as familiar with that area. Suzanne Drum, 505 East Fourth Street Comment: Speaking for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Ms. Drum expressed the opinion that the proposed UGA lines would increase the use of water from the lower Elwha River due to increase in the population and would impact the Tribe's quality of life and livelihood, which is their fisheries. It would be difficult for the Tribe to purchase land at a reasonable price within the UGA boundaries. The Tribe supports the Dry Creek community recommendation to keep the western boundary at Airport Road. Danny Addison, No. 15 Key Road Comment: Resides above Scrivner, and just recently moved there to get away from population, bus stops and loud trucks. Mr. Addison indicated it's very nice up there and he wouldn't like to see it turned into what his family just moved away from. Jerry Charles, former Chair~nan of the Lower Elwha Tribe Comment: Has lived here all his life and has watched the City grow. He understands what is being proposed and the Tribe understands a plan is necessary. However, the Tribe is concerned about changing the ecology of the area by inclusion in the UGA. Although the Tribe is proud to be a part of the Port Angeles area, there are many newcomers to the area who may not have the same feeling for the area. Mr. Charles recounted some of the property ownerships in the Lower Elwha area and the creation of the reservation by Congress in 1934. Including the Tribal area in the UGA will result in jurisdiction problems. Question: Mayor Sargent asked Mr. Charles where he would prefer to see the boundary. Response: Mr. Charles could not give a definite answer at the time. David Charles, representing the Lower Elwha Tribal Council Comment: Suggested the western boundary be the Airport. He decried the clear-cutting on the Peninsula and suggested the proposed boundaries would include more clear-cutting. He asked for a more positive need for urban growth, including a study of the businesses which have been discontinued in the past few years, both within and outside the City limits. Al Charles, Councihnan fi'om the Lower Elwha Tribe Comment: Called the proposed boundaries unrealistic. The boundaries .... propose doubling the present City limits in 20 years. Such growth would be so rapid, the services could not keep up, and taxes would increase. He asked about the proposed zoning for the growth area. If any of the area is zoned industrial, Mr. Charles would be even more worried particularly in relation to pollution. He cited such examples as the Duwamish River in Seattle and the Nooksack in Bellingham. Question: Mayor Sargent asked Mr. Charles if he recognized urban sprawl along Highway 101. Response: Mr. Charles agreed, because of the loss of farms along the highway. Mayor Sargent said the effort here is to maintain the area. -3- 1924 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 18, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Urban Growth Area Question: Mayor Sargent asked if Mr. Charles preferred the Airport Road Principles & as boundary. Boundaries (Cont'd) Response: Mr. Charles replied he could not see it going past the Airport. People are not going to develop at the end of the Airport as there is very little development in that area at the present time. Future development is not likely there because of the Airport noise. Comment: Mr. Charles continued by saying the clear-cutting puts more strain on the river, with flooding and silt. Comment: Mr. Charles also expressed concern about hunting. Concerning forestry, if the boundary is extended as proposed, the first thing that's going to go is the trees. This country must be healed; there's too much devastation. Mr. Charles indicated that in 20 years, he can't see development beyond the Airport. He was not familiar with the east boundary. Carla Ellofson, Lower Elwha Tribal Chairperson Comment: Spoke as a property owner and in her official capacity. She would like to see the boundary left at the Airport. Debbie Pettett Judge, 1867 Dry O'eek Road Comment: Has two acres and considered her ownership threatened by the proposed growth area. She considers her home the most important asset she has. She understands the urban growth area is encouraged to be annexed into the City and feared, if her property were annexed, she would not be able to keep her horses. She considers the Airport Road an appropriate boundary for the west end. She queried as to why the eastern boundary had not been extended to include the new theater at Deer Park Road. Jerry Charles Comment: With the economy in it's present condition, he could not see any development within the 20-year span sufficient to call for this proposed boundary. Al Charles Question: What benefits would accrue to the City to expand the City to the western border of the Elwha River? Response: Mayor Sargent responded the decision has not yet been made as to either boundary. Councilman Nicholson pointed out that the intent of Bill 2929 was to curtail urban growth, not to promote it, because of what is happening in areas such as the 1-5 corridor where there is a prospect of one city from Bellingham to Vancouver. The idea behind 2929 is to identify areas where that will not be allowed to happen. The way to keep it from happening is to designate what will be permitted. Councilman Wight agreed there were no apparent benefits to the City in terms of where the boundaries of the Urban Growth Area are established. The County has to ratify whatever plan is recommended. The attempt is to try to establish the area for which the City of Port Angeles might ultimately be responsible, in terms of providing the services for the residents and businesses of that area. If the proposed boundaries had been established ten years ago, the K-Mart Plaza and the new motion picture theater on Deer Park Road would not be permitted in a rural area. The Council will have to determine where the lines should be drawn to accommodate the reasonable expectation of growth that could occur here. There being no further testimony at this time, Mayor Sargent asked for a motion to continue the public hearing to July 2nd and refer the Planning Commission's recommendation to the County, noting that City Council action will follow. -4- 1925 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Sune 18, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Urban Growth Area Councilman Hallett moved to forward the recommendation of the Planning Principles & Commission on the boundaries for the Urban Gro~ih Area to the County Boundaries Commissioners, advising that final City Council action will be forthcoming. (Cont'd) Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion. Councilman Hallett asked that the format of minutes for tonight's public hearing be similar to that of the Planning Commission minutes of June 5, 1991. Further, Mayor Sargent suggested the minutes be made available to the public. Councilman Hallett asked Planning Director Collins if anything in writing had been prepared for the public prior to this hearing. Director Collins responded the Urban Growth Area principles and a boundary factor analysis had been available. The minutes of the public hearing on June 5th can be made available, as well. Councilman Cornell expressed concern about sending a mixed message to the County; i.e., forwarding the proposed growth management area boundaries as recommended, noting that Council recommendations will be forthcoming. He inquired as to what penalty could be invoked if Council were to wait until after the July 2nd meeting. Councilman Ostrowski agreed, as he felt nothing should be sent until the final recommendation has been agreed upon. Director Collins responded his information was received from the Assistant Director of the Department of Community Development which oversees this action for the State. State law mandates a proposal be made to the County by July 1, 1991. The apparent reason for this mandate is to have the City come forward with something on the table for public reaction, so the County Commissioners can start to work on their plans. The right to provide revisions or updates to this remains until the City adopts its new Comprehensive Plan and/or the County adopts the urban growth areas. Mayor Sargent reminded Council that State funding is being provided for this work. Councilman Hallett saw no problem with forwarding the proposed boundaries prior to final Council action. Councilman Wight agreed. On call for the question, a vote was taken on the motion which carried by a majority vote with Councilmen Nicholson, Wight and Hallett and Mayor Sargent voting in favor of the motion and Councihnen Ostrowski, Lemon and Cornell voting in opposition. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Sargent called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to REGULAR SESSION: order at 7:10 p.m. PLEDGE OF The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Amber Pittis' Campfire Girls. ALLEGIANCE: Members present: Carrie Brown, Jen Hicks, Courtney Pittis, Meghan Peacock, Amber Pittis, Kerry Baker. APPROVAL OF Councilman Nicholson moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of MINUTES: June 4, 1991, as written. The motion was seconded by Councilman Ostrowski. A correction was offered to the minutes on Page 7, Light Department Interfund Loan, Paragraph 3, wherein reference is made to the item being placed on the agenda for the next meeting which should be corrected to read, a future meeting. A vote was taken on the motion, which carried by a majority vote, approving the minutes as corrected. Councilman Wight abstained from the vote. FINANCE: 1. Consideration of Bid ~lward for 14Zater/Wastewater Backhoe .-- Water/Wastewater The City Council previously authorized s[aff to call for bids for a new or used Backhoe backhoe-loader. Specifications were prepared, and in allowance with previous heavy equipment replacements, designated with the requirement that a guaranteed total cost, or life cycle cost bid amount, be included. Four bids were received where three were for new units and one was for used equipment. Because the bid for the used unit was disqualified for not meeting the total cost bid requirements and because all other bids were over the budgeted amount, it has been recommended that all bids be rejected, specifications be rewritten and a second call for bids be issued. Councilman Ostrowski moved to reject all bids for the Water/Wastewater backhoe for exceeding funds available and authorize staff to rewrite the specifications in a second call for bids to reduce costs and stay within budget appropriations. Councilman Cornell seconded the motion. After limited discussion, a vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. -5- 1926 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 18, 1991 FINANCE (Cont'd) Progress Payment 2. Request for Progress Payment to Olympic Electric for 5th & Peabody Signal to Olympic Project of $34,49&35; Retainage of $1,815.70 Electric Councilman Hallett moved to authorize the progress payment to Olympic Electric for the 5th & Peabody signal project in the amount of $34,498.35, with retainage of $1,815.70. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nicholson and carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA: Transportation Mayor Sargent advised Council that it will be necessary to consider Item No. 4 as Improvement a separate matter under the Consent Agenda. Therefore, Council gave Program- consideration to a resolution setting a public hearing for the Six Year Resolution Transportation Improvement Program for July 16, 1991. No. 23-91 Mayor Sargent read the Resolution by title, entitled RESOLUTION NO. 23-91 A RESOLUTION of the City of Port Angeles setting a public hearing date for review of its Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. Councilman Cornell moved to pass the Resolution as read by title, setting a public hearing for the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program for July 16, 1991. The motion was seconded by Councilman Ostrowski and carried unanimously. Councilman Ostrowski moved to accept the remaining items listed on the Consent Agenda, as follows: (1) Advance travel request over $500.00 for Fire Chief & Asst. Fire Chief to attend Washington State Association of Fire Chiefs Annual Conference; (2) Advance travel request over $500.00 for City Manager to attend AWC 1991 Annual Conference; (3) Schedule public hearing for revision to sewer rates; (4) Correspondence from Washington State Liquor Control Board; (5) Vouchers of $1,446,762.63; (6) Payroll of 5/26/91 of $313,816.72; and (7) Concept Administrators - Health Claims for May of $66,645.75. Councilman Cornell seconded the motion. Councilman Hallett referenced the public hearing on sewer rates and advised Council of discussions held at the most recent meeting of the Utility Advisory Committee. He and Councilman Wight supported the publication of block ads on the public hearings to be conducted on sewer rates, as well as the Transportation Improvement Program. Further, Councilman Wight suggested pertinent information be made available to the public in terms of rate projections and background hfformation on rates. A vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. ITEMS FROM THE Leonard Fuller, 420 E. llth, addressed Council about a letter he received from the COUNCIL/AUDIENCE City as to what must be accomplished in order for Mr. Fuller to reoccupy the TO BE CONSIDERED/ residence. After offering commentaries about the issues involved, Mr. Fuller was PLACED ON THE advised by the Mayor and the City Attorney that this is not the forum for such AGENDA: discussions. Mr. Fuller was urged to comply with the terms of the letter referenced. Mayor Sargent requested that Item No. 12 on the Legislation agenda become Item No. 2. LEGISLATION: Public Hearings 1. Public Hearings Fireworks A. Consideration of Amendment to Firework3' Orddnance Ordinance - Ordinance During the 1990 4th of July holiday, the Fire Department responded to several No. 2639 grass fires caused by fireworks, one of which involved a bush which was on fire and later spread to the outside of a home. The firework causing the most fires has been identified as "Jumping Jack", and it is recommended this particular firework be prohibited from sale and use in the City of Port Angeles. Mayor Sargent opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. There being no public testimony, the hearing was closed at 7:43 p.m. -6- 1927 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 18, 1991 LEGISLATION: (Cont'd) Public Hearings (Cont'd) Mayor Sargent read the Ordinance by title, entitled Fireworks Ordinance - ORDINANCE NO. 2639 Ordinance No. 2639 (Cont'd) AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, limiting the types of fireworks that may be possessed, sold or discharged within the City, adding new Section 5.32.020 to the Port Angeles Municipal Code and amending Chapter 8, Section 7 of Ordinance No. 2050, Section 4 or Ordinance No. 2221, and PAMC 5.32.070 as most recently amended by Section 1 of Ordinance 2537. Mayor Sargent noted that, in accordance with State law, the Ordinance would take effect one (1) year from the date of passage. Councilman Hallett moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nicholson and carried unanimously. Admin. Temporary B. Administrative Temporary Use Permit Appeal - ATUP 90(01)01 - Use Permit Appeal Randles, 1100 Block East Ninth: Request to Consider Appeal of Randles Decision to Deny Extension of Permit Allowing Use of an RV as a Temporary Residence in a Residential Single-family Dism'ct An Administrative Temporary Use Permit was granted on February 9, 1990, for a motor home as a temporary residence for an owner contractor during the construction of a single family residence, with the condition that the motor home would not be occupied longer than one year. An extension of the permit was requested in order to allow continuation of the construction. An extension was not considered appropriate under the original conditions and the request was denied. Mayor Sargent opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Jim Targett, 1133 E. 9th, addressed Council on behalf of the Randles by indicating the Randles have been doing their own construction work, no neighborhood complaints have been registered and the project is close to completion. Because Mr. Randles has been experiencing severe health problems, he has been required to travel out of town for medical treatments and has been required to take periodic rest periods. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 7:48 p.m. In the ensuing discussion and in response to an inquiry from Councilman Hallett, Attorney Knutson reviewed Article X, Section 6 of the Zoning Code which the Planning Director now interprets as not applying to temporary residences, but rather to construction-type offices. Councihnan Hallett moved to grant the request of the applicant for an extension of the Temporary Use Permit through November 30, 1991. The motion was seconded by Councilman Cornell. Councilman Hallett indicated his motion was made with the understanding that if there is any problem in reaching completion by that date, Council should be notified or the Randles should make arrangements for outside help in order to accomplish completion by the deadline. Councilman Wight noted the Planning Director was at the end of his limits of authority and had to refer the matter to the City Council for action. A vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Interlocal 2. Interlocal Agreement Between City/County/Port Regarding Economic Agreement - Development Planning Economic Development Mayor Sargent indicated the Economic Development Council was formed Planning approximately ten (10) years ago to address the timber situation at that time and has since been operating with two personnel and has fulfilled a need in the community up until this time. The economic situation in the community has changed dramatically and promises to change even more so in the future. It is important to utilize and assist those organizations already at work to their fullest potential and eliminate any duplication of efforts and help them focus their particular expertise in the best and most efficient way in order to help the community through difficult economic crises. -7- 1928 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 18, 1991 LEGISLATION (Cont'd) Interlocal As a result of meetings held earlier this year with the County, City, Port, etc., it Agreement- has been determined that a strategy can best be planned by utilizing an Economic independent consultant to help the group reach consensus on issues that can be Development implemented, monitored and evaluated. Dorothy Duncan, Chair of the Board of Planning the County Commissioners and President of the Economic Development Council, responded to questions from Councilmembers and offered information as to how the planning process is to work. A certain amount of concern was expressed by Councilmembers as to why the three entities are the only ones to be funding the effort. In response to a question about the anticipated timeline, Chair Duncan indicated the first of the year is the target. Discussion followed as to what types of recommendations might come forth from this effort, how it would effect the future of the different organizations involved and what the City of Port Angeles might specifically offer to the process. Cited as possible matters to pursue were a four-year degree program and continuation of the Pacific Parkway endeavor. Mayor Sargent indicated it is appropriate to bring all of the groups together in an effort to coordinate economic planning for the area. Further, the opinion was expressed that this may be a valuable exercise and City Manager Pomeranz spoke in support of the effort. Councilman Ostrowski moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement between the City/County/Port regarding economic development planning. The motion was seconded by Councilman Wight. In the discussion that followed, it was agreed a work session would be advisable in order for Council to be prepared for the joint meetings. Councilman Lemon urged consideration of asking the other entities to assist in financing the agreement. A vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Mayor Sargent added the matter of establishing a work session to the agenda as Legislation Item #16. Abatement of 3. Consideration of Resolution of Abatement of Public Nuisances - Public Public Comment Nuisances - Resolution Staff provided Council with a revised Exhibit "A" list of public nuisances which No. 24-91 included four (4) properties. Photographs of the properties were made available for viewing. Mayor Sargent inquired as to whether there was any public comment pertinent to these properties. There being no public comment, Mayor Sargent read the Resolution by title, entitled RESOLUTION NO. 24-91 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, declaring the existence of a public nuisance and requiring the elimination of such nuisance. Councilman Hallett moved to pass the Resolution as read by title. The motion was seconded by Councilman Ostrowski and carried unanimously. Planning 4. Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 1991 Commission Minutes A. Rezone Request- REZ 91(06)02 - McClaskey, 140 DelGuzzi Drive: (Set public hearing for July 2, 1991) Rezone Request - - McClaskey Councilman Cornell moved to set a public hearing for July 2, 1991. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lemon and carried unanimously. Councilman Cornell moved to accept and place on file the Planning Commission minutes of June 12, 1991. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion. A correction to the minutes was offered concerning Page 1, Public Hearings, LA VISTA Planned Residential Development, reference to move item to April 26, 1991 should be changed to read, June 26, 1991. A vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. -8- 1929 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 18, 1991 LEGISLATION (Cont'd) L ID # 211 - 5. Consideration of Ordinance Approving Final Assessment Roll for LID #211 Ordinance - DelGuzzi Drive No. 2640 At its meeting of June 4, 1991, the Council conducted a public hearing on the final assessment roll for LID #211. In order to assure that the form of the Ordinance approving the final assessment roll was acceptable to bond counsel, action on the Ordinance was deferred to this meeting. Mayor Sargent read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2640 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, approving and confirming the final assessment roll for Local Improvement District No. 211, which has been created and established for the purpose of paying the cost of certain street improvements in the City of Port Angeles; and levying and assessing the mount thereof against the lots, tracts, parcels of land and other property shown on said roll. Councilman Ostrowski moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title. The motion was seconded by Councilman Cornell and carried unanimously. Hazardous Waste 6. Cons/deration of Hazardous Waste Management Plan Management Plan During the last year, the Clallam County Solid Waste Advisory Committee, County staff, City staff and Paul S. Running & Associates have written the proposed Hazardous Waste Management Plan with the help of a grant from the Department of Ecology and matching County funds. A Hazardous Waste Management Plan is required by State law and it was the Council's previous direction to work with the County in writing such a plan. In order to be eligible for grants that will provide a 75% match for the program, the Plan must be adopted and the grant application submitted to the Department of Ecology by the end of June. In the ensuing discussion, Planning Director Collins reported discussions had been held with the Solid Waste Division with regard to land use zoning and it was determined any concerns that may arise will be addressed in another fashion and it would be appropriate for Council to take action on the Plan at this time. Concerning hazardous waste generators, Councilman Cornell queried as to whether governments/municipalities are exempt from their own regulations and to what extent. This matter is to be researched by staff with a response submitted at a later date. Councilman Hallett moved to adopt the Hazardous Waste Management Plan as presented. The motion was seconded by Councilman Wight and carried unanimously. City Council 7. Discussion of Recognition for Councilrnernbers Recognition As a follow-up to recent discussions on ways to recognize Councilmembers leaving City Council, suggestions were made as to different options available. After limited discussion, Councilman Cornell moved to start a tradition of presenting - Councilmembers with framed resolutions and a picture of the City Council. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nicholson and carried unanimously. The question was raised as to whether other Councilmembers who left City Council had been appropriately recognized. Mayor Sargent indicated this matter will be researched by staff. 8. Consideration of Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for Elwha Dams Removal Council gave consideration to the revised letter containing comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the relicensing of the Elwha Dams. Councilman Ostrowski moved to adopt the letter to FERC concerning the DEIS for the Elwha Dam relicensing. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion which carried unanimously. All Councilmembers agreed to sign the letter for mailing -9- 1930 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 18, 1991 LEGISLATION (Cont'd) EIS - Elwha to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and further, to mail copies to the River Dam delegation in Washington, D.C. Removal (Cont'd) City Manager Pomeranz reported Congressman A1 Swift will be available to meet with Councilmembers on July 2, 1991, to discuss any issues as determined by Council. It was, therefore, agreed that this meeting would be held on Tuesday, July 2, 1991, at 3:30 p.m. Mayor Sargent and Councilmen Ostrowski, Wight and Hallett plan to be in attendance. License to 9. Consideration of License to Operate Taxicab Business - New Owners Operate Taxicab Business Council gave consideration to the issuance of a license to operate a taxicab to Larry & Klm Southmayd, who are presently in the midst of purchasing Angeles Taxicab. The purchasers are unable to obtain State licensure and required insurance in the absence of the City license, and the City cannot issue a license in the absence of required insurance. To assist the Southmayd's in obtaining licensure, it has been recommended that Council approve the issuance of a Business License subject to meeting all requirements of Chapter 5.36 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. The license would not actually be issued until all requirements of the PAMC have been met. Councilman Cornell moved to approve the issuance of a Business License to operate a taxicab to Larry & Klm Southmayd, subject to meeting all requirements of Chapter 5.36 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lemon and carried unanimously. Public Information 10. Consideration of Public Information Program Professional Services Contract Program Contract with Thompson Mackellar. Councilman Nicholson moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the contract for renewal with Thompson Mackellar for the period, January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991. The motion was seconded by Councilman Ostrowski and carried by a majority vote, with Councilman Lemon voting in opposition. Teamsters Contracts 11. Consideration of Teamsters Contracts: (A) Sworn Officers and (B) Ordinance Communications/Support Unit No. 2641 & Ordinance Negotiations between the City and the Teamsters Communications/Support Unit No. 2642 have been completed, with a 5% cost-of-riving increase effective January 1, 1991. The second and third years of the agreement provide for a cost-of-living increase based upon 90% of the Seattle Consumer Price Index, Jan.-Jan., with a minimum of 2% and maximum of 6%. Councilman Nicholson moved to approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Port Angeles and Teamsters Union #589 - Communications/Support Unit. The motion was seconded by Councilman Cornell and carried unanimously. Mayor Sargent read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2641 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles establishing a pay plan for the employees represented by Teamsters Local #589 (Communications/Support Unit) for the period of January 1, 1991, through December 31, 1991, and providing for the payment thereof. Councilman Cornell moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title, authorizing publication by summary. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lemon and carried unanimously. Negotiations have also been completed between the City and Teamsters Union #589 - Sworn Officers Unit, wherein a 5% cost-of-living increase is effective January 1, 1991, and the same cost-of-living increase provisions established as set forth above. Councilman Nicholson moved to approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Port Angeles and Teamsters Union #589 Communications/Support Unit. The motion was seconded by Councilman Cornell and carried unanimously. -10- 1931 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 18, 1991 LEGISLATION (Cont'd) Tamsters Contracts City Manager Pomeranz expressed appreciation to Councilmembers and Human Ordinance Resources Manager Coons for the efforts expended toward the smooth completion No. 2641 & of the negotiations. It was also noted the union representatives should be thanked Ordinance for their efforts. No. 2642 Mayor Sargent read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2642 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles establishing a pay plan for the employees represented by Teamsters Local #589 (Sworn Officers Unit) for the period of January 1, 1991, through December 31, 1991, and providing for the payment thereof. Councilman Wight moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title and to authorize publication by summary. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hallett and carried unanimously. Request to 12. Request to Lease City Property at 7~h & Peabody for Use as a Pattdng Lot Lease City Property A request was submitted by the North Olympic Alcohol & Drug Center to lease City property located at 7th & Peabody. Councilman Lemon requested that this matter be referred to the Real Estate Committee. The Real Estate Committee agreed to meet on Friday, June 21, 1991, at 4:00 p.m. to consider the request. Planning 13. Consideration of Approval of Agreement for Planning Consultant Services Consultant re: Growth Managernent Act Services - Growth Mayor Sargent reviewed the need for meeting the initial deadlines being faced in Management conjunction with the requirements of the Growth Management Act as they relate Act to the designation of urban growth areas and critical areas. This need has resulted in the necessity to obtain additional professional services, and the recommendation has been made to approve an agreement for planning consultant services with John Mauk, Environmental Planner, for an amount not to exceed $7,500. After brief discussion, Councilman Cornell moved to authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement with John Mauk, Environmental Planner, for planning consultant services in conjunction with the Growth Management Act. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lemon and carried unanimously. Grant 14. Request for Authorization for Mayor to Sign Grant Application for On- Application - Going Drug Task Force Operations Narcotics Task Force For the last several years, the Clallam County Drug Task Force has received funding assistance from a grant administered by the State Department of Community Development. At this time, Council considered a request for continuation of that funding. The matching funds that are a part of the grant are made up of the contributing agency's personnel costs, as well as seized funds from past drug cases. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Cornell, Police Chief Cleland explained the disbursement of grant funds to the different entities involved. Councilman Ostrowski moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the grant application for funding the local multi-jurisdictional narcotics task force. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nicholson and carried unanimously. Extension of 15. Considera~'on of Extension of Pharmacy Contract (Deferred to Committee Pharmacy 5/21/91) Contract Councilman Lemon reviewed for Council the options that might be considered with regard to the Pharmacy Contract: extend the present contract, rebid the contract, or arrange open competition with a fee structure. He indicated he had met with several pharmacies who have expressed interest in participating in an openly competitive situation where each pharmacy has an opportunity to conduct business with the City. -11- 1932 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 18, 1991 LEGISLATION (Cont'd) Extension of A group comprised of Councilmen Lemon and Hallett, the City Manager and Pharmacy Human Resources Manager had met to discuss the issues and had not reached a Contract (Cont'd) conclusion. After further discussion, Councilman Lemon moved to deny the extension of the Pharmacy Contract and to offer a fee structure for prescription drugs and an open competition base to all pharmacies. The motion was seconded by Councilman Cornell. Councilman Lemon proposed the City's involvement in establishing certain guidelines to be followed which would include a formula of wholesale cost minus a discount plus a professional fee. He felt freedom of choice to be an important part of these considerations. Further, he noted everyone would be a winner in this situation. Councilman Hallett offered the opinion that it is important for the City · - to maintain a certain amount of control, and the present contractual arrangements allow for such control. However, Councilman Lemon indicated audits have not been conducted under the present arrangement, a matter which should be addressed in future considerations so as to assure compliance. Lengthy discussion ensued concerning the merits of a new arrangement as compared to the present contractual agreement, as well as the issues which should be considered in rating a participant, such as, parking available, 24-hour service, and the like. Human Resources Manager Coons indicated the language of the contract could be strengthened and arrangements could be made for audits to be conducted. In response to inquiries submitted, Manager Coons indicated there has been ease in administration, and employees have not submitted any complaints under the current arrangement. After more lengthy discussion, a vote was taken on the motion with Councilmen Lemon and Cornell voting in favor of the motion and Councilmen Nicholson, Ostrowsld, Wight and Hallett voting in opposition. The motion, therefore, failed. Councilman Hallett moved to extend the present Pharmacy Contract for one (1) year and to instruct staff to evaluate possible changes to the Pharmacy Contract for presentation to Council for review. The motion was seconded by Councilman Ostrowski. Councilman Wight requested extension of the contract through December 31, 1991 and have staff prepare an open competition format for presentation at that time. Councilman Hallett accepted the amendment to the motion. A vote was taken on the motion which carried by a majority vote, with Councilman Lemon voting in opposition. City Council 16. City Council Work Session Work Session Councilmembers had agreed to conduct a work session concerning economic development planning. It was requested that all documents/minutes pertaining to previous meetings on this issue be made available to Council prior to the work session. In addition, Council agreed other matters of importance could be discussed at the work session, such as, the financial management policies. City Manager Pomeranz is to prepare an agenda for the work session. Councilmembers agreed to conduct this work session on Monday, July 15, 1991, at 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL Councilman Cornell addressed the matter of day care centers and conditional use COMMITTEE permits. He queried as to whether smaller day care centers, meeting certain REPORTS/LATE criteria, could be considered permitted uses. Larger centers could still be subject ITEMS: to the conditional use requirements. In the ensuing discussion, Councilman Wight noted the responsibility of government to regulate in-home businesses in order to monitor impacts on residential neighborhoods. Planning Director Collins indicated the matter will again be addressed by the Planning Commission, as home day care providers will be submitting a proposal to the Planning Commission with regard to the conditional use permit process. After further discussion, it was agreed to let the current process run its course and give the Planning Commission the opportunity to explore all options. Councilman Cornell asked for clarification as to the date of the public hearing for the Glaubert/Austin Shoreline Management Permit Application. Planning Director Collins noted the hearing has been rescheduled for July 16, 1991. Councilman Wight referenced the Growth Management Act and urged a Council discussion at a future meeting to discuss impact fees, concurrency and the schedule with which the City must comply. -12- 1933 CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 18, 1991 ADJOURN TO There was no need to conduct an executive session. EXECUTIVE SESSION: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Clerk ~r Q.) - CC.218 -13- / ~/ Submitted to the City Council June 18, 1991 Public Hearing Urban Growth Area Principles & Boundaries 1934 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committe Report) - A REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN PROPOSED BOUNDARIES - We earnestly ask that the western boundary of the UGA be formed by the Airport Road. As residents of the Dry Creek area we currently enjoy a rural setting. We have chosen this environment because we prefer a rural life style. Houses are generally on land areas from 2 to 25 plus acres and the entire atmosphere (and population density) is clearly rural. Many residents of this area raise lifestock or do limited farming. The proposed inclusion of our area in the UGA threatens the quality of our life. We feel that the boundaries selected by the CCURB Committee were thrust upon us without consideration of our preferences and without effective notification of what was in the offing. While we understand that there is a legislative mandate to establish an UGA, we feel that HB 2929 was neither folloWed in spirit nor in letter. In specific, we cite: HB 2929, Sec 2 (1) and Sec. 11 (3). "Urban Growth should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have existing public facilities ...... " Response: Dry Creek Area has neither any City Services, nor can its character be described as urban by any stretch of the imagination. Further, the Planning Commis§ion listed under Factor 2 in their recommendations that there may be an insufficient capacity to provide sewerage to such a large area. HB 2929, Sec 2 (2) "Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development..." Response: The Boundaries as proposed cover such a large area that it exceeds the requirements of any anticipated population growth. A sparcily settled area of 1-unit-per-acre creates a sprawling Suburbia with costs of urban services so high that we, the traditional residents, would not be able to afford to maintain our residences without undue financial strain. 1935 Further, the proposed 150%-of-need area for commercial consideration is not part of the HB mandate. HB 2929, Sec 2 (4) ". . and encourage preservation of existing housing stock" Response: An area in excess of anticipated requirements does little or nothing to encourage utilization of Inner City Housing. HB 2929, Sec 2 (11) "Citizen participation and coordination." Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process ..." ResponSe: Most of us were caught unawares of the proposed changes brought about by this bill. The timely editorial information through our media has been lacking in most matters that concern City/County ~overnmental planning, nor was there a clear call for participation of citizens in the process at hand. HB 2929, Sec 3 (14). "Urban Growth" refers to growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures . . ." Response: This definition is not met by existing development in the Dry Creek area, nor can intensive utilization be expected in an area so large as proposed. HB 2929, Sec. 14. "Comprehensive Plans - Ensure public participation. Each County and City --- shall establish procedures for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and develop regulations . . . The procedures shall provide for broad dessimination of proposals and alternatives, opportunities for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public coments .... " Response: While the HB was passed in March of 1990, we find little or no call for early public participation. Certainly there was no broad dessimination of proposals nor effective notice or information services. We hope that consideration and response will be given on this and future comments. -- 2 -- 1936 In a Memorandum dated May 16, 1991, from the Port Angeles Planning Dept. addressing the CCURB Committee, Various points are raised which should give cause for alarm unless the UGA is reduced in size. - Factor 2: Cites the limitation of sewerage facility - Factor 4: Political Jurisdiction will go to the City, with Tax revenues assigned to the City and consequent service responsibilities which would represent a great expense to taxpayers. - Factor 5: Need for expanded services - can population density justify inclusion of Dry Creek area or would a service extension be cost prohibitive? - Factor 7: Consequences of inclusion within the UGA point towards a higher assessed property value with consequent higher taxes. Many more apprehensions and consideratioms make us call for exclusion of the Dry Creek Area. Not the least is the feeling that decisions are being made in which we have no voice. We believe that there should be an Urban Area with ammenities that can be provided to a densily inhabited area, and a Rural Area with a more rugged and independent life style. The proposed size of the UGA would create few changes in our population density while saddling us with restrictive regulations and increased taxation while straining urban services and utilities to the breaking point. Finally, the rural character of our area would still make a clear delineation of City Boundaries more a matter of a line on the map or a sign at the roadside than a homogenous entity called the City 'of Port Angeles. Add ' ~ - - Signed: ~~ ~. ~~ Dat~: 2-: /Z-~/ Address: /~6./ ~ ~f~ Signed:~~ ~~ Date: &~ /~_~ / Address:~ ~0~,~{~ ~ Address:/~ ~gne~ p ~ -- 3 1937 , 1938 1939 tSd d ~" c~,:.E x 1940 PROPOSED URBAN GROWI'H AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Add tess: Slotted = .................................................................................................................... Date= A d d r e s s: f':~ d d Y' 6? E ~:i. g S :i. g n ed: .......... Da ts: A (:1 d r e s s: oigned: Date: Add tess: Signed: Date:: Address: olor, ed: Date: Add ross: S :} o n ed: Da te: A d d r *'., s s: