Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/17/19891444 I CALL TO ORDER Mayor McPhee called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at 7:02 P.M. II PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Lane Wolfley's Troop No. 191, First Ward, members present: Jeff McFarland, Scott Sidwell, Colin Thompson, Cliff Robinson, Cris Sidwell, Jeff Wolfley, Joey Freeman, Alex Rood, Joe Wolfley, Mike Sidwell. III ROLL CALL Members Present: Mayor McPhee, Councilmen Gabriel, Hallett, Hordyk, Lemon, Ostrowski, Sargent. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Public Present: IV APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 3. 1989. AND SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 6. 1989 Councilman Gabriel moved to approve the minutes of the October 3, 1989, regular meeting and the special meeting of October 6, 1989. Councilman Sargent seconded the motion. Councilman Sargent noted corrections on page 7, item 14, Primary Election Costs, to insert the following phrase into the first sentence: said she had been contacted by 12 people and some precinct workers and and to the last sentence of the first paragraph, to add: which are held in the same locatious. There being no further comments the motion was voted upon and carried unanimously, with Councilman Lemon abstaining from the vote on the October 3rd meeting, and Councilman Hordyk abstaining. V FINANCE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington October 17, 1989 Manager Flodstrom [arrived at 8 :30 P.M.], Attorney Knutson, Clerk Maike, S. Brodhun, M. Cleland, B. Collins, L. Glenn, B. Titus, D. Wolfe, K. Ridout, G. Kenworthy, J. Caverly, B. Becker, E. Bonollo, M. Campbell. C. Burk, C. B. Burton, V. Hopf, M. Johnson, K. Kyllo, J. Fairchild, M. Edge, E. Hansen, G. Braun, L. Ross, T. Madson, M. Baker, D. Neitzel, J. VanOss, L. Torres, L. Beil, L. Lee, J. Spiess. 1. Request for Proeress Payment to Lakeside Industries for Work on Three LIDs of 570.146.50 Councilman Hallett moved to authorize the progress payment to Lakeside Industries for work on three LIDs in the amount of $70,146.50. Councilman Gabriel seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Sargent noted that the cost is still below the estimate given to the residents on these LID projects. The projects include Regent, Alder, and Sixth Streets. 2. Reouest for Progress Payment to Lakeside Industries for Work on DelGuzzi Drive LID of $252.321.35 Councilman Sargent moved to authorize the progress payment to Lakeside Industries for work on DelGuzzi Drive LID in the amount of $252,321.35. Councilman Gabriel seconded and the motion carried unanimously. -1- 3. Request Permission to Dispose of Surplus Property 1445 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 1989 Councilman Hallett moved to declare the following items as surplus: Five (5) wooden book cases; two (2) wooden tables; three (3) wooden desks; one (1) wooden file cabinet, standard four drawer; one (1) metal file, 5" x 8" card; one (1) metal tube map file; one (1) metal coat rack; one (1) mimeograph machine electric; one (1) air conditioning unit; one (1) commercial vacuum cleaner; one (1) H -P line printer; six (6) boxes tube -type radios and parts; one (1) large playground slide; four (4) medium -size playground merry -go- rounds; one (1) small -size playground merry -go- round; one (1) large -size playground merry go- round; one (1) ice making machine and piping for skating rink; four (4) large exhaust fans; used fencing material; gym lockers; miscellaneous paint in 1- gallon containers; miscellaneous small engine parts; one (1) Olympia report deluxe electric typewriter; two (2) sanicans; and directed the Public Works Department to hold a public auction for those items that have some value. Councilman Sargent seconded. Councilman Lemon asked Attorney Knutson about the possibility of donating these surplus supplies to a non profit organization. Attorney Knutson responded that the City cannot donate to just any non profit corporation or organization. It would have to be an entity that qualifies as being for the benefit of the poor or infirm. Under the State Constitution, the City has to follow that restriction. We could also give it to another governmental entity. Mayor McPhee requested that the list of materials be posted at City Hall and also that all items listed be part of the public auction. Councilman Hallett stated that was the intent of the motion. The question was called and the motion carried unanimously. 4. Consideration of Bids for Vaults and Conduit for DelGuzzi Drive LID Councilman Hordyk moved to authorize a contract with the lowest responsible bidder for the installation of conduit and concrete vaults at Ennis Creek Estates. The lowest bidder was Excel Construction, Port Angeles, in the amount of $3,277. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion. Councilman Hordyk asked City Light Director Titus if the cost of the aerial and underground wiring was to be borne by the developer or the City. Director Titus responded that all costs are to be paid by the developer on this portion of the project. Councilman Sargent asked whether Director Titus had any response on the difference in the price on the bids. Director Titus responded the Department is pleased with the price; their estimate was $7,500 and the low bidder, Excel Construction, also has the sub contract from Lakeside Industries to do the trench work. This allows them to do it at a lower cost, since they already have people the the job -site. Following a discussion on the lowest bidder, Excel Construction, and also how the small works roster works when doing contract bid work, the question was called and the motion carried. The bids received are as follows: Olympic Electric, Port Angeles, $19,989; Excel Construction, Port Angeles, $3,277; Angeles Electric, Port Angeles, $6,314. VI CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Sargent moved to accept the items on the Consent Agenda, including (1) Correspondence from Washington State Liquor Control Board; (2) Vouchers of $197,269.31; and (3) Payroll of 10 -1 -89 of $238,708.94. Councilman Hordyk seconded the motion. Following a brief discussion on the items as presented, Councilman Hordyk requested that staff change the description in Equipment Rental with regard to Phelps Tire Co. to reflect the actual work being done. The motion carried unanimously. 1446 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 1989 VII ITEMS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL /AUDIENCE TO BE CONSIDERED /PLACED ON THE AGENDA Jewell VanOss, 1019 East Fourth Street, requested to speak on Legislation Item 6 regarding the Francis Street project. Celia Burton, 5045 West Mercer Way, Mercer Island, requested to speak on Item 7 regarding the Burton water service. Velma Hopf, 2833 West 14th Street, requested to speak on Item 7. Lars Gustafson, 76 Doyle Road, requested to speak on Item 7. Myrna Baker, 1416 Edgewood Drive requested that the Council add to the Agenda Item 19, Fire District 2 Contract Negotiations. Attorney Knutson responded that the proposed contract Mrs. Baker is referring to is being drafted. It has gone through several revisions on the City staff level; however, it has not been presented to Fire District 2. It was his understanding that the City was to complete the draft, forward it to Fire District 2 for comments, and once an acceptable contract has been presented, then it would return to the Council for formal consideration. Councilman Hallett added Item No. 20, a Resolution regarding the P.A. Family Assistance Program. Councilman Sargent noted that the tee shirts for the City's 100th birthday celebration were available. Administrative Services Director Wolfe requested that Item 21 be added to the Agenda, regarding the EDC's Request for Funding Assistance for the Mediation of the Oak Street Property. Mayor McPhee noted that the Fire Department had held its very successful open house, stating he was impressed with the caliber of people involved, including City employees, volunteers, and their wives, and he read for the record the names of those people who gave their time: Ed and Susan Bonollo, Jay and Yvette Cline, Glenda Coleman, Bob Edgington, Dennis and Bridget Edgington, Jerry and Lance Doyle, Mike Fitzpatrick, Don Goralski, Curtis Johnson, Scott Kenyon, Dan and Jan McKeen, Dave and Carla Sue, Dawn Scheidler, Jeri Abram, Jeanne Glenn, Gina Campbell, and Jana Becker. Mayor McPhee stated that the City Council is grateful to the volunteers and the wives who make it possible to provide the kind of service the City has. VIII LEGISLATION 1. Presentation of New Port Angeles Video Chamber of Commerce Erl Hansen, representing Port Angeles Chamber of Commerce, stated the video was made in conjunction with the Convention /Conference Committee for recruitment of conferences and conventions in Port Angeles. The Chamber has struck an agreement with the Port Angeles Toastmasters to speak to other service organizations in the area to encourage the sponsoring of conferences in Port Angeles. Following the presentation, Councilman Gabriel asked what the cost of the video was. Mr. Hansen replied $592, including sales tax. Councilman Gabriel asked who did the video work. Mr. Hansen replied it was Port Angeles Television Productions, Dennis Bragg, and Darwin Gearey. 2. Public Hearings A. Street Vacation Reouest STV- 89(9)7 Port Angeles School District Reauest for vacation of City rieht- of -way. 9/10 alley between "B" and "C" Streets (continued from 10 -3 -89) Councilman Hallett moved to continue the item to the November 7, 1989, City Council meeting. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 1447 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 1989 B. Street Vacation Request STV- 89(10)8 Burt Reid Request for Vacation of City right- of -wav 18th Street. between "B" and "C" Streets Mayor McPhee opened the public hearing at 7:47 P.M. Louie Torres, Olympic Development Co., representing Mr. Reid, noted that they are in agreement with the staff report and the Planning Commission recommendation and urged that the Council support those recommendations. Mayor McPhee closed the public hearing at 7:49 P.M. and read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2550 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles vacating that portion of West 18th Street abutting Blocks 449 and 456, TPA. Councilman Sargent moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title, setting the compensation at $6,237, subject to the following easements: (1) An improved access along and within a 25 -foot wide strip adjacent to the State Department of Transportation property on 18th Street between "B" and "C" Streets; (2) Utility easements for powerline along the north side of 18th street in the 25- foot access easement granted to the State Department of Transportation; (3) A 20 -foot wide utility easement for existing sewer line, the easement to be centered on the sewer line in 18th street; citing the following findings: (1) Vacation of the subject right -of -way would place the property on the city's tax roles and be in the public interest; (B) 18th Street, at present, is undeveloped, and unnecessary to traffic circulation in the area; (C) Vacation of the subject right -of -way would encourage use of 18th Street by the public accessing the activity in Block 456, thereby lessening the possibility of traffic impacts on Lauridsen Boulevard; (D) Vacation of the subject right -of- way would discourage through traffic on 18th Street, located near the intersection of two collector arterials; and citing the following conclusion: (1) Vacation would be in the public interest by eliminating conflicting and potentially dangerous traffic situations in the area; and directing the publication by summary. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion. Councilman Sargent made note that the Real Estate Committee had met on this issue and felt the compensation amount was fair and reasonable value for the property. The motion was voted upon and carried unanimously. C. Zoning Code Amendment ZCA- 89(9)8 LI. Light Industrial District Amendment to allow agricultural uses as conditional uses Mayor McPhee opened the public hearing at 7:50 P.M. There being no comment, he them closed the public hearing and read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. 2551 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Ports/Angeles amending Section 17.32.040 of Ordinance No. 2329 to add agricultural uses as conditional uses in the Light Industrial District. Councilman Sargent moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title, citing the following findings: (1) General agricultural uses (farming and husbandry) are not permitted or conditional uses in any Zoning District in the Port Angeles Zoning Code; (2) Agricultural nurseries and greenhouses are Conditional Uses listed in the RS -7 (17.10.040A) and RS -9 (17.11.040A) Zoning Districts; (3) Annexations of large tracts of property near Fairchild International Airport have brought previous farmlands into the City of Port Angeles; (4) Large tracts of property near Fairchild International Airport are zoned Light Industrial (LI); and citing the following conclusions: (A) Agricultural uses of large, undeveloped tracts of property should be permitted where farmlands exist or recently existed; (B) Interim agricultural uses of large, undeveloped tracts of property would not be contrary to the purposes of the Light Industrial (LI) District (17.32.010); (C) The proposed amendment to allow agricultural uses as Conditional Uses in the Light Industrial (LI) District preserves the integrity -4- 1448 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 1989 of the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 3. Planning Commission Minutes of October 11. 1989 A. Shoreline Management Hearing SMA- 89(10)102 Daishowa Councilman Sargent moved to continue this item to the November 7, 1989, City Council meeting. Councilman Hallett seconded and the motion carried unanimously. B. Conditional Use Permit CUP 89(10)16 Seventh Dav Adventist. 124 West 9th Reauest for addition of private school activity in church building. RS -7. Single Family Residential Councilman Hallett moved to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a private school activity in the existing church building, subject to the following conditions: (1) A floor plan be submitted for review by the Public Works Department, to determine compliance with the Uniform Building Code; (2) The school must comply with all State and local Fire Code regulations; (3) If the parking lot area is used for playground activity, the area will be appropriately barricaded or fenced and so identified to prevent intrusion into the alley. A plan for outdoor play area must be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval; and citing the following findings: (A) The site and general layout of the site are satisfactory for a private elementary school; (B) An elementary school is compatible with surrounding uses and desirable in residential areas; (C) City utilities appear to be adequate to support this function; (D) The Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan Goal #5 (p. 30); Social Policy #4 (p. 44); and Social Objective #3 (p. 45), are relevant to this Conditional Use Permit; and citing the following conclusions: (1) With appropriate conditions, the elementary school will not adversely affect the residential uses in the area; (2) The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; (3) The use is not a further expansion into the residential area. Councilman Ostrowski seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 89(10)17 St. Matthew Lutheran Church. 132 East 13th Reauest for extension of church activities to adioinina church -owned structure. located in RS -7. Single Family Residential Councilman Sargent moved to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the Conditional Use Permit for extension of church activities to the adjacent residential building located at 116 East 13th Street, subject to the following condition: (1) Youth group activities, such as loud music which is disturbing to residential neighbors, shall not be allowed to continue after 9:00 P.M. in the evening; and citing the following findings: (A) St. Matthew,Lutheran Church is an established conditional use in this residential zone; (B) Off- street parking to serve the Sunday school activity on Lot 6 is located more than 50 feet to the east on Lot 4; (C) Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan Goals 3 5; Social Policy 4; Social Objective 3; and Land Use Objective 2, are relevant to this Conditional Use Permit application; (D) The Sunday school and youth group activities are intended to occur occasionally in the evening hours; (E) The St. Matthew Lutheran Church properties serve as a transitional use, buffering the residential uses from the principal arterial, Lincoln Street; (F) There is no evidence in the Planning Department files that St. Matthew Lutheran Church has been incompatible with, detrimental to, or depreciating neighboring residential properties; and citing the following conclusions: (1) St. Matthew Lutheran Church is not further expanding into the residential neighborhood; (2) The off street parking provided for the Sunday school will be inconvenient for those only using the building on Lot 6; (3) The proposed conditional use is consistent with the City of Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the RS -7 Zoning District; (4) With appropriate conditions, the proposed conditional use will not result in any significant impacts on the residential neighborhood; (5) This location is physically suited for a Sunday school. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion. Councilman Lemon discussed with Planning Director Collins the findings and the conclusions of the off street parking requirement. The motion was voted upon and carried unanimously. -5- D. Acceptance of Minutes 1449 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 1989 Councilman Hordyk moved to accept and place on file the Planning Commission minutes of October 11, 1989. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion. Councilman Hallett noted that in the Staff Report it makes reference to considerable discussion among Commission members and staff concerning decisions being rendered at the Administrative Hearings. He questioned Director Collins on this issue and requested an elaboration. Director Collins responded that in doing the Administrative Hearings he has changed the format from what had been previously done, in that he does not make a decision at the time of the hearing, but reserves the right of a written decision to be mailed to the parties of record. Several of the Commission members wished to discuss the issue and their concern was that it was a divergence from past practice. However, in reviewing the Zoning Ordinance in that regard, the decision of the Planning Commission was to allow the procedure to continue; however, they may choose to review this issue again at a later date. Councilman Hallett asked if a person was to come to the counter in regard to an administrative -type of hearing, would they be apprised of the new procedures. Director Collins stated yes, they would be. Councilman Lemon stated his concern was how much time is added onto the process of home occupations, as it was the original intent in giving the Planning Department the authority to make those decisions to expedite the process. Director Collins stated the Planning Commission had also asked that the Department be diligent on this issue and that a decision be made in one or two weeks. The motion was voted on and carried. 4. Consideration of Request from Port Angeles HiEh School Marching Band A request was brought to the City by the Port Angeles High School Marching Band for funding assistance to enable them to participate in the Fiesta Bowl on January 1, 1990, in Tempe, Arizona. Director of Administrative Services Wolfe noted that there is no specific dollar amount requested; however, in the past, it has been typical that the amount be between $1,500 and $2,500. Councilman Gabriel asked from which fund the moneys would be taken. Attorney Knutson responded that based on the list of types of work to be done, it would have to come from the General Fund. Hotel /Motel Tax Funds are limited to activities such as performing art and stadium facilities. If there were work to be accomplished at Civic Field or the Vern Burton Memorial Community Center, those facilities would qualify. Councilman Gabriel stated he would not be in favor of any money coming from the General Fund for this type of use. Mayor McPhee suggested the City staff make available to the High School Marching Band a list of those properties which have been declared public nuisances by the City and in doing this, possibly the Band could raise money by cleaning up those properties for the owners. Following a discussion regarding a contract being issued to perform the work as listed, and the reluctance of the School District to sign a contract with a hold harmless clause, no formal action was taken by the Council. 5. Consideration of Resolution for Abatement of Public Nuisances Mayor McPhee read the Resolution by title, entitled 1450 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 1989 Staff provided Council with a revised Exhibit "A Councilman Hordyk moved to pass the Resolution as read by title. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. BREAK RESOLUTION NO. 27 -89 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. Mayor McPhee recessed the meeting at 8:12 P.M. for a break. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 P.M. 6. Staff Update Francis Street Proiect Consideration of Revision to City's Waterfront Trail Shoreline Permit Councilman Ostrowski moved that the Council rescind the October 6, 1989, Council action to proceed with the North Francis Street project. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion. Councilman Ostrowski, in speaking to his motion, stated there has been some question in the minds of staff and concern regarding the appeal that the City could be facing; and in light of the fact that the City crews are now available to perform the work and since there has been much controversy surrounding this issue, it was his opinion that the City would be better off proceeding with the work. Mayor McPhee requested that staff explain their concern on this issue. Manager Flodstrom arrived. Planning Director Collins responded that at the October 6th meeting, there were several concerns in proceeding with the project and the action that was taken was to proceed if the work could be done between October 9th and 13th; further, that the Department of Ecology (DOE), once contacted, would view the work within the scope and intent of the City's Shoreline Permit. Upon contacting DOE, the statement was made that it may be possible but that the proper procedure would be for the City to revise its Shoreline Permit. Another concern raised was the question of the extent of work included in the scope and intent to revise the permit. In discussions among staff and with DOE, the conclusion was made that the minimum amount of work would be the most prudent action for the City to do. If the Permit was to be revised and included one of the drawings of the alternates given to the Council as the intention and scope of work to be completed, the City would be better off if the revision did not include removal of the mound of earth and relocation of it elsewhere on the Waterfront Trail. Mayor McPhee asked how it would be more beneficial to the City to leave the mound of dirt. Director Collins responded the primary concern that the City has is time. If the mound is left, the ability to proceed would be enhanced. The reason for this would be, in revising the permit and sending the action to DOE, there is a 30 -day period of time in which any action the Council may take may be appealed. If work is proceeded with and then it is determined that the work performed is not within the scope and intent of the Shoreline Permit, then the City would be liable for restoring the condition that existed prior to the revision of the Permit. Therefore, it would be prudent on the part of the City to perhaps do the minimum amount of work necessary to protect the slope and Trail area from soil erosion and to try to perform the work before inclement weather sets in; thereby avoiding the potential appeal of the Shoreline Permit, which would cause delay or the problem of having to restore the property to the condition prior to the appeal. It is staff's opinion that if the mound of dirt is not relocated, the grade of the Trail is not changed but a stepped concept is implemented; then there is less likelihood that the City would face an appeal and therefore, a lengthy delay in the process, or potential liability. In terms of City crews performing the work over the offer of Mr. Cronauer, Director Collins pointed out there is the potential that any work done would have to be restored to the original state, and at this point it makes more sense -7- 1451 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 1989 to have City crews do the work, since the time delay by City crews is no longer an issue. Councilman Lemon asked why these situations were not brought out at the October 6th meeting, as Council had looked at and endorsed a situation of removing the mound of dirt and grading it, and now he is hearing that the original permit does not include that scope of work, when, in fact, he has been hearing that this work was to be done for the past year. Why wasn't the Department of Ecology informed of this situation prior to the meeting? The issue of permit revision and appeal could have been brought to the Council at that point, stating it is clear that he sees a deliberate delay. Attorney Knutson responded that based on his knowledge, the reason why the Council had the October 6th meeting, which this motion is intended to rescind the action of, was to expedite the request by Mr. Cronauer to get the work performed. He was not aware at that meeting that the work being proposed included removing the mound. The original permit applied for by Mr. Cronauer included removing the mound, ramping, and all the work that he has done to date. The permit, however, that is being discussed for revision is the City's permit, which was subsequently applied for after Mr. Cronauer's Shoreline Permit was rescinded. The City's permit was only to complete the Waterfront Trail work up to Francis Street, which included, as a condition, putting in six parking spaces, as added by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The question before the Council is if this motion is to be adopted, should the Shoreline Permit be revised to allow additional work and to what extent should the permit be revised. One of the questions referred to by Director Collins as part of that is, can the mound removal be within the scope of the City's Shoreline Permit to do the work on the Waterfront Trail. An additional concern, not addressed at this point, is that the removal of the mound was not necessary in order to do the shoreline work to complete the Waterfront Trail. By taking action to determine that removing the mound is within the scope of the City's permit, the Council would be precluding the City's ability to restore the environment at a later date, if it were determined that should be done. Councilman Lemon stated it was clear all throughout the meeting on the 6th that the mound was to be removed. Why was not this issue brought up at that point that it was not inclusive of the City's Shoreline Permit. Attorney Knutson responded that he was not sure at that point what the proposal was to be and that it was a reasonable condition to the action to clear this through the Department of Ecology to make sure that if DOE accepted it, then maybe it would be all right. However, he was doubtful at the time that DOE would accept it. Planning Director Collins pointed out that in the process, there are several people who have to make the decision as to whether or not this is within the scope and intent of the permit. Initially, it is the City's responsibility, acting as an agent of the State in the conduct of shoreline development, and at the meeting of October 6th, the opinion was formed that the work to be done on the Trail would be within the scope and intent of the permit. After the City makes its determination, that is appealable to the State Shoreline Hearings Board, which has the authority to make that supreme interpretation and they could make the decision to override the City's interpretation. This is the reason in checking further with the Department of Ecology, to see how they would view that interpretation. They suggested that the revision process is the more appropriate way for the City to proceed, rather than to administratively or Councilmanically, without the benefit of formally revising the permit, to accept that as within the scope and intent of the permit. It is the recommendation of staff to take the least likely appealable approach and leave the mound where it is. Councilman Sargent stated she was not in favor of revising the Shoreline Permit and the reason why the City was looking at allowing Mr. Cronauer to perform the work was because it was to be done before the City crews were able to perform it. The Council would be well advised to have the City crews perform the work; to leave the mound where it is; and to avoid any appeals. Manager Flodstrom pointed out any action, even by City crews, would require revising the Shoreline Permit. Councilman Hallett echoed Councilman Sargent's comments, and that is why he voted against this issue previously. He stated he would like to see this done in an orderly manner and questioned whether the City would be required to hold -8- 1452 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 1989 a public hearing to revise the Shoreline Permit. Attorney Knutson responded, no. Councilman Hallett asked if the City could hold a public hearing. Attorney Knutson stated yes. Councilman Hallett questioned whether the width of the Trail would be impacted by this work. Planning Director Collins stated the Trail would maintain its existing width with alternative two. Councilman Hallett questioned that in taking the least impact approach, does it still give the City the latitude and flexibility at a later time to further develop, to revise the Shoreline Permit through a hearing process. Director Collins stated yes, he believed so. Attorney Knutson clarified that DOE feels that the City should revise the permit, even for this reduced scope of work, just by indicating that this reduced scope of work is within the scope and intent of the original permit. Mayor McPhee stated in his opinion, the time frame was not that critical. He felt the primary reason was because the City could save approximately $5,000. The Council is being requested to not remove the dirt mound; however, the mound is an attractive nuisance. He believed if the mound was to remain where it is, it should have a fence around it, as its sides are very steep, and he was concerned about the potential for lawsuits. He was also concerned that steps were being put in which would not allow for wheelchair access. He expressed his concern regarding the motion to rescind the previous action, when the recommendation being made to the Council by staff and the memo of October 12th recommends that the City revise its Shoreline Permit. In his interpretation of WAC 173 -14 -064, Revisions to Permits, there was not anything that indicated that this was not within the scope and intent of the original permit. Council discussed with staff the possibility that the proposed work to be done would fall within the criteria to be met, most likely the suggestion of moving the dirt mound. There may be some substantial adverse environmental impact. Mayor McPhee asked what the adverse environmental impact would be. Director Collins explained in order to remove the dirt and to create a ramp, it would be necessary to build a slope, which would narrow the Trail slightly. City Engineer Kenworthy spoke to that issue, stating it would narrow the existing Trail around the railroad grade to approach about 10 feet. Manager Flodstrom addressed the issue, stating one flag that was raised was the concern of the Department of Ecology about the movement of dirt. They had no difficulty with the City amending the permit to recognize that we had intended to install parking spaces, pathways from those parking spaces to the Trail, and at the time of the proposal, the situation at Francis Street was significantly different than what it is now. DOE is now asking that the City provide more specifically the intention of putting in those parking spaces and the Trail. DOE would call that the amended permit. The Department of Ecology has not told the City that we cannot include the movement of the dirt. However, in speaking with Bruce Smith of DOE, it was his opinion that would be outside the scope and intent of the original permit. However, if the Council should decide to move forward on this issue, and move the dirt as part of thr revision of the permit, then the City may be subject to some type of challenge, either by DOE or by citizens wishing to challenge the amended permit. Councilman Hallett felt the simple thing for the Council to do would be to direct staff to do the scope of work as outlined, revising the plan possibly to a limited extent, which he would be in favor of; and to refrain from anything that would be subject to appeal until the opportunity has been presented to go through a public hearing process and proper due process. He asked if Council was to wait until a later date to move the dirt, would there be a waste of work. City Engineer Kenworthy stated the steps, gravel, and the temporary drainage would be lost because they would be covered by the dirt. Mayor McPhee asked Attorney Knutson if the City was not to proceed with this, even though there may be a savings of $5,000, and eliminate an attractive nuisance, and still be reasonably confident that DOE will agree with our interpretation of the scope and intent of the permit, and questioned whether the mound had been placed there or if it was there originally. He questioned how DOE could come to the conclusion that moving the dirt would be an adverse environmental impact. Attorney Knutson stated the Department of Ecology may -9- 1453 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 1989 take the view that by removing the mound, the City would be removing the last vestige of the original environment left since Mr. Cronauer started doing work, and by doing so, the City has in effect committed itself to never restoring the environment in the event that permission is not granted for the work that has already been done by Mr. Cronauer. It may be that the Department of Ecology would say it is impossible to restore the environment anyway; or that trying to restore it would do it more harm than what has already been done. He did not know the answers to those questions. Councilman Hordyk stated since he was not available at the October 6th meeting, he would be abstaining from voting on the issue. There had been some issues brought forth with which he had been unfamiliar. Following further discussion, it was pointed out that the mound had been in existence since the early 1900's. The question was called and the motion carried, with Councilman Hordyk abstaining and Councilman Lemon voting "No Councilman Hallett moved to revise the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, SMA- 88(6)88, per alternative two, showing a four -foot wide, stepped trail which does not remove the mound, with the finding that it was in the scope and intent of the original permit as passed by the City Council. Councilman Ostrowski seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Director Collins requested a point of clarification on whether the work was to be done by City crews. Councilman Hallett responded yes. 7. Consideration of AEreement for Burton Water Service Councilman Lemon moved to authorize the execution of a contract with the Burtons for water service outside the City limits by connecting to the City's main 20- inch transmission line, with the following provisions to be included in the contract: (1) The City will make no guarantees as to the volume and pressure to the Burton water service and the Burtons will release, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any claims related to the water service provided; (2) The Burtons will compensate the City for the connection to the 20" transmission line on a time and materials basis. (Since the connection will not be a standard service, the normal $450 fee will not apply. Instead, the Burtons will have to pay an estimated cost for the connection and the meter of $1,500 to $2,000); (3) In addition to a standard 3/4" by 5/8" meter, the city will install a back -flow prevention device at the meter, the cost (estimated to be $100) of which will be borne by the Burtons; (4) If the Burtons install a tank and pump to pressure the system, then the installation shall be inspected by the City's water utility personnel for proper water quality protection and the Burtons will grant such personnel access to the property to perform such inspections; (5) The Burtons will comply with all applicable City ordinance provisions, including the increased rates which apply to water service outside the City limits. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion. Councilman Lemon voiced his concern over the action taken by staff on this issue,,p.s he did not believe the direction he had given at the previous City Council meeting had been clearly understood; that this was an action which was determined by the Council at the onset and that if there were to be any changes, additions, or deletions, the issue be brought back before the Council, not to a committee of the Council. He stated he was appalledrat the letter being sent to the Burtons; the direction given to staff was to draft a contract which would, in effect, protect the City. It was not to negotiate to get the Burtons to connect to the 4 -1/2" private line. It had been previously noted that there is no pressure in that line. The only alternative left was to tap into the 20" transmission line and the Council said to give the Burtons service. Further stating, the reason for the contract was to protect the City for precedent setting reasons or future requests to tap the line. In the memo to the Council, staff makes reference to direct service connections to the main line reducing City control. He noted that the City's control is the meters and the contract. The integrity of the line can be strengthened because it is an iron clasping band that goes around the pipe. He believed this was a way for staff to go around Council's direction and he questioned the action. He also questioned other issues regarding the transmission line: Contracts in the past; connection with the 4" line; free taps in lieu of right -of -way. He also requested that any Councilmember who should vote against this motion state, for the record, their reason. And he would challenge anyone voting in opposition as an appearance of fairness, because the only reasons he could see for voting against the motion would be because direct service would reduce City control, which is not true, since through a contractual arrangement and meters there is control. -10- 1454 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 1989 In conclusion, he stated he did not appreciate that staff did not contact the Burtons until the day before the Council meeting, stating the City is a public servant, here to serve the public. Manager Flodstrom responded that Councilman Lemon's concerns were correct. He also believed the motion which has been made is the most appropriate action that should be taken at this point, particularly with the provisions as stated. He indicated that it was an inappropriate action of staff to not proceed with the connection, in light of the direction given by the Council. He did ask that any member of the Utility Advisory Committee who wished to speak to its recommendation speak now, to allow the balance of the Council to listen to their comments. Councilman Hordyk stated the issue that came before the UAC was on the agenda. Councilman Lemon had spoken to other municipalities authorizing this type of service, but he wondered whether the question was asked of those municipalities whether they had a basic policy of serving utilities outside their city. Councilman Hordyk's vote against the issue was because the procedure is to request annexation before serving utilities outside the City limits. That is the purpose of the City and the purpose of City limits: to serve the people inside the area. If the Council desired to change the basic policy it should do so by a vote and a public hearing. The policy remained that you not serve any utility outside the City limits. This is for the protection of the utilities and he maintained that the proper attitude on this issue is not a contract but annexation. Councilman Lemon noted there are many areas outside the City limits which are served by City water. Councilman Sargent said in spite of Councilman Hordyk's response, the Utility Advisory Committee is only an advisory committee to the Council and the Council did vote 4 to 2 to allow this water service. The Council had made the decision and the UAC was to advise the Council of conditions to stipulate in the contract. Councilman Hallett stated for the most part, he would concur with the comments made by Councilman Hordyk; that the Council had deliberated at length about the policy issue regarding utility service outside the City limits, and he believed that policy was a correct one. The Council should adhere to that policy to maintain planned and orderly growth. One issue the Council did not have the benefit of, which was brought forth at the UAC meeting and was discussed, was certain conditions and the instruction to staff was to research those conditions and return to the Council. In the absence of those conditions, the UAC felt that annexation or attachment to the existing 4" line was the preferred method, even though the majority of the Council had indicated otherwise. He did agree that the recommendation of the UAC was an advisory one and did not change the recommendation of the Council. There is now information provided for provisions on the 20" line which he felt comfortable with and in this situation, precedent has beep established in this area for service outside the City. He reiterated that the Council needs to look long and hard at their present policy. The Council and staff discussed some determining factors regarding the pressure amount and the transmission line, a check bell or anti siphoning device to be placed at the source of the line, and the conditions'*as outlined. Cecila Burton, 5045 West Mercer Way, Mercer Island, stated she felt that Councilman Lemon had sufficiently covered her concerns and if given a choice, it would be to not connect to the 4" line, specifically in light of some of the problems that the current users are having with the line. Velma Hopf, 2833 W. 14th, expressed her concern with having a tap into the private 4" line, as this was put in by the residents and paid for by the residents twenty years ago. She did not feel that the 4" line would handle another tap and felt that the solution is to put the tap on the 20" transmission line. Lars Gustafson, 76 Doyle Road, verified the comments made by Mrs. Hoff, also stating that the pressure has been reduced in that line as time goes by. The question was called and the motion carried, with Mayor McPhee and Councilman Hordyk voting in opposition. 8. Consideration of L.I.F.T. Home Contract with Clallam County 1455 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 1989 Councilman Hordyk moved to authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Clallam County for the L.I.F.T. Home Program. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion. Councilman Sargent offered a friendly amendment that the Council write a letter encouraging the formation of a citizen's committee as suggested by George Pettit to find a solution to this problem which does not use public money. Councilmen dyk mon in� ,th amended motiop carried WiJL 9. Report from Real Estate Committee Setting Minimum Bid Amount for Fine Art Center Surplus Property Mayor McPhee stated that he had spoken with the County Assessor regarding this issue and he had been advised that this property had not been appraised since 1984, as it had been placed on the tax exempt roll. The Assessor had reviewed the property and agreed that the lots were worth approximately $1,000 more than the minimum bid amount. Councilman Sargent stated that the Real Estate Committee has considered this issue and the decision was that the minimum bid of $25,200 is a fair and equitable amount. Part of the property is located on a hillside and it will require two lots for the development of one house. Councilman Hordyk also noted that it would require two retaining walls on the property. Councilman Sargent moved to set the minimum bid amount for the surplus lots 15 and 16 of Block 211, at $25,200. Councilman Hordyk seconded the motion. Mayor McPhee asked Attorney Knutson if the Council is aware that the property is worth more than the minimum bid, are they in fact violating the Webster Trust by allowing the marketplace to determine the value of the property through the sealed bid process. Attorney Knutson stated that there would be no violation as long as the City provided adequate notice, so that it could not be argued that the marketplace was not being given an adequate chance to determine the value. Councilman Sargent added that the Trustees of the Esther Webster property are comfortable with the $25,200 figure, and in the process of selling the surplus lots and purchasing the lots in the Fine Art Center proximity, the City will no doubt be making a profit and the money will be put into the Trust Fund. The motion was voted upon and carried unanimously. 10. Consideration of Amendine Real Estate Contract with Cissel (Valley Street Property) Councilman Sargent noted that the circumstances have changed regarding this property; that there is a possibility that the property will be sold and the Cissels,have requested this item be removed from the agenda. 11. Consideration of Construction Code Ordinance Adopting and Amending Uniform Construction Related Codes Attorney Knutson noted for the 5, Section .090, subsection D, sentence, "Filing fee shall be 338 -1, replace with "and and Cable only). Mayor McPhee read the Ordinance by title, entitled Council revisions made to the Ordinance on Page Filing of Appeals, to add, following the final $75. page 21, section .150, to strike Article insert after Article 338 -2, in parentheses (SE -12- 1456 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 1989 ORDINANCE NO. 2552 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles providing for the adoption, administration, and enforcement of the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, and other related Codes, and the 1987 Edition of the National Electrical Code; repealing Section 14.26.050, and Chapters 14.04, 14.12, and 14.20 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code, and all other ordinances in conflict herewith, recodifying Chapters 8.20 and 14.08 PAMC and PAMC 14.04.060 and adding new Chapters 14.01, 14.03, 14.05, and 14.21 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. Councilman Lemon moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title, including the revisions as noted, and to publish by summary. Councilman Hordyk seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 12. Consideration of Adoption of the City /County Hazardous Materials Response Plan Mayor McPhee read the Resolution by title, entitled RESOLUTION NO. 28 -89 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Port Angeles adopting the Joint City /County Hazardous Materials Response Plan. Councilman Hordyk moved to pass the Resolution as read by title. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion. Councilman Hordyk thanked the Fire Department for making the arrangements for his attendance at the Emergency Management Institute in Maryland. He felt it was important that the implementation of the Response Plan be approved by the City, as there is nothing that can cause problems more quickly than chaos in administration and chaos in communication; because without good communication and administration the job would not get done. Captain Bob Hamlim, Clallam County Emergency Services Director, responded to some questions asked by Councilman Hallett regarding the process which took place to accomplish the sub element of the Master Plan; stating this particular issue is an outgrowth of a Federal mandate and there are activities scheduled in the spring of 1990 for the implementation of this plan. Ed Bonollo, Port Angeles Fire Department, gave the Council a brief chronology leading.up to the drafting of the Hazardous Materials Response Plan. Councilman Sargent commended the Committee on a job well done. Mayor McPhee asked if martial law were declared, by wlose authority would City vehicles be used if the Mayor were unavailable. Manager Flodstrom stated the Plan designates the City Manager in the absence of the Mayor. Mr. Hamlin stated in the State law there is a statute called the Succession of Powers Act, which is identified in the Master Plan. The motion was voted on and carried unanimously. Councilman Sargent moved to continue with the items on the Agenda, as it was past 10:00 P.M. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 13. Consideration of BPA /City Monitoring Program Grant Energy Uses in City Buildings Councilman Hallett moved to authorize the City Light Director to execute the BPA Financial Assistance Award and subsequent contractual documents related to its administration. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. -13- 14. Certification of 1990 Property Taxes 1457 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 1989 Councilman Hordyk moved that the Council authorize the total tax levy of $2,003,430, and authorize the Mayor to sign the appropriate certification. Councilman Sargent seconded the motion. Councilman Lemon asked why the current levels were not reinstated. By not increasing the tax levy, he felt a positive message could be sent to the taxpayers. Director of Administrative Services Wolfe responded that the special levy reflects the 1987 GO bonds, which varies from year to year, based upon the amount of debt service incurred during the year. Councilman Sargent requested that Manager Flodstrom elaborate on the benefits received from annexation and new construction. Manager Flodstrom responded the Council has the ability in setting the property tax rate to be collected in a number of ways. (1) Collect the amount of tax previously collected and setting the levy rate up or down; (2) Hold the levy and rate constant (which is the staff's recommendation) which would generate additional taxes because it is levied against a larger total assessed valuation of the community. The assessed valuation of the community has risen because of new construction or properties which were annexed within the last two years, which are now being added to the City's tax rolls. Applying the same levy rate as in previous amounts to allow larger assessed valuation, generates the same amount of money but the average taxpayer does not receive an increase in taxes because the levy rate is the same. The third method would be to levy the maximum levy limit, which is $3.10 per $1,000 assessed valuation. Manager Flodstrom stated the Council is discussing a relatively small amount of money and any of the options could be pursued, but staff had felt the option which seemed to be the most consistent with past practices was to leave the levy rate at the same level. Mayor McPhee agreed with the issues brought forth by Councilman Lemon and said although the money was not a significant amount, the Council has stated a Goal of financial prudence and this would allow the Council to re- affirm that Goal and reconfirm things the Council had said when they first met financial caution and as a result of that, he would be voting in opposition to the motion. Councilman Hordyk stated the reason he had made the motion was the City would be staying at the same rate as last year; that the new construction being imposed on the City will have to pay its share of Police and Fire protection, and administration of the City through the tax; that it is staying at the same rate, it is not being changed. Councilman Hallett felt the message the Council should send is to keep the rate constant and that new construction pays the same rate as existing construction. The City will not lose money in maintaining the status quo any more than increasing the rate. This would demonstrate a fiscal, sound, conservative approach in keeping the rate constant. The motion was voted on and carried, with Councilmen Lemon and Gabriel and Mayor McPhee voting "No 15. Proclamation VENTURE WEEK October 15 through 21. 1989 Mayor McPhee proclaimed the week of October 15 through 21, 1989, as Venture Week. 16. Proclamation RED RIBBON WEEK October 22 -29. 1989 (DRUG FREE LIFESTYLE CAMPAIGN) Mayor McPhee proclaimed the week of October 22 through 29, 1989, as Red Ribbon Week Drug -Free Lifestyle Campaign. 1458 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 1989 17. Request to Set Utility Advisory Committee (UAC) Meeting to Discuss: Storm Plan Update: Landfill Update: and Secondary Update Week of October 23rd A Utility Advisory Committee meeting was set for October 23, 1989, at 8:30 A.M. in City Hall. 18. Beginning the Search for New City Manager Mayor McPhee Mayor McPhee stated he has offered as a suggestion to the Council that a committee be formed to begin the search for a new City Manager. It was his suggestion that three Councilmembers who are not up for re- election (Councilmen Gabriel, Lemon, and Sargent) meet to formulate and advocate a process to be followed, and he asked if there were any comments from the Councilmembers. Councilman Hordyk asked whether it would be appropriate to authorize advertisement at this point. Mayor McPhee responded it was his suggestion that Councilmen Gabriel, Lemon, and Sargent meet to discuss the issue and then to formulate the appropriate action. Councilman Hordyk explained that it may be the appropriate time to advertise for the position to collect applications and beginning November 1st, to review those applications. Councilman Sargent felt it would be appropriate to review the qualifications and job description prior to any action. Following further discussion, Councilman Hallett moved to direct the City Manager to bring to the Council or distribute to the Council the existing job description, asking the Manager to sketch out what he perceives as the duties and responsibilities of the Council, and at the November 7th City Council meeting to formalize a committee to begin the process. Councilman Ostrowski seconded the motion. Councilman Lemon was opposed to the motion, as he did not believe it would take two weeks to form a sub committee. The motion was voted upon and failed, with Councilmen Gabriel, Hordyk, Lemon, and Mayor McPhee voting "No and Councilmen Hallett, Ostrowski, and Sargent voting "Aye Councilman Lemon moved that Councilmen Gabriel, Lemon, and Hallett collect the necessary information on the job description of the City Manager and other pertinent information, to review the information, and on October 23rd or 24th, to meet with the City Manager to formulate an advertisement for the position. Councilman Gabriel seconded the motion. Councilman Hallett stated he would be out of town on those dates. Councilman Lemon substituted Councilman Hordyk. Councilman Sargent felt that the committee should consist of Councilmembers who have been legally elected by the voters to the Council. Mayor McPhee pointed out that the meeting would only be to get an ad started for the position, as this is a lengthy process. Councilman Hallett felt this was one of the more important decisions that the Council would be making and he did not feel there was any urgency that the Council take action on this issue within the next two or three weeks. The question was called and the motion carried, with Councilmen Hallett, Sargent, and Ostrowski voting "No 20. Consideration of Resolution Port Angeles Family Assistance Program Councilman Hallett stated he had been in attendance at a meeting, together with Councilman Sargent, earlier in the day regarding the Port Angeles Family Assistance Program and the Family Independence Program, together with other programs dealing with public assistance. He requested the Council pass the Resolution to enable them to go on record in support of the concept, to indicate the willingness to help and to encourage legislators to also support the program. -15- Mayor McPhee read the Resolution by title, entitled Councilman Sargent noted she has been aware of the Program since its inception. It is a pilot program in Port Angeles and it is a way of getting people off the welfare system by providing day care and medical benefits. She felt this was an excellent Program and urged the Council to pass the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 29 -89 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, expressing its support for the concept of the mission statement of the Port Angeles Family Assistance Program. 1459 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 1989 Councilman Hallett moved to pass the Resolution as read by title. Councilman Sargent seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 21. Mediation of Oak Street Property EDC Manager Flodstrom stated he had received in the mail a letter from the Clallam County Economic Development Council in which the EDC has agreed to facilitate the mediation process on the Front and Oak Street property by bringing interested parties together, hiring a mediator, and coordinating funding for the mediation. The letter is a request for funding for assistance in the mediation, for approximately $2,000 to $2,500, and he stated these moneys would come from the General Fund if the request is approved. Councilman Hallett asked if the funding is approved, what would the Council be agreeing to, and is the Council being bound by the outcome of the mediation process. Manager Flodstrom replied that mediation is not a binding process and the purpose of the mediation is to assist the Port of Po!t Angeles with °decisions on the amendment of the Port's Comprehensive Plan and the adoption of the Harbor Resource Management Plan. Two documents could be affected by the outcome: the Harbor Resource Management Plan in a form that would be acceptable to the Port of Port Angeles; and the Port's Comprehensive Plan. The results of the mediation would not be binding on the City of Port Angeles and will not override the City's Comprehensive Plan or the City's Zoning Regulations, nor potential changes to those regulations. Councilman Hallett, in speaking to the issue, felt this was a Port issue regarding the Port's position on its Comprehensive Plan and its land use; that the mediation ought to be from among the Port and other parties. If the City should need assistance to make a decision, then the City should enter into its own mediation. Manager Flodstrom stated that one of the final elements of this is the finalization of the Harbor Resource Management Plan. Councilman Sargent requested that Attorney Knutson give his opinion on the City participating in the mediation process, and is the City putting itself at risk if it should come to a rezone request. Attorney Knutson responded that the Council was not putting itself in jeopardy by spending the money for the mediation. However, the letter refers to an interview process which would go along with the mediation. There the City would run the risk, which occurs whether the request is approved or not, of City Councilmen or Planning Commission members being interviewed. They should be aware of the expression of pre judgment concern that could raise the appearance of fairness doctrine. Councilman Hordyk expressed his opinion that the City is sitting on a very valuable piece of property and he felt the City should stay out of this process. Mayor McPhee concurred. Councilman Sargent felt if the City was not to be represented in the mediation and we fund the request, then it would be similar to taxation without representation. She felt the Council should stay out of the issue. -16- 1460 CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 1989 Councilman Hallett stated he has no problem with the concept of mediation, but he did not believe it was the City's responsibility to pay. Councilman Hallett moved to support the concept of mediation. There being no second, the motion died. Manager Flodstrom asked if the mediation process should proceed and if there is an invitation to the City to participate in the process, does the Council also wish to refrain from participation, either on the part of the Council, Planning Commission, or staff. Mayor McPhee felt it would be acceptable for staff to participate. IX CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /LATE ITEMS Councilman Sargent pointed out Item 16 on the Information Agenda, a letter from the City Centennial /100th Birthday Committee, regarding the memorial wall in the atrium mall at City Hall. She felt the Centennial Celebration would be an appropriate time to unveil plaques which may be placed on the wall. Some of the names which could be considered for placement are Charles Willson, Esther Webster, and William Shore. X ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION None. XI ADJOURNMENT Councilman Gabriel moved to adjourn the meeting at 11 :03 P.M. Councilman Lemon seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES ON OCTOBER 17, 1989. ORDINANCE NO. 2552 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles providing for the adoption, administration, and enforcement of the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Building Code and other related Codes and the 1987 Edition of the National Electrical Code, repealing Section 14.26.050 and Chapters 14.04., 14.12, and 14.20 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code and all other ordinances in conflict herewith, recodifying Chapters 8.20 and 14.08 PAMC and PAMC 14.04.060, and adding new Chapters 14.01, 14.03, 14.05, and 14.21 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. Ordinance No. 2552 adopts the current editions of the construction related codes that the City is required to adopt by State law and a few more restrictive amendments that the City is authorized by State law to enact. A standard $500 civil fine is established for violations. Appeals related to administration and interpretation of the construction codes are heard by the Construction Code Board of Appeals. Permit fees are established. This ordinance shall take effect five days after the date of publication. The full text of said ordinance will be mailed upon request. Michelle M. Maike, City Clerk Pub. Oct. 20, 1989. -17- Mayor AN ORDINANCE of the D C f ty of Port Angeles amending Section CC i 07 17.32.040 of Ordinance No. 2329 to add agricultural uses as conditional uses in the Light Industrial District. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES DOES ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Section 17.32.040 of Ordinance No. 2329 is hereby amended as follows: Section 17. 32. OP Cgpd(ti nal lisps. A. Energy Generating Facilities. 8. Licensed wrecking yard. C. Petroleum products storage and distribution yards, not including oil, liquified petroleum, or natural gas regulated by EFSEC, which are hereby prohibited. D. Processing of food produdts, such as meat, fruit, vegetable, seafood, beverages, vegetable oils, and dairy products: E. Veterinary clinics, offices, and kennels. F. Manufacture of specialized small mechanical parts, tools, die- casting, bearings, patterns, and other similar products, welding shops, and machine shops. G. Other industrial uses which comply with the purpose of this District. H. Agricultural uses, defined as commercial farming and animal u� nory. on 2. This ordinance shall be effective five days after the a e ot publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeres at a regular nieeting of said Council held on the 17th day 01 October, 1989. ATTEST: Michelle M. Maike, City Clerk Frank McPhee, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney Pub.: Oct. 20, 1989