Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/01/1988I CALL TO ORDER SPECIAL MEETING Mayor McPhee called the special meeting of the City Council to order at 5:37 P.M. The purpose of this special meeting was to interview candidates for the Revolving Loan Fund Review Board. II INTERVIEWS WITH CANDIDATES FOR REVOLVING LOAN FUND REVIEW BOARD Council interviewed the following candidates for the Citizen At Large position: Louise Meyer, Dennis Otterstetter, and Ellie McCormick. For the Bank Loan Officer position: Bing Uylangco, Bob Perry, and Murray Gwynn. Council set a special meeting of November 15, 1988, at 6:30 P.M. to inter- view candidates for the Realtor /Broker position. Mayor McPhee adjourned the special meeting at 6:43 P.M. III CALL TO ORDER REGULAR MEETING Mayor McPhee called the regular meeting of the City Council to order at 7:03 P.M. IV PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Teresa Zappey's 4th Grade Adventure Group (Campfire Girls); members Priscilla Morganroth, Laura Latson, Shira Kelly, Wendi Pickett, Jennifer Zappey, Crystal McConnackie, and Anna Lisa Ritchie. V ROLL CALL Members Present: Mayor McPhee, Councilmen Gabriel, Hordyk, Lemon, Sargent, Stamon. Members Absent: Staff Present: Public Present: CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington November 1, 1988 Councilman Hallett. 1185 Manager Flodstrom, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Maike, P. Carr, M. Cleland, R. Orton, S. Brodhun, L. Glenn, J. Pittis, D. Wolfe, T. Smith, G. Kenworthy, S. Dryke, B. Johnson, K. Niemi, R. Dickinson, L. Danks, S. Kenyon, S. Hursh, B. Becker. J. Fairchild, L. Brouillard, D. Willson, J. VanOss, C. McKaw, B. Prentiss, M. Langley, L. VanBrocklin, J. Austin, R. French, A. I. Nelson, H. J. McLean, B. Burnham, J. Page, R. Doyle, L. Torres, H. Jagger, M. Horstman, W. Quast, C. Alexander, K. A. Langley, H. Berglund, K. Rose, C. Kase, C. Gay, V. Bingham, M. Downing, A. Fredrickson, P. ronauer, M. Merrick, N. Klanees, K. B. Pickett, D. P. Brewer, B. C. Knebes, L. Fuller, L. T. Beil. VI APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 18. 1988, Councilman Gabriel moved to accept and place on file the minutes of the October 18, 1988, regular City Council meeting. Councilman Hordyk seconded. Councilman Stamon offered corrections to page 10, adding a sentence to the end of the first paragraph, to read: "Councilman Stamon stated for the record that the opinions expressed in the letter were not her opinions: that she had merely read the letter into the record." On page 19, paragraph 5, the paragraph reading "After some discussion of the motion and vote she felt it should more accurately read: "After some confusion about the motion and vote On page 26, last paragraph above Item 5, third line, striking the words "Planning Commission" and replacing them with "Council -1- 1186 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 1988 Mayor McPhee commented on the length of the minutes as he felt they may be more detailed than need be. He asked Council for their opinions. Councilman Stamon stated she felt Clerk Maike was trying to convey an accurate account of what had happened during the meeting. Councilman Hordyk stated the detail of the meeting could be expressed in the tapes. Mayor McPhee requested that Manager Flodstrom consider reduction of the minutes. Councilman Gabriel stated since this was public information, he was not in favor of the reduction of the minutes. Councilman Stamon stated if the minutes are done in such a way that they are so concise, it may be that the public will not get the true flavor of what happened at the meetings. She also stated tapes do degenerate with age. Mayor McPhee replied it was not his intention to record only motions and seconds, and he gave examples of some lengthy issues he felt were not necessary. Mayor McPhee asked that Manager Flodstrom discuss the matter with the City Clerk. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously, with Councilman Sargent abstaining, as she was not present at the meeting. VII FINANCE 1. Consideration of Bid Award for Automated Meter Reading System Councilman Gabriel moved to concur with the recommendation to reject the Syscon bid based on major specification exceptions contained within the proposal, and award the bid for automated meter reading to the lowest responsible bidder, Radix, in the amount of $16,060. Councilman Sargent seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 2. Reouest for Progress Payment for Golf Course Proiect Road Proiect to Lakeside Industries of S107.672.29 Councilman Stamon moved to authorize progress payment for the Golf Course Road project to Lakeside Industries in the amount of $107,672.29. Council- man Sargent seconded. Following lengthy discussion of the change orders, the increase in the cost, and some of the problems cited in the staff memo, the question was called and the motion carried, with Mayor McPhee voting "No 3. .Consideration of Bid Award on Race Street Signals at First and Front Councilman Lemon moved to reject the bid and authorize the Public Works Department to rebid the project in the spring of 1989. Councilman Sargent seconded. Councilman Stamon offered a friendly amendment to state the reason for the rejection of the bid. The project was 24% over the estimate, and also that Lakeside Industries is not considered a responsive bidder under the project specifications because the contractor's own organization will not be able to complete 40% of the contract items. Councilman Lemon concurred. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. VIII CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Sargent moved to accept the items on the Consent Agenda, includ- ing (1) Correspondence from the Washington State Liquor Control Board; (2) Vouchers of $1,520,834.83; and (3) Payroll of 10 -16 -88 of $231,105.36. Councilman Gabriel seconded and the motion carried unanimously. IX ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA Jewell VanOss, 1019 East Fourth Street, requested that Council hold a public hearing on the Cronauer Shoreline Permit, as the Soroptomists Jet Set, whom she is representing, has new information which was not brought forth in the Planning Commission hearing and she urged that Council give further consid- eration to the issue. Mayor McPhee asked Attorney Knutson if this group had contacted him with the information. Attorney Knutson stated the group had submitted a package of information relating to this matter. He had looked at the packet and it was his decision that the information contained therein went to the merits of the decision of the Planning Commission, recommending the approval of the application, and it was improper to forward the information to the City Council. At this time, the City Council is in the process of making a decision based upon the input that was received by the Planning Commission and unless the Council decided to hold a public hearing, it would be inappropriate for Council to take any further public input. Mayor McPhee stated the group feared the Waterfront Trail grant may be in jeopardy. Councilman Stamon requested a point of order, asking if Council is looking at making a decision based on the record, is it appropriate to be discussing new information, as it is not a part of the record. Mayor McPhee stated Councilman Stamon's point of order was not well taken. Councilman Stamon appealed the point of order to the Council. 1187 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1 1988 Mayor McPhee asked Council if they felt this was an appropriate point of order. It was the decision of the Council to uphold Councilman Stamon's point of order. Attorney Knutson stated there is a very fine line between a request of the Council to hold a public hearings and one to express reasons for holding the public hearing. Council then gets close to the point of re- addressing the issues that may have been discussed before the Planning Commission, or that could have been. If there is new information, it is not necessarily something the Council needs to hold a public hearing to consider. Ms. VanOss stated the Committee would have been happy to provide the information at the Planning Commission hearing had they had the oppor- tunity. However, the objection arose after the close of the public hearing when the conditions were placed upon the shoreline permit. Council decided to discuss this matter further during the Planning Commis- sion minutes. Lewis Sample, 732 Caroline, equated this issue with the giving up of the Agate- Crescent Beach property. 011ie Nelson, 1564 Walnut Drive, San Jose, California 95125, spoke at length regarding the Gund Plaza proposal and the removal of the buffer zone around the area of his property. He was opposed to the removal of the buffer zone and expressed concern that property owners were not contacted prior to the zoning change. He stated he had a petition with 50 people's names requesting the buffer zone be reinstated. He further requested Council to place this item on a future meeting agenda. Planner Carr stated that on November 4, 1986, the matter of the buffer came before the Council at the request of the applicant to change the buffer requirements because of the change in the proposal. The previous proposal was to build a commercial shopping center; however, this was changed to a residential multi family development. At that time, the Planning Commission heard the recommendation made by staff, and approved the recommendation to reduce the buffer zone. The matter was then brought before the Council and approved. -3- 1188 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 1988 After further discussion between Council and staff, Mayor McPhee asked Attorney Knutson whether or not this was a moot point. Attorney Knutson stated probably, unless there was some way to convince the developer to make some changes on his own. At this time it would be very difficult for the City to force him to do that. Councilman Sargent voiced her concern over the posting procedures. Planner Carr stated the Planning Department followed the standard posting proce- dures. Councilman Stamon stated she had recalled spending close to two hours on this matter and it was the decision of the Council two years ago to give approval. She felt the conclusions Council made at that time were the most equitable settlement. Mr. Nelson stated he would settle for a 25 -foot buffer zone. It was Councilman Stamon's feeling that Council should act upon Mr. Nelson's request, whether that meant placing it on the agenda for discussion or confirming the earlier action of the Council. Ann Mattson, 811 Caroline, stated she would like to have Council refer the Cronauer Shoreline Management Permit back to the Planning Commission because Mr. Cronauer had completely ignored ecological standards. Richard Page, 918 South "G" Street, requested that he be allowed to speak on the Gund Plaza issue. Hattie Berglund, 1834 West Seventh Street, requested Council give her the opportunity to speak on Item 11, having to do with the accessibility of executive session tapes. Louis Torres, of Olympic Planning Development, representing Mr. Cronauer, requested Council act upon the Cronauer matter regarding the Shoreline Management permit. Joe Melton, 1503 West Seventh Street, also requested Council address the Cronauer Shoreline permit. He also suggested Council install an easel in the Council Chambers for future meetings. Patrick Downie, representing George Gund, property owner of Gund Plaza and Parkview Villas at Gund Plaza, respectfully requested Mayor McPhee imme- diately consider honoring the commitments made, stating the issue on Gund Plaza has been before the Planning Commission and the Council for several years. Gund Plaza has been given approvals and has invested a considerable amount of money. Mr. Downie stated he felt there was adequate and careful notification that has been followed by the City staff in regard to this matte/ He stated it was time to move the project forward. Mr. Nelson again addressed the Council, stating he was not opposed to Gund Plaza but only wished that a buffer zone be provided. Councilman Stamon moved to leave the Gund Plaza matter as it is and to allow the project to proceed. Councilman Hordyk seconded. Councilman Hordyk asked if Mr. Downie might negotiate some solutions with Mr. Nelson and the neighbors in regard to this matter. Councilman Stamon stated she was not unsympathetic toward Mr. Nelson and some of the citizens who had spoken; only that this matter has been addressed adequately in the past. Helene Jagger, 824 -1/2 South "C" Street, spoke in opposition to the Gund Plaza matter. She was in favor of providing a buffer zone, as she did not feel this was fair to the neighborhood, but stated they would settle for a smaller buffer. Richard Page, 918 South "G" Street, replied that the issue of the alley was different from what he had previously heard, as the original drawings had -4- 1189 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 1988 shown the alley going all the way through the property. He also expressed concern about the increase in traffic on Tenth Street and also on "G" Street. Councilman Stamon pointed out there had been discussion about what type of mitigation measures would have been required if the area were zoned resi- dential multi family. The answer was there would be no buffering required. However, she asked Mr. Downie to respond for the record if he would be willing to work with the abutting property owners to mitigate the problem. Mr. Downie addressed the points raised during the discussion, stating there has not been nor will there ever be any intention of the Gund Plaza develop- ment team to extend the alley all the way through from "G" Street to "I" Street. Secondly, the site plan suggests ten carport /garage combinations, and lastly, it has always been the intent of the corporation to be as courteous and responsive to neighborhood concerns; however, they would do the best they could within the constraints they have. Irene Nelson asked why the neighbors could not have their buffer zone, as she felt the Gund Plaza development team should stand by their commitment to provide that buffer zone. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Stamon requested that Planner Carr report back to Council with the final outcome. Mayor McPhee asked if Council would consider moving Item 11 to between Items 7 and 8 on the Agenda. Councilman Sargent stated in view of Councilman Hallett's letter to the Council, asking that if any action was to be taken on Items 11 and 13, they would defer them to the November 15th meeting. She felt Council should honor his request and moved Council continue those items to the November 15th meeting. Councilman Stamon seconded. Mayor McPhee stated he was opposed, as these are old issues on which Councilman Hallett has expressed his opinions. Councilman Stamon replied this is a courtesy to a member of the Council who has asked to be present when these matters are to be discussed. Councilman Sargent stated if she were the person in question, she hoped this courtesy would be extended to her. On call for the question, the motion failed with Stamon voting "Aye" and Councilmen Gabriel, Hordyk, voting "No Councilman Stamon entered her protest for the record, absolute discourtesy to a member of the Council who ability to be present to discuss this matter. Councilman Lemon moved to place Items 11 and 13 following Item 7 on the Agenda. Councilman Hordyk seconded. Councilman Stamon noted that this would place those two items before Vance Bingham's Agenda item. She felt this was a discourtesy. On call for the question, the motion failed, with Councilmen Lemon, Hordyk and Mayor McPhee voting "Aye" and Councilmen Gabriel, Sargent and Stamon voting "No X LEGISLATION -5- 1. Proclamation DeclarinE Second National City Week Councilmen Sargent and Lemon and Mayor McPhee as she felt this is an has asked to have the Councilman Stamon stated because of the length of the Proclamation, and because it is past 9:00, she moved to adopt by title the Proclamation proclaiming Second National City Week beginning November 24th, 1988. 1190 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 1988 Councilman Sargent seconded. On call for the question, the motion failed, with Councilmen Sargent and Stamon voting "Aye and Councilmen Lemon, Gabriel, Hordyk and Mayor McPhee voting "No Mayor McPhee proclaimed the week of November 24, 1988, as Second National City Week. 2. Public Hearings A. Street Vacation Request STV- 88(7)6 Cronauer /Whitman Portion of Caroline Councilman Gabriel moved to continue this matter until the November 15, 1988, City Council meeting. Councilman Sargent seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Stamon noted for the record that this is a street vacation request and not the shoreline application. B. Rezone Request RZ- 88(8)2 Austin Railroad Avenue Mayor McPhee opened the public hearing at 8:59 P.M. Craig Miller, 403 South Peabody Street, Attorney for Gerald Austin, stated he felt there were problems in the Planning Commission report, those being the necessity to develop an adequate access, and the location of the prop- erty on the shoreline, of which Mr. Austin is well aware. However, Mr. Miller felt those problems are specifically related to an application for a particular project and not complications which should enter into the appli- cation of a rezone. The question should be whether or not the property is properly zoned and whether a rezone to a different zoning designation is appropriate for the property from Light Industrial to Central Business District. Liz VanBrocklin spoke in support of the zoning change and urged Council to approve the rezone to Central Business District. Gerald Austin, 1305 East First Street, presented Council with a hand -out on the visualization of the property and three reports of title pertaining to Railroad Avenue. Mr. Austin stated the Planning Commission minutes did not reflect his comments. He contested the findings of the Planning Commission on the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the two acres of tidelands included in the rezone is a compatible use with the Central Business District. Mr. Austin stated this is the last corner of the Downtown; that it was all hard beach and the fill was placed in 1950. At that time the City had a storm drain which ran down the beach and the opening became plugged; the water accumulated behind the fill. He stated they have the highest and best use, which would be a residential use, as this is an isolated property which is buffered on all sides. Mr. Austin gave a brief over -view of the history of the property regarding the accessibiity, the lawsuit he engaged in with Bayshore over the access through their property, and he asked that Council cooperate with him. He stated he is in favor of the Waterfront Trail; that it can be designed with his property. Councilman Lemon requested that Mr. Austin elaborate on his concerns regarding the lagoon area. Mr. Austin stated the Red Lion has a 6 -inch drain which drains about 4.8 acres into Peabody Street, with the accumulation of water into the lagoon area over a year's time being about 3,000,000 gallons. The main source of the water is from the Red Lion and a City drain located in the area. He has been working with the City on the drainage and has offered to pay half the cost to run the water to the outside. Councilman Lemon asked Planner Carr if the lagoon is not naturally fed, is it still considered a wetlands area? Planner Carr stated this is a wetland under the Shoreline Management Act classification. Mayor McPhee asked if the fact that it was a wetland was relevant to the zoning. Planner Carr stated zoning does look at physical characteristics of the property in addition to its location in relationship to other prop- erties. -6- 1191 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1 1988 Mayor McPhee asked Mr. Austin how he would access the property. Mr. Austin stated Railroad Avenue is a 70 -foot right -of -way that lies in front of the Red Lion Motel. Mayor McPhee asked Attorney Knutson if he should be considering the cost to the city in widening the access to the property in order to have a safe Trail. Attorney Knutson stated he should not be, as the Council is acting in a regulatory capacity of deciding what is an appropriate land use. Councilman Sargent expressed her concern with the traffic and the impact on the property if Railroad Avenue was in fact widened to make a private drive. She did not believe there was enough room for that type of activity. William Knebes, 401 East Front Street, stated the problem he has with the application is that there was not enough information supplied. Not only was this a leap -frog in terms of zoning, but he felt a better term would be spot zoning as there is no contiguous zoning that has this classification. He also stated accessibility was a major problem; additionally, the issue before the Council is are there circumstances which justify a change from the existing zoning classification; and he asked that Council deny the rezone. Doris Willson, 3022 South Laurel Street, questioned the possibility of having a 70 -foot wide access and the Waterfront Trail in front of the Red Lion Inn. In the public interest she questioned this and hoped that Council would consider this issue carefully. Gloria Timm, 406 East Front Street, recommended that Council go along with the Planning Commission to refuse the zoning change. She stated the reason was Mr. Austin wants to put in condominiums with no height restriction. This would impact the view of all the people living behind him. Thelma Hetrick, 405 East Front Street, voiced her concerns about the stability of her home, the integrity of the bank, and the destruction of valuable wetlands, as well as the effect the development would have on her property value. Jean Fairchild, 217 North Laurel, reminded Council that the CBD is within the Parking and Business Improvement Area. She was concerned as to the cost which would impact the Port Angeles Downtown Association. She also could not believe that Council would allow a spot zone. Manager Flodstrom read for the record a letter submitted by Dana Seibel. In the letter, Mrs. Seibel stated she feels that limiting the site for indus- trial would be a tragic waste and a gross misdemeanor for Mr. Austin and the City of Port Angeles. Joe Melton, 1503 West Seventh Street, stated the rezone would not create a project but only makes it easier for the ability to get one started. He felt the rezone was in order, as Light Industrial was not the proper classi- fication for the area. Craig Miller again addressed the Council to comment on some of the points which had been raised. He felt the property may not have been properly zoned Light Industrial to begin with; however, there have been changes in circumstances which can be pointed to which justify the change in classi- fication. The most obvious is the construction of the Red Lion Motel immediately adjacent to the property and that, in and of itself, is sufficient to justify the rezone of the property. In regard to the comments made about spot zoning, he did not feel this definition applied. Carol Knebes, 401 East Front Street, stated the piece of property is an extremely fragile piece of land that maintains a bird life and some wildlife habitat which she felt is totally compatible with staff recommendation to make that an open wetlands area which would also be of high interest to people walking along the Waterfront Trail. Werner Quast, 3800 Park Knoll Drive, stated it was his understanding the reason why the property was zoned Light Industrial originally was because the construction of the Motel could be done cheaper because the building regulations were less stringent within an LI zone; but CBD with the Motel would have been much more costly. He stated this was somewhat of a "sweet- -7- 1192 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 1988 heart" deal concocted at that time. Therefore, it was obvious to him that the Red Lion would oppose the CBD Zone. He felt that the request of Mr. Austin to rezone to CBD was a correct one. Mr. Austin again addressed Council, pointing out the CBD does allow marinas in the Zone; therefore, he felt this was a compatible use. Mayor McPhee then closed the public hearing at 9:50 P.M. Following discussion of some of the points raised during the public hearing between Council and staff, Councilman Hordyk moved to deny the rezone as recommended by the Planning Commission, citing the following findings: The rezone would be contrary to Land Use Objectives Nos. 1, 3 and 7; Open Space Policies Nos. 2, 3, and 4; Circulation policies Nos. 5, 7; and Commercial Policies Nos. 1 and 3. This is because the property is severely limited by topographical, geological and environmental constraints which include steep slope, State Shoreline Management Act classification of a Wetland and a Shoreline of State -wide significance, Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program classification of a Marsh /Bog area on the property, and access limitations due to topography and other environmental constraints; and further because it was a spot zone. Councilman Gabriel seconded. Councilman Lemon spoke in opposition to the motion because the information presented to Council supports the rezone which would fit into the RMF Dis- trict and based upon some of the information presented by Dr. Quast, Coun- cilman Lemon felt the LI zoning was a benefit for the Red Lion; and further based upon the information provided by Craig Miller, he felt this was a continuum of use. Councilman Stamon stated one of her concerns was the question of legal access to the property. This is an impact which needs to be taken into consideration. She spoke in opposition to the rezone. On call for the question, the motion carried, with Councilman Lemon voting "No Councilman Gabriel then moved to continue the items on the Agenda. Coun- cilman Lemon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. BREAK Mayor McPhee recessed the meeting for a 10- minute break at 10:10 P.M. 3. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26. 1988 A. Shoreline Management Hearin SMA- 88(9)91 Paul Cronauer Councilman Stamon stated the first issue in regard to this matter is a request from members of the audience to hold a public hearing in light of the fact they had new information to provide which was not presented to the Planning Commission during its hearing. Councilman Stamon then moved for the sake of discussion that Council consider the request from Jewell VanOss, representing the Soroptomist Jet Set to consider s&eduling a public hearing at a subsequent date. The motion died for lack of second. Councilman Lemon moved to concur with the recommendations of the Planning Commission to grant a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to allow development of property located within 200 feet of the shoreline at Francis Street, subject conditions 1 8 and citing findings A D. Councilman Hordyk seconded. Councilman Stamon was opposed to the motion, based upon the reasons cited by Donna Davison -Ness in the Planning Commission minutes of October 26, 1988, those reasons being restoring the site to the original grade of 16 feet and implementation of the staff conditions and findings cited in the staff report. The adoption of the recommendations of the private business out for private gain and to not reflect the advice of the City staff that works for and in the public interest. Public access has become a hostage to private gain and a way to get approval for work done without permits. Further, the Commission's actions make the destruction of natural environment legal. -8- 1193 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1. 1988 Councilman Stamon further stated she believed the Planning Commission became side tracked from the real issue when a new proposal was presented to the Commission during the meeting without having the benefit of seeing the information prior to the Planning Commission meeting. She stated the pro- posal of the ramp to be constructed on the fill, which has been illegally placed on the right -of -way, in her opinion, was a red herring which has confused the issue and has caused the Planning Commission to deviate from the basic issue. In regards to the handicapped accessibility, this would not be feasible, as the grade on Francis Street exceeds the recommendation. The issue is not the Francis Street connection, but the first responsibility of the Council is to protect the shoreline and the public interest, which led her to believe the Planning Commission's recommendation was built on the erroneous assumption that since the earth movement has already occurred, then they must proceed from the point at which they are now. However, it is within the Council's authority to order restoration of the property to its original condition. To allow that property to remain as it is now would be condoning an illegal act, violating the Shoreline Master Program. Council- man Stamon spoke very strongly in opposition to this motion; that the appropriate action of Council would be to approve the shoreline permit, citing the conditions and recommendations made by the Planning Staff. Councilman Gabriel asked Planner Carr since Mr. Cronauer owns the property all the way to the shoreline, how does that affect public access to the Trail? Planner Carr stated east of Francis Street the City does not have the right -of -way to continue the trail without acquiring public access easements or some other means, whether it may be purchased or something of that nature. Councilman Gabriel stated then basically people who walk along that area are trespassing. Attorney Knutson responded, stating there could be an ease- ment acquired by the public by right of use, depending on the length of use; therefore, technically, it would not be easy to say whether trespassing is occurring or not. Councilman Lemon asked Planner Carr if the handicapped accessibility was through the City Pier. Planner Carr stated the Waterfront Trail is handicap accessible from the City Pier, which is considered the Trail head. Councilman Lemon asked if the grant includes improvements being done to Francis Street. Planner Carr stated the grant does not include such improvements. Councilman Hordyk asked for clarification regarding the 20,000 cubic yards of dirt moved onto the subject property. Planner Carr stated the applicant moved dirt around in excess of $2,500 without a Shoreline Permit, some of which occurred right in the shoreline area. On May 18, 1988, a "cease and desist" order was placed on the project. At that time, one of the options given Mr. Cronauer was to submit a Shoreline Permit Application to remedy the situation. Councilman Hordyk asked if this was to remedy the movement of dirt. Planner Carr stated yes, and also to comply with the Shoreline Master Program and the State Shoreline Management Act. Attorney Knutson amplified that the Shoreline Permit will cover work which has been done and will be done by Mr. Cronauer to develop the project within the shoreline. Councilman Stamon reiterated that Francis Street access is not the issue before the Council, but the depositing of illegal fill within the shoreline and the movement of earth above, which has created an erosion hazard, causing sediment to be deposited in the Harbor, in violation of the Shore- line Master Program. Councilman Gabriel asked if work was not done to this property, what is the responsibility of the property owner at this point; what would happen in the case of denial of the Shoreline Permit. Attorney Knutson stated he would recommend the City take legal action to require that the property be restored to its prior state. The authority in this matter would be the Department of Ecology and they have stated it would be appropriate to take such action. -9- 1194 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 1988 Councilman Lemon asked if the Shoreline Permit was denied, would there be considerable cost to restore the area to its natural state? Attorney Knutson stated he could not say what the cost would be, or even what would have to be done; however, under the terms of the Shoreline Management Act, the developer would have to pay those costs. Councilman Sargent concurred with the comments made by Ms. Davison -Ness in the Planning Commission minutes. She felt what Council was doing was con- doning something which has been done illegally and she believed the prop- erty should be restored to its original state. Councilman Stamon echoed Councilman Sargent's comments, and again she stated the Council should not deny the Shoreline Permit, but to approve the permit with the Planning Department's recommendations. Mayor McPhee stated the Planning Commission has studied the issue; that is their function; and they voted in favor of approving the Permit. On call for the question, the motion failed, with Councilmen Lemon, Hordyk, and Mayor McPhee voting "Aye and Councilmen Gabriel, Sargent, and Stamon voting "No Councilman Stamon moved to approve the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit subject to the following conditions: (A) The vacated Victoria Street (Railroad Avenue) right -of -way and the existing Francis Street right of -way north of the south line of Victoria Street (Railroad Avenue), and the existing Victoria Street (Railroad Avenue) right -of -way west of Francis Street where the grading and site preparation occurred, is restored to the original grade (16 feet City datum), and a public access and utility ease- ment across the vacated Victoria Street right -of -way abutting Lots 5 through 8, Block 32, Norman R. Smith's Subdivision to the Townsite of Port Angeles, is provided to the City and no building construction shall occur in the easement; (B) Pursuant to this permit and in furtherance of the cease and desist order, the applicant shall submit a reclamation site plan to the Planning Department which includes the boundaries of the subject develop- ment. This plan will include erosion control, revegetation, and site stabilization, including steps outlined to ensure a successful revegetation project, to reduce erosion from exposed cut slopes and reduce the visual impact of the exposed shoreline. In addition, within ten days of the issuance of this permit, topsoil shall be brought to the site, spread and seeded, to temporarily revegetate and stabilize the material on the site. Responsibility for the reclamation site plan should be notarized, signed by the applicant and a licensed professional geologic engineer; and citing the following findings: (1) Restoration of the shoreline area to its original condition with an elevation of 16 feet, by removal of the fill material, as conditioned, is necessary for the proposal to comply with the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, in particular Sections C.2, D.2, D.4.a, F.6.h, F.7.c, F.16.a and F.16.d; (2) The public access and utility easement is necessary to enable the City to maintain and protect its investment in utilities in the shoreline area in a manner consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare, and the local Shoreline Master Program; (3) Provided the conditions are attached, the valuable and fragile natural resources of the shorelines of the State will be utilized, protected, and restored, consistent with the local Shoreline Master Program; (4) Provided the conditions are attached, the proposal would be consistent with the City's Parks and Recreation Plan and Waterfront Trail Plan. The public access and utility easement is necessary for completion of the Waterfront Trail. Removal of the material to its original grade (16 feet) is necessary to maintain a level public access trail usable by the greatest number of the public, including handicapped and cardiac patients. Removal of the material and restoration of the vacated rights -of -way, Francis Street right of -way, and Victoria Street right -of -way west of Francis Street to the original grade and placement of houses back from the shoreline is an effective means to protect the shoreline environment, preserve the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline, remove damage to existing ecological values and natural resources, and protect the marine beaches from degradation. Councilman Sargent seconded. Councilman Stamon then amended her motion to state on Condition B, change it to read, within ten days of the issuance of the permit, a method shall be developed to temporarily revegetate and stabilize the material on the site that is acceptable to the Planning Department and the Department of Ecology, -10- Mr. Louis Torres requested permission to speak. 1195 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1 1988 the work to occur within 30 days after development of the plan. Councilman Sargent concurred. Councilman Stamon raised a point of order to question the Attorney as to whether accepting comments would be appropriate at this time. Attorney Knutson stated no. After consulting privately with Mr. Torres, Attorney Knutson stated the applicant has indicated, through his representative, that this recommendation is not acceptable and Mr. Cronauer may withdraw his application if this is approved. Councilman Stamon asked Attorney Knutson if this motion was approved and the applicant withdrew his application, what is the flip side of the "cease and desist" order? Attorney Knutson stated Mr. Cronauer would have to restore the environment. Attorney Knutson clarified the meaning of the applicant's statement if Council approves the permit as stated in the motion, then the applicant will not proceed with the development, as the motion would require; then the next step would be the City would go to court to resolve the restoration of the environment unless that could be done outside of the courts. On call for the question, the motion failed, with Councilmen Sargent and Stamon voting "Aye and Councilmen Gabriel, Hordyk, Lemon, and Mayor McPhee voting "No Councilman Lemon moved to reconsider the motion to approve the Shoreline Management Permit subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission, (1) To provide for the implementation of the Waterfront Trail Plan in a manner more accessible to all users, the proposed access ramps shall be con- structed at a "wheelchair -ramp" grade of not greater than one (1) foot rise per 12 feet of 8 -1 /2%, in accordance with the attached revised plan; (2) The construction of access ramps and shoreline rip rap repairs shall not dis- rupt, damage, or negatively impact the costs of maintenance or operation of the City's sewer lines or industrial water lines located within the area of the shoreline rip rap or access ramps to the Waterfront Trail; (3) An ease- ment shall be granted to the City for public access and utility mainten- ance, operation, and repair across all of the applicant's property lying north of the southerly edge of the access ramps, and providing that no building construction shall occur within that easement; (4) To assure the clearest possible understanding by all parties of interest to this sub- stantial development permit, the revisions to the grading plan (to accom- modate the revised access ramps) shall be added to the currently proposed grading plan to include all areas of proposed grading. That plan shall also include both construction phase and final drainage and storm water control provisions and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer; (5) The applicant shall seed with standard highway mix, all exposed soils (except roadbed and pathway areas which shall be graveled) within the project area following completion of site grading for the purpose of erosion control and enhanced visual effect (construction phase drainage and storm water control to prevent erosion shall be included in that plan noted in "4" above). Seeding shall be accomplished during a season when reasonable germination can be expected as soon as possible following grading. Areas of failed germination shall be re- seeded until successful, including the use of imported top soil if necessary to accomplish successful plant growth. If grading of the access ramps is conducted during a season when seed germina- tion success is limited, the northerly slope of the access ramps shall be covered with sod, said sod being staked in place until firmly rooted; (6) Issuance of the substantial development permit shall be subject to receipt of the signature of the applicant upon a copy of the permit with attached conditions acknowledging the applicant's responsibility to carry out and accomplish all provisions of that permit, including the stated conditions; (7) Temporary erosion control requirements of the Cease and Desist Order shall remain in place and effect until such time as a plan is provided and the other conditions are approved and implemented; (8) Pursuant to this permit, and in furtherance of the Cease and Desist Order, the applicant shall submit a reclamation site plan to the Planning Department which includes the boundaries of the subject development. This plan will include erosion control, revegetation and site stabilization, including steps out- lined to ensure a successful revegetation project to reduce erosion from exposed cut slopes and reduce the visual impact of the exposed shoreline. CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 1988 1196 Responsibility for the reclamation site plan should be notarized, signed by the applicant and a licensed professional engineer specializing in geology; and citing the following findings: (A) The proposed development activities are consistent with the Purpose of the Urban Environment of the Shoreline Master Program; (B) The provision of trailways and /or access ramps in a manner consistent with the Waterfront Trail Plan is also necessary for compliance with the Shoreline Master Program, in particular General Regu- lation C.2, Land Use Elements D.2, D.4.a, and Use Activities F.6.h, F.7.c, F.16.a and F.16.d; (C) The public access and utility easement is necessary to enable the City to maintain and protect its investment in utilities in the shoreline area in a manner consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare, and the local Shoreline Master Program; and (D) Provision of the conditions assures a level of public access usable by the greatest portion of the public including walkers and bikers, the handicapped and cardiac patients. Councilman Hordyk seconded. Councilman Stamon spoke in opposition, as she believed Council caved in to a veiled threat of legal action, and she felt that was onerous. On call for the question, the motion carried with Councilmen Stamon and Sargent voting "No B. Acceptance of Minutes Councilman Hordyk moved to accept and place on file the Planning Commission minutes of October 26, 1988. Councilman Lemon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 4. Report from Port Angeles Police Department on Development and Enforce- ment of Off- Street Handicapped Parking (Continued from 10- 18 -88) Councilman Sargent moved to pursue a voluntary approach to those businesses who are not complying with buildings constructed prior to 1976. Councilman Lemon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 5. Certification of Property Tax Levy for 1989 (Continued from 10- 18 -88) Councilman Stamon moved to approve the certification of taxes and authorized the Mayor to sign. Councilman Gabriel seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 6. Consideration of Contract with Port Angeles Symphony for Promotional Services (Continued from 10- 18 -88) f Councilman Sargent moved to provide for the budget expenditure of $1,000 to j (1 the Port Angeles Symphony OrchestraAand authorize the execution of the contract. Councilman Stamon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 7. .Consideration of Contract Modifications for Residential Weatherization Program (Continued from 10- 18 -88) Councilman Hordyk moved to concur with the recommendation of the Light Department to authorize the Mayor to execute Mdtiification )f/M -307 to the Bonneville Power Association Residential Weatherization Agreement. Councilman Gabriel seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 8. Reauest from Mr. Vance Bingham to Reconsider Previous Action on Approval of Bed and Breakfast at 608 Vashon Street Councilman Sargent commented she felt this was a very unlikely situation for a bed and breakfast, as there is no parking available. She then moved to rescind the previous action and to reconsider. Councilman Stamon seconded for discussion. Councilman Stamon asked Attorney Knutson about the action Council is now taking, as she had asked him at the October 18th City Council meeting if there was an additional appeal process in this particular matter, and at that time, Attorney Knutson had indicated to her that the appeal would be to the Superior Court. -12- -13- 1197 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1 1988 Attorney Knutson stated the Council could rescind the previous action if the reasoning was appropriate. He stated Mr. Bingham was not able to speak and would not have been able to speak on the issue at the last Council meeting because there was no public hearing before the City Council. In his opinion, it is inappropriate for Mr. Bingham to be, in effect, speaking on that same matter at the following Council meeting through the means of a letter. Councilman Lemon, as a point of clarification, stated that the appeal was received 13 days after the action of the Council and the Ordinance specifi- cally states an appeal must be filed within 10 days, and in this situation, the appeal was received by the Planning Commission, as the original recom- mendation had been made by the Planning Director. The Planning Commission upheld the Director's recommendation. He stated he was not comfortable with the procedure. Councilman Hordyk stated he felt the proper procedure for Mr. Bingham would be to file a written protest of the operation as a home occupation to the Council, as the bed and breakfast condition was contingent upon one year. In li of the comments made, Councilman Sargent withdrew her motion and Councilman Stamon concurred. There was no further action taken on this matter. 9. Selection of Individuals to Fill the Realtor /Broker, Bank /Loan Officer. and Citizen at Lame Positions on the Revolving Loan Fund Review Board Mayor McPhee directed Clerk Maike to receive the votes of the Council. For the Citizen at Large position, applicants were Louise Meyer, Dennis Otter stetter, and Ellie McCormick. The Councilmembers unanimously chose Dennis Otterstetter to fill the position. The Bank /Loan Officer position candidates being Bing Uylangco, Bob Perry, and Murray Gwynn. Ballot One: Councilmen Hordyk, Lemon and Mayor McPhee voted for Bing Uylangco. Councilmen Gabriel, Sargent and Stamon voted for Murray Gwynn. There being a tie vote, another ballot was cast. Ballot Two: Councilmen Gabriel, Hordyk, Lemon, and Mayor McPhee voted for Bing Uylangco. Councilman Sargent and Stamon voted for Murray Gwynn. Councilman Stamon requested a point of order to accept or confirm the posi- tions. Mayor McPhee stated that Council would not be finalizing this matter until the November 15th City Council meeting when they would be interviewing for the realtor/broker position. 10. Mayor or His Designee to Represent City in Victoria's Veteran's Dav Ceremonies Mayor McPhee announced that he would be representing the City of Port Angeles at those ceremonies. 11. Discussion of Accessibility of Executive Session Tapes to Present and Future City Councilmembers Requested by Mayor McPhee Councilman Stamon moved to delay consideration of this matter until the November 15th City Council meeting, as a courtesy to Councilman Hallett, who was not able to attend this meeting. Councilman Sargent seconded. Councilman Gabriel stated had he had previous acknowledgement of Councilman Hallett's absence, then he may have considered delaying this matter. 1198 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 1988 Councilman Sargent felt it would be a courtesy to delay the matter, as Councilman Hallett obviously thought he would be able to make the meeting; however, he was unable to attend. Mayor McPhee stated City business goes on. Councilman Sargent agreed; however, she said this was not so much City business as this was a direct concern of Councilmembers. Councilman Stamon stated it was just a simple courtesy to one of their peers. Following further discussion, the question was called and the motion failed with Councilmen Sargent and Stamon voting "Aye and Councilmen Hordyk, Lemon, Gabriel, and Mayor McPhee voting "No Councilman Lemon moved to make executive session tapes accessible to present and future Councilmembers. Councilman Hordyk seconded. Councilman Stamon asked Attorney Knutson about personnel issues discussed in executive session, and would Councilmembers be violating that person's rights by disclosing information leading to his termination to Council- members who were not members of Council at that time. Attorney Knutson replied no; because the termination itself is not neces- sarily restricted to executive sessions, and he believed provisions in the Open Public Meetings Act require that the action itself be taken in open session. Councilman Stamon asked with regard to personnel performance reviews, would Council be in danger of violating State law in respect to disclosure of such matters. Attorney Knutson stated no; but there could be information stated in executive session which might violate a particular employee's rights to privacy. Councilman Stamon asked if there was any punishment for members of Council who listen to executive session tapes and disclose information. Attorney Knutson stated that he was not aware of any punishment. Councilman Stamon asked Attorney Knutson about previous Councilmembers speaking during the executive sessions, do they not have rights and would the Council be violating those rights, and is there no protection of those individuals to their rights of privacy? Attorney Knutson stated they could take legal action against the City if they were concerned information would be disclosed publicly. Councilman Stamon stated under the current rules and procedures of the Council, any member has the right to access executive session tapes upon coming before the Council and asking for their approval. Councilman Gabriel asked Attorney Knutson if a new Councilmember wanted access to executive session tapes, was he allowed to discuss the matters? Attorney Knutson stated under the Rules of the Council, the Councilmember is not allowed to discuss the matters. Councilman Gabriel stated that he attended a seminar at the Association of Washington Cities and asked the opinion of an attorney there in regard to this very issue, and found that most cities do not tape their executive sessions and those that do, do not put restrictions on those tapes. It was Councilman Gabriel's opinion that there should not be any restrictions. Councilman Lemon stated he did not feel comfortable with the majority of the Council having the authority to say whether or not one member could listen to executive session tapes. Councilman Sargent stated she did not have a problem with Councilmembers going back and listening to previous executive session tapes if they had some specific reason. Mayor McPhee stated in regard to RCW 42.17.340 and RCW 43.20.010, there are matters which are properly kept from the public, but they cannot be kept from the public for reasons of embarrassment or other inconvenience, and the Council should keep information from the public only if it would be harmful to release it. Following further discussion, Councilman Stamon offered an amendment to the motion that copies of the tapes not be made available for removal beyond the building and they be returned to the custody of the City Clerk; and further to instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for Council's consid- eration at the November 15th meeting which would impose a $1,000 fine on Councilmembers who violate the confidentiality of the executive session tapes. Councilman Sargent seconded. Hattie Berglund, 1834 West Seventh Street, stated she did not feel there was any real justification to let City Councilmembers listen to closed sessions that were outside the time frame of their office. She had no problem with Councilmembers listening to executive session tapes within their own term of office. She did not feel Council should approve this and further felt there was no reason for taping the sessions. Following further discussion, the question was called, and the amendment failed with Councilmen Sargent and Stamon voting "Aye and Councilmen Gabriel, Hordyk, Lemon, and Mayor McPhee voting "No Councilman Stamon asked Mayor McPhee if he would state for the record that he would not disclose any information he hears on executive session tapes. Councilman Hordyk stated that was improper, because of the oath of office. Mayor McPhee stated he has taken an oath which states if he learns of any wrongdoings, then he is required to disclose. On call for the question, the motion carried, with Councilman Sargent and Stamon voting "No 12. Consideration of Offer to Purchase City Property 1199 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1 1988 Councilman Sargent moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the purchase and sale agreement. Councilman Hordyk seconded. -�C e :f s 1 t •F YI, 4 L._ ,,r Councilman Sargent stated the offer has more than doubled since the original offer was made and she was comfortable with the offer. Councilman Stamon stated for the record that the purchase price is $80,000. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. 13. Information on Civil Service Selection Process Rule of Three versus Rule of One Reauested by Councilman Lemon Manager Flodstrom provided Council with a letter submitted by the Port Angeles Professional Firefighters Local #655, supporting the Rule of One over the Rule of Three, as well as a survey conducted in 1986 of cities in the State of Washington having either the Rule of One or the Rule of Three. Councilman Sargent, in view of the lateness of the hour and the additional information provided to Council, moved to continue this item to the November 15th City Council meeting, after listening to Civil Service Mem- bers Jim Cammack and Bill Prentiss. Councilman Stamon seconded. On call for the question, the motion failed, with Councilmen Sargent voting "Aye and Councilmen Gabriel, Hordyk, Lemon, McPhee voting "No Councilman Hordyk moved that Council instruct the Civil Service to establish the Rule of One. Councilman Lemon seconded. -15- Stamon and and Mayor Commission 1200 CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 1988 Councilman Stamon protested, as she felt the meeting had been a railroad and this matter has come before the Council before. Over the past year, the Civil Service has been working on the Rule of Three, trying to establish some rules and regulations which would update the older rules and regula- tions. She felt what was happening now was negating all the work they have done. She further stated this was listed as an information item on the Agenda. Councilman Lemon stated the Rule of One was only the tip of the iceberg; that the whole Ordinance needed to be looked at and revised. Following lengthy discussion, the question was called and the motion failed, with Councilmen Gabriel, Sargent and Stamon voting "No".( /e x, .L (z t i r ,L,. "P f 41 t �t �e., (e C :t A- /X ,x t t, Councilman Gabriel moved td place the discussion of possible amendments to Ordinance 2410 on the November 15, 1988, City Council agenda. Councilman Sargent seconded. Following some discussion of the motion, the question was called, and the motion failed, with Councilmen Gabriel, Sargent, Stamon voting "Aye and Councilmen Lemon, Hordyk and Mayor McPhee voting "No Councilman Lemon moved to change the Rule of Three to the Rule of One and at a subsequent meeting discuss amendments to Ordinance 2410. Councilman Hordyk seconded. Councilman Sargent stated she is not prepared to vote on this matter at this time and that is why she has requested this matter be put off until the next meeting. On call for the question, the motion failed, with Councilmen Hordyk, Lemon, and Mayor McPhee voting "Aye and Councilmen Gabriel, Sargent, and Stamon voting "No Councilman Stamon moved to ask the City Attorney and the Civil Service Com- mission to meet and prepare for the Council's consideration their comments on amendments to the Ordinance in terms of their perceptions of what needs to be changed in order to improve the Ordinance, and that Council schedule discussion on those comments at a Council meeting in the future, after the Civil Service Commission has had time to carefully go through their con- cerns, and to provide those in writing to the Council. Councilman Sargent seconded. Councilman Stamon, in speaking to the motion, stated obviously Councilmem- bers have concerns regarding the Ordinance and she felt Council should discuss this matter, but felt they needed to do it in a more appropriate way On gall for the question, the motion failed, with Councilmen Sargent, Gabriel, and Stamon voting "Aye and Councilmen Hordyk, Lemon, and Mayor McPhee voting "No It was the decision of the Council to move on to the next item. As no consensus could be reached, the issue died. 14. Proclamation Opening of State of Washington Centennial Celebration Mayor McPhee proclaimed November 11, 1988, as the official opening date of the year -long Washington Centennial Celebration. XI CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /LATE ITEMS Councilman Stamon stated to Mayor McPhee in respect to a letter written in support of the Nor -Aqua project. She asked that in the future if he was going to write a letter indicating that the City has taken a position that it may be more appropriate to bring the issue before the Council. XII ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor McPhee adjourned the meeting to executive session at 12:50 P.M. to discuss one item of real estate and one of litigation. Approximate length to be 20 minutes. -16- XIII RETURN TO OPEN SESSION The meeting returned to open session at 1:30 A.M. XIV ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:31 A.M. Clerk Mayor CC. 30 K 1201 CITY COUNCIL AEETING November 1 1988