Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the July 14th Planning Commission meeting. It's 6 o'clock, so we're going to go ahead and get started. Please stand if you're able and join me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. First item on our agenda is the minutes of the last meeting. Do we have any comments or questions? Oh, I'm sorry, roll call.

Mills?

Present.

McCombs?

Present.

Sage?

Sage is absent tonight on vacation.

Is it excused?

Okay, we're going to vote on that. I'm sorry?

Are we going to vote on that?

Yes, we are.

Okay. Juratsky?

I'm present.

Martin? Here. Underwood? Here. Ohana?

Present.

All right, so since you brought it up, would someone like to make a motion to excuse Mr. Sage, who's on a family vacation?

Mr. Chairman, I move that we excuse Commissioner Sage. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Okay.

I noticed last night we took a lot of just votes of aye and nay, but do we have to do that by roll call, or can we just vote?

You can just vote.

All in favor of the motion? Aye. Say aye. Aye. All opposed? All opposed by the same sign. And the motion carries unanimously. All right, we've got minutes for the June 9th meeting. Any comments or questions?

Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the minutes of 6-9-2026 as submitted.

We have a second. Second. Second with Mr. Mills, by Mr. Mills. I think we'll vote the same way. All in favor of accepting the June 9th minutes, please say aye. Aye. All opposed by the same sign. The motion carries unanimously. This is the opportunity for public comment for anybody who'd like to step up and speak regarding anything except the items on the agenda. Anybody who would like to get up and speak, please come up to the podium, the microphone. Keep your comments for three minutes and state your name and your address. Do we have any any comments on online? All right. We have no public comments at this time. All right public hearings We have nothing on public hearings tonight, so we're moving on to other business Amendments to the AMC title 19 unified development code permit streamlining Good evening.

Don't know what was going on with that. Microphone location. Good evening. Hi, everybody. My name is Libby Grage, and I'm the planning manager for the planning community and economic development department and I am pretty excited to be here to present to you this package of proposed permit streamlining code amendments it's Sorry, I'm catching my breath. So these proposed code amendments are intended to implement the mayor's executive order that was issued in April 2026, executive order 2602. And so I kind of walk through all of the proposed amendments. This isn't a decision meeting. It's just a study session, I think we call it, where I just like to kind of start from the beginning and go over what the executive order said, what the amendments are proposed to implement, those different areas of the executive order, and then also go through some of the additional changes that through this process staff identified some additional improvements that could be made to our current code and permit review framework that we're bringing forward with this package. So as I mentioned, this project began with Executive Order 202602. It was issued in April of 2026, and the order identifies that the city's permit process should be efficient, predictable, and easy to understand while continuing to implement the city's adopted policies and regulations. The executive order included a bunch of different things more than just directing changes or proposals to change the Anacortes Municipal Code. It directed the department to change our processing timeframes, our goals for processing building permits that are issued under the International Residential Code. It reallocated some of the permit processing responsibilities that are shared between different departments, like the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. It also changed the planning and permitting department service model from a walk-in to an appointment only of service. And then finally, one section of it identified five different amendments that staff was to develop proposals to implement the different permit streamlining measures that were identified in the executive order. And so that's what we're here to talk about tonight. So the executive order directives that relate to Title 19 of the Anacortes Municipal Code, which is our unified development code, that's where we have all of our permit processing procedures and all of our development regulations that apply to any development that happens within the city. The directives were in number four of the executive order, A through E. We talked about the lot of record rules in May. Wow, it's already been that long. Okay, back in May. And so staff is looking at those and making some suggestions for revisions based on planning commission discussion and also public feedback that we've been getting so I don't have anything new to share on those tonight, but we'll talk about the rest of the amendments to address items B through E of the executive order and I'm not going to read through these right now because I think I have them on a future slide. But these items were kind of the basis for the project to amend the code and the proposed amendment package that we've brought forward to you today. Because the proposed amendments that I'm going to talk about have to do with development permit review, I thought it might be helpful, and I know that a lot of you are probably familiar already with the development review process, permitting process, having gone through it professionally or as a homeowner or property owner or however you've experienced that in Anacortes or in another jurisdiction. But just kind of understanding the higher level purpose of that process, why the city has permits, why the city does development permit review, I think is important to have a shared understanding for the legal issues involved and the reasons, the purpose for those processes. So development review, review of permits, is the process where the city applies development regulations to individual projects to achieve consistency with and implement the comprehensive plan. And so with development permit review, we're not creating new policy, like policies that are in the comprehensive plan. We're applying the regulations that implement the comprehensive plan to individual development regulations. So that's an important aspect for everyone to understand, and I'll be on the same page about. Development review also protects public health safety and the environment by ensuring that projects comply with regulations governing issues like critical areas, shoreline protection, stormwater management, transportation, and building safety. Another important purpose of development review is to coordinate public facilities and infrastructure so that new development is adequately served by roads and utilities, emergency services, and other types of public improvements. And finally, development review provides a transparent and predictable decision-making process. Applicants, neighbors, and decision-makers should all understand what standards apply to a project, how decisions are made, and what the review process will be. And these are principles that are reflected in the Growth Management Act goals related to permit applications being processed in a timely manner, timely, fair, and predictable manner. And one of the primary goals of the proposed amendments is to better organize the city's permitting framework so that we can better carry out these responsibilities in a clear and consistent fashion. So just the way that the development review, development permit review is set up in Anacortes is that most development requires one or more city permits before work can begin. And the Planning, Community, and Economic Development Department are the, or is the primary department that's responsible for intaking and administering and coordinating development review of permits and also issuing permits. Depending on the particular project, review of permits also involves public works, engineering, fire, parks, and other city departments. And also, you know, for some projects in the shoreline and critical area-related projects, there will also be some coordination with state and federal agencies. Permit requirements and review procedures depend on the type of development that is proposed. And there are different types of permits that address different issues and requirements. So different permits for addressing land use issues and environmental issues versus engineering and building requirements. These are some key terms that you'll see in the development regulations and was probably mentioned tonight. A development permit is an umbrella term for all city approvals required for development. So development permit includes a project permit. It includes a building permit and also construction permits. So all of those permits are also development permits. So it's just basically an umbrella term. OK, so now that those basics are out of the way, Again, the executive order identified these five areas where staff was to propose some amendments to the municipal code. A lot of record we've already addressed and we'll be bringing that back as I mentioned. There we go. The next one was in the order was to allow site plan review in advance of building permit applications to be used for multiple subsequent building permits. And so the reasons that this might be a good thing to consider are that The site plan review is really intended to address, as I mentioned before, all of the land use, site design, setbacks, use, all of those types of issues that are addressed in the development regulations and also environmental issues. Consistency with the critical areas regulations and the shoreline master program and environmental review under SIPA. So. Allowing for a site plan to be submitted before somebody has invested a lot of resources in coming up with, you know, the construction plans, engineering level detail. construction plans and building plans with structural information and all of the detailed documents that can cost a lot of money. This allowing site plan review and all of the land use issues to be resolved prior to spending the resources on the subsequent work. results in a situation where it provides more certainty for somebody that wants to build. They know that what they want to do is allowed in the zone. They know that generally the site that they're proposing to build on is big enough and that they have the way that they've designed it meets all of the parking and the setbacks and all of those types of issues. Once you have certainty on all of those issues, then it becomes... you're able to have certainty and feel more comfortable moving forward with spending the money that it costs to have engineered plans developed. So anyways, sorry, that was long-winded. But that's kind of why this particular item is a measure that we think will improve predictability and be a more efficient way to review projects.

can you go back to the slide that was just up there I guess when I first looked at it I was thinking of the project that we looked at on 17th Street a couple months ago with that I think was 20 cottages and I was thinking multiple permits to build 20 cottages yeah but are we talking about a single-family residence for example and with a building permit an electrical permit and various other things are we just Is this a concern for a single family, one single family dwelling and the couple of permits involved or is this some kind of multiple of units?

I see what you're asking. So I think the way that the code is set up right now is that site plan review applies to all non-subdivision proposals, so it's pretty broad applicability. The way that I believe we've proposed to set it up in the draft amendments is that it would apply to you know new construction redevelopment additions changes of use but there's an opportunity to consolidate the permit reviews so um you could somebody under this proposal would have the ability to even for a single family home if they wanted to get their site plan approved before they submit a building permit application. Probably more likely what will happen and what typically happens is they will submit their site plan along with their building permit application and we will review those concurrently. And that would be fine. So this is intended to provide more options for people at whatever level of planning they're at in their project design to be able to

With less of an investment until they were sure the project was feasible. Right. Or allowable. Yeah, exactly. Thank you.

Yep. So our current code provisions for site plan review are in AMC 1930. And, you know, going through this process was sort of eye-opening in terms of the improvements or the opportunities for improvement to our site plan review section. The current code is pretty unclear in terms of the purpose of the chapter, the timing when site plan review applies, whether it can be completed ahead of a construction permit submittal. And then after you have approval, what does that mean? What does that mean? What does that give you? What is the effect of receiving that approval from the city? All of these things are pretty unclear in the current chapter. The proposed updates to the code have, if you look at the actual draft, it's a pretty big overhaul of that chapter. And we've updated the purpose to be more clear about what the intent of site plan review is. And I didn't want to switch between the code amendment and the PowerPoint, so I won't yet. But if I need to, I can do that easily, if that would be helpful. But the purpose for site plan review has been updated in the draft amendment to clearly identify that, hey, this process is to address all of the land use environmental issues. to facilitate more streamlined review of the subsequent engineering and building permits that will be required to actually construct the project that has been approved through the site plan review. The code also, as I mentioned before, offers some flexible timing so you can, you know, and this is very akin to like a subdivision, land division process where you have a preliminary approval and then construction and then a final approval so site plan review is just like a preliminary approval of a land division except without dividing land that makes sense so the the level of detail is is more conceptual planning than specific I mean it shows a lot it will show building locations and setbacks and landscaped areas and critical areas and all of that but it's just not detailed engineering level plans. The proposed code also has updated approval criteria and some clear language about the effect of the approval. And then there are some additional amendments, and these are the ones that We saw the opportunity for helping with this overall framework, but a new site construction permit chapter is proposed to be added as well as a building permit chapter just to kind of complete the full permit process selection. The site construction permit chapter is intended to be a dedicated permit for engineering review, which really hasn't existed in the city's code. So for this permit, this would be something that somebody applies for after they have their site plan approved. This would implement an approved site plan. Or again, you could choose to do a consolidated review as well if you're at that level of planning in your project. But this creates a home for engineering review of stormwater utilities, roads, drainage, and other civil infrastructure that require engineering review. And the thought with this particular permit is not that you would need this separate permit for a single family home or even a duplex. The way that the applicability has been set up in the draft is, I think, multifamily, four or more units or projects, you know, non-residential projects where there will be shared infrastructure on the site between multiple units. So it's more complicated engineering and requires a higher level of review. And then the proposal also includes a new chapter for building permit review. The code already has the chapter 1914, which is where all of the different international codes are adopted. But there's really no place in the code right now that talk about what a that talks about what the relationship of a building permit is to these other permits. And so this, adding this will, I think, help to clarify the different types of permits and how they apply to the different parts of planning and construction. This is one of the things I was super excited about. This is just a graphic that is showing hopefully streamlined process to help people understand what all of the steps in a development project are and to kind of see how the different permits relate to each other at what time in the process do they come into play. And so I don't know, I think it's helpful in illustrating kind of just the overview of the whole process. And that is something else that we've proposed to add into the code, into the procedures section is a section that kind of does what this does but in words. So that kind of gives you the full picture of here's the whole process for development. because there's really nothing in the code right now that kind of gives that comprehensive outline to understand how everything relates. Okay, so moving on to the executive order 4C and D. So these items are related to flexibility, administrative flexibility in applying development regulations or being able to reduce certain numeric standards when certain conditions are met. And so the intent with these is to avoid certain cases and certain limited cases avoid an applicant having to apply for a variance and go through that full process when a reduction in the standard in the numeric standards or some other alternative application of a standard to a project is still achieves the purpose and intent of the regulation, but allows for the development to move forward consistent with how other properties are developed in the area.

Mr. Chair. Libby, just a quick, where you're writing about reduce objective numeric standards, that's the five to 10%, is that what you're talking about? Yeah. Okay, thanks.

Sure. So yeah, thank you for asking about that. The C and D are actually two items in the executive order. The way that staff have drafted this proposal is to combine both of those items into one administrative exception is the term that we're using. So the idea with this proposal is to create a new chapter 1921, and it would have a purpose and authority. There are proposed limitations on what can be varied through this request for an exception, specifically excludes critical areas regulations, shoreline regulations. can't, let's see what else. These provisions wouldn't authorize a use that wasn't otherwise permitted in a particular zone. So there's some guardrails that we've put in to make sure that these truly are minor, limited options for flexibility. So the chapter includes, as I mentioned, the two departures. Departures are an option that already exists in the code. And those are specifically identified in certain locations within the code as being eligible a standard is eligible to apply for a departure. And those are a lot of times relating to building design, where the code is where there's an allowance for an applicant to propose an alternative way of meeting a specific standard in the code. So if it's a requirement for a certain you know, modulation of a building or something, a certain percentage of the total facade. If an applicant proposes a different, you know, architectural detail or way to meet the intent of that modulation requirement, then that is something that can be approved administratively through that departure option. And so there aren't any changes proposed to that other than relocating it out of its current home in the code into this new chapter. And then with the administrative exceptions, that is the new section, and we talked about reducing objective numeric standards, so that would apply to things like setbacks, Minimum landscaped area, there's a whole list in the code. But this would provide the opportunity where a site just couldn't reasonably comply with those numeric or dimensional standards. It offers an opportunity to reduce those very slightly as long as certain criteria are met. The code also includes review procedures. So the idea is that these requests for administrative exception or reduction would be reviewed along with the underlying permit application. So if it's a building permit, then the director would make a decision along with the building permit decision. There's a requirement in the draft that documentation be provided, so findings be documented how the proposal, what was requested and how the proposal complied with the criteria for a decision in this specific chapter. So it would be in the project record for transparency and future documentation of for consistency and decision-making and Yeah, so that is the administrative flexibility provisions and I'm happy to open up the code as I mentioned if you want to get into more specifics I'll pause here to see if you want to do that Or we can come back to it at the end

Mr. Chair, I do have a question about one of them, but I guess if you're planning to go through the actual code.

I can. I was not planning to do that, but I am happy to do it if it would be helpful to the commission. After this presentation, I could just open up the code and we could scroll through, and if you have questions, you could stop me. Does that seem okay? Okay. Okay, I think heads are nodding that that would be helpful. Okay, great. I'm almost done here with the PowerPoint. Moving on to the last item in the executive order was related to fence permits. So the state building code provides an exemption from the requirement to get a building permit for fences that are up to seven feet. Thank you. And so this proposal would add that exemption into our code. Right now a building permit or a fence permit is required for all fences, and this would remove that requirement. So through this amendment package, you can see that it's mostly related to how the city processes permits and defines the different things that are looked at in each level of permit. It doesn't change the zoning density. It doesn't change environmental protection requirements or critical area regulations. or shoreline regulations, the proposals don't involve any of that. And this is next steps for this package. And we've got today's study session. Based on feedback and questions that you all have for me, then we would, staff would go back and make updates and revisions to the draft. conduct SEPA review, and then publish a revised draft for a written public comment period, and schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission. And then finally, ultimately, you know the drill, recommendation to City Council on the proposed amendments. And that's all I have prepared this evening, but happy to answer questions or take feedback or open up the code amendments.

Okay.

Okay, so this is the packet that you all have, and the staff report kind of provides a summary of all of the amendments, next steps, and then the standard format that we do all of our proposals for and track changes. with blue underline indicating proposed additions and red strikethrough indicating proposed deletions. So these are just some terms that are proposed to be updated within Chapter 1912 definitions and interpretation. So a new definition for building permit, Updating definition for development and development permit. As well as a project permit update. And then adding new terms and definitions for the site construction permit that we talked about and also for site plan review. Any questions about those? Mr. Chair.

On page 10 of 32, just toward the bottom, this is just from my understanding, under project permit, the project permit is in addition to building permits. Is that true? You've got conditional uses? Yes.

Yeah, so the project permit is a term that is defined by the local project review act, which is a state law that the city is subject to. And that is the law that talks about, well, it uses the term project permit, but it also identifies the permit timeframes, the maximum amount of time that cities have to issue a decision on permits and it also includes different procedural requirements that cities have to follow. Anyways, the project permit, the city last time we updated the code elected to include building permits in that definition. project permit but that creates the reason it's proposed to be removed right now is because the state law actually specifically excludes building permits and engineering drawings construction permits from the definition. And we also found that including building permits made it more difficult to create the clear kind of separation between the different types of permits that we just talked about. So it's proposed to be removed out of project permit term.

Okay, so I'm still not clear. I'm sorry. I'm probably the best test case because this is, I'm reading this as just a normal human being without a background. Understood. So I'm a good test case for this whole thing, I think. But conditional uses is listed under project permit. So that's what confused me. It sounded like you have to go and spend your money on a project permit and then you spend your money on a conditional permit.

Oh, no, I'm sorry. A project. So project permit isn't kind of just like development permit is an umbrella term for all of the different types of land use and zoning approvals and environmental permits that a city may have. So Project permits include land divisions, a conditional use process, shoreline permits. This isn't saying that you have to get all of these permits. It's just identifying all of the different types of permits that fall under that umbrella project permit term.

Perfect. That makes perfect sense. It's not just another place for me to spend my money.

No.

Got it.

Okay. Sorry about that.

If it's helpful, when we're talking about these types of permits, we've got the project permits, which are the land use ones and the environmental ones. So those generally are done ahead of time before, like a site plan, before you do the building permit. And then so what we're terming development permit are those ones that are for building and site construction type permits. After you've got it all cleared, the land use stuff cleared, then you can apply for a permit to actually show us the drawings of uh the details of how the building is going to be constructed of the utility or the utilities are going to be put underground so that include those development permits include uh well they include everything but uh sorry the site construction permit includes um uh grading drainage stormwater facilities utilities infrastructure So we're trying to separate the land use ones from the ones that actually show the contractors how to build something. And that's what we're trying to do is separate those two with these definitions. And the reason we do that is the state law does the same thing, and it gets a little complicated when we don't follow the way they define it, so we're trying to be more in line with the way it's defined in the state statutes.

Thank you.

I guess I'm a little confused.

I thought part of this process was to expedite the permit process. It is, and by defining them properly, that helps everybody understand the process more clearly, and it allows us to do the things that, like Libby's talking about, is now we're creating a site construction permit within the development regulations, so it's clear to developers what, if they want to get a construction permit for building utilities and roads underground utilities and roads that's the construction phase of it versus like the preliminary part where they get a site plan to make sure that or the site plan review to make sure that it's all going to fit on that site versus, you know, so that's, they want first to be able to, we, everybody wants to be able to make sure that everything's going to fit on the site and meet the zoning codes before they submit detailed construction drawings, which is a separate permit.

I think you missed an important part in there, which is spend the money to make that application. Again, knowing what they could put on the property rather than go out and pay the design engineer and all that, but.

Right, yeah. So I think Libby used this as an example. If you're applying for a long plot, for example, to subdivide land into residential lots, you don't want to submit all those construction drawings and pay an engineer tens and tens of thousands of dollars to engineer all the underground utilities, the grade of the road, the stormwater plan, etc. all of that infrastructure. You don't want to pay for that until you get the preliminary plot approval that says, yes, your proposal meets zoning codes. And so sometimes these land use permits are also called entitlement permits. So you want to get those approved before you pay a bunch of money designing the actual on the ground infrastructure.

And my experience also is that it's all part of the feasibility study to make sure you even want to follow through and buy the property. It's part of the feasibility study process and sometimes may even limit somebody from following through on purchasing the property because they can't do what they envision or what the price is going to require in order to be a profitable project.

So those land use permits give you some assurity that the project that you want to do is going to be allowed and that site plan is approved and then you just need to do the math drawings during your construction permit part. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, yes Libby I heard you talk about for the site plan review that it would provide preliminary approval Can you expand on that I mean walking away with preliminary approval wouldn't give me the confidence that a project could go forward I

Yeah, I was trying to compare it to what preliminary land division approval offers. So it's sort of the same idea where, you know, you have preliminary approval for land division for I think it's five years and you have to submit your construction permits and construct the improvements within five years of getting preliminary approval or your approval expires. So the idea is kind of similar with the site plan approval. You get your site plan approval that adjusts all the land use and environmental and that would be It's not the same as vesting under the subdivision vesting rules, but it's an approved site plan that as long as you submit a construction permit or building permit that are consistent with that approved site plan within a certain amount of time, we will still honor that approved site plan for the subsequent permits. And we did add in some permit expiration, which I didn't go over in the presentation, but I'm happy to get into detail.

I guess just a follow up is, as someone who's gone through the pre-op process, and I understand that it's not, you're coming away with comments from the city, but they're not, I'm trying to understand if there are things that are going to be direct or decision. Prior to investing what is still a lot of work to go into a site plan review, what can we get out of the pre-application so that there's a better understanding of, you know, I'm looking through like the site plan review checklist and it does have like floor plans, elevations, and I'm just wondering Again, I know we're trying to look at it from a permit speed process trying to get through. But to me, this outside of doing the construction documents is still doing the entire thing.

And I agree. I mean, I think the city is currently in the process of updating all of our submittal checklists. And if the proposed amendments are adopted as they are currently proposed, then we would go through and update all of our submittal checklists to more specifically identify the level of detail that is needed, like specifically for stormwater. But also, yeah, for site plan approval, we would not, more than likely we would not ask for a floor plan. Potentially building elevations, if it's a big development and a, you know, building that's going to be subject to the building design review, there might be like a conceptual building elevation requirement. But otherwise, that's not something that I would envision asking for as part of the site plan.

But going back to your involvement for director decision, I know that I'm kind of jumping back and forth. If we're talking about certain dimensional standards or things that we might be asking, whatever the 5% to 10% that goes over, I would love to see that question being answered earlier on rather than, and I don't know how we can incorporate that into more of the pre-app part of it rather than the site plan review.

Well, a pre-app does not give, pre-app's very general and preliminary information, so it doesn't It's not the appropriate time to tell people, yes, you can get away with doing a little this and that. That really needs to be submitted with the detailed information here. I mean, we could probably give you some guidance, but it doesn't give the ability for approval of futures anything.

I think that the questions, though, are those things ever addressed to you from a pre-app? Like, are you involved with any of the comments?

Well, right now we don't have any mechanism. We're just creating a mechanism to allow for, like, the 5% or 10% reduction in numerical standards, for example.

So would that be a question to give in the pre-app that they would then... I don't know how to ask that to say, like, run by you, because I know that these are not, you know, a process of approval. It's more of just getting feedback. But I think that people would feel better even knowing that they're headed in the right direction. And otherwise, you know, at what point do you just say, no, we're not doing this?

Well, you know, for small numbers like that, like 5% to 10%, My intuition is that no preliminary, no pre-app site plan or concepts are going to be developed enough to know if they're just 5% off, right? I mean, there might be in some cases for a larger project, but in most cases, it's not that far, the plan's not that well developed. But the point's well taken.

And I guess jumping to another part of it from the site plan review when you're talking about the preliminary approval, I noticed, and I'm sorry, I'm not as organized because it was all over the place. I think it was between the... the site construction permit and then the site plan review. I'm just wondering, you know, if we're approving a site plan review or if we get approval for a site plan review, is there a way to adjust either like building footprints or are you completely stuck in with that?

So there are built into the site construction permit and building permit sections, I believe. The intent is that it would still be flexible. You could ask for a revision to the approved site plan.

And it wouldn't go through the entire review process again or what?

I mean, it depends on what level of change would be involved. Yeah. But, you know, we have, well, let me see. So, I mean, I think that this section D, this is in the site plan review effect of approval. Just going through and saying that the approval of a site plan establishes that the proposed development complies with all of the approval criteria for zoning and land use and site design. It doesn't constitute approval of final engineering design or authorized construction. That happens through the site construction and building permit steps. An approved site plan governs subsequent review of site construction and building permits implementing the approved development until it expires, is modified or which I don't think, anyways, pursuant to this title. Subsequent permit review is limited to determining consistency with the approved site plan and compliance with applicable construction codes and engineering standards. So this is intended to say, once you've gone through the process for site plan approval, we're not going to revisit those issues in subsequent permit reviews unless, any of these things happen. So if the construction or building permit are material inconsistent with what was approved with the site plan, then obviously that doesn't work. If regulations or conditions affecting the property have materially changed since the site plan approval, and inaccurate or incomplete information was used in getting the site plan approval or the applicant requests a modification to the approved site plan or it's expired. So those are... So that kind of gives you an idea of what a site plan approval is good for and that it is intended to be able to be modified to address unforeseen circumstances when you are developing your engineering plans and you need to move some things around. Then it's built to accommodate that.

And then you can do the concurrent

submittal if you know that you're that far along then you would just do concurrent anyways or yeah like a modification to the site plan with your construction permit I would I think that would work thank you Sure. And I just, as you were talking, I don't know, maybe this was resolved and everybody's clear on it, but this is showing that permit development process from pre-application all the way to post-project completion. And I put up here development permits. So development permits includes Project permits and site construction permits, that's the umbrella term. Project permits include the land use review, so all of these, and the environmental review. And then the site construction and building permits is here. So just trying to show that hierarchy. Okay. All right. Shall I keep going? I don't know where I left off. Okay, so we had just talked about the definitions, and then we started talking about site plan. I'll just go through quickly. This is the proposed addition into our procedures section. So this is where the different types of permits are listed along with the decision maker for each of the types of permits. Remember our big table that shows type one, type two, type three, type four. And then it talks about all of the procedural requirements for processing of a permit. So staff is just proposing to add in this new section called Overview of Development Review Process. And it doesn't really provide any new substantive standards that aren't otherwise provided somewhere else in the code. It's more intended as, like I mentioned, an overview and a summary so people can up front see what the steps are. And of course, not all of these steps and permits are going to apply to every project, but it lists them all out.

Mr. Chair? Yes. On that page, number seven says ongoing compliance. If it's needed, are there consequences somewhere in the code if somebody's not meeting the ongoing compliance?

Well, I mean, ongoing compliance, when I am thinking about that, I'm thinking about, like, a lot of times when there are critical areas, shoreline issues where, you know, you know, mitigation is required or enhancement of buffer areas or something that an applicant is required to ensure survives after the closure of the permit. Yes, basically if a person is not complying with the terms and conditions of the permit, then that would be

violation of the code and so that would be a code enforcement issue so my answer is yes there are provisions in the code that address those situations and are there people that make sure that the code is being complied with especially when it comes to shoreline critical areas things like that

Yes, that's, you know, that is what our job is in the planning and community development department. We.

I mean after, this is after everything is said and done, everything is taken care of.

So our code in a lot of instances where mitigation or enhancement is required or shoreline plantings will require annual monitoring reports be submitted. in order to ensure that whatever mitigation or planting was required as part of the project, you know, continues to survive and if it's not meeting the different performance standards that actions are taken to replant or dead or dying plants so that it will meet the objectives of the mitigation plan. But that ongoing requirement to submit monitoring reports ends at five years. And so that's the extent that we take it. If somebody you know, requests that we investigate whether there's a compliance issue, then we do that as well. But we're not, you know, we can't check every site from here to infinity to make sure that they're complying with all of the requirements. But we do our best. Thank you. Any questions, other questions about that?

Sure. Mr. Mills. I share Commissioner Martin's concern about the ongoing monitoring and I think what we're really saying there is that in number seven after five years it's dealt with on an exception basis by observation by neighbors or the public or by staff or planning commissioners noting something that they'd approved six years ago that is now appears to be out of compliance so So I do share that same concern and also your concern that you can't monitor everything in perpetuity or this building would have to be enlarged for the staff to do that. Also on that same page, number five, it says the city may inspect work during construction. Are we required to inspect during construction or is it

Literally me again and thought maybe that's something that we should clarify in this section. These aren't intended to be Substantive standards there. It's a summary of the Requirements so these aren't addressing every single situation. It's sort of an overview and so What's in this section doesn't replace? requirements under the building code section for when an inspection is required or engineering standards requirements for when an inspection is required. This is just trying to summarize that, you know, for some permits, inspections may be required. For others, they may not.

Fair enough. Fair enough. My other item on this page is purely wordsmithing. The last sentence in number six begins with any required Blah blah blah blah and ends with as applicable that seems redundant seems like we can eliminate one or the other How's that for quality input Noted, thank you Any other thoughts about this Okay

In the table for the review classification and process matrix, so this is where we list all of our permits and other types of actions that are associated with review of permits. along with who the decision maker is and the procedural requirements for the review. And so really the only changes here are proposing to add cross references to the actual specific permit sections that address these particular types of permits, just to leave some breadcrumbs for folks to know where to go to look for other, for the standards. Also adding in the that we talked about and we'll revisit here at the next meeting and adding the site construction permit as a type one administrative permit. And those are, oh, and crossing out or deleting fence permits.

Mr. Chair.

Yes.

A question about the fence permits. I know that certain areas in the past had had, like, height limitations for, you know, how close to the street. Is that still applicable, or is that all going away?

No. So there still is a section in the code that addresses fences, you know, maximum height, setbacks, materials, all of those things, and those are not going away. You just don't need a permit anymore? You just don't need a permit. Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

May I ask a question? Of course.

Okay, so in this instance, just thank you very much.

Make sure your mic's on. There we go, testing. In this instance, just to go back over some of the questions that we've had. Let's say somebody does construct a fence without a permit. and it is intruding with the public right of way or it's not compliant with these other standards, this is when it would be someone would have to refer it to code enforcement and then code enforcement would deal with it. Is that how the system would work? Correct. Okay. Thanks for that clarification.

May I ask a follow-up question? Of course. What's the purpose for getting rid of it? I'm sorry, what's the purpose for getting rid of the fence permit?

The purpose for getting rid of it is to, well, I don't know, maybe Mr. Coleman can weigh in on some of that.

There are many reasons to get rid of the fence permit. One, it costs hundreds of dollars to administer because we have to, A, take in the application and then permit coordinator review it and pass it off to a planner and a builder to all have a shot at looking at it. often it's you know when when people get approval from the city then they think okay you know it's approved to go exactly right there and you know what we write on it is it needs to be on your property and follow all the rules and so what happens is if they don't build it in on the property line, or if there's a neighbor dispute, now we get dragged into a dispute over a fence. This is clearly a civil matter, and we kind of put ourselves in a little bit of risk, not really, but a little bit of risk, just an awkward position when we go and inspect and say, oh, that looks like what you showed on the plan, and then neighbor you know if there's a dispute this and then one neighbor says well the city said it was okay and we get thrown into this whole civil matter. There's not a lot of benefit to us reviewing it when people just need to follow some fairly simple rules that we believe we can put in a handout and say just do this and you don't need to come to the city and get approval. It's kind of like a lot of rules that we live in as a society, where you just have to follow the rules and be sure that you do, much like driving.

I think my only comment to that, because I completely agree that the amount of work that goes into processing the approval is significant, and I understand the potential problems that come from it, is I think people might wonder, well, I don't need a fence permit, so there's nothing dictating other than it's less than seven feet. That would be my only concern. And I'm saying that from like, I think previous projects, within a certain number of feet from the sidewalk, it had to be a lower,

Right. You still need to follow all the rules. And we're going to have a comprehensive handout for people, like what they need to know about fences. Just because you don't need a building permit for a fence under seven feet doesn't mean that you're allowed to build a fence seven feet tall without a building permit. In our zoning code, you're only allowed to build a fence up to six feet in most side and rear situations. And then in front, it's a much lower fence and in U triangles. So all of that is available in code, and we intend to have a handy-dandy handout and information on our website so people can just look at it on their own and make sure that they're following all the rules without us spending staff time reviewing somebody's drawings and you know most of the time it's just a resident who is not a professional site plan drawer and so they're doing their best and it's a lot of work for them to draw a site plan and tell us what they're doing when they could just follow the rules it just saves staff a lot of time we have a lot of fence permits so we appreciate that people are doing what they're required to do and apply for fence But when you start to add the numbers up, it takes a lot of time for staff to do that. That could be better off spent reviewing more complex projects that are timely.

Thank you.

I was just going to give the example of something else in our code, like the exemptions for... you know, residential accessory structures that are less than 200 square feet or whatever it is, 144. You know, those still have to comply with setbacks and all of the other requirements of the code, but we don't require a permit for those either. Anyway. OK, so the consolidated review section of the code moving on from the permit review procedures. So this is a section of code that we are required to have under the local project Review Act, which requires the that. jurisdictions offer a consolidated review processing option for applicants that have projects that require multiple project permits. And that is to consult. So if somebody needs a critical areas permit and a conditional use permit and a site plan review, it provides the opportunity to combine all of those in one you know, one notice of application, one environmental review under SEPA, if SEPA is required, you know, one staff report, one decision. So it makes it, if an applicant chooses to go that way, it makes it a more streamlined process, but also, you know, provides more clarity for the applicant and for you know members of the the public to understand the full scope of the project by including everything in one notice of application, one staff report, and one decision. And so again, that's something that we're already required to have under the code, or excuse me, under state law to offer that process. What we've done here is just added in a section, because we are not required to offer consolidated permit review for a project permit with a construction permit or a building permit. This section would allow for that still, but it provides that the city's review of the construction permit or building permit would not be subject to the permit turnaround times that are in our table. And that's because if the land use and site plan review hasn't been approved yet, there could still be changes that affect the construction and building permit submittals that will affect the permit timeframes. So this is just kind of spelling that out, that that option exists, but here's what it means if an applicant chooses to take that option. Does that make sense? Okay. Mr. Chair.

Yes. Would you mind on C, just give me some more context on C, especially on the waiving their rights.

Sure. So how can I explain it? So If the, so the way that the city's set up, and I wish I had the full permit table here, but if I did, at the very bottom, it would have the review processing timelines, where a type one, the city must issue a decision within 60 days, I think it is. Type two is 100 days, and so on. Oh, yay. Thank you, Jill. And so what this is saying is that if an applicant chooses to have their land use permit or site plan review, if they want to submit that along with their construction permit or building permit, when they submit the building permit or construction permit that's when the review clock starts for the city right that's we have 60 days to issue a decision on those permit types but without having the land use review completed and having certainty about what the approved layout is for a project we can't complete the building permit and construction permit review so we've allowed an applicant to submit the application without you know finalizing those issues And if changes have to happen because of the land use permit review to those other construction permits, it will require changes to those construction permits and then possibility that the city wouldn't be able to meet our turnaround times for the review. So it just creates a problem with that. This is just saying to an applicant, yes, you can do this route, but we can't guarantee that we're going to meet the processing time frames.

So this is exactly why we earlier when I spoke earlier about separating construction type permits from land use type permits, which are project permits versus site construction permits. This is this is one of the hearts of the issue is they need to be separate because they have different timelines for approval. This allows somebody to submit them concurrently, but it's making it clear that if you submit your building permit with your land use permit, Your building permit's not going to be done in that statutory required time because we got to review the land use stuff first. So please understand that. And I think most applicants understand that. And in the long run, it makes the building permit completion time faster because you don't wait until the land use permit is totally approved before you submit your building permit. It allows for them to go together. And that can be helpful for both staff and the applicant.

Thank you.

Okay, so moving on. out of procedures and into the new chapter. So you can see departures here at the end of the procedures section and we're relocating those. So we're not eliminating them, just relocating them into a new chapter 1921 about that addresses administrative flexibility. And so this is all new other than the departures as I mentioned, it sets up The purpose, authority, the types of administrative flexibility which we've talked about. Applicability for administrative exceptions, review procedures and approval criteria. And then the documentation requirement. Any questions about that, Mr.

Chair?

Yes.

How and when is it gonna be decided, the five to 10%?

It can be decided as whenever we would like to, whenever you would like to. I had planned to, I mean, I think the administrative order says 5%, but I think that was just plucked as an example. My thought was that 5% might not be enough in certain circumstances, and so that's why I put a range, but happy to take feedback from folks on what you think about that.

I agree with you that I think 5% is probably too small. I feel like 10% might get a lot of comments that you're giving a lot depending on the size of your development. There you go, split it in half.

I guess I like the 10%.

Up to 10%. It's 10% with your director decision, correct? So it's not like it's just a given that the 10% would be allowed?

Right, there are, I mean, these exceptions are intended to only apply in, you know, very specific circumstances.

Not just for the fun of it because you can't meet it in any other way.

Right, it's got to be, you know, something that is, let's see, approval criteria. Derek does say 5 to 10%. Sorry.

I think where you can't meet the standards or that they can't reasonably be met. Yeah. And so if you're short a little bit, then and you can't move or reduce, you know. Yes.

OK. Yeah. So so there's some sort of, you know, physical thing with the property that, you know, was not really foreseen when that specific, whatever, if it's a setback, you know, setbacks apply, they're very general and apply to all properties, right? 20-foot setback, but you can't anticipate every single situation that's going to happen on every single property. So it's to kind of provide relief for those situations where, you know, maybe there's, you know, utility easement or something on the property that causes you to not be able to you know you need a couple of feet or a foot to be able to you know develop consistent with what would otherwise be allowed in the zone you okay with that explanation and what number would you like to see there I think ten I mean

More so because I think it gives more flexibility to the city to make decisions. It's not like they have to agree to the 10%. It's going to be the minimum to allow it to meet it.

Right. Yeah. And that's one of the, I think that's one of the review criteria that the modification is... limited to the minimum necessary to address the identified circumstance. So it's got to be related to some specific circumstance specific to the property and an applicant would have to demonstrate that it's the minimum that they need in order to address that site specific circumstance.

I think I'd certainly be good with up to 10%, again, depending on the approval.

Okay, well we I mean we can just keep the we can keep the range in there for now and like you know as it goes out for public comment and maybe get comment on that range and then The Planning Commission could make a recommendation to to counsel on what what you think the right? Number is there when we get to that point?

I was confused at the very beginning, because I thought 0% to 5% meant that anybody could go over that, and that the administrative approval came from 5% to 10%. Oh, I see. So that helps.

Yeah. Just a range of maximums. OK. So the next.

I'm sorry. Mr. Mills. Another wordsmithing suggestion that we reconsider 19.21. 010 under purpose. Item E, and I think we have this wording in at least one other place too, avoiding unnecessary variance. To me, that's a squishy term. A variance is either necessary or not necessary based upon the code. When I think our intent is to avoid requiring variances for immaterial things or things that have little consequence, So I think while focusing our attention on those that do, so necessary versus unnecessary is kind of a squishy term to me. I think we could define that a little better.

Okay, Mr. Chair.

Yes.

In 1921-200, In the purpose statement on A, administrative exceptions provide limited administrative flexibility to implement the purposes of the title and comprehensive plan where strict application of eligible development regulations would reasonably advance those purposes. This is the part. because of unusual site-specific circumstances. But if you go down to C2, it talks about because of site-specific conditions, existing development patterns, infrastructure constraints, unusual physical characteristics, or other circumstances not reasonably anticipated when the regulation was adopted. I'm just asking the question if A, under the purpose, is maybe just a little too narrow, since a little bit later you've really elaborated on it.

Yeah, I think that's a good point. Could work on that to make it a bit more general. Thanks. Thank you.

If I could offer for under 010E, it may not even be, I could do a bunch of wordsmithing to say something to the effect of to avoid the necessity of a variance for small changes under certain circumstances defined by this code, or we could just probably also delete this. Which direction would you prefer that we go in?

I think we got lost on which code you were talking about.

So in 1921-010 purpose, you were just speaking about number E, which says avoiding unnecessary variances. So I could go down the path of rewriting it to be more specific to say something to the effect of avoiding the necessity of a variance for limited reductions based on the criteria in this code or something to that effect. Or would you prefer that we just delete this E entirely?

If the question's addressed to me, I'm fine either way. I'm just troubled by the ambiguity that exists as written.

If I could make a comment, Mr. Chair?

Yes.

I think in this case, it seems like D&E are more or less synonymous. Avoiding unnecessary variances is essentially predictable and efficient permit review. Suddenly, avoiding variances means streamlining the whole process and making it more predictable. I think it could be considered the same thing. So it could be deleted, but I understand and appreciate the specific goal that is addressed in E.

Well, if there is no specific direction on that at this point, we could, staff can take a look at how to wordsmith it. Yeah, I mean, I think Either way, I don't think that we're losing much. It's a purpose statement, which are intended to be pretty broad, typically, and so could go either way. Open to, we could just leave it in for now, and then I could make a recommendation on changing it later on the next draft. Okay. Okay, so moving on to the permit terms and extensions. So this is the permit revision and expiration chapter 1928. And this is where we talk about after a permit has been approved or issued, how long is it good for? And so there are some updates proposed here. Mostly you'll see kind of combining permit types that all have the same or proposed to have the same initial term and a lot of extensions. So a lot of the project permits like the critical areas exemptions and shoreline exemptions site plan review the proposal there is to provide after site plan approval or approval of any of these types of permits two years to obtain a building permit or site construction permit And then if no building permit or construction permit is required, which is the case sometimes, then the approval would expire two years after the issuance of that project permit type. And then also specifying that the land use permit or the project permit term will match the term of the underlying or the construction or building permit. That just makes more sense to not have a land use permit expire in the middle of the term of, you know, you're trying to build whatever it is you're trying to build and, uh-oh, your site plan review has expired. That doesn't make any sense. So this would allow it to just extend to whatever the term of that building or construction permit is. Mr. Chair. Yes.

Just a question. You added floodplain development permit. Was it intentional that the rest was left blank?

This is a placeholder. We're still working out what that particular term should be. It's a permit type that was missing from the table that we noted. And so in a future draft, that will be filled in. Same with site construction permit. We were still getting some input from our engineering department on what that should be. So we'll be bringing back that recommendation. Okay. We already talked about the site plan. The site construction permit, it's pretty straightforward. I don't know if anybody wants to go through the details, but it just kind of sets up, you know, when is the site construction permit needed, what are the application requirements, what is the review process, approval criteria, effective approval, and outlining performance security and pre-construction requirements as well as inspections. So that's just something that has been a gap in our code and this is going to fill it. So we're, staff are very excited about that.

Mr.

Chair. Yes. On 19.30.020, I'm curious why site plan review would be required for an interior alteration that didn't result in expanding square footage, but added additional sleeping quarters. That didn't make sense to me.

So this... That do not result in... 19.38.

Right. Did I read that wrong? No, it's just... We're on 19.38, so go back.

Oh, I'm sorry, which section?

19... Oh, I think I read it wrong. My apologies.

Is it in the site plan review? Yes. Okay. Yeah, so that... Interior alterations, this is actually straight from the local project review act. And I think probably the thought there in exempting interior alterations that don't, so adding sleeping quarters or bedrooms sometimes may affect other aspects of the site development. So it might require more parking or it might require more open space or that sort of thing that would trigger the requirement to look at the site plan.

Or septic.

septic yeah I got just yeah around here right thank you sure

OK, and then there's the new building permit chapter, which you know just kind of. Talks about the relationship to other permits, so just clarifying that a building permit isn't doesn't constitute approval of land use issues or other issues that would be reviewed under a site construction permit. like for the very small projects, like the single family homes or smaller projects where we're doing just a consolidated review under the building permit. Then, sorry, I lost my train of thought on that one. But yes, so building permits don't approve, yes. land use or site construction permits unless it's a consolidated review. But this just kind of outlines that and also makes it clear that a building permit has to be consistent with any previously, with an approved site plan that's already gone through the process and making those connections between all of the different permits. Okay, that's the end. Any other questions or thoughts on this proposal?

Just one question. The city obviously does not issue the electrical permit. It's done by, what, Labor and Industry. And when we get around to the occupancy permit and everything, if that hasn't been signed off, is the occupancy permit, I mean, do we look for that sign off by the state? Yes. Mr. Coleman. We do. Okay. Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

Mr.

Chair, I have a question.

In the new section under 1938-060, there's a performance security section. Is that not, is this kind of thing not included in our existing code anywhere? Is this completely new?

Just trying to think. I think that it is included maybe under our land division requirements. But I'm not thinking, I'm not sure where else it might be right now. It might be in our engineering standards, which aren't part of the code. So it's good to include it here if that is in fact the case. But no, I don't think that we have anything about that outside of the land division requirements in the development regulations.

Thank you. I have one more question if that's okay.

Also under 1938, 030, there's a section C. There's a comment, unless waived by the city, is there any instance where, like, under what circumstances would these sorts of requirements be waived? Sorry, I know, like, got to scroll through and find it.

So this is related to application requirements for a site construction permit. Yes. So I think that there may be certain cases where a site construction permit is needed, but potentially it can be drawn by somebody that is not a professional engineer. That could be the case in very limited circumstances. And so if it was determined by the director that their you know, weren't any engineering issues that needed to be looked at, then potentially that requirement could be waived. I can't think of a specific situation where that might be the case, but that's, you know, potentially one example.

The cost estimate for... A good example might be for private land... engineering of something that we have specs for available already in our public works department standards or something kind of off the shelf where the engineering department's like, oh yeah, that'll be fine. They don't need to hire an engineer to do a full design of this small thing. This is meant for catching some like smaller projects that we want to make sure that we have it in our code, that we're requiring engineering for utility development and other roads and stormwater-related things. But sometimes there are limited cases where the engineering department's like, oh, yeah, you can use a standard for that so you don't need to pay an engineer to design it.

I also think we, oh, sorry. I was just gonna say, I also think we, number four, engineer's cost estimate for required improvements may not necessarily be required if there aren't any public improvements that are part of the project. Okay. Anything else? So I thank you, appreciate your thoughtful feedback and your patience in going through these. I will be working to integrate some of your thoughts and comments into a revised draft that will be published for public review and comment. We'll be sending out a notice of availability that we'll send out on our land use email distribution list to let everybody know that it's out and ready for public comment. And then also I think we post in the paper and we'll put it on our website. So that will be the next step in this process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good job. Planning department update.

Good evening, Planning Commission. John Coleman, Director, Planning, Community, and Economic Development. And so this is the time where I'd just like to update you on some of the things that you've been involved in that have come back and other various things that are relevant to the Planning Commission. So first of all, at the city council meeting last night, the council approved the critical areas regulations update public participation plan that you had reviewed last month's planning commission meeting and made recommendations and they accepted your recommendations and passed it on with no changes. Also at last night's meeting, this is not something that the planning commission was involved in per se, but the council accepted and heard a presentation about the downtown streetscapes plan that the planning department's been heavily involved in for the past year where our consultant first 40 feet was uh developing a plan to help the work with the community to see how we want to see our downtown streetscape look and what things we can do to improve its vitality and make sure that it's a great place for people to visit and uh That presentation was in about 35 minutes last night with several questions from the council. And so that plan is now available. There is a project website under planning and under the economic development tab, there's a page for that. downtown streetscapes plan and all of the documents are there including I think I requested sent it off to the presentation that they gave last night sent off for them to put on the project website also and put in the council packet from last night the presentation itself If you did not watch it, it may not mean so much. But the plan itself, while it's a little bit lengthy, is pretty easy to read and hopefully has a lot of ideas project-wise for the community to move forward, things we can do to improve the downtown streetscapes. I'm not going to go over all that because there's actually a lot in there and I'll let you do that. I don't want to give that 35-minute presentation again tonight. although it was not me that gave that presentation. That was our consultant, to be sure. So that is now available. City Council will work towards trying to find money to do some of those projects and have public meetings to see which ones to move forward with and how. So, for example, there's... Possible projects to do curb extensions, which would paint kind of bulb outs around at some of the corners beyond where the curbs extend to reduce the amount of drivable space that would be more pedestrian oriented space. The idea is slow down traffic at those corners and allow more area for people to congregate and give some sort of street furniture and paintings and reasons for people to be in that area. The greater concept at play here is the more people you see on the street enjoying the downtown, the more likely people are to stop when they are there and be like, oh, look at all the stuff going on, let's be part of this. So, but that's gonna cost money to design it, or not maybe to design it, but to cost money to install like paint and maybe some furniture. But we will work with the community to particularly Creative Arts District to come up with designs for what that might look like. Similarly, a street plaza is a possibility on Fifth Street just east of Commercial. for like a quarter block. So it doesn't block anybody's driveways, including the Majestic driveway, but would be like a community living space, living room, where it would be closed to cars, but open to pedestrians. That's a concept that needs to go through some public review and see what we want it to look like and have talked to the business owners in that area and they are on board with allowing that to happen and think it could actually be a benefit to their business and that's the way we like it to be we don't want it to be a problem for the local businesses we wanted to enhance the local businesses that is largely the point the point is not just to block a street because we can but it's to create a we don't have a park our gathering space in our downtown, right off of Commercial Street. We have the Ace of Hearts, which is, sorry, not Ace of Hearts, Heart of Anacortes Park, which is right there, but oddly far enough away that people miss it. So we want to give, we want to create a way for people to linger in the downtown space and create that vitality that people want to be a part of and give visitors a reason to stick around longer and give the community reasons to be hanging out in their downtown. And that is positive for the businesses. And that's the whole concept of this entire Downtown Streets plan is to bring people into the downtown and make it a love space that people want to be a part of. And there's lots of benefits to that. So that's what that downtown streetscapes plan is all about, and you can find it on our website. Moving on, so next for the planning commission meeting, on August 11th, we're intending to have our next portion of the critical areas regulations update project. We intend to be reviewing the best available science documents that we have. And time permitting, we have scheduled tentatively to have the Shoreline Master Program update to review the gap analysis, which is also related to the environmental impacts of the Shoreline Master Program. So that's what we have planned for August 11th. And then September 15th, remember, that's a bit of an odd, it's not strictly according to your schedule. It's not the second Tuesday of the month. I believe it's the third Tuesday of the month. And we moved that because of the holiday, Labor Day happening yesterday. and then pushing the city council meeting onto that Tuesday, the fifth, I'm sorry, the seventh. So we were displaced from our meeting place by the city council. So we're gonna have that on the 15th. And at that meeting, we intend to bring this item back. So tonight we reviewed items, From the executive order, we reviewed items that are intended to address 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E of the executive order. We already, back in May, reviewed the documents intended to address 4A. So on the September 15th meeting, we're going to bring all five of those, 4A through E, back for public hearings and hopefully a recommendation from the Planning Commission to move forward to the City Council. And then after that, September 29th, we're going to be having a special meeting at which we intend to talk about the critical areas ordinance draft amendments for a first read. We've got a fair amount of work to get there. And it's summer, so staff is going to be taking a little bit of time off here and there. So we're hoping to meet these time frames. We really intend to do so. I always like to say there's a sliver of possibility that it doesn't, but we're going to do our best to follow this timeline. And then October 13th, have the public hearing on those draft amendments. So that's the next couple of months. should be the same timeline that I spoke to you about last month. So we're still on target for our grant plan. And there you go. That is our planning department update for tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Coleman. Do we have anything else for the good of the order? Well, in that case, I'm going to adjourn the meeting.