Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

August 11th, Planning Commission meeting. Let's get started at 6 o'clock. Would you like to take a roll call, please?

Mills?

Present.

McCombs? Present. Sage? Present. Jaretzky?

Present.

Martin? Here. Underwood? Present. Ohana?

Present.

If you're able, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. 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. The first item on our agenda are the minutes from the July 14th meeting. Any comments? Would someone like to make a motion to accept the minutes as submitted? So moved. Mr.

Chair, I move that we accept the minutes for 714 as submitted.

Okay, Mr. Mills, would you like to second that? I second it. All right. All in favor say aye, accepting the minutes as submitted. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Opposed by the same sign? Minutes are accepted unanimously. Time for public comment. If anybody has anything they'd like to share with us that's not an agenda item, please step up to the podium, state your name and your address, and we don't want to hear from you. Not all at one time. Do we have anybody online? Okay. Ready for the public hearing. There is none. We'll move on to other business. Critical areas, regulations, periodic update.

Hi, good evening, everyone. My name's Libby Grach, and I'm the planning manager in the Planning, Community, and Economic Development Department. I am here this evening to present Item 6A and 6B related to the critical areas regulations and shoreline master program periodic updates, which we are in the midst of right now. I'm going to go ahead and start with the critical areas regulations best available science review and then I'll move into the shoreline master program gap analysis update. Okay, so critical areas regulations update. I think we've talked about it a couple of times at the last couple of Planning Commission meetings, but just as a quick refresher, we are reviewing and updating our critical areas regulations because the Growth Management Act requires that we periodically review those regulations to make sure that They continue to be informed by best available science and that they are consistent with any changes that have been made to the Growth Management Act or other local policies or regulations that have been updated since the last time we did an update of the regulations. This Periodic update of our critical areas regulations is due to be completed by December 31st, 2026. So the end of this year, coming right up. So as I mentioned, going through this process of updating our regulations, make sure that they stay consistent with the Growth Management Act requirements, and also that we're looking at what the best available science is to make sure that that's being considered as we develop our regulations to protect critical areas. So best available science is a requirement, as I mentioned, under GMA. It's required that jurisdictions consider and include best available science in developing their critical areas and it is a term that has a whole WAC section dedicated to describing what constitutes best available science, what the... you know, what the criteria are for meeting the specific requirements of what that is. So basically BAS is scientific information relating to the protection of critical areas. So it's the science that tells us how wide of a buffer do you need in order to protect the functions and values of a specific type of wetland. So it's actual scientific analysis that qualified professionals or a lot of times local, state, and federal natural resource agencies like Washington Fish and Wildlife Department, or Department of Ecology, or I guess those are the two I can think of off the top of my head. They have spent a lot of time developing their guidance on best available science and their recommendations for how to protect different types of critical areas. So, as I mentioned, best available science, there's criteria for what constitutes, how you determine, how the local legislative body determines what best available science is for our local jurisdiction because it's going to be, you know, somewhat unique depending on the different characteristics of each jurisdiction. So in order to assess whether there is new or updated science related to protecting critical areas, the city retained professional consultants called geoengineers to conduct reviews of sources of best available science. And they looked at wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, conservation areas critical aquifer recharge areas and geologically hazardous areas they looked at our regulations for each of those types of critical areas and compared the the best available science that is that is out there the science that is out there for protecting these types of areas looked at our code you know said is it is the city's code consistent with what the science is saying And if it wasn't or if there was room for improvements, then they made recommendations on what changes could be made to our regulations in order to be more consistent with the science. So you have in your packet three reports from geoengineers. One of them includes both wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. And then there is one for geologically hazardous areas and critical aquifer recharge areas in two separate reports. So three total documents you should have. And overall, through those reports, the overall conclusion was that the city's existing framework for protecting critical areas is fundamentally sound and generally consistent with the best available science that is out there, the most recent information. Each of the reports does include some recommendations for changes or refinements of our existing provisions, but they're mostly relatively minor technical updates you know, ways to improve clarity and administration of the regulations to help both with staff and the public understanding, you know, how the code is to be administered. And then also some general improvements for mapping and code organization. So kind of the overall big picture is that. The critical areas regulations seem to be consistent with the best available science and we don't need to make large scale changes to how we are regulating critical areas in Anacortes. But there are always opportunities for improvement. And so I'm not probably I don't think I'll go through each one of these I tried to summarize Each of the recommendations for each of the critical area types Again, you know the overall finding for each of them is going to be that the existing regulations are generally consistent with the BAS for wetlands the buffers that we have in the regulations are all within Ecology's recommended widths, and there were some recommendations for clarifications, as I mentioned to you, to make sure that wetlands and buffers are being addressed consistently throughout that code section. In some areas, when a regulation was applicable, it would only say, you know, this particular regulation is applicable to wetlands. And then in the next sentence, it would say wetlands and buffers. So trying to just get consistency. Are we talking about just wetlands or are we talking about wetlands and buffers? That was one of their recommendations. There was an update to the habitat scoring. It looks like it was just correcting a number that was in the code to be consistent with the ecology current wetland rating system. One of the more significant updates was in the way that we are dealing with functionally separated buffers and how an applicant goes about demonstrating that a portion of a buffer is actually functionally separated from the rest of the buffer and critical area. And we see that where, you know, if you have a wetland on a property and it's got a 100 foot buffer and then there's a road, you know, like a 30 foot wide road, and if the buffer technically would extend a full, would I say 100 foot, 200 foot buffer and it hits the road, then the area that is within the buffer on the other side of the road typically would be considered functionally separated from the rest of the buffer area. So you wouldn't typically consider that part of the buffer and it wouldn't be regulated under the critical areas regulations. Anyways, so one of the recommendations for updating the regulations is to do a little bit more assessment within a critical areas report to identify whether there are any hydrological hydrologic connections between the two separate areas of the buffer or if the other side of the road is providing some sort of habitat. So basically a little bit more evaluation to truly make sure that the portion is functionally separated based on science. So it's something that would need to be addressed in the critical areas report that is submitted as part of a development proposal. Are there any questions about that one? Yeah.

Hi. Thank you. I understand the functionality separated buffers, but would you mind explaining a little bit more about this buffer averaging And especially the part that I think, and I can't find it in these pages, but there's a part that talks about they can do buffer averaging but up to 75% or something. If you can explain that a little bit.

Was this a recommendation in the best available science report or in the current regulations? Do you remember?

Page 19 of 127. What do you know I found it? Okay.

Buffer averaging?

Yeah. For the sake of the audience, buffers can be reduced if the wetland and the site meet certain criteria based on habitat functions scores on the wetland ranging from an existing vegetated vegetated corridor around the wetland the buffers can also be reduced using buffer averaging which is allowed on a case-by-case basis when the following criteria are met and there's five criteria here the last one is It says the buffer width at the narrowest part is not reduced less than 75% of the standard width. I just need a little explanation.

Sure, I will try. So buffer width averaging in general is where if you have a wetland that requires a 100-foot buffer from the wetland. And maybe there are some areas on the site within the existing buffer that are disturbed. They're not, you know, maybe it's a grass lawn or something like that. And you have other areas on the site that are, you know, vegetated with nice, you know, big trees, forested areas. What the averaging says is that you can actually make the buffer smaller in some portions of a site. So reduce the buffer if you're increasing the buffer in other areas where it makes sense to you. And that 75% is... So if you have a 100-foot buffer, the buffer would still need to be at least 75 feet. It couldn't go below 75 feet. So you couldn't buffer with, and then you'd need to increase it elsewhere, you know, an additional 25 feet. Does that make sense?

Well, not exactly, because if I'm reading it right, it says the buffer width at the narrowest point is not reduced to less than 75% of the standard width So if I'm a builder and I've got a 100-foot buffer around this wetland that I'm trying to build around, I think it's saying that I could put my structure within 25 feet because it could be reduced by 75%. It's not less than 75%. Oh. That might be it.

Not reduced to less than 75%.

That might be it. Okay.

So that means you can't reduce the buffer more than 75 feet when the buffer is 100 feet standard.

Yeah. Perfect.

Thank you.

The maximum reduction is 25%. Got it.

Okay. You can say it multiple ways.

All right. Good. Okay, was there anything else on, I don't think I went through all of these, but there were some additional recommendations to add an in lieu fee mitigation option to the code. When a critical area or a wetland, sorry, when impacts cannot be avoided, then this is a possibility where an applicant could pay a fee and there would be mitigation provided somewhere Offsite and we don't have a program currently set up to do anything like that. So it's not an option that is in use right now or could be used right now. But in the future, you know there could be something like that. So this is just. Updating our code to allow for that possibility in the future. And then that last one is just various technical corrections throughout that wetland section. So that's it for the recommendations on wetlands. Is there anything that you want to talk about or any questions on wetlands? So basically these recommendations are going to inform the draft amendments that will be published here in September. Mid-September we're going to use these recommendations to draft those proposals. Okay. So the next type of critical area you'll find in that report is fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. So this type of critical area includes streams and riparian management zones. And also, there are a bunch of other types of habitat conservation areas, including priority habitats and species. There are locally designated... Priority habitats and... Not priority. Locally designated... Habitat areas of local significance. I'm sorry. I'm not getting that that right but an example is the Anacortes community forest lands and its entirety is designated as a Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area of local importance also another example is the March Point Heron Heron area over by T. Bailey off of SR 20 is also a locally important designated fish and wildlife conservation area. So anyways, this category covers multiple different types of critical areas. get us all on the same page there. And so you'll see that a lot of the recommendations from our consultant, the first maybe 50% are around riparian management zones. And that is a relatively new section of our regulation, critical areas regulations adopted in 2021 or 2022, I want to say. And so, you know, through actually administering these code sections and, you know, having experience in trying to understand what they're saying, explaining them to, you know, qualified professionals that are trying to write reports for this type of critical area, there's just some things that, from staff's perspective, could be clarified in the code just to help everyone understand what is expected. when development is proposed within an RMZ. So a lot of the updates are focused on those types of clarifications. There are also, this first one here is strengthening standards within the RMZ. requirements to ensure that surface water flows aren't diverted away from water courses. So we want to try and maintain the same level of hydrology that is currently going to water courses before development, the same before as after, or the same after as before. And then also a direction to locate any development as far away from the watercourse as possible. Right now, within our RMZ standards, there are allowances for development of a new single-family residence on existing lots that have already been platted as legal lots. there is an allowance under a permitted alteration permit to develop on those sites within certain parameters. But something that was missing was, okay, well, you can develop within the RMZ, but there's no minimum distance that you can get to the watercourse or the stream. And so this will help us to make sure that outside of mitigation sequencing, which is avoiding and minimizing impacts, that folks are designing their projects to put development as far away as possible from the water course. There's also been some, a recommendation to And expand the discussion of enhancement measures that can be used in order to mitigate for development within an RMC in these limited circumstances to give a little bit more direction on what will work for that type of, to mitigate for the different impacts. you know, converting stormwater management systems to infiltration, invasive species removal, soil restoration, restoring historic hydrology. So it gives kind of some examples for folks that are, or the biologists that are writing reports about what types of mitigation can be used to mitigate for impacts. There were some updates to the, let's see, update designated species and priority habitats to include federally listed species, forage, fish, spawning areas, and cliffs and bluffs. So these were types of priority habitats and species that were missing from our list of designated species. habitat conservation areas, so our consultants recommending that we add those. And then also updating our regulations about bald eagles, which have seen a lot of changes in how they are regulated over the last decade or so. And so this would just update our standards to be consistent with state and federal standards for bald eagle nesting area protection requirements. That's it on fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Are there any questions about that section? Okay. So critical aquifer recharge areas. So the geoengineers took a look at our existing regulations and found that they are generally consistent with the best available science. and current regulatory practices. There were only a couple of recommended updates and the first one is just a reformatting recommendation. Right now, The way that the code is formatted, there's a bullet point that was pushed over a little bit too far, and so it actually caused the designation criteria to miss a couple of types of critical aquifer recharge areas to not make sense, basically. And so the consultant is recommending that we fix that, which is a great It's a good thing to do. And then also updating our mapping to consolidate additional critical aquifer recharge information into the city's GIS system. The city doesn't have any group A or B wellhead protection areas and lake areas outside of the city limits. So we'll have to take a look at that recommendation a little more closely to see if it makes sense. I think, you know, it may be helpful to include in the mapping just to show that here's the group A and B wellheads and here's Lake Erie and they're outside of city limits so people can kind of, you know, check those off the list. But that, those are updates to mapping. And that's it for critical aquifer recharge areas. Are there any questions or discussion on that one? Okay, geologically hazardous areas. Again, the existing regulations are generally providing an appropriate framework for addressing geologic hazards within the city. There were a few recommendations that the consultant suggested that the city consider. And the first one there is considering adjusting exposed bedrock and rock stability as a landslide hazard area where specified criteria are met. So exposed bedrock, I understand from the report, is not a priority. typical condition that you see in a lot of jurisdictions and so this would be something that's more specific to Anacortes because of our specific geology and so there's more information about that recommendation in the report but this would be basically adding an additional type of geologic hazard area or, excuse me, adding another, designating another type of area as a landslide hazard area within our code. So there are some recommendations about clarifying when certain types of analyses are required as part of the critical area report on steep slopes, require additional addition of requiring valuation by a qualified professional when infiltration is proposed in or near landslide hazard areas and and typically that's a no-no I think the stormwater the stormwater Management manual talks about, you know, when infiltration is appropriate and typically it's not on landslide hazard areas or near them, but this I think we'll just put another safety measure in the critical areas regulations to make sure that those types of stormwater facilities are evaluated appropriately when they're proposed. There's a recommendation to consider requiring property covenants and peer review, which we actually already do for any development involving landslide hazard areas. So a covenant would be like a notice on the title that basically, you know, the property owner, if they're wanting to develop within a hazard area, would acknowledge the fact that that is what they are doing, and also it would provide notice to future property owners about that critical area designation. And we do have provisions in our code right now requiring peer review when an applicant wants to reduce the buffer from the top of a steep slope. So I'll need to double check what that second one was there. We don't have any mine or volcanic hazard areas in the city, and so the consultant report is suggesting that we consider those areas as no risk and just removing the associated development standards because since there aren't any of those types of areas, we don't need regulations for them. There's this recommendation to clarify requirements for retaining and restoring vegetation to maintain slope stability and minimize erosion. And finally, some mapping updates. There's some new tsunami hazard maps that are out that we should be using and also some really great resources from Washington Geological survey that, I guess that's the tsunami hazard maps. Yes, sorry about that. That one is just about the tsunami hazard area maps. So we would update our maps to include those more recent versions. Any questions about the geohazard areas, recommendations?

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mills. Maybe I just need a geology lesson, but the first bullet about the recommendation to add a identify exposed bedrock as a landslide hazard, intuitively bedrock seems pretty stable. Why would we consider it a hazard?

That's a great question. Let me find that section here.

Apparently I read past it.

Check 113.

So I'm just going to read what it says in the report. The recommendation is under 3.3.2. I see it. And it says, dissimilar to most Puget Sound jurisdictions, the city has significant areas with exposed bedrock. And stability considerations of rock are not currently included in the current city code. It may be appropriate to include a definition where exposed rock conditions occur and meet specific criteria that would require being addressed as a landslide hazard area.

So, in fact, I had yellow highlighted that on my first read. I guess they're suggesting that bedrock isn't necessarily stable.

Well, I think when it has to be, potentially when it has to be.

It might be challenging to write a regulation that defines when it's not stable.

Well, that doesn't. I'll have to do some more digging to get a better explanation of exactly why that might be a good idea. Happy to do that and bring back more information on that one. Okay, any other questions on the geohazard? I've got my note on that one.

I guess I have a question. Under mine and volcanic, are we going to strike that because we don't have any areas?

Yes, that would be the idea.

I think I, me personally, I would prefer that we leave a heading and just note that our area doesn't have any of those rather than have somebody wonder whether we missed it.

Yeah.

Maybe somebody who comes from an area where that was a major concern, somebody who just moved here from Hawaii or someplace like that. Yeah. I'd rather leave it in there saying at this time we aren't aware of any of such areas.

I think that could be a good option. Okay, frequently flooded areas, this is a type of critical area that we are still working on the best available science review and we'll be bringing additional information on the BIS and also recommendations for any changes to the code at a future planning commission meeting. Okay, so that concludes my presentation on the best available science review for critical areas regulations. And so we've kind of stopped at each one and you've asked questions and given some suggestions. But this is where I stop and ask for any other feedback that you have on findings and recommendations in the report and whether there are any issues related to critical areas regulations that you know you would like more information about or you would like to see addressed within the amendment the first draft of the amendments that are presented a minor comment but it was nice to see the consultant note that the city's done a really good job of considering all these things for the most part I'm so sorry I couldn't hear the first part the consultant noting that the city has done a good job of

considering all these issues with minimal recommendations. Nice that the homework's been done.

Yep. Yeah, and it's been, you know, it's pretty recent that we did a pretty major update to the regulations, you know, back in 2021 is when we... for the most part, finished. So it hasn't been very long. There hasn't been a lot of time for the science to change significantly where that would warrant wholesale changes in our approach to regulating critical areas. Anything else on that?

Mr. Chairman, may I make a question? In one of the statements, the recommendation to include cliffs and bluffs, it seemed to be leaving out a critical habitat known as rocky balls, which do occur on Fidelgo Island. I was wondering if that was supposed to fall into that category, because I did not see it in the consultant's report. but that is a specific habitat that I think would also be considered part of that group of habitats that we should look at.

Yes, I will look into that. I don't know the answer.

Thank you.

Go on once. Okay. And, you know, if you think of something or if you have time to reread these reports, you know, for a second or third time and something occurs to you and, you know, feel free to reach out to me. And I'm happy to chat about your thoughts and any suggestions you have. Mr.

Chair, just a quick question. So the process is you're taking... this information from the consultants, the small amount of feedback that we've given tonight, and then is it open up then to the public for their input? And then does it come back here or does it, what's the process?

So the process from here would be that staff is taking the feedback that we've heard, from the public at the open house that we had for critical areas regulations update, the comments that we've received to date, which there have been a few, planning commissions feedback, and also coordinating with other resource agencies that have expertise in these different types of critical areas. So all of that. outreach and information will inform the first draft that goes out. And that will be the next step is putting out a draft amendment package.

And will that come back here? Yes. Okay.

I'm sorry. Yes. Thanks. Yep. It'll go out for, there'll be a notice of availability and public comment period. So we'll put that out and then we'll schedule, I think the planning commission meeting is scheduled for September 1st. 29th and then a public hearing is scheduled for October. Sorry I don't have the exact dates but I'll find those for you. Okay, so if there aren't any other items on the critical areas BIS reports, we'll move on to, well, if that's all right with you, Mr. Chair, moving on to item B on the agenda, or six B. Thank you. So this portion of my presentation is talking about the other major periodic update that we have, that the city is working on right now, and that is the SMP, Shoreline Master Program periodic update. So we've discussed this a few times at Planning Commission as well, but as a refresher, again, we're reviewing and updating the Shoreline Master Program because the SMP is required under the Shoreline Management Act of Washington State and the Shoreline Management Act requires periodic review every 10 years, similar to our Growth Management Act plans and regulations. And so we're conducting that review right now in order to make sure that our that the city's existing policies and regulations within its SMP comply with current state laws and guidance, and also that we're addressing changed local conditions and new information that may have come out since the last time we did this periodic update. So just a reminder that this update has been going on for a while. It was started back in 2019 and during the period of 2019 through 2022 there was quite a bit of work that occurred including a gap analysis that was done for to inform the update, so that was looking at existing regulations, so the 2010 Shoreline Master Program, 2010 is the last time we did a major update, so comparing the 2010 SMP against the current Shoreline Management Act, guidance from the Department of Ecology, and local, the comprehensive plan and development regulations and identifying areas where there were gaps or inconsistencies between existing regs and where they needed to be. So the 2020 gap analysis went through that process and identified all of those recommended changes to be consistent with the regulations that were in place in 2020. There was a couple of different drafts of the actual amendments that were released for public review. The Department of Ecology issued an initial determination of consistency for the amendment package that was released back in 2022 or 2021. And then the Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation of approval to the City Council on the amendments. And then in May of 2022, I believe, The council discussed the SMP a couple of times, wanted to see a couple of revisions, so we put it out for additional public review, and at that time the process was paused pending the outcome of some appeals of our critical areas regulations. That process has been paused or was paused between 2022 and 2026. The cities reinitiated the periodic update. And with that, we have conducted an updated gap analysis to catch all of the gaps updates to state laws and our comprehensive plan and our development regulations and all of the other work that has happened between when that original gap analysis was done and today. So that's the history. There's a lot. And in a nutshell, that's where we're at. So I think I already talked about this, the gap analysis for the SMP basically evaluated the existing SMP or the 2010 SMP, which is what we're working with right now, against changes in state law, local plans, regulations, and changed circumstances. And that was all to inform where amendments may be needed to maintain compliance or consistency with those regulations. So as I mentioned, there's been a lot that's happened in the last couple of years, and so those plan and regulation updates are the documents that were looked at to make sure that the SMP as it's currently proposed, the 2022 draft that went through the full public process, or almost the full public process, to make sure that that is consistent with our new comprehensive plan that was adopted in 2025 and the related development regulations. The city commissioned a compliance assessment of shoreline permits. That was funded by the Department of Ecology in 2024, and that review found or made some recommendations for how we could improve our shoreline permitting process and regulations. And so some of those items, you know, can be incorporated into this update. And then, of course, we're on our current critical area periodic review. And state laws and guidance have continued to evolve over the last four years as well. And so we're looking at all of these things to identify areas where there are gaps or inconsistencies that we need to be addressing before we adopt the SMP update. I just went over this, so same thing, sorry. And the basic, the gist of our review was that their staff didn't find any significant inconsistencies that require major changes proposed amendments and most of the work that I just went through is remains applicable there weren't we didn't identify any you know major updates that needs or changes that need to be made so that that was good I just listed out the, there are some recommended amendments that we make to the SMP just for consistency with all of those documents that I just went over. I'm not going to read through them. If you have questions, let me know. But, you know, basically they're pretty, Well, the one major thing that is different is that we now have a climate element in our comprehensive plan. And so part of what staff has recommended is that we look and make sure that the climate element is coordinated with the shoreline element policies, that those are coordinated and consistent. And also just making sure that The shoreline regulations and the permit review procedures are consistent with our Title 19 processes that have kind of continued to evolve over the last couple years. Got some recommendations for improving documentation for individual project review of no net loss, shoreline ecological functions. updating the shoreline restoration plan addendum that's a document that lists out a bunch of projects that are either in the city's capital plans or the port or other governmental agencies that involve shoreline restoration projects and you know as time goes by those happen or they don't and so it's time to update that to reflect which projects have actually occurred and if maybe there are new ones that need to be added to the list. Okay, so that's my summary of additional recommended amendments to the Shoreline Master Program.

Libby, just another question about the Title 19. Yeah. I know that we've talked about it. I read yesterday pretty detailed recommendations from the public. Where do we go from here on the Title 19, the whole Title 19 procedures?

Are you referring to the the permit streamlining? Amendment proposal that we talked about last.

Yes at the last meeting Yes, and our notes say that it's coming. Is it coming back to us?

Yes. Okay. I Yeah, I believe there will be a, so right now we're working on making updates and revisions to the initial draft proposal that the Planning Commission saw to incorporate, you know, your feedback and feedback that we've heard from the public, and we will be really seeing another draft here soon and public hearing I believe is scheduled for next month I guess next month yeah the September 15th which is

Our regular Planning Commission meeting is supposed to be on the 8th, but because Labor Day falls on the 7th, that pushes the city council into this room on September 8th, so we checked in with the Planning Commission to see what they want to do, and we chose September 15th, which is a Tuesday, like we regularly meet. So that will be the regular Planning Commission meeting date for September. And it is at that meeting that we're planning a public hearing for those code amendments related to the executive order.

Okay, thank you. And like I said, the suggestions that I have here from the public are pretty extensive changes being recommended. I just hope they're going to be looked at, I think.

Yeah. Absolutely. We're looking at all of the comments that we receive and considering all of them, and they'll all be brought forward to the commission for your consideration as well. Thank you. All right, if there aren't any specific questions about the updated gap analysis, so again, this is gonna, this analysis will inform the updates that staff is going to be working on to the draft SMP amendments. So planning commission's feedback, you know, feedback that we've gotten from the public at our SMP open house and also, you know, comments that we've received are all being considered in developing these draft amendments. So here's what happens next. I just kind of went over this, but thank you for your feedback. I appreciate it. And as I mentioned, if you think of anything or questions after our meeting, please feel free to reach out to me. So staff will be drafting the amendments. We'll do additional outreach and agency coordination, our environmental review, excuse me, and then public comment periods on the drafts, planning commission public hearings, and ultimately a recommendation from planning commission to city council for adoption or approval your recommendation to City Council for adoption or adoption with changes or whatever it happens to be. And then for the Shoreline Master Program amendments, that does go on to a subsequent process with the Department of Ecology where they review the proposed updates to ensure compliance with the Shoreline Management Act. So they have their separate process where they'll review those. I believe they'll have another public comment period and then ultimately issue their decision and only then will the updated Shoreline Master Program become effective. That's all I have. Thanks for listening.

Thank you. Do we have any comments from our public that would like to get this opportunity to address the commission? Okay. Mr. Coleman, you have a Planning Department update? Yes. Please step forward.

Is this on automatically? Okay. I hate this because I can't see perfect. OK, I like eye contact my Mary Jo. I live here in Anacortes. I have some question. One question is isn't the SMP? Do the 2027 not 2026.

Are so the the deadline for the our current periodic update was 2020. So we are trying to get the update completed, you know, as soon as we can.

I read something someplace where it says December 2027.

Yeah, so the next periodic update is due in 2030. And so we'll probably be starting that update process soon. Yeah, yeah.

Can I comment about some of the slides? Sure. In the critical areas in the slope stability, and this is maybe a question for Libby, but are you considering trees, the trees that are on a steep slope? What is the policy for tree retention in the vegetation? And I'm specifically talking about the Guaymas Trail and the steep slope below San Juan Passage and Portales and how many trees have been cut down. And we've had several slides in that area. So in looking at the updates, is there any kind of additional signage that would go on the top of the slope that identifies that as a non-disturbance area so that people can't cut down trees. That's one question. And I had another one. I can't remember it, so I'll write it down and send it to you.

I suffer from the same problem.

I had it at the moment, and I wanted to raise my hand. But then we went on, and I had more questions, and now I've forgotten all of them. But that was the last question, and that's the only one I remember.

Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. I'm sorry? Can I make a comment?

Please. So, Mark Neuhardt, Ward 2. I appreciate all the work that the planning department has done. Those consultant reports are extensive and very useful, and we look forward to seeing the recommendations made move from the consultant report into the hardened code. One thing, you got one of my long notes recently, so it was 22 pages, but I also noted that It's 2027, and I attached the legal brief that said that the city has till December 31st, 2027, to finish the SMP. And the staff, the city staff's working hard at it. You guys are working hard at it. You meet once a month. We would like to see, I would like to see Smart Growth Anacortes would like to see the time taken to do it right. You only meet once a month, and it's not a forum where you're really working as a work group. The city staff has to do their own stuff, plus they're doing the CAO update, they're doing the permit streaming, so we need to take the time to get the process done right, where you can represent your interest or our interest to make sure everything goes into the plan. So I don't think we need to press this to get it done by some artificial date, which 2026 is, that we could go into 2027. And I also would recommend the permit streaming thing. We only had 16 permits last year, or so far this year. Do we need a big permit streaming push when we've had 16 permits so far this year? I think that can wait until next year. Focus on the CAO through 2026 and then do the SMP in 2027 along with the permit screening. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Yes, sir.

Ron Johnson, I live along Oaks Avenue above the Guemist Trail and the comments on the Guemist Trail struck one for me because I have the opposite concern from San Juan Passage, Portales, where they've cut down the trees. I'm looking at real close to Roadside Park where the trees are drastically undercut. by the bank and if they're left as is, at some point they will come down and take the bank with them. And I'm pretty sure there's one that looks like it will take those stairs with it. So if we can look at something about taking care of hazard trees on the bank as well as trying to salvage trees. Yeah, I can see the firs and some of those, but those alders, realistically, those are garbage trees. I mean, they grow up fast, they die, they fall apart, not necessarily in that order. Thank you.

Thank you. anybody else thank you for your comments and questions

Good evening, Planning Commission. So our last meeting was July 14th when we talked about the executive order items 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E. Those were first reads on those. Those will come back for public hearing after the comments that were received during that process and then And in between then and now, any comments that we've received, which I'm not sure if we have or not. So those are coming back to you on September 15th, and we'll have a public hearing on all five of those, including 4A, which we first talked about at the Planning Commission on May 12th. So that's what's on the agenda for September 15th. On September 29th, we're still planning to have our draft amendments for the critical areas regulations update. And then we wanna have that out with time for people to review them. We'll present it to the Planning Commission. We always accept comments at our regular meetings, but then we'll have a full public hearing after it's been out for a while for people to review on October 13th, and that is our plan. We're working hard to meet that timeline because we have to have the critical areas regulations updated by the end of this year, so that's why we're making sure that we're moving that one along. And that's a couple of months away. October 13th is two months from now, so there's lots of time for us to be doing the work and getting public comments in the meantime. And then... you know, after you make your, after you have your public hearing, then you can make a recommendation to the city council and then it goes through their process. So there's lots of time for the community to review. Shoreline Master Program Draft Amendments, we're attempting to get those out September 27th. So after we've reviewed the Critical Areas Ordinances, the Critical Areas Regulations, which do play into our SMP to an extent, then we can move the SMP. So the SMP is gonna be a step behind the Critical Areas Regulations updates. Um, and So that's the schedule so far, and that would be just releasing the SMP amendments. We would have a public hearing at a later date again, so make sure that it's out where the public can have the opportunity to review it and have some time to mull it over and really sink their teeth into it before the actual public hearing, which the soonest would be November 10th, and we'll see if we can maintain those timelines. That's all we have. We haven't had any Planning Commission recommendations go to Council, so there's not anything the Planning Commission has sent to Council for us to follow up on to see where those are at.

Mr. Chair, one thing that happened at the city council meeting last night is Mr. Coleman did a very nice job of commending Libby Grage, and she received a mayor award. I'm not sure what it was called, but she received an award, and I think well-deserved. So thank you, Libby. Thank you.

Thank you for bringing that to our attention.

Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. While we're on the calendar discussion, as I recall, during the comp plan update, the impact fee schedule was identified as something that was going to be reviewed, I think, this year? Yes. Where is that at on the...

calendar process. So financial stuff doesn't come to the Planning Commission, so that's not going to be coming past the Planning Commission. That's going to go straight to City Council later this fall. We're kind of trying to get hold of budgets, get the budget under control, and it's on the mayor's timeline, trying to fit it in with the city council agendas throughout the rest of the year.

So if commissioners want to comment on that, we can do so at council meetings. Sure. As citizens, of course.

Sure, yeah. But we don't have a specific date for that.

Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Coleman. Thank you. Mr. Coleman, with all the reading of the reports and whatnot, I haven't been able to catch up on Months versus Aniquitous at the Growth Management Hearings Board. I heard there was a final order in that, but I wasn't able to read any of it.

Well, thank you for reminding me. I did mention that last night when we were congratulating Libby. I forgot to bring that up. So last week, the Growth Management Hearings Board made its determination on the appeals of the comprehensive plan and development regulations updates. The Growth Management Hearings Board denied all of the appeals, so the Complan and development regulations were upheld in full by the growth management hearings board so that That's a Nice shows that we did a lot of good work and the growth management hearings board Agreed that we did the work necessary to meet the growth management Act as well as followed the proper procedures and guidelines and So we crossed our T's and dotted our I's along the way and made sure that we had the proper process in place and proper access to the information through the process and public had the proper opportunity to weigh in and it was nice to have the Growth Management Hearings Board tell us that yes, we did everything per state law. And there was another appeal of the stormwater management plan. I forget the specific title of it, which addresses our stormwater process. And that was, oh, the growth management hearings board also found with the city on that one, largely on the finding that that's not a growth management plan.

related document it's not something in their purview is what they found 7 15 and it's the time to close our meeting thank you all for attending thank you for your comments your questions and listening