Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening. Welcome to the October 7th meeting of the Ever Planning Commission. Ayanna, would you please call the role? Commissioner Chair Chatters here. Commissioner Shelby here. Commissioner Ballard here. Commissioner Sullivan here. Commissioner Welch here. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll now read the land acknowledgement. We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the people and their successors, the Tleup tribes. Since time immemorial, they have hunted, fished, gathered on, and taken care of these lands and waters. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. We strive to be honest about our past mistakes and bring about a future that includes their people, stories, and voices to form a more just and equitable society. We'll now move on to approval of the meeting minutes. We were provided with copies of the August 19th and September 16th meeting minutes. Commissioners, were there any corrections that you wish to offer? Any objection to approving both of uh the August and September meeting minutes as written? Okay, without objection, those are approved. We now have an opportunity for uh commissioner reports. Commissioners, anything to report. All right, then we'll hand it over to staff. Thank you.

Great. Good evening, commissioners uh and anyone who's watching the York Stevens Watcha planning director and with me we have Teddy Hullbrook, environmental planner. We're going to be talking critical areas today. Couple of staff comments before we get into uh the main part of the agenda. Uh minutes. Thank you for approving those two sets of minutes. Um we are going to with your permission uh work on a little project to simplify the process of minutes. Um as you probably see other councils, boards, commissions, and there's a variety of styles of minutes. Uh we Ayanna and I primarily inherited a very um detailed uh way of writing minutes that I think this commission has been doing or has been doing for uh decades. I think it's a lot of work to do. There's a lot of risk of uh missing some points. Um and technology has advanced. I think when we started nearly verbatim uh sets of minutes that went into the entirety of a discussion in a summary form uh maybe we recorded them on audio the meetings we definitely didn't have full video recordings which are on YouTube which are transcribed giving us the full minutes and the ability to seek back and forth and all of that. Um and then there's also just the risk of you know a lot of detail on some set of comments and less detail on others and it's just been a struggle uh I think to try to get those done uh how we'd like in the time that we'd like while balancing too much more work. So if it is okay with you and I can't remember we may have even talked about this in the past uh to to do a little project to look at some other boards and commissions in the city and some other uh jurisdictions and our own city council is is one great example of an actionoriented

um so less trying to characterize the discussion and more so uh just this this action was taken for a meeting like today there won't be very much action discussion was open discussion was closed, these members were present, uh minutes were approved, that kind of a thing. Any thoughts on that initiative? I think that sounds very appropriate. That is very very typical of many boards and the way they operate and we can get an AI transcript. Right. Right. Commissioner's comments, uh, any objection to that type of move?

I don't have any objections. So, I do have a question on the the um the recordings like how how long are those kept? Are those are we is there a policy or I'm just curious on how long those will be alive? Yeah, I'll have to check. I don't know that there's anything that we would do to take them off there. We have a YouTube channel. Is it even permanent? They are kept indefinitely on our YouTube channel and there is transcripts available. So, at some point YouTube may go away. That's not going to be anytime soon, but I think we would take some step to save them at that point. So, practically indefinite. Additional thoughts on this topic or concerns?

That is a good question though. So, I will we'll make sure that we save for the distant future some uh way to maybe it's saving the transcriptions or something like that into a text file that we have on our system. Okay. So yeah, we'll we'll uh report back on that at the next meeting and uh may put it into practice for this meeting or we may wait till the next one. Uh updates on two other uh projects that we're working with you on manufactured housing communities. We continue to work on the uh public outreach and engagement around that. uh staff visited the Fairway Estates Community Association uh two weeks ago, I think it was, and met with I think there was over a hundred people uh that lived in or were associated with that development. We've been reaching out to ownership as well uh and other representatives of the owner groups. On October 30th, we are going to visit Silver Shores, I think it is, or maybe it's the Silver Lake Community Council, uh Neighborhood Association. Yes. Um I expect to see some residents of Silver Shores there. Uh but that's in the same public engagement uh push that we're doing on that. And then doing more research and working on the code language uh at a staff level. I think uh two more meetings we'll probably bring that back to you and at that point it'll be um uh we'll we'll have some clarity as to what the proposal is. Everett 2044 housekeeping. Um we are uh getting that into shape for the council. Thank you for uh completing your review and recommendation on that at the last meeting. Uh we're doing state agency uh review and notice. We're doing our SEIPA checklist and anticipate a determination of non-significance for that and we're queuing it up for council

consideration. uh the inclusionary zoning piece uh remains, you know, a really key topic to get right. I think it was a suggestion last meeting to uh reach out to Lisk and Future Wise who had a role in uh some technical expertise on the subject and some uh initiative in its original creation. we have done so and and uh folks from them as well as the housing consortium and others we've asked for some input and some advice on how to get the uh and this is all around making sure that ownership product is not disadvantaged in that system compared to rental product. So uh doing some math on housing affordability and we will let you know if that results in any changes or we may bring it back if it's significant for a second review from you. Um but otherwise we're trying to get that to the council.

Can I just mention that on that particular subject I I did have an opportunity to talk with some community members about that and um I think there was a bit of disappointment that we were not able to fully envision how that could benefit um housing. And I I would love it to come back through this body for more discussion. I think Commissioner Rutled had some concerns that maybe um could have been tweaked and addressed. I think some of the other commissioners brought up some really good concerns, but I I don't feel like we I think we kind it was kind of sprung on us a little bit. Maybe we didn't think it through fully or have an opportunity to think it through fully um as we were talking about it and voting on it immediately. So, if there is an opportunity to bring it back with additional information so we can have a fuller conversation, I think that would be wonderful. And I think that the community wants to see us get more creative uh about how we are dealing with these things and not just do a well, it's not how we've ever done it. So, sure, sounds good. Yes, absolutely. Um next meeting we'll see where we land after this briefing on critical areas today. Uh it is a lot of work. We're this is an 81page chapter I think and uh you know very complex underneath that where every word matters. Um we're trying to get it done by the end of the year. We'd have some dates for the council and we have some dates for the planning commission that we're trying to get all lined up and end by December 31st. Um, our next scheduled meeting of the planning commission is October 21st, but we have passed the deadline for scheduling that for a public hearing. So, it will not be possible to uh get a recommendation from the planning

commission on October 21st. um we don't have as crystallized of uh like actual code language to share with you today. So that makes October 21st not a great day to jump straight like the inclusionary zoning and uh need giving you the appropriate amount of time to work to understand and work through all of this. So, we're think depending where we get through today and what we can get through in the next week at a staff level, um we may ask to keep the October 21st meeting, but it wouldn't be a public hearing as we had originally thought. Then the next two meetings are November 4th and November 18th where we could have a public hearing and um ask for consideration of a resolution recommending the critical areas ordinance. Um I guess well November 4th is election day. In the past, we've tried to avoid that. November 18th by my calendar and cross referencing that with the count council calendar. If we did not get out of the planning commission till November 18th, we would not get it updated by December 31st, although it could be the first meeting of the new year. So, a lot of moving pieces there with notice deadlines, uh, our own work, your work, and level of comfort. Um, I guess I will ask October 21st, November 4th, and November 18th. Are those all available? Uh, and then if we can just be in touch with with agendas. I I'm thinking that October 21st would be good to keep just to keep moving on this. And then it would be a question of whether the 4th if we wanted to avoid that because of election night or or other reasons. Um, and then that would recognize that we would be getting into 2026 by just a smidge at this point. Any do not schedule meeting dates out of that list? October 21, November 4, November 18.

I will not be able to be present. Okay. Okay. We'll see where we get through today. And um, uh, I think we're really close. We've got that 81 pager. Uh we've got strike through, we've got draft language, there's a lot of highlighter and comments over it where we're still working through uh spent hours on it just today. Um so let's jump into that. I guess that's the end of staff comments. As always, if there are any questions on other topics, happy to take those. Okay,

I think we're ready to proceed. Thank you. Okay, get into the get into the teams meeting and get the slides up.

Thank you, Vice Chair. I'm sorry. Um be be while you're setting that up um I know we have a few people in the gallery uh who may want to offer public comment. Mr. Joe will offer comment after uh the presentation. Is there anyone in who would like to offer public comment now? We do have an opportunity for it. Absolutely. Step to the mic and state your full name and city of residence for the record, please. Yeah, sure. First thing I walked in,

thank you for that update. Thank you.

Um, you are being or you are your your agenda says you'll be discussing critical areas and that's why I'm here. I want to bring this critical area uh to your attention. um out um there's a high steep hill for eight miles as you leave l and um all of it is critical area because it's high and steep and has about 23 creeks running down it but the biggest creek comes from Everett. It's Wood Creek. And um I would ask you to picture Broadway as you're heading north and you hit 75th. And on the map here it says Cascade Loop. And right by the P is where 75th crosses over Interstate 5 and goes into the Valley View Plat. And of course, you probably remember that in 2011, two houses slipped down that hill. I'm not here to talk about that, but as Valley View comes right up to the edge of a ravine where Wood Creek flows and that hatched area is that ravine. Now, in March of this year, Wood Creek flowed or caused to flow uh 22,000 cubic yards of material down into the flood plane. And if you look at the Wood Creek thread here, you get to Lar Road

and then there's there's a sharp turn and then it goes out uh towards Marshall's flood plane. that entire area was inundated. Um, I don't want to take up any of your time, so I did try and make some notes. The people who live down there where uh hits on the other side of Lurmer, their names are Tony and Karen Spainy. They're both in their 70s. They're retired dairy farmers and their property is what was inundated. Um it has overflowed many times over the last 50 years according to the Spainies and in March of this year like I said there was a 22,000 cubic yard wash out. Uh the city has had a geotech study done. It's 74 pages long and it has lots of photos among which are five pipes that flow into Wood Creek. Two of them at the top of the hill are 36 in in diameter and another three are 6 in and 12 in. Uh, this is a critical area and the city needs to get to work on it. I'm hoping that you might ask your city storm water uh, management director, a very very competent uh, engineer named

Heather Griffin to provide you with that 74page geotech report. so that you can take a look and see uh what a mess this is. Um so I don't know what your regs uh will be uh in terms of critical area but I would ask you to keep this particular area in mind as what I'm sure is probably the chief critical area within city limits. And I guess I didn't mention one thing on the map just in case you're wondering, but the bottom line, not the notch there, but the bottom line of the hatched area, that's the edge of city limits.

So, but everything north of that that flows down that hill uh is all city property. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate your comments on this. Wood Creek is um that is that's our urban forest area. So I think we we definitely want to to be aware of those things and um thanks for making us aware that there is a geotech report out there on that. Um we appreciate you being came out uh Heather provided it to me uh the end of August. Okay. Thank you.

Anything else? Thank you. Ayanna, do we have anyone online who wishes to offer public comment? We do not. Okay. Thank you. Okay. When when you're ready, York, we're ready to proceed. Teddy Hullbrook um will take us through some of this. I'm here for color commentary and support and um does it work? The ability to advance slides. Okay, thanks.

Okay, we'll start off the presentation with a graph because it's science we're talking about tonight and policy, how it informs policy, right? This is a graph of how many pages are spit out from our online code publishing website when you hit print. All the different bar graphs represent different uh chapters of our unified development code. And of course, which chapters are we talking about tonight? It is the top page counts. We're talking about chapter 19.37 our critical areas regulations and we're also touching upon 19.04 which is our definitions chapter. So it is some dense material we're going to talk about. This is like Yorkic mentioned a continuation of a briefing. So, we're still we're not providing a draft yet because we're still they're still being crystallized like Yoro said the exact wording of the regulations. Um, but we're still diving into the structure and the reorganization of the chapter and getting you more familiar with what these critical area regulations even are. I'm Teddy Hullbrook, environmental planner. I help people navigate the environmental permitting process here at Everett. Um, and more recently, I am working on this critical areas ordinance chapter. For tonight, I'm going to provide a brief recap of our last uh briefing and then we're going to go into what the code does, what the functions are, and how critical areas are regulated. And then we're going to hit on some

proposed code changes which are highlighted in the memo provided to planning commission tonight with some revisions and reorganizations highlights. To start with a brief recap of our September 16th briefing, we provided some background on what are critical areas, where are they, why protect them, and some regulatory framework. We then touched on the critical areas ordinance update, summarizing some best available science, and some potential updates we were considering at that time. And then we hit on some next steps including um our public participation plan, a timeline, and some commission considerations last time. Briefly, let's go back over the background of critical areas. What are critical areas? There's five different types. They're defined by state law in the Washington Administrative Code. wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas with some acronyms thrown in there because that's a lot of words to say. Why protect critical areas? We touched on the why protect them falls into two different categories. It's either to protect ecological functions like water quality, the hydraologic functions and the habitat functions of these areas and or to prevent or protect life and safety of citizens and to focus on avoidance and minimization and why we're updating our critical areas code. There's some regulatory framework. Uh the growth management act requires locals jurisdictions to review and update their regulations to designate and protect critical areas. We are not alone in this update. There are

several different jurisdictions doing it at the exact same time as us right now. The growth management act also requires no net loss of ecological functions and values. The update must be based on best available science and the update must give special consideration to preserve or enhance anadimous fisheries. I'm next going to touch on the functions of the critical area regulations. A key component of these critical area regulations is to find to define applicability and when to require review. When a certain project triggers the need for critical areas review. Also important, it needs to define certain projects that may be exempt, accepted, or be an allowed use. Exemptions being defined as little to no impact, temporary or emergencies. Exceptions being actions that are accepted from an aspect of code and review is still required. There's also allowable uses that we anticipate being proposed at a certain point that are relatively minor in impact and also are subject to review. Another very important component of critical area regulations is to define clear criteria and standards such as what are qualified professionals, what is acceptable protection and assessment of functions and values of these critical areas and what sort of mitigation for impacts are required.

I'm going to briefly touch on this slide. It's a lot to discuss. This is what is called mitigation sequencing. It's also called the mitigation hierarchy in the federal code. Uh NEPA and other federal regulations. This is a sequence that projects are anticip are required to show how they meet in this order being avoiding impacts to aquatic resources like wetlands, streams and buffers first and foremost. Then minimizing those impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of that proposal. Next, rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. Then reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. Compensating for impact by replacing, enhancing or providing substitute resources or environments and or monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. This is code language included in the Washington Administrative Code. It's also language that's included in several federal guidelines. As I mentioned earlier, there's some components that we would like to anticipate happening before they do and they're written into our code. These are exemptions. There are several listed here. We can pause on this slide if we have more questions about them. There's also exceptions and also permitted and allowed uses. Exemptions being those that are temporary or emergency or very limited impact to critical areas. exceptions

being accepted from a particular aspect of the critical areas code or say a certain aspect of the mitigation sequencing that we just went over and permitted and allowed uses similar to exceptions. Um they do still require review but they're also somewhat limited in their impact to those critical areas. All this to say is that there is some flexibility in environmental regulation and we can't anticipate every type of project that's going to come in. I've listed some of these flexibilities in the exemptions exceptions and permitted and allowed uses. This also encompasses reasonable use exceptions. Reasonable use exceptions mean that there is shouldn't be a regulatory taking which is defined by state and federal law. That a property owner is still allowed to have reasonable use of their property even if fully encumbered by critical areas and buffers. some also some other flexibilities in environmental regulations that are typically written into critical areas codes and are already incorporated into city of Everett's critical areas codes are flexible buffer widths um the ability to use buffer averaging which is essentially reducing a buffer in one area and adding the same area amount of buffer in another area on site also allowing for some buffer reduction with enhancement and implementmentation of protected measures. Excuse me. Other flexibility includes mitigation banking and inloo fee mitigation. That's

mitigating for mostly we're talking about wetland impacts when we're talking about mitigation banking and inloo fee mitigation. aquatic resources. Um, that's essentially getting credits offsite for impacts that occur on properties and also transfer of development rates. And if you have any questions about any of these, we can go over them. But we're going to dive into the some of the meat of the code updates. In the memo that was provided to planning commission, I've highlighted the different sections that are going to be touched by the potential updates that we're proposing. A key takeaway is that generally the code is proposed to be reorganized and restructured with each critical having its own critical area having its own article and relocating certain code sections so they're organized by similar ideas and for emphasis up front. These next few slides are my attempt to show you visually kind of how they're reorganized. Um, apologies if you are sensitive to colors. This is the current structure of the current critical areas regulations. These are all the different sections listed in the order they occur. They were proposed to be restructured into the following sections. These red areas that are bulleted out are now going to be included in an introduction.

Next, article one will be critical area review procedures. This one is an important one because several of the review procedures are actually located currently in the back end of the critical areas code which include very important components like fencing, signs, covenants that are recorded on titles. This is information that should probably be presented more upfront and are usually uh applicable to all the different critical areas. Article two right now is proposed as geologically hazardous areas. We're going to expand upon the um language that's in this one little section here and I'll talk about that further in a few slides. Article three will capture all of the wetlands information. Article four is highlighted in white here. It's for special flood hazard areas and article five will collect the rest which is fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. It's a lot of colors on the screen but it's kind of to show you how they're being grouped and reorganized. The exhibit that was attached to the memo also shows the reorganization of the structure of the chapter. the proposed end result of this. And here are the different articles that I just went over and grouped together. The memo starts with the different critical area definitions that are included in chapter 4 of the unified development code. I added bullet points

to what definitions were added, what definitions were removed, and what definitions were revised. Those definition changes uh state agency guidance,

right? Most of the definition changes are due to us not referencing those definitions anymore. Maybe they were left over from previous versions. Maybe they were revised to include current state to match current state definitions so we're on the same page or to um to add new references that are included in state guidance. Article zero essentially is going to be the introduction of the critical areas chapter. It's going to start with a user guide that's already in place, a purpose which is now revised which includes essentially um defining why we are protecting critical areas in the first place. The applicability is unchanged. I've included a little uh guide in the top right corner of these slides to show what is new, revised, or relocated. And these sections are included in the memo and further bullet points showing what is changed in each of these bulleted subsections. I reloc I have relocated groundwater discharge areas to this introduction se section. Revised exemptions and exceptions and revised permitted and allowed uses and activities. I think we should highlight any of these Just something that we're considering

with ex exemptions, exceptions, and permitted and allowed uses. The overlap between those or the distinction between them is a little bit challenging sometimes. What's the difference between an exemption and an allowed use? Both of them have some relief from the requirements of the chapter. Um, I think many jurisdictions have all three of them. Some jurisdictions just have two. I think it was exemptions and allowed uses perhaps. So, we're looking at an opportunity to um consolidate those. Uh, these are important uh and fairly minor details to many or at a at a city-wide scale, but important to others. It's things like um what to do with invasive species growing near or in a buffer. Um we we do have a policy saying encourage private removal of uh require city removal and encourage private removal of invasive species within buffers. Um, should that be just a blanket permission for a property owner or someone else to enter a buffer and remove invasive species or is that a recipe for oops, I removed everything and there's lawn there now and without any sort of interaction with the city. Um, it would be difficult for us to know that versus if there's a whole replanting plan that adds some friction and makes it less likely that some folks would undertake that uh restoration kind of a thing. So th those are the the character of the types of utilities, storm water facilities. So there are a lot of details. Um but I think um I think this will be an important one to to to look at. I don't think we're proposing major changes. In fact, we're not proposing major changes to that, but the details do matter.

Okay, next on to article one which is going to be titled the critical areas review process, excuse me, critical area review procedures, the mitigation sequencing saying the six numbers that I went over earlier in these slides is going to be relocated here because most of the chapter refers back to that sequence of how did you avoid how did you minimize how did you rectify the impacts because that's what the analysis in these reports we're going to require when we do require review the critical area reports and professional qualifications in general report content has been revised. Several subsections of these subsections referenced specific to wetland reports or specific to geologically hazardous reports and those sections have been relocated into their respective articles. So if you only have a geologically hazardous area to assess, you know what needs to be in the report rather than digging through wetlands, streams, everything. It should streamline the chapter and allow the professionals that do use this chapter to find what they need to provide more easily. And like I mentioned earlier, several this slide contains the sections that have been relocated to this article one rather than being tacked onto the tail end of the chapter because they are important. We do need to emphasize that we do require setbacks, fencing, signs, and other protective measures in conjunction with the buffer requirements

and other requirements otherwise listed in the chapter. I'm trying not to go too fast because there are several bullet points in the memo, but it's also a lot of text on the slides and a lot of text in the memo. So, I just also I'm trying to give time as well. So, not much has changed in these sections. Um, they've just been relocated. Article two is now set to be titled geologically hazardous areas. We are providing a new description and purpose that was missing in the previous versions of the critical areas code. We're also refining our designation and mapping. We, as mentioned last uh briefing, we are going to be referring to DNR mapping, which provides a little bit more updated mapping in conjunction with our screening mapping for what constitutes a landslide hazard area, erosion hazard area, seismic hazard area. We've also relocated those additional port report requirements for geologically hazardous areas and those development standards that were previously located in a different section that you would have to dig through to find those article three wetlands.

We are also creating a description and purpose in this section that was otherwise missing um in our previous code versions. We're refining and revising several of these bullet point subsections. Um and the memo highlights some of the considerations that we are considering. One of these is a vegetative buffer standard. When I say vegetated buffer standard, it is essentially already in the existing critical areas code. It presumes a intact, excuse me, a relatively intact native vegetated community already in place in these buffers. Staff is staff is uh looked at several different critical areas codes and updates comparing different jurisdictions, what they're going through at the same time. And several different jurisdictions are considering this vegetative buffer standard and when to require enhancement of the existing buffers on site. If the site is existing vegetated with exclusively invasive species or not vegetated at all, when do we require them to them being applicants to enhance the ex existing buffer? Is it at the time of development? Is it in conjunction with requiring potentially reduced buffers for wetlands? It's something that we are considering and looking at different jurisdictions languages

and it's also somewhat referenced in our code already presuming that it is already relatively intact vegetated community. Hold on real quick on that. Are you trying to say that this would be a pretty big change from what we currently have or just a super necessary change and you're using the other jurisdictions to inform your decision? It would be more of a clarification. Okay, great.

Yeah, more of a clarification of when enhancement is required and what we mean by enhancement, what constitutes an intact native vegetated community. for example, and there's there are two tables, one for um uh am I getting this right? Never mind. You're talking about streams. No, the presumed.

Yeah, but I mean is that so if if it's degraded, it's that if it's impacted. No, it's a different table.

There there are several tables in this code. Maybe that's why it prints out with so many pages. Um and different tables apply depending on for example streams. If the existing buffer is vegetated with a native community then you receive a lesser width buffer currently in our code. rather if it's unveated, sparsely vegetated or vegetated with invasive species, you must apply a wider buffer width from streams. Currently in our code, a similar table outline happens with the wetland buffers as well. We have two different tables for wetland buffers. The first table explains uh buffer widths when

no really we don't need to get I actually want there are several tables. Yeah, let's keep going. Yes, please. I thought I had a good example but it's not that simple.

We could spend many meetings on this. So, thank you for keeping us going. Okay, back to it. Uh, we've revised some of these and we are looking at and considering certain things that are highlighted in the memo provided to planning commission. The italics, the italicized bullet points are the things that staff is still considering. Mostly though the wetlands section sections that are being consolidated are generally untouched. Yeah. If anything it's adding more clarity to them or maybe some more definitions that were missing from our code that should match state guidance. There is somewhat clear guidance from state agencies on wetland protection specifically and a lot of federal guidance too. So there's a lot to go on.

So question about the defining which I think that's excellent. We should be defining things more clearly. Um are there any areas that you have identified where defining it even if it's aligning that definition with the state where that will change the interpretation or the historic interpretation of any of those sections

because th those would be the ones that I would be in particularly or in particular I would be interested in looking at those areas where articulating a specific definition may impact whether or not people can do what they believe they have been able to do. Pretty much the same thing. Yeah, I wouldn't say I wouldn't say much has changed honestly between what is being proposed and what is already existing in our our code. Potentially this vegetative buffer standard might be the biggest change. Um and what when you were required or being asked to enhance your existing buffer that is on your site.

Okay. And the vegetative buffer is referenced in the in multiple wetlands and in the fish and wildlife habitat conserv. Yes, that's true. Okay. But it's the same thing, right?

Okay. It would be defined the same way saying you need a a forest component, a shrub component, and a ground cover component to be a native vegetative community. But we're still working on what that might mean and how specific we need to get. That's that's the detail of this. Has there been has there been any significant changes in wetland ratings?

No, there has been further refinement of the wetland rating system by the Department of Ecology from their 2014 rating system. They've published a 2023 document that supplements their 2014 rating system. essentially uh refining some of the questions that are asked in that rating form, but the rating system has not changed and we're not proposing different uh a different option of our buffers like ecology recommends three different options. We are staying with option number one which is their preferred option. and it provides the most flexibility and it's based on the habitat function score of a wetland which we can get into more if you have any questions about that. It is frequently flooded areas currently in our code directly references. Please see chapter 1930 which is our flooded areas code. Um staff still needs to review the language of that for consistency which means we're ending with article five which is fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. We're adding a description and purpose. We're refining designation and mapping of these areas to match state guidance and to reference our definition section.

We are relocating the critical area report additional requirements from that section that detailed all of them to this specific section. We're also revising the standard stream and lake buffer requirements. We went over some of the recommended best available science during our last briefing and what WDFW, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife was recommending in terms of protecting streams. Staff is looking at different options to match best available science. Planning Commission recommended that we explore additional alternative options from WDFW's recommendations, but we also do need to align with best available science. I forgot to mention this during the uh wetlands article, but we are relocating. We have a buffer width averaging section that's floating in the middle of our code existing I'd like to relocate it right next to the buffer widths specified under wetlands and buffer width under fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. So you logically know that you are able if you are able to average your buffer right after what the buffers are. And then we're retaining the stream alteration thresholds and compensatory mitigation section. Next steps. The next step would be to actually provide a draft ordinance to planning commission and hopefully receive some comments and recommendations based on that specific language that we end up on.

Then it will need to go to city council and then hopefully be adopted soon shortly after. So, now I'll open it up to questions from commissioners. I think it makes a lot of sense to regroup these sections. Um, I think that's going to be really useful in trying to understand what the actual guidelines are. So, I'm fully on board with that.

Commissioners, um questions, um concerns next time this comes back to us in the form of a draft because that's going to be a a pretty meaty thing. Uh what are the things you would like the presentation to focus on? Like for me, like I said, I want to understand anything that will change in practice, how uh how our land owners or our developers, how they're going to be able to move as a result of these changes. Those are the things that I really want us to pay attention to. Um what things would you like uh to to be brought forward so we can really keep an eye on it? I think on that similar lines just trying to understand how how we can look at it and how it affects the the work we just did trying to ensure that we're you know trying to provide housing for our community. So how you know I know it's a balance I know we have to have both but when we when we went through this process how are we analyzing that I mean there's avoidance right and it's very subjective term as much as we try to make it a science it's not it's very subjective but how do we apply that to our housing needs that are critical as well

I always like to recommend to staff and anybody who does presentations that the point of these is to be able to explain this to our neighbors and friends so to do the best you can to put it in terms that are easily explainable to our neighbors and friends. And also, you know, the things that you really want our opinions and thoughts on. Tell us. Yeah. This is great. I want to know the things you don't want our opinions on, too. You do?

Yeah. Don't try to sneak anything in there. That's fair. Putting a lot of trust in you. No, we'll have some expert reviews too as soon as we get this uh draft um expert community, public uh stakeholders um so state agencies and all of that. To the extent possible, we'll bring that feedback that we receive uh to you in in your next meeting aired with the draft ordinance. Some of that comments will come in afterwards, but we'll we'll catch that up too.

You might have mentioned this already. When when was this is this from the last comprehensive update like the information that you're now working on or was it even longer that it was last really revised? Think the last critical areas ordinance update was in 2019. So really not that long ago, but yet you're really seeing a lot of room for improvement, right? Some of the best available science and recommendations have been published since then. So it's a continual

Yeah. restructure. I am also very curious about the invasive species part. So, we now have an opportunity for public comment. Um, Ayanna, do we have anyone online who wishes to offer public comment? We do not. We do have one person in the gallery. Um, Mr. Joe, if you'd like to step to the mic, state your full name, and uh we'd love to hear from you.

Chairman Chatters, uh members of the planning commission. Uh good evening, Russell Joe, uh Master Builder, office located in Belleview. Um great thanks to the staff for organizing this in a form that is uh readable and workable. Um often times our builders will will give me a call and say, "What the heck does this mean?" and I have to kind of sort through it and try to give them my best answer. Um so reorganizing this is is a great step forward to make sure that it is uh clear and concise and can be adhered to by um our members is a great step forward. Also it's important that uh we can we as a membership organization can adhere to it as much as we can without having to get an environmental consultant on board if we don't need to. Right? There are certain conditions, certain uh situations where it is necessary, but if our members can avoid that first phone call that starts the clock for billing uh with an environmental consultant uh in a consultant report, that's a great favor that the city is doing to uh our membership as well. Um just want to remind the uh planning commission that on your September 16th memo with respect to stream buffers that uh on page 27 of the presentation it indicated that a 100 ft buffer according to the last kind of uh research on this removed 95% of the pollutants uh from the stream and 85% of the surface nitrogen gets removed when you have a 100 foot buffer. Um we're urging that uh planning commission in the city of Everett not strictly adopt the SPTA significant potential tree height standard but uh as staff has pointed out they're trying to find a way to uh still um protect the existing values and functions of the stream um but at the same time still make it workable in an urban environment. Uh

they also pointed out that Belleview, both Kirkland, Snomish to name a few have not strictly followed SBTH but have looked at their buffers to find out what works, what is practical in their city. Um you uh as Commissioner Ballard pointed out did some great work on housing and how to increase your supply of housing. that of course needs to be balanced against um the protection of the environment and the other 15 factors that are in the uh comprehensive plan as you go forward. One of them that I I really like that was in there and talked about is permit efficiency. Um and and that goes to the fact that if the regulations are clear and our members are able to put those regulations into practice, uh it's easier for or it's more easily reviewed by uh the permit officials and planning and develop community development along the way and thus saves time for both staff and for members trying to get their projects done. Um, also as as I pointed out with the uh if SPTH is followed, you have to get a environmental consultant on for a critical areas report. They have to go out and measure, you know, the the height of the tree. They have to figure out whether it was alder or some other tree that is uh prevalent on the 200 years uh old old growth forest list etc etc adding costs and time to um projects. Uh last I would just uh urge um a close examining of buffer width averaging both with uh streams and with uh the wetlands. Um having the flexibility in there to make sure that those averages can still um protect the function and values that are necessary. Each site's going to be a little bit different and giving staff the ability to have that flexibility is an important element as we seek to bring more housing into Everett while at the same time protecting our environment. Thank you

very much for allowing me to comment and I look forward to the further discussion that this uh commission has. Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Joe. Commissioners, uh, questions, uh, additional comments on this topic. Is that the end of the presentation for the day?

That is. We will uh get back to cranking on uh finishing up this first draft so that we can share it with you as soon as possible. We will look to likely that October 21st uh meeting. That gives us seven days uh to get the next packet out. Um but we're pretty close, I think, at this point. Um but we'll keep you posted as well as the web page for those in the public who are watching for the next update and all the materials will go. We do have a critical areas project web page up, so stay tuned to that if you're watching online here. Thank you very much for your comments, good questions, and feedback.

Thank you. Thank you, Teddy, for making that really complex subject um palatable. Appreciate that. Yeah. So, with that, we've completed our agenda and we are adjourned.