Planning Commission - public_hearing

It's recording now.

Did it say something about recording?

There's a red dot at the top.

Yeah.

Yeah, it says it's recording.

Okay, thank you.

All right, so it is 6.30. We will call to order the Planning Commission meeting, September 2nd, 2026. We'll do our roll call. Online, we have Commissioner Matlock joining us. And we have Commissioner White.

Present.

Commissioner Fitzgibbon. Present. Commissioner Bogers.

Present.

Commissioner Coulon. Present. And Commissioner Thiel. So we will move at 630. We will open at public comment time for non-agenda items. Is there anyone here for anything that is not on the agenda? There's no one in person. Anyone online?

No, I'm good. Go on.

Thank you. So at 6.31, we will close the public comment for non-agenda items and move on to the approval of minutes from August 5th, 2026. Is there any discussion or looking for a motion in a second?

Motion to approve. I'll second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye, none opposed. And we will go on to our public hearing. and possible recommendation for the 2026 amendments to the capital facilities element of comprehensive plan. I'll turn it over to staff to present. All right.

So this was introduced to the planning commission at your last meeting. And these are some fairly basic amendments that we felt were necessary to our capital facilities element, prompted principally by our new police service contract with King County Sheriff. But while we were in there, we wanted to address a number of other things. We received a number of dockets from the Snoqualmie Tribe, which are requests for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, and that included specific edits to the capital facility development. So we addressed the Snoqualmie Tribe's initial comments. They've recently submitted more additional comments, which I've distributed to the Planning Commission tonight for the public hearing tonight, and I'll go into those in a little bit here. The other amendments are about just reflecting changes to facilities that have been Developed in plans since the time of the 2024 update to our comp plan. Notably, our stormwater section we're referencing to upcoming requirements under what's called the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Phase 2 that we will have to enter. About in our water system section about the water supply agreement and intertie with Salah Water Association, which is new since 2024. at our municipal building section referencing to the new police office at the old community and economic development office over by the library and the police service section so with regard to additional comment the only comment we received was from the Snoqualmie tribe the planning commission has that they were looking for three principal amendments and Two of the amendments staff have reviewed and are not generally comfortable with. The third amendment we feel is fine. The two amendments that we're not comfortable with are on page 12 of the document or page 19 of your packet. Capital facilities element policy 1.4. The tribe was looking for changing the word coordination to consultation in the planning for capital facility improvements. So consultation is a very specific process. That setup consultation is required for state agencies conducting capital facility improvements. And it can also be triggered when a city is doing capital facility improvements involving grant funds from the state. We wanted to keep it more specific that way. So we're providing coordination with the tribe in the planning for capital facilities improvements, and we will do that consultation when required. But we felt like just changing the word to consultation was a little too broad and might set up some false expectations about what the required process would be. So we wanted to staff recommend keeping that word as coordination. The next one that they had requested was on the next page, Document element or capital facilities element policy 3.3. They wanted to add some words there. Promote high quality and they've added suggested added sustainable, resilient and safe. Design and site planning for the construction of capital facilities. Taking the consideration of future climate related stressors. Staff are fine with that. We can incorporate that edit. Then policy 3.4 just below that it was the same request. So they had request adding tribal consultation, provide outreach and notification for tribal consultation. And to solicit and encourage the involvement of citizens, tribes and agencies for setting capital facilities so that tribal consultation is required in certain circumstances, and we will certainly do that when required. However, we felt like it was a little too broad and setting up unrealistic expectations about process just to blanket, say, consultation. So with that, those were the requested edits that they had provided. And other than that, in your comment letter, they just requested kind of early and continuous involvement with the tribe and recognizing the relationship of them as a sovereign government, which we certainly do at the We coordinate regularly with the Snoqualmie Tribe. We've got quarterly coordination meetings where we talk about upcoming projects and make sure that they're aware and have that opportunity for early engagement. So with that, staff recommended the approval of the document with the one additional policy revision suggested from the tribe on that policy.

Thank you. We'll turn it back to Planning Commission to discuss and then we'll open the public hearing after we discuss and ask questions of staff. Does anybody have any questions?

I had a couple.

Just to hit on something you said, Mike. It sounds like at 3.3, you guys are open to adjusting that for patients requested by the tribe, just as it's reflected in the packet.

Correct, yeah. Yeah, I didn't have an opportunity to change that in the packet. But just if you're looking at that 3.3, just immediately after word quality, it would be adding sustainable, resilient, and safe.

And then I was curious, you probably already hit it, the consultation versus cooperation. There's been a discussion with the lawyers, this is outlined by the treaty that they've all under in their relationship with us. You mentioned there are, we have identified when it's required to consult with them. And it sounds like it's not always, which might be a different impression that they have based on the letter that we got from them. I was just curious where that is in writing, just so we can confirm. Like, we don't actually have a consultative for the treaty that you're referencing. I was curious if it's not clearly defined somewhere.

Yeah, so the consultation requirement is a part of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires consultation when engaging with tribes involving federal funds. And then under the state, It's required specifically for state agencies and then projects involving state funds under the executive order. Did I write it down somewhere? Yeah, I've got it here. Executive Order 2102, Archaeological and Cultural Resource Consultation.

Maybe it's worth including some of that in 3.4, because I've seen this statement come up at least twice before from the tribe. in 3.4 maybe something just saying like consulting with tribe as required by where we're required yeah yeah i think in there i think there's some of the contention here is if you don't work specifically they feel they're lumped in with everyone else like there will not be any set separate process for them that there is already for the public and i think that's their contention And so highlighting, they're saying basically when required, there will be separate consultation with the tribe and maybe refer to the law you mentioned.

I think that when required would be an appropriate addition to that.

I haven't really had a reference to the law that way. I always like to check the citation, specifically like when is that.

I'm a little reluctant to put one law on there because then if there's others that you're not catching...

Well, and also the Snoqualmie tribe has some other things that some of the other tribes in Washington don't have because they didn't have, you know, their sovereign lands until much later. So that would, I mean, same thing. I just was wondering, okay, do they have something different outside of the laws that the rest of Washington have? Yeah. So I think, you know, where necessary, that works.

I just think when I, if I were reading this as a flyer, my initial thought would then be Where do I find out where to find?

The other kind of overall objective that guides kind of how we approach policies here is a comprehensive plan should be very high level and policy focused. And so this is something that we push back on a lot of different agencies and governments that provide comment and individuals that provide comment is there's a tendency to want to have everything in the policy. But as soon as you do that for everything, your comprehensive plan balloons into the 1,000-page document, and you've kind of lost your ability to stay focused at a high level. So we always dig down as we develop regulations and implementation plans that implement provisions of our comprehensive plan, and that gets into more specific detail.

Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. I would wonder if this outlining when we consult and not might still be at that high level. And maybe your reference is more to the site of where to find it. I was thinking it would be useful if it says when required to have some sort of guidance as a person reading it, where I could find out what that means without necessarily putting it verbatim.

When required by applicable state and federal regulations?

I mean, I think that's the intent, yeah. In your mind, where would then, if I read that, what would be my next step to try and figure out more?

Well, I mean, it's a policy document again. So if you're a citizen, call the city and we can provide further information. So let me see if I've captured your suggestion. The amendment to policy 3.4 then would provide outreach and notification for tribal consultation when required by applicable state and federal requirements and to solicit and encourage the involvement of citizens, tribes, and agencies in the siting of capital facilities. Yes, and I think you probably can take out the tribes and second that. I'll take that first. Yeah, that makes sense.

They're trying to hit on the same point. They mentioned that they are not stakeholders, which

true or i couldn't understand why they would say that but maybe i didn't read careful enough but did we say stakeholders in no we didn't okay you know they're recognizing that they're a sovereign government the thing that we don't have the staff capacity to address is a separate notification process to the tribe so yes we will provide early coordination and consultation we're required to then but we can't set up the process by which we're starting to develop a project We want to send that out to all agencies, governments, individuals that require or request a notification. We can't set up a separate process for each separate government. And so that's where we're pushing back a little bit too to say we're a small government trying to deal with a huge amount of workflow and we have to keep our own processes a little bit contained and simple.

I think this seems like a good option because it's still inclusive. And I mean, I'm actually really proud of North End and Washington as a whole, because I do feel like we include, you know, tribal consideration a lot more than a lot of states do. But I mean, we can always do better. But like you said, there's only so many resources.

Can I ask a question regarding the CIT 1.4 with the difference between the word consultation and the word coordination. For the layperson, I think consultation, I mean, it could be an official thing, like I'm going to get a consult from a firm to look at doing something in my backyard, or I can go consult with my neighbor about

what he thinks is the best from the hedges here. In this case, consultation has got a very specific meaning. So the Snoqualmie Tribe has got a whole website about this is what tribal consultation means. And it's a relatively long process. So that's why we're a little cautious about where that consultation is engaged. We certainly will do that when that's required. But if we're planning a sidewalk replacement and that's not requiring consultation for any reason, we don't want to necessarily engage that process because of the amount of time that it would take.

Yeah.

And then what about coordination? I mean, coordination is not a term specific to, doesn't have kind of meaning to it that consultation does.

It's an actual meeting? Yeah. Okay. But I mean, when you say ensure ample tribal coordination in the planning for capital facility improvements, how is that to be interpreted then? I mean, if you do not, if you make changes, but do not coordinate those changes with the tribe, what are the implications to that?

I mean, these are policies. So these are high level things that we say we want to do. And then we dig down further when it comes to our notification requirements, when it comes to, I don't know, developing the review process for each of those projects. That's where we dig further and say, OK, this is what we're going to do with the tribe as a part of the review process.

Yeah, so I feel like that's a coordination with email correspondence.

I think that captures everything that that's yeah, but.

Other thoughts?

Yeah, I'll kind of just.

If it's OK, I'll just go through some of the notes I had. B3, stormwater and surface water facilities. I think it's page 4, page 11. I don't know how to phrase that. The B3, stormwater and surface water facilities. The second half of that is currently the city of North Bend is making an update to this plan, which is to become effective in 2027. The plan is being prepared for the city's

Since that's going to have to just be changed, do you want, like, I mean, I know you already put an effort to add it, but it just, that was something that Public Works specifically wanted to put in, so I don't want to change content that they've requested.

Okay. That was actually something I wanted to ask as well, same idea. From a policy point and from a comprehensive plan, it seems, Interesting to put something that you're saying you will do in the future, just have to go change it when you have to go do it. So it's from public works, I guess, but normally you'd want to keep something like that out so you don't force yourself to have to make a change when it is implemented.

I agree with you, but I also don't want to have a conversation about where they've requested something specifically. Yeah.

My hands are tied. The Planning Commission. They go crazy sometimes. Okay, next thing I had is this very similar page 6 slash page 13, the project delay. This is, to me, this reads like we want to do stuff. And here's one of the things we want to do. Like, this could just be an endless list of all the stuff the city wants to do. So I don't really see that this has a place.

I feel a sense of plans. Is this something that's already been approved by city council? Is like, yes, we are doing this for sure. They're interested in the project. But then I guess I felt similar. Like, unless it's something they just like, we have voted this is happening. Seems like, I mean, it's awesome. I like that. It's just, I agree. I mean,

are many things we would love to do in the future should we put them all here having it referenced in the comprehensive plan um especially our capital facilities element helps it to be eligible for grants and use of certain funds so i i believe that's one of the reasons that it's in here why is it limited just it's not no i mean each capital facilities element is also adopting by reference capital improvement plans for transportation and parks so those have much more extensive lists of projects that then make those projects eligible for use of impact fee revenue and grants and a whole number of things would the idea with project belay be that city maintains ownership of either the property or the building Yes, the property. It would be a city building. It's a private-public partnership, so the city would only contribute funds toward the public realm.

It would make sense to be under the municipal building section. It is owned by the city.

So is it we would provide a building and $75,000 of support? I'm assuming the building's not costing $75,000.

No, it would be much, much more than that. Yeah, right. The $75,000 is just a very small component, just reflecting the public benefit portions of the project.

The next thing I just had a brief question about is page 8 slash page 15, level of service for police, and I think also the fire protection. I mean, That response tonight for police emergencies called arrival five minutes, dispatch to arrival three minutes. That has not been edited.

Yeah, I confirmed with the King County Sheriff there. That was our adopted level of service with the Palmy police. And they said, yeah, that's our level of service for North Bend as well.

Or they're planning to plan according to that level of service. Then there was a, in section D.2,

Page 16, Special Improvement Districts. For instance, Utility Local Improvement Districts, financing tool that is, so it's a small typo, is a tool that is. Thank you. Finally, E5. page 17 slash page 24 on the second sentence which is change the or limited text general obligation bounds ltgos which be approved by the city council the word can is uh struck three but not replaced if which need to be or yeah thank you sure thanks that was it for my thoughts thanks okay

sorry i'm that same line is councilmanic or word am i reading that wrong i read that it's wonderful soon it was there so well with the idea that it had not been altered so i assumed it was also the council members yeah i can say it is uh but i work for a council yeah okay any other

I did have one more for the police section. The very first sentence.

Let me find it. It was B7. B7, at the very top, age 14.

This is kind of nitpicky, but the first sentence is like following the conclusion of contract agreement with City of Snoqualmie and all that. I was wondering if that was really necessary. Can we just say new contract this year moving forward, which I think is what it said. Like the old sense, in May 2019, we contracted with Snoqualmie. So rather than explaining that we're leaving Snoqualmie, just say in May 2026, we are contracted with KCSO.

Yeah, that's fine.

Why don't we open the public hearing at 6.53? No one is present in person. Ms. Cooper, did you want to speak on this item? No, thank you. Carry on. Thank you. We will close the public hearing at 6.53 and turn it back to the Commission for more discussion or a motion.

Motion to approve with the changes noted. I will second.

I think we can do all in favor.

Aye.

And none opposed. So let's see. OK, and I think that's it.

So just an announcement. Our next meeting would normally be October 6th. We're going to cancel that one because I'm going to be away at a conference. And our other staff are not available as well. So we're going to come back to you in November and bring some updates to our multifamily tax exemption regulations promoting affordability for multifamily housing. And then also, I don't remember what else it is.

Yeah, November will be our next meeting. For the minutes, it's October 7th.

October 7th. Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much. So we will close the meeting at 6.54. Thanks, everyone.