Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We'll call it over in the 03/19/2026 meeting at the Harbor Planning Commission. Start with the roll call. Jason Jordan.

Present. Jim

Anderson. Present. Present. It was you? Present. Yeah. It looks like Michelle Cornell is. She's up on the oh, she's on my screen. She's online.

Oh, I'm did you say Katie Cornell? Sorry.

I didn't sorry. I didn't know what you're on.

Katie Cornell. I'm present.

Oh, wow. Welcome. From New Orleans. Oh, wow. Alright. I don't know why it's not done again. Okay. Is there a motion for approval of the minutes for February 2006? I'll make a motion. Second. Alright. Then those all in favor then? I'll say aye. Aye. Aye.

Opposed? Those minutes are approved. Brings us to public comments. Do we have anyone online or signed up for public online? If anybody wishes to make comment, you can press 9 to raise your hand or raise your hand in the bottom corner for Zoom.

I see no comments. No. No. No need Raising your hand. Okay. With that, we will move on into the agenda items. Critical areas, public out excuse me. Critical areas, public outreach results, and we'll send it to our community development director, Eric Baker.

Greetings. Thank you, everybody. For the record, my name is Eric Baker. I'm the community development director for the city of Gig Harbor. Tonight, the focus is largely on just summarizing some of the things that we've heard from public comment thus far as well as highlight some new legal challenges that have been adjudicated in other jurisdictions that may have an impact on how we proceed forward.

I'm I will start with so it's not to bury the lead. I'll start with that ominous element at the end, which is recent court cases regarding other regional jurisdictions that may have an impact on how we proceed forward. So let me get this up on the

screen. I'm on there.

You can do it. Okay. So I want to go through all this for a what will probably feel like the hundredth time. In our various drafts, we had a revision to our stream buffers. Buffers are the main regulatory thing that we utilize to protect water quality, wildlife habitat, fish habitat, everything as it applies to our riparian management areas also known as streams.

Come in five type five types, actually only four types now. Type s, type f, type n p, and type n s. Type s, again, are the mouths of major streams as they connect to saltwater, like the mouth of Donkey Creek, the mouth of Crescent Creek. And then type twos and three streams also known as type f are f for fish. They have existing fish habitat.

They have their larger streams that have rocky bottoms and are able to handle fish habitat. They don't have any blockages. N stands for nonfish. While fish are not in them, they ultimately run into a fish stream. N p stands for nonfish perennial, which means it runs all year round.

And then NS stands for nonfish seasonal, means that it that stream may dry up at some part during the year. Ultimately, nonfish streams do flow into a fish stream or they will flow into the saltwater shoreline. The reason I I highlight those again is that Snohomish County completed their update just recently and were challenged by future wise series of other environmental groups regarding their stream or riparian management zone buffers adherence to best available science. While Snohomish County is not on the peninsula like we are, their ecology and geography are relatively similar. Those challenges raised questions about buffers that look very, very much like the buffers that we are proposing in our draft, thus the the connection.

The growth management hearings board, which is the entity that you take appeals to if you do not like what a government is is approving, ruled against Snohomish County indicating that buffers of 200 and a 150 feet for fish streams and a 100 feet for non for non fish streams may not meet best available sites. Thus, it does raise a slight question with our buffers. The good news is it isn't just a question. It is basically what the court what the ruling indicated was that the Department of Fish and Wildlife provided feedback snow to Snohomish County regarding best available science and what some of the repairing buffer should look like. The Snohomish County deviated from that guidance, and the hearings board was pretty clear that they felt that the fish and wildlife guidance was best available science in this this case, making it less than guidance and more like the letter of the law.

We have submitted our draft documents to all the state agencies, the Department of Fish and Wildlife. We are awaiting their feedback coming back, though I am getting some suspicion that I'm gonna know what some of this is gonna say, and likely is gonna say that our protections for fish streams may not be adequate at a 150 feet as those again had commonalities with Snohomish County. What does this mean for our process? Well, one, it means that to avoid wasting the public's time in testifying on a document that may not be the one that moves forward, staff is proposing we hold off what was previously scheduled for the April 2 public hearing on the document before you folks. We are looking to postpone that until we have the fish and wildlife documents in front of us, and we can make the necessary modifications.

We are not expecting a wide range of changes, but we do expect that very likely they will opine on what our bulk buffers look like. That would lead us to potentially at minimum a postponing of your public hearing from the April. And if we don't have the feedback in hand by then, it could be pushing us into the first week in May. I'm gonna pause there for questions or thoughts before I go further.

Did they give any indication on what the, like, the the number that the best available science is if they didn't like the one fifty? Do we have any indication of what they want it to be?

They were not as specific on that. They, like I mentioned previously, they have a concept called site site potential tree height, where each property is judged based upon the height of the trees that are located in their buffers, which can range in buffer sizes from a 150 to almost 300 feet. You don't really know what your buffer is until you do the analysis on your property, and then it and it indicates, hey. This is how much of your land you can't use. Most jurisdictions have stayed away from that general philosophy because for exactly that reason, it adds time, it adds cost, and bulk bulk buffers, while not the perfect answer, is a lot clearer for people to understand.

Not just the property owner, but for people who are coming or driving by concerned neighbors, concerned community members, 200 feet you can understand. A report that could be about this long, a lot harder to understand. So we are still trending toward looking toward the bulk buffers. I will indicate that Kitsap County, which I showed a comparison chart last time we met, does have 200 foot buffers for FNS. They were challenged also before the growth management hearings board, and I believe their buffers of 200 feet for s and f streams and n p and a 100 feet for n p and n s streams have gone through that additional layer of vetting.

The one thing I do wanna highlight is that you can't compare necessarily apples to apples between what one jurisdiction did and what another jurisdiction did even if they both went to the same body. Their their records could be different. There could be a number of other different things, but it it feels, if I were to guess at this point, where Kitsap County landed, may be where Fish and Wildlife was indicating Snohomish County should go.

I know you went over this in your other presentation, but I don't recall exactly. Where's Pierce County at with their update?

Pierce County has completed their updates. They have, I believe, 200, 175, and 75 as their as their buffers. So 200 feet for S, a 175 feet for f, and then N P and N S were both sitting at 75. However, I do not believe that they were challenged. And unfortunately, without being challenged, you aren't absolutely certain whether it is the best answer.

The oddity about growth management is you can almost put anything in your documents, and if you're not challenged, it becomes a letter of the law. Once you're challenged though, now you have they have the scrutiny and the growth management hearings board or some other appellate body can tell you, no. No. You were right. No.

No. You were wrong. Thus, looking how we want to proceed, it may be do we wanna be conservative and focus more heavily on the fact that folks more people will have to utilize the site specific the site specific modification methods that I talked about, buffer averaging, buffer reductions, having habitat biologists come on and propose something different. We still have those exhaust valves whether it is a 150 feet, 175 feet, or 200 feet. There's one other concept that I don't think I talked about as much.

Did we cover buffer breaks? The term sound familiar? That is one thing that I don't think I gave enough oxygen at any of our previous briefings that are another factor in determining what a buffer width really is.

I don't remember any specifics on that. So, yeah, if you can go over, it

would be great. Yeah. It should work out well. Okay. We're gonna go here.

So flexibility. We talked about site specific analysis. If you don't wanna meet the the bulk buffer widths because you think that your buffer in the handle, the functions, the values of the stream with less buffer, you need to bring on a bring on a wetland biologist. One concept we didn't necessarily talk about that exists for both streams and wetlands is the concept of a buffer break. So what largely that means is that if you have a roadway, existing roadway, or an existing substantial development between you and the critical area, the buffer ends at the substantial development for the roadway.

A good example about that would be if you're driving up Burnham Drive, right, and there's a wetland on one side and then Haiyuhihe's on the other side. In theory, the buffer, especially at 300 feet, would go halfway through the Haiyuhihe's building. However, the roadway really impairs the buffer. The the buffer their water quality, wildlife habitat, all of it. That is pretty much the end of the buffer's value.

This only applies to existing facilities. You can't go and build a new roadway say buffer break. No. This applies to existing development that happened under previous regulations. So roadways, another example would be if there's a, wetland behind your neighbor's house, and then you're in you're in front of that, and there's a 200 foot buffer on that wetland.

And they and that that home is a 100 feet away from that. That buffer ends at the home. It does not extend over onto your property past the home. Another example would be if somebody were look that same home was looking to build a deck. If they were building a deck towards the wetland, they would have to they would be regulated as being part of the buffer.

If they're building their deck on the front of the house, the side opposite of the of the wetland, that again, the buffer break would be the back of their house and they would be able to proceed forward with the deck. That is one measure of flexibility that I did not highlight as much, but the more you look at the maps, the more you see that being a true true method, especially when you see 300 foot buffers and some properties being having not one but two roads between them and that wetland. So that that is something that we discovered from public outreach, which we'll talk more about in a moment.

Does, say, a driveway fall by? Or

Not a driveway. It has to be a roadway. It has to serve multiple properties. Generally, can be a it can be a private roadway, but again, it has to be one that is intended to be to serve multiple multiple properties. Substantial development can be it can be homes, it can be shopping centers, it can be other major major developments. Though it can't just be it has to pretty much run the length of what you're proposing. You can't have a small little home that's that's, say, kitty a kitty corner from you and say, okay. Well, the buffer stops here. It's like, no. Straight shot from the wetland to your property doesn't have that home in in front of it. So that doesn't count.

That's great. I think the city of Tacoma refers to them as interrupted buffers. Is that So My question is, is that a are you saying that that's currently not I I got a couple of questions. That's currently not in the code, and you are considering putting it in the code is my first question.

It is alluded to in a relatively vague manner in our current code and does not necessarily it covers roadway, but doesn't really talk about the substantial development component. We have added language in to clarify exactly what that means. We have some public testimony that has indicated we need greater clarity on that in the form of examples. As this is an effort for to provide flexibility, examples are good, but we don't wanna create so many that at this point, it just creates another rigid line.

Makes sense. And then so my experience with those is you still need a biologist to say it truly is interrupted. So does that would that be the case here?

Yes. You would still need it. And but, again, that is not a full report. That is just a straight, yes. You're on the other side of this. The buffer the buffer is impaired. Yeah. And I think it it will come down to if you are talking about obvious substantial developments, it's super simple. But if you're trying to paint a little too liberally with the grays, then, yeah, it it can become a more laborious process as your report may not be enough. Because remember, we review all reports through a third party. So we have our own consultant that looks to say, okay. That's that's right or that that's wrong.

Got it. And then last question is you have, I think, in the code tier decisions. Like, you you can make some decisions.

Some go to the

hearing exam or some go to city council. Can't have I do one, two, three, or four, something like that. What what kind who would make this decision, and what would be appeal process?

Taking a look here, and I'll cover a number of things in one. Buffer breaks would be a director's determination. Buffer reductions is also a director's inter determination. Buffer averaging is a director's interpretation. Variances goes before the hearing examiner, and one that's not on this list that we talked about was the reasonable use exception also goes to the hearing examiner. The council has a role in adopting the code, but does not have a role in adopting or approving any permits along the way nor hearing any appeals of permits. They are only on the legislative side.

So would you like this bill go to or is it available?

It they're all appealable. They don't like if they don't like what I determine, they can appeal it to the hearing examiner. If they don't like what the hearing examiner indicated, they can appeal it to superior court.

Thank you.

Okay. I just wanted to I just wanted to kinda highlight those types of aspects as I don't think I again, I gave that as much oxygen when we went through the public the public process. More and more instances showed know your buffer break. No year buffer break, which made a lot of people happy, which is always a unexpected element of changing the critical areas. Now just to kinda summarize, I will turn off my since we last met, like I mentioned, we sent out more than 2,000 mailers indicating that the critical areas ordinance is being updated.

We very liberally distributed that to everybody within 300 feet of a map wetland or a map stream. Obviously, very few properties are gonna fall within or very few wetlands or streams require a 300 foot buffer. So we it was a very conservative number of folks that we sent it out to. From that, we have had probably around 40 to 45 people reach out to staff independently to talk about their property. How that process worked is people would call on the phone or they'd send an email saying, here's the instances of my property, here's my question.

Staff would go and do the research utilizing our various mapping systems, take a look at the draft code, and be able to provide them some feedback on what the potential implications to their property, their project based upon their description. Very clearly indicating your description changes, the answer changes, so don't don't come back and tell me later on that you said this would be okay. It's like, no. A deck is not a house. So a lot of folks have taken a lot of benefits from that.

That is still going to be available all the way until the end of this process. So if anyone you know who has a specific question about how a credit clearing could affect them or their neighbor's property or someone in the community or somewhere in the community, please have them contact staff. That is the easiest way for them to get the most specific answer. We've also held two public meetings, the first of which was a virtual meeting. We had around 20 folks who participated.

They heard the presentation about the code that went through a lot of the things that you folks have heard. Again, trying to build kind of a a baseline of what credit players are and are not and how the regulations apply to private property. We did then go into breakout groups afterwards, which allowed people to ask questions. I think people were very interested in hearing the presentation, but then when they suddenly realized they were going to be asked things, they kinda fled. So I think we had about 10 people who hung around for the breakout group.

They had a lot of good questions. Again, this is where things like buffer breaks pop up and that really kinda helps us work through our public outreach. From there, the week later, we had open house in this room where we had individual booths or maps set up so people could take a look at where wetlands exist citywide. We also had staff positioned at all the various tables where they could then do the kind of the face to face. Here's my property. Why did I get a postcard? How could this potentially affect me? I think we had about a dozen people take advantage of that. We had about 20 something people attend throughout the evening on that as well. We have been in the newspaper numerous times now.

More I I'm happy I do not have to bring donuts every time that I'm in the newspaper. So we've been in the newspaper about the critical areas ordinance three separate times. We have been featured in the city's newsletter three separate times. We are in all of the social media indicating that this is happening all with the same general statements of how may this impact your property. Again, not trying to put some kind of vague title on it. So trying to, again, get interest. Public information is great. Public engagement is harder. We have had a good amount thus far. It has not generated a lot of written testimony as of yet.

I believe that you have vast majority of what has been received. Master builders have provided some basic comments. We had one individual that is similar to other phone calls that we've taken concerned about the impact on private property rights, and then we've had the other side as well indicating that this doesn't seem like it is adequate to protect your jurisdiction x x or y did this, why didn't you do that, etcetera. Again, these are this is the feedback that we have been looking for and we have been going through each of them. I do not have much of a program for tonight besides asking the planning commission if they have any questions about the public comment that's been received to date.

I can answer any questions that kinda came came from it. A lot of the answers to the questions, think I have covered in my previous presentation, so I don't wanna regurgitate all that again unless the planning commission says, yes, I would like to hear it regurgitated again. So with that, I kind of open it up to the planning commission as to any questions they have about the public comment. Now that you've had time to ruminate on the draft document, any other questions you might have with the idea that this may be the last time that we meet prior to going to the public hearing component of of the process. Obviously, that could change if Fish and Wildlife comes back with a whole host of changes, in which case then we would need another works a work session.

But if it if they come back and say, yeah, that number has to be 200, not one fifty, or something that leads me to that conclusion, I would still expect that we would then just be moving directly into moving into the hearing portion. Doesn't mean you don't have the opportunity to ask questions later on, but any questions that you feel would be beneficial to have answered prior to hearing from the public, now would be a great time.

Eric, could you just clarify? So you probably talked to 50 or so individual property owners?

I I would say between all of it, I think we're looking at roughly just under

a 100. Oh, okay. Great. Thanks. I guess

I won't coin them as property owners. I interested parties, we'll call them that.

Thank you.

Eric, since the buffer breaks, what else are you considering changing or having changed from what we've seen clarified? Anything, like, major based on public or council or legal?

No. The the buffer break language is exactly at as it appears in the draft that you've been reviewing this whole time. I just did not discuss it as much. It it it's like item I or item j on two different sections. It doesn't really stand out like buffer averaging and some other things are. So so buffer breaks are in the current code. We did get some comment that one of our definitions of buffer is had a typo in it. So again, it's very helpful that that is being proposed to be changed. We also are looking at potentially providing some greater detail again on the buffer break about what roadway. We haven't made those changes yet.

We haven't proposed it. But those could be moving forward, better defining roadway, better defining substantial development. Also, was two questions related to the wetland rating system. We are waiting for DOE's kind of response back on whether any changes are necessary on that. Those are the main pieces we're looking at right now. But again, that could all change based upon, again, the shift of Department of Fish and Wildlife's guidance to more of the letter of the law.

Eric, at at the beginning, you mentioned lawsuits and other jurisdictions. Did you mention the names of those jurisdictions?

Snohomish County is the one that that that I was highlighting. And and by lawsuit, it's not a lawsuit. It is much as it is an appeal of the legislative decision made by the Snohomish County Council to the Growth Management Hearings Board. Standard process, I came from Kitsap. They spent way more time than I wanted in front of the hearings board body.

It was the master builders who mentioned this three, five, and ten year Mhmm. Look back. Does that correspond with anywhere else that we require that? I know it's probably our requirements for landscaping and things like that. And what's it does that time those timelines matter?

It it I think what they're talking about there is the length of of monitoring of mitigation. I think it generally depends on the sophistication of the mitigation that's required. What we have in there right now, obviously, you are doing something like replanting a buffer, that could probably be monitored for a three year period. But if you're doing something more dramatic like creating a wetland or enhancing a wetland in some way, that's gonna take more time to ensure that it is taking hold and working the way that it's supposed to. That's where the longer numbers come in.

I think they would like to see the monitoring requirements be shorter. I think they would like them all to be three. At this point, staff recommends keeping them at that tiered level. Though if the council or planning commission want to go another another direction, we wouldn't we would understand that position as well.

And that's something that would be supported by the biologists' recommendations or assessment? Yes.

Eric, are you seeing a an uptick in applications to get out in front

of the queries update?

Not as of yet. We do I have a number of folks who have kind of come forward. And again, most of the people we've talked to, they were near a wetland, but they did their plan either a, had a buffer break related to it or was actually outside of the buffer that very likely they were going to be going forward with. I would not be surprised that as we start getting a little closer to it, we have some deck permits and some other things that come in. One thing we're also finding about a lot of the concerns we had about people not being able to build into the back of the of the back of their properties.

We have some pretty I don't know if guys consider it or liberal. We have some very large setbacks already on our properties that indicate you can't put structures in them, whether it's wetland or not. So as you start to overlay the current zoning requirements for these properties for people doing stuff in their backyards. The zoning requirements are still there today. So they are limited limited on what they could do right now.

Of course, we have talked about in phase two, the next wonderful thing I'll be bringing to you, setbacks may be reduced, but that would be after the critical areas regulations come in. So they probably the number the permit rush may not be quite as dramatic as it would be if we didn't have these other layered codes in place that have an impact on what you can and can't do on portions of

your product. And I think I

asked this before. I'm sorry. I can't remember. Are there any or maybe do we wanna consider any different setbacks or buffers for accessory dwelling units? Are we obligated to under the state, you know, rules now around that?

In if we're talking about critical areas, we really don't have that best available science kind of as best available science. Doesn't matter if it's an ADU or it's a 5,200 square foot home. In phase two, we will be talking about, okay, what kind of considering we're trying to encourage multifamily and single family attached housing, do we apply the relaxation of certain regulations only to those housing types? Or do we make it to all housing types knowing that a single family detached could utilize them as well? I think we'll be kind of walking through what that process looks like, but ADUs could be one of those that receive that it receives an ability to maybe be five feet from the property line versus 30 if you're in the backyard.

Because it really is gonna come down to how we go about encouraging property owners to think differently about their property, and if they know that they could do more if they're doing these housing types, housing types that are very different than what we've seen around here. So there is that kind of ready made hesitation. Those types of incentives might be helpful to get them to make that take that step that they wouldn't normally do. But that would be a phase two conversation.

But but not, like, to a buffer, for example, or is the best bill there's no exceptions

for that?

No. To a degree, when we're looking at the 150 foot buffer, to a degree, we're kind of trying to factor in some of those other qualities. What we're hearing is that, yes, you might be factoring in the fact you need more housing and need more development, but the critical areas code talks about best available science. It talks about no net loss of function

and

values. Impervious surface in homes have an ability to impact water quality, etcetera. Best available science doesn't say, okay, don't worry about it. It's an ADU. And I think that is where some jurisdictions are kind of rubbing up against the issue. That's really what the flexibility is for. Again, while the bulk buffers may not work, being able to work around with buffer averaging and buffer reductions might help you get that accessory dwelling in place.

Any questions? Yeah. Think yeah. Maybe a quick review of our schedule going forward then and just if depending on changes, which what I guess, what what was your time line again on hearing back?

We we we've submit we we've submitted it. They know that we are in a hurry. They are very interested in reviewing this and keeping us going because they know that until we update this, our old code is what's currently in place, which again is not consistent with best available science. So I'm hoping to get something in the next few weeks, which means that that would put us on slate for a hearing on the sixteenth. If that doesn't that isn't the case, it was May 2.

May 7?

May 7.

May 7. Again, hoping for the hoping for

the

sixteenth. If we hold it on the sixteenth, you would be having the you'd be having your deliberations on the seventh and making a determination, hopefully, depending on the complexity of the deliberations that night, allowing us to take your recommendation to the council at the May.

Okay. So and you don't foresee any chance of

a school meeting on the this next meeting on the third then? Onwards. The second.

On the second. I I do have the expectation that I won't have anything for you on the second. For anybody who had kids spring break, I'm certain they're going to be happy that that is the case.

Alright then. Any other questions? So does that mean are we having a meeting on the second?

I it is entirely up to the planning commission, but staff's recommendation would be to counts cancel the meeting on the second.

I guess, you know, my only input on that would be if we get a sizable more public input that would be be worth discussion or something like that. But other than that, you know, some anything on that?

We we can keep it hold it for now. We just would have to cancel it, what, the

week twenty sixth, I'd have to notice. Okay. Well, should we just hold till then? Sounds great. Comes in. Does that work for everybody? No. Sounds great. Okay. Well, with that then, other business, I guess, potentially, the next meeting then on April 2, more likely the sixteenth, will be our hearing. Any other business? Anyone? Okay. I guess with that, we'll look for a motion for adjournment. I'll second the motion.

I All those in favor? And I. Have

a great night, you guys.