Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

is now in session. I believe we have everybody present. If we include those who are zooming, that would be Commissioner Day. Do we see Commissioner Day? Yes, we do. And Commissioner Winmancy. so um and sam i'd like to welcome ian larson that's right our newest member and i didn't ask you earlier if this is okay but if you'd like you can take an opportunity to tell us a little bit about yourself sure

Okay. My name's Ian Larson. I've lived in Skagit County almost my entire life. I took a couple years off after high school, class of 94, Bulldog. I've been a business owner and landowner in Skagit for a long time, currently living in Cedar Woolley. I work for the county, and I'm really looking forward to this opportunity to serve. Great. Well, welcome. Any questions?

No, I'm just kidding.

Okay. I'd appreciate a motion to approve the minutes of our last meeting, please.

Motion to approve the minutes.

Second. We move and seconded to approve the minutes. Is there any discussion of the minutes? If not, then all in favor, please say aye. Aye. How about those on Zoom? Okay, they're all ayes. Great. Thank you. So let me, minutes are approved. We now have time for public remarks. This time on the agenda is an opportunity for anyone to speak to the Planning Commission about any topic except items scheduled on the agenda for a public hearing that same day, which would be the docket. So that's out. or items that have had a public hearing and are still under Planning Commission deliberation. Public remarks, which is not part of the formal public participation process for any development, regulation, or comprehensive plan amendment project, is limited to three minutes per speaker, up to 15 minutes total. So does anybody wish to speak to the Planning Commission about anything? okay thank you we will is there anybody on on zoom please unmute if so okay so we'll close public remarks pardon me i have not attended a meeting like this before

Is there, and I've come to make a comment about a particular item that's being discussed tonight. Is there a time later during the discussion of that?

To discuss what?

Is there a time to make remarks about an item on the agenda?

Yes, that's when we open the public hearing, that'll be the time. Did you sign up?

I did.

Okay, that'll be the time.

Thank you.

All right. We need to nominate... A new vice chair. So the floor is open for nominations.

Okay. Well, Chair Raschke, I would like to nominate Commissioner Angela Day to be vice chair of Planning Commission.

Are there other nominations? Are there any nominations online? No. okay i i would like to nominate joe wong vice chair move i am sorry are there any other nominations okay some nominations are closed so all those in favor electing commissioner day vice chair Please raise their hands. How about online? Online. Okay.

Vote twice.

For Commissioner Moo, please raise your hand. Well, okay. We have two. Two. Okay, so Commissioner Day, do you accept that?

I do. I will accept that, and I appreciate the confidence of all my fellow commissioners, and I'm happy to serve. Thank you.

So you're in. Okay, good. Congratulations. All right, we'll close that. So we now go to our main topic tonight. We have a public hearing on the 2026 planning docket. And before opening the hearing, we'll have a presentation from staff by Ms. Khanna.

Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Deepti Khanna. I'm associate planner with Skagit County Planning and Development Services. Tonight, we are here for a public hearing on a 2026 docket for comprehensive plan, zoning code, and map amendments. Before we begin taking public testimony, I would like to give a brief overview of the docket, explain where we are in the process, and go over the public go over the ways the public can provide their comments to us. Docket process, that's an annual process. We provide an opportunity for citizen and county staff to propose amendments to comprehensive plans, zoning code, and maps. Tonight, we are here at the Planning Commission public hearing stage of the process, as you can see on the slide. The purpose of tonight's hearing is to receive a public testimony on the proposed docket items. Following the tonight hearing, Public Commission will be meeting on September 15th at 6 p.m. to deliberate on the docket and make a recommendation to Board of County Commissioners. The petition and the supporting document, including the staff report, which provides more detail on each petition, are available online on www.skagitcounty.net slash 2006CPA. And the web address is also available on the screen if anyone wants to take a note of that. Before we move into the testimony part, I want to briefly go over the opportunity for the public to provide the different ways how they can provide their comments today. Written comment period is open until Thursday, August 20th at 4.30. are three ways to provide comments by mail by email or comment today by providing a testimony tonight in public hearing written comments can be emailed to pds.comments at co.skagit.wa.us. Written comments can even be emailed to Planning and Development Services at 1800 Continental Place, Mount Vernon, Washington. or if you happen to bring a written comments today, they can be dropped off in the basket available by the door with a red tag on it. Please make sure to include your full name and address with the written comments. Written comments are encouraged and not limited in length or to the number of the issues you may want to address. For those who speak tonight, please clearly state your name, spell your last name, and identify to us the town and the city you reside in. And as the chair mentioned, please limit your testimony to three minutes so that everyone has an opportunity to speak. We will now move to into the public hearing portion of the meeting and take a testimony from each petition in the order is showed on the screen. In 2006 docket 26 docket we included. The 2026 docket includes two petitions initiated by the citizen and one by the county proposal. Each petition will bring a brief presentation from the petitioner, followed by the public testimony. Our first petition is LRPLN-2025-0001. this petition is for small-scale business reasons submitted by jasmine wilson dirich i will now turn this over to the petitioner to present their petition thank you commissioners and i'll be available to answer any questions before or after the hearing

Thank you.

There we go. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight with Peter Condilias, C-O-N-D-Y-L-E-S, on behalf of Jasmine Wilson, the property owner. This property is probably the most challenging and unique one. I've been doing this job for six years that I've worked on just because of the history. And I'll go over it. So I appreciate the time to explain it a little more in depth tonight. The property that we're talking about is at 23528 Old Day Creek Road in Clear Lake. You can see it's on the property on Highway 9 there. That's the southeast corner. And then I zoomed in. So you can see it includes the shop that's on the east side of the property along with the parking lot that butts against Highway 9. The timeline of this property is very important about how we're getting to the rezone today. There was a home built there in 1979. The home's no longer there. The detached shop that is still standing was built in 1985 and for most of its life was used as a welding shop. In 2017, Washtop purchased the property with the intention of building the roundabout that's there now. And part of that was in 2018, they demolished the house. This left only the detached garage on site. In 2021, the property was purchased by the Berry family. In 2022, Mrs. Wilson bought the property. The same year, she leased the property to Backbreakers Junk Removal, who's currently the tenant there. And then in 2023, the code violation was issued, and we've been working with planning staff ever since. I should note with the code violation, that was not brought because of a complaint. It's actually a very funny story. The county was looking for a junk removal business to contract with, and they wanted to use backbreakers. And they went out to meet with them and realized that they were not a permitted use where they were. So this was never driven by a complaint to begin with. um the code violation was issued in may of 2023 as businesses are not allowed to operate in the rural village residential zone home-based businesses are allowed to be there however there is no home on the property to be a home-based business the detached shop is not habitable so it kind of puts the this property in a interesting zone because you can't live in the only structure that's on the property so it kind of deems it unusable at a certain point So originally when we had worked with code enforcement was they had told us that since this property was used as a welding shop for most of its life and then Washedot actually used it as a storage site for all of their building materials, that we should make the argument that it was a non-conforming use and that the non-conforming use would just continue as the junk removal business. However, we submitted all that material. Planning said that because the period of time that the Berry family owned it was over the period of time in code that allows a nonconforming use to restart, we wouldn't be able to be considered a nonconforming use. So we've been working with planning staff ever since to come up with a solution that allows this property to actually be usable. And that's where the small scale business came in. Planning staff suggested that'd be a good use, a good zone for this, as if you go down Highway 9 in the unincorporated area, a number of the intersections throughout the county are small-scale business. Where smaller businesses that are more geared towards the highway are. I should also note that Backbreakers Junk Removal does not store any junk on site. It's just where the trucks go. The junk never actually goes to the site. They send the trucks out, they get the stuff, take to the transfer station, trucks live there at night. I thought it'd be helpful to give a few of the historic photos of this property just to get a better idea of what it was and what it is now. So you can see this is 1993. There was the home there that's right along Highway 9. And this was the shop. So you can see it was kind of a mess back then. And then this is what it looked like as recently as 2000. They had quite a lot of stuff in the parking lot there. It was still being used as a welding shop at that point. 2018, you can see where that shot is, is pretty much where the house was standing at the time. So the house is gone, and now the shop is empty. This is what it looks like. This is 2023, but it really looks the same now. You can see that the front area is pretty well cleaned up. The two trucks are on site there. And then this is where the employees park on the side. So it's substantially better than it was when it was used as a welding shop. That's all I have tonight. Like I said, we're requesting the rezone from rural village residential to small-scale business, and I can take any questions if you have them. Are there any questions?

Just out of curiosity, were there any fees associated with the code violations that were paid?

No.

Thank you.

Angela or Joe? Nothing? Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, I think what we will do is go ahead with any presentation by the proponents of docket item 0003.

Do we have anyone representing? Oh, yes, you do? Come on up. Do you have any presentation or anything like that? All right.

Good evening. My name is William Lynn, L-Y-N-N. I'm actually from Tacoma, and I'm here on behalf of Miles Sand and Gravel. We're making a presentation tonight because Mr. Dahlquist, who was primarily the applicant, is out of town. So we're substituting. Miles Sand and Gravel operates the mining facility that's been in existence and operation adjacent to the racer property for some time. So we know a lot about the site, we know a lot about the permitting process. One thing I wanted to say is this property was actually designated MRO once before, since the Growth Management Act was adopted. Nobody has been able to explain to the Razor family why that was changed. It wasn't changed with notice to them, so the fact that they even needed to make this application was news to them. It's important to remember that the MRO designation doesn't permit anything. All it does is permit the applicant to come into the county with an application for a conditional use permit. They have to be accompanied by a SEPA review, by a lot of studies involving the existing conditions, the hydrology, any critical areas on the property. A lot of studies and reports and information has to be presented for an application to even be considered. That then goes through a SEPA review process. The staff makes a recommendation. It gets reviewed by various state and local agencies. They all make a recommendation to the county's hearing examiner, who then has to approve a conditional use permit before any mining could take place. So this is really a preliminary step. It's the first step in the process, but one that at least opens the door to consideration of a way to use this material on the site. I know from my own experience that this county has a particularly rigorous set of regulations that govern mining from noise to traffic to buffers and so forth. It's a very extensive process. It's by no means an easy burden for an applicant to carry. But again, this would simply start the process. In addition to the county's extensive regulations, the whole industry is heavily regulated by the Department of Ecology, which has what they call a sand and gravel permit, requires regular testing of the water quality to ensure that standards are met. It requires an annual report and a lot of, it's a book basically that you have to meet just from the Department of Ecology on water quality issues. Then there's the Department of Natural Resources which regulates mining and reclamation. There's also federal agencies like MSHA that regulate the safety aspects of the mine. So it's a very heavily regulated business which is important to know because it's just a lot There are a lot of substantive standards that are going to apply to any application for this project. And the last thing I want to mention is Miles adjacent facility because this property, if permitted, would utilize the same haul roads, the same processing equipment that the Belleville mine that's existed for many years would use. It won't increase the rate of consumption of the mine. It'll just extend the life of that mine a few more years, which is Important in and of itself because it makes a lot more sense to meet the county's demand for sand and gravel by fully utilizing an existing facility rather than starting all over someplace else in what is often a contentious process. So those are some things that we think should make this an easier call for you or just asking for an application or the ability to make an application and go through this rigorous process. Happy to answer any questions you might have. As Brad Barton is also here as a representative of Miles, if you have more questions that involve more specific details.

I understand the rezoning would affect the housing ability in the neighborhood.

No, it's just on this property. It doesn't alter anybody else's rights. It's just the right to make an application. And really, it's just a recognition. This is part of what the Growth Management Act requires, which is to find and designate mineral resources so that they're protected. Actually, that does raise a question which doesn't directly answer yours, but I wanted to bring it up. This is a close-in mine. I mean, you have to understand that gravel is where it's placed by the original geologic processes. So to find a good source of material that's close in and involves the use of relatively small lengths of county roads is important for the public. It's actually recognized as that. I apologize for using the opportunity to give you something you didn't ask for.

I appreciate the clarity. Could I help clarify one other thing, too? What's being considered here isn't a permit for a mine. Right. It's to have the property properly designated so the mine might someday be permitted there. Right. Right.

So my question was, just remind us, what is it now designated? If it's not MRO designated, what is it designated now? What's it zoned as now?

So the property is zoned rural resource, which the adjacent properties which are within the mineral resource overlay are also, they have that designation. Right now, there just isn't an overlay, which the adjacent properties to the east have that mineral resources overlay.

And so I think from your verbiage, there is an intent to eventually expand and mine on it if things go through all the different hoops and waivers and fees.

That's really up to Mr. Razor, who's the owner of the property. Miles would certainly support that and has the facilities to do that. But yeah, I think that's the intent of everyone involved. Thank you.

Does anybody on Zoom have any questions? Okay. Well, thank you. Okay, with that, we will start our hearing. And the way I would like this to happen, if anybody would kindly cooperate, would be for me to call the name of the first person on the list and the name of the second person. In order to expedite things, the second person would stand up next to the podium while the first person presents. After they're done, I'll call the third person, and they can stand up. And that time, that way we don't waste a lot of time with people shuffling back and forth. As a reminder, testimony is limited to three minutes, and please state your name and address before you begin. So we'll start with Connie Cryer, followed by Bill Lind, please.

I guess my question is, do you want me to testify now? My comment is not about either of those two projects. It's about the code cleanup.

Well, and the hearing is on, excuse me, the entire docket. So anything you want to talk about.

Okay, so there's no presentation on the code cleanup. Right.

Okay. I will do that now.

My name is Connie Cryer, last name spelled K-R-I-E-R, and I reside in Cedar Woolley, Washington, and I come here today. My concern is about the code cleanup, and it says, let's see, on the docket today, it said what general language code cleanup, is that what it said? General code language cleanup? Okay. So I went and looked at the general language code cleanup and it appears to have 16 absolutely new lines of code that are referred to as new code at the top of the documents. The top of the document has a blue verbiage and the blue verbiage says new code. When I went back and looked after looking at the cleanup, I found that the new code, the 16 lines of new code is based off the over 50 lines of new code that was included in the the cleanup that took place in march and april so i get concerned that citizens are being bamboozled a bit in that there's a public hearing today about code cleanup that's not presented for and yet there's 16 lines of new code so when are these 16 lines of new code going to be presented to the citizens for public comment When were these 50 lines of new code presented to citizens for comment? New code is supposed to have a comment period hearing and a comment period for citizens, yet it's being presented as clean up. Clean up and new code are two very different things and I know that because at the very top of the document it says New code, revised code, moved code and eliminated code. There's color coded words at the very top of the document and the blue words say new code. And a lot of these are new code that were never presented to citizens. Not saying that citizens will object to every line of these, just saying that citizens deserve to know that there's new code being presented annually. and that they're not being told about it. So when we talk about things that change and citizens don't know, citizens can't keep up on rules we don't know about. So we're trying. We're trying to pay attention. We're trying to follow the laws. We're trying to follow the rules. The rules change every year. And you keep moving the goalposts. and you do it on purpose. So every time somebody files a complaint, you change the rules to fit you instead of following the rules you already wrote. So that's my concern, is that all of these cleanups are not actual cleanups. They're ways to change the code without telling citizens. I would like it to be addressed.

That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you.

Bill Nguyen. Bruce Johnson and after Mr. Johnson would be Dr. Kathy Shoup. Did I get that right?

Good evening. I'm Dr. Kathy Shoup, S-H-O-O-P, and I live with my husband, Jim. I'm representing both of us tonight. I have a cold. I apologize for my horrible diction tonight. We've lived at 17552 Allen Road in Bow since the spring of 1988. I'm here to speak about the Miles sand and gravel and racer request to add five parcels to the minimal mineral resource overlay on Allen Road, beginning just beyond our eastern property line. I was born in Skagit County and appreciate the agricultural and environmental wealth this county offers. But we have several concerns about this particular request. The letter that was from you, Mr. Eckroth, dated July 17th, 2026, described the parcels in question. You said they are accessed by Allen Road, the route currently used for mineral hauling. If you drive up Allen Road past Llama Lane, you'll see that Allen Road is a one-lane, unpainted, and shoulderless road. deep ditched rural road, not used for hauling minerals for well over 40 years. It's narrow enough to make it uncomfortable when two regular sized cars meet. One stops and hopes that they aren't hit when the other one goes by. It is absolutely not fit in any way for regular mineral hauling. your letter you note your property is located within 300 feet of a proposed amendment to the skagit county zoning and land use map as per the geo.skagitcountywa.gov site quote residential gross density on or within one quarter mile of a mineral resource overlay shall be no greater than one residential dwelling unit per 10 acres we all fail to comprehend how the current 10 plus residential dwellings to the west and north of the property in question were not considered before the county made the decision to move forward with any change in designation finally your letter notes the use of a completed environmental checklist Did this checklist include an analysis of the potential problem with rising water in the ditch in the immediate area of the parcels along the north side of the railroad tracks acting as a dike during heavy rain or sandwich floods from November to March every single year? Although dry in the summer, this ditch, which I see from my kitchen window every day, fills in the winter with a deep and five-foot-wide seasonal creek running from the property in question to the west, racing, flooding Lower Llama Lane on occasion. It is currently a delicate balance in the winter as many residents on the south side of Allen Road have drain fields in the immediate area adjacent to that ditch.

Excuse me. Excuse me. Your time is up.

Thank you. We're asking you to deny this proposal.

Mr. Johnson and... We will switch the order. Right. Yes. And after that would be Joe? I'm Joe Muszelak. Oh, okay. You're not Bruce Johnson? Correct.

We changed the order. Okay. Hello. My name is Joe Muszelak. My last name is spelled M-U-S-I-E-L-A-K. My husband, Aaron Carr, who is not able to attend, and I have lived on Allen Road since April of 2019. Our address is 17520 Allen Road. We are unwilling to suffer any loss of property value that will result in expanding an existing mine. We were aware of the existing mine when we bought our property. However, expanding its scope and size is completely unacceptable. We are unwilling to accept the increased noise pollution and other issues that will be mentioned or have been mentioned by our neighbors. Never in the history of property ownership has surrounding property increased in value by making a larger dumpster fire. We are here with concerned neighbors who also oppose the rezoning, which in itself is considered a non-project action. However, we are not naive enough to believe that rezoning will not eventually lead to an expanded mine presence. we will consider any rezoning and expansion of the mine to be actionable theft of our property value. Thank you. Thank you.

Sorry for the confusion of the order there. I'm Bruce Johnson, J-O-H-N-S-O-N. There's a few of us around. Commissioners, I and my wife or lifelong Skagitonians. I've been a contractor and land developer for over 50 years from Centralia to the east side. I built our home 50 years ago. When I built the home, we were the last ones on the county road, the end of the road, basically, except for a dirt road down to the northern gravel pit. When we first moved there, Burlington North, they only used it by rail for their own purposes. And in about somewhere in the 80s, there was an expansion at the airport, and they allowed them to transport gravel from the gravel pit across Allen Road for that expansion. To my knowledge, that's the last time that road was used to transport any gravel from that gravel pit. Those of us that have lived in the area for a number of years and were present when Miles Sand and Gravel received their permit originally, we were concerned but somewhat comfortable about the buffer that at that time was probably well over 1,000 feet. Mike Crawford was the vice president of miles sand and gravel that i've known mike almost all my life well at least since i've been in construction and um we were i was comfortable with what he was telling us that that would be exactly as what he said was going to happen i would have talked to him recently but i think he's health is not very good so I'm concerned that the lots in this proposal are not even legal lots. They seem to have mysteriously acquired parcel numbers sometime after the short flat was recorded. All of the transfers were from family members to family members at all portions apart of lots one, two, three, or four. This seems to pave the way for either a transfer to others later or a lease based on the extraction of minerals, none of which seems to be within the planning rules. I won't go into any other reasons. Some of them have been shared. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. That ends our list of people who have signed up. Is there anybody who did not sign up to speak but would still like to?

Is this the only opportunity to speak about 9.08 tonight?

I can clarify that. So we're not holding a public hearing for 9.08 tonight.

It's just on the 2026 docket petitions.

guess i'm confused because there's a power point and it's on that agenda so i just wanted to make a comment what that agenda item is for is normally the planning commission would not be involved in that but they asked for our input And that's all. We're just giving opinions to them that they can use in their recommendation.

Yeah, so I guess I'd like to take it, if we're just allowed to speak at this part of the meeting, I'd like to make a brief comment.

Well, the time to have talked about that would have been during our public remarks at the beginning.

I'm not sure that's made clear. I'm sorry, I'm just confused about...

We have public remarks. When we close it, I can open it again for you after we finish our public hearing. That is very unusual. It's not something you should do, probably.

Well, you know, I don't want you to do anything.

No, no, it's okay. But let us finish the public hearing. Certainly. Okay. So, is there anybody online who would like to speak? Please unmute and begin if you wish to.

I don't know if you're speaking to me. The volume has been extremely low.

The volume is extremely low?

On my end and perhaps on others on Zoom. Anyone else? Or is it my local problem? well do you wish to i'd like to speak i don't have to hear you hopefully you can hear me we can hear you very well so please go ahead i i do want to share my screen see how there it is uh i'm yeah okay i'm here tonight thank you jan edelstein mount fernand I'm here tonight just to talk about the party of record definition that's before you in the cleanup. Why is this definition important? It defines who receives notice of a decision of a land use permit action and more importantly, or as importantly, who is entitled to appeal the director or hearing examiner's decision to the next local level. And in the county, the only groups that can appeal are the county, the applicant, and a party of record. It doesn't say an affected neighbor broadly. It's just a party of record. Oh, no. How do I change this? Well, let me change it. My incompetence, sorry. The next slide shows you what the GMA statute on notice says and it says that notice of a decision shall be provided to the applicant and to any person who prior to rendering the decision and that's the time frame prior to rendering the decision either requested notice of the decision or submitted substantive comments on the application Now, for some reason, the county provisions restrict who a party of record is to the person who submitted a public comment within the public comment period. Now the secondary possibility is you've actually written and said, please give me notice. That type lasts up until the time of the decision. But the county narrows it. If you go to a hearing, I've been to hearings, people stand up and talk, I've done it, and no one knows the magic words. that in order to get a notice of what is actually decided, the day it's decided, or when it's decided, you must say, and I want notice of the decision. And why is it important? Because if you don't get that notice and the 14-day appeal clock starts ticking, if you don't have the notice, you can't possibly file a timely appeal. I've been a victim of that. You'll probably hear about it in some other context. but it is what has made me so sensitive to this distinction now jason de avignon with the county has been very gracious in trying to answer my questions on you know why are you doing this but i have yet to have an answer that made any sense to me i'm trying to understand why the county wants to avoid notifying persons who send a comment outside of the public period comment period but before the decision is final of the decision what what's the purpose Why not give it? Because don't forget, the applicant gets to talk to the director until the decision is issued. You know, they can negotiate, discuss how the applicant's going to respond to public comments or any other issues. So why can't the public also, you know, we'll send in the comments on our own. Everybody can write a letter whenever they want. But why doesn't that qualify that person to notice of the decision and the right to appeal the decision? Okay. Now, all I'm asking is that the county be sure that its definition of party record conforms with the state law, which the county code under GMA is required to comply with. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I believe there is nobody else that wishes to speak.

No, Ellen does. I have a question. You said that you didn't want to hear about 908 until you open the public comments again?

Correct.

Okay, so I'll do my other pieces. Ellen Bynum and of course Washington. I represent Friends of Skagit County, which is for people that don't know, It's a nonprofit that has appealed various issues in the county over the years and gotten changes that help the county become compliant under the Growth Management Act. They started in 1900, no, they started in 1990 when the GMA was passed. They formed right after that and then they got their nonprofit a little bit later. Let's see. I want to start with the LRP LN 25003 SEPA checklist. It's just a question about the checklist. Neither the proposal nor the SEPA documents address reclamation of the mining site. after the resource is depleted. We'd like to see this added as a requirement because it affects the current and future adjacent properties as well as in the instance of catastrophic events and the owners and operators who must mitigate for the unaddressed hazards. Under the substantive amendments, the party of record definition, I concur with Jan, and I also want to add that there's no definition of official public comment period. So what, you know, what is that? Is it made up every time? Does it change? What happens? And I've written all this and turned it in. You guys should have gotten a copy. Then under data centers, we support The limitations have been added to the use. We urge you to add extra provisions for managing risk of fire, flooding, other catastrophic events that are not included. And please include requirements for the suppression that would not jeopardize adjacent land or water resources should such an event occur. Then SEC 1428, setback exemptions and off-premise signs. If you've not done so already, you need to possibly review the ordinance, which was done in 2004-0010. which is an ordinance accepting a new county sign code. This was one of the cases that Friends of Skagit County brought against Skagit County. And I included in my comments some of the staff reporting the most important thing about it is it was a negotiated settlement and the changes that are in the original language in the not in this some of them are not included in this current rewrite need to stay in there because it tells people what the settlement was and what the issues were so for example there's a section on billboards. And I think the original language was billboards are prohibited except in rural freeway services. I think there were three of them at the time and we now have four. So I requested that that be re-added in some way. And then the other part is, there needs to be, coordination for minimum setback. There's a couple of places where the proposal is to use the standards for development, which are 35 feet. I don't know if that's 35 feet from the front and the back. And then in the original language on the signs, the minimum setback for billboards was 45 feet from the nearest right-of-way and 100 feet from the right-of-way line intersection. So those need to be coordinated.

Excuse me, Ellen. I'm sorry, but your time is up.

yeah that's fine okay um i'll send the i mean i've sent the rest of it and if you have questions anyone can contact me thanks thank you okay anybody else

Sorry, Bill. And I know I've spoken before. I just wanted to answer a question that came up and correct one thing that I think was an error. And Robbie can correct me on this.

Wait a minute. This is an error in somebody else's testimony?

Yeah. Somebody said we were going to be accessing Allen, and that's not the case. The mine access, as expressed through the environmental checklist, is to use the same access that Miles currently uses. And then the last thing is just the reclamation is addressed by a state statute and the bond is required. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. I want to thank everybody that took the time to come tonight and put the effort in to address the planning commission. It's very helpful. So with that, we will close the public hearing. well at this time since i think there was a misunderstanding we'll reopen the public remarks please go ahead you have three minutes thank you chair roscoe i'll try to be brief my name is laura claus i'm here with skagitonians to preserve farmland in mount vernon

I just wanted to speak to you tonight because I know the Planning and Development Services has reached out to you for feedback about 9.08 and I think that's a really smart move and I'm so glad that they've done that. I know the Planning Commission as a body as well as the whole community really struggled over agritourism over a course of years to try and set that code. on the right path. And we've just now finally come to the other side of that. And the county, to their credit, is pursuing, you know, updating 9.08, which definitely needs an update. And I just wanted to, given your experience and your thoughtfulness in considering that piece of code, Just consider how that might apply to 9.08. There was a lot of work done to ensure that non agricultural uses could not take place on agricultural lands. So if 9.08 does indeed apply to all the zones. There's a possibility then, I think, for these events, should they meet the requirements for safety and sanitation and everything to be held on agricultural land, sort of providing an off-ramp to all the limitations that were put in place for agricultural landowners to have agritourism events. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention because we would benefit from your feedback and consideration of that and how those things might relate to each other. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Okay. i just say that i appreciate everybody coming i'd love it if you all stayed here for the rest of our meeting but if you do not wish to do so we can just take a short break and people can exit if not we will continue didn't jan want to speak to 9.08 as well on the zoom who does the lady on zoom i wanted to speak as well tonight sorry ellen you know if you allowed her you need to allow the person on zoom as well Who wants to speak? Ellen? Ellen, sorry. Well, go ahead, Ellen.

And I will be brief because I have written specific language and I won't go through that. The thing that you have to understand about... the agritourism changes that were made they came after a washington state supreme court decision which was done in it came down in 2024. it's called king county versus friends of sammamish valley and it had a number of different parts but the most important thing that it said was that non-agricultural commercial business activities on ag NRL zoned land and rural zoned land is prohibited. and I know that people on the planning commission that read many of the comments that we put in for the ag tourism activities will remember this but the new people don't sort of have that background so what I'll do when I put in my comments is I'll put copies of those letters that give you the legal background on why this is a really important decision and why we have to take it seriously because it was a very um lengthy um appeal on behalf of friends of sammamish valley no relationship to friends of schedule valley or schedule county and we don't want to have to do that again So that is really the crux of it. You just cannot have these activities on any natural resource land or any of the other zones like secondary forest or rural resource. Any rural zone that's adjacent to these NRL lands is also probably not available to do these activities that are being proposed. So that needs to be clearly stated in the code and it's just not there and it needs quite a bit of work. So I'm saying, I don't know if you pull that out and say, we'll vote on it later or we'll work on it. I don't know how you do it in terms of your process. But it needs to be really integrated into it so that people don't read this and say, oh, great. We can do one, two, or three single events that have different topics. And it can be on ag land or it can be in a forest or whatever. It's just not what the law says now. So we need to also probably change other parts of our code because of it. But we haven't done that yet. Okay.

Ellen, I'm sorry, but your time is up. That's okay. That's okay. Thank you very much. Yep. Okay. All right. Public comment is over. So we'll turn to item six, which is SEC 9.08, single outdoor events code updates. Sorry, are we going to take a break or no?

You mentioned a break earlier.

Oh, you need a break?

No, but you mentioned it. I want to make sure you're canceling the break.

Everybody left, I think. Okay, just double checking. Okay, thank you.

You offered a break.

You should have been vice chair, you know?

Yeah.

Keep you in line We will have a presentation This is

Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Jeannie Onks, and I'm an associate planner with Planning and Development Services. This evening, we'll be discussing the proposed amendments to Schedule County Code 9.08 and hearing your recommendations. In this presentation, I will be providing a quick overview of the rewrite and then turn it over to you for your recommendation. So the current code for the outdoor events was written in 1970 and has not been updated since. The code has unclear submittal requirements and the review procedures are outdated. For example, the health department plays a large role in reviewing the events to make sure that drinking water, proper sewage, and waste management are met. In the current code, there is no mention of this. Also, the standard conditions do not address potential impacts from things such as noise or lighting. So the draft rewrite of the chapter staff has renamed the chapter to single outdoor events, defined events and established thresholds, shifted the application process from the Board of County Commissioners to Planning and Development Services, specified application submittal requirements and procedures, enhanced public safety and health provisions, provided enforceability and provided references to the applicable code, and added clear grounds for permit denial. Planning and Development Services is requesting that the Planning Commission provide feedback on the first draft that was provided to you before our presenting to the Board of County Commissioners. And then the next steps in the process is on September 15th, At 1 p.m., the Board of County Commissioners will hold a work session. On October 19th at 11 a.m., the Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing. And then on November 2nd at 1 30 p.m., the Board of County Commissioners will provide a possible action. And so with that, if you'd like to go into your recommendations or if you have questions. Yes.

Yes, Chair. Yes, I do have a question. Online, I saw it's July the 1st version. Do we have an updated version after our discussion last month?

No. So the document that was provided to you last time is what you'll be providing a recommendation on.

Oh, okay. I would reiterate there needs to be cleanup, like 200 people. Right now it's in both small and the medium-sized event, as well as there is no appeal process. And the parking requirement seems to be very rigid, probably depends on the type of events. whether it's adjacent to SkyJet transit, you know, bus route, to look at flexibility. And additionally, I have question. On public process for large event, this seems to be very prescriptive. I just want to make sure I'm understanding it right. The county says the comments must reference the application number, be on standard letter-sized paper being black and white, and be received by the deadline. The black and white requirement in particular seems I'm not so sure I'm understanding that.

I think that just means to say that it's not like a color copy that it's white paper with black ink is what my understanding is but

I can actually, just some additional clarification. I believe that's the requirements for the department to provide the public notice sign, if I remember correctly.

Is that a requirement for all public comments or only for the public comments on the single outdoor large event?

So it's B under 2, under 9.08.040.

It says paper comments must be submitted on standard legal-sized paper in black and white.

And that language is actually replicated from Title 14 in our public notice requirements. But if the Planning Commission thinks that's a little too strict, that's certainly something you can recommend.

I would think it is extremely restrictive and prescriptive. And the second is large events of a thousand plus people. They could easily produce impacts far beyond 300 feet depending on the nature of the event. And right now we're having a notice only goes out to neighbors within 300 feet. So I would encourage the department take a look at that based on the specific event.

So, yeah.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you.

Anybody else?

To the question and comment earlier about zoning, where does it define which zone this applies for? Because I think that was a, I see a JSON essential resource, but does it say that a single outdoor events for X, Y, or Z zone could be more explicit? Or is that following a Title 14 no matter what, and that's for ag tourism land, NRL?

So these events would apply to all zones. So it's not zoning specific. There is some limitations in natural resource land zones regarding conversion. But otherwise, it's not tailored to specific zones like our zoning code is, our unified development code is.

And that's not mentioned until number 8 under 9.08.060. I mean, if it's vague for commenters, it's buried in the back. So maybe out of your purpose or definition, applies to all zones, could be added in some capacity. So that's really obvious. Because I think with all the nature of comments that we have, left and right, timber, wetlands, might be helpful just to add that information. So I'm confused. So I want to make sure nobody else is. And that can be one of your recommendations also.

If I can piggyback on Kira's point, is section 9.08.060, parenthesis eight says, facilities used for event cannot result in permanent conversion of natural resource land. And that's what we have currently, the code is written, but it does not address temporary impact, so that might be a regulatory gap. And for an example, what can be temporary impact, agricultural damage, temporary structures, parking, vegetation removal, erosion, or farm access restriction, things like that.

So should we feed these to you to type up for us like Robbie did in the past? I'm sorry, we're training somebody new, so make sure we do it correctly.

So we received one recommendation, and that was from Commissioner Day, correct? Yes. So hers is in there. If she has additional ones, we can type those in as well. So we can start. If you're ready to start, I can start typing each one of your recommendations.

Can you let us know what Commissioner Day's recommendation was?

Yes. So it's up on the screen, but it's in reference to Skagit County Code 9.05 instead of Skagit County Code 1420.060 regarding noise control.

So to my point, maybe then under 9.08.010 purpose, after properly mitigated, just add in all zones. Just put it right there in the front. Or somewhere, wordsmith it nicer.

so um 9.08 010 under the purpose to add in all zoning designations perfect thank you and then she what did you want to add yours for 9.08.040 yes to be just

be submitted on standard letter size paper by the deadline? Because people write in blue ink on notebook paper. I mean, just we have some traditional souls. You can vote with blue ink. Might use blue ink and then it would be. That was part of the noticing process. Perm application procedure 9.08.040.

one less zero in the front four zero and to change just omit the black and white okay i better put weight

And sorry, Chair Raschke. Section 9.08.070 for permits denial probably would make sense to have definition of public nuisance and due hardship. what exactly the grounds for denial. So we have a specific measurable standards tied to actual denial so the public can understand. Right now it's very vague. 9.08.070 on the denial. There are, for instance, you know, public nuisance can be a ground for denial. And your hardship, probably we need to have a specific measurable standards for denial.

And define public nuisance? Correct.

Commissioner Good?

i just wanted to clarify that the single use event permit is different than the festival family farms but that's not falling under the same use permit or is it

The Festival of Family Farms would likely, if they don't get a full agritourism permit or one of the venues involved, then this would be a permit pathway for them to pursue under 908. Okay.

Thank you. So can I... That just sounds like a good way to ask this. And number three, at the very end of 9.08.03, frequency, it says a permit for single outdoor event may not be issued to the same applicants or location for more than three consecutive days, which I read to mean that your event can last for three days. Yes. Okay. Yes. And for no more than two occasions per calendar year. So that means you get this permit, you can do it twice. Yep.

Six days.

When do we have to have a permit?

So two events up to three days each in a calendar year.

so that's not a single event then that's it right and then the next year you could apply to do the same thing again so you can basically have a permanent event going you just have a different application process

So the intent was to require that an applicant apply for each event, but it be allowed for them to be able to apply twice per calendar year, but each time they would have to apply to the county.

So it's not annual, it's just single event?

Okay, so for the second iteration then, they have to apply again? Correct. Okay.

But if that needs to be more clarified? I think so, yeah.

Commissioner Wolff?

Okay.

Move.

I think she wants to add that.

Yes. We'll let you add the notes. Yes. The ordinance covers the public outdoor events. Does it include political rallies, those First Amendment protests or demonstration? Where would you categorize that speech event in the outdoor?

I am not sure that we considered that when we were writing that. That's a great question though.

And the reason why I'm pulling this out is I was thinking I just quickly checked this afternoon. Washington law itself recognize certain public assembly as a constitutionally sensitive activity. So those are just I want to put in front of the department. Let's take a look at that.

Because to your point, it could be public nuisance to their opposing viewpoint. Exactly. So they would cause a conflict.

Yeah. So you maybe have a public speech event or demonstration, and that's outdoor, and meeting certain number, thresholds, number of people participating.

And they probably don't have the health and water and the other things that are required by the other single special events.

All right.

So I want to make sure we get that captured in there.

Maybe throw you down definitions, because it would be a community center or a park. Where else would you have a demonstration that's not already on permanent public or, you know?

Downtown.

But that's city. That'd be a city permit.

Well, public streets.

Yeah.

That'd still be. Yeah. Are we talking private land or public streets or somewhere? Maybe anywhere. Thank you for pointing that out. It's something that will need to be clarified in here.

Clarify the political events under the First Amendment assembly rights?

Right.

You definitely can't impede those, so you need to make sure that it's clear that that is not being done.

Does anybody, should we give them a chance online? Do you have anything, Joe? No. Angela?

Yes, thank you, Chair. I'm sorry I can't be there tonight. I really appreciate everyone who came and testified tonight. And also, thank you, Mr. Chair, for opening it back up. I have three comments. One is related to the comment that I sent in. About section 9.5, not 9.05. I think it's more protective of neighbors related to noise. And since this is in chapter 9, I think it's more appropriate to point to. Check section 9.5 related to noise. 2nd point is that that is also part of the public nuisance. Part of the code, so public nuisance is staff could correct me if I'm wrong, but I think public nuisance is actually defined in that in a similar section of chapter 9. And my third comment is reflecting on some of the comments that we heard from the public tonight, whether we should suggest to the Board of Commissioners that perhaps we should exclude natural resource lands from single event venues, agricultural, NRL, and forestry. Just a suggestion for my fellow commissioners to consider. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner only thing is for large event I don't see is this is just a point of consideration is a whether you would require the event organizer have insurance policy because you know could be on public land could be on private land

So for a special use permit, you have to give a COI. Would that not be part of your permitted language?

Yeah.

Can the TB21 crew get the recommendation back on the screen, please? So I want to make sure that we're getting everything written down and also just ask the planning commissioners if we could just go item by item and make sure that your concerns are addressed on the recommendation before we move to the next item, just to make sure we're capturing that all.

So back to the insurance question, would that already be part of the permit language? I know for the county special use permit, you have to include your COI. Does that already answer Commissioner Moo's question? Or does it need to be explicitly, you must have X amount of liability insurance?

That's something we could certainly look into as a requirement. I have seen that in other events permits to show that you have bonding or insurance or something like that.

But if it's on private land?

You still want to be insured, but that wouldn't be a county concern because they went to the county to see the private landowner.

I would say originally the intent for this section was events being held on private land, not public land. Public land, if you're using that, there may or may not be a review process by, say, the Parks Department or something like that. But thank you for pointing out all of these items. These are very helpful, and we will consider these.

Okay, should we just run through real quickly and see if we've covered all of the areas? We're going to start with 9.0801, purpose. Does anybody have any?

We're adding the whole zoning designations in there. I'm sorry?

He's just clarifying. It's already on the list.

Yeah, it's on the list there.

Okay. 0.02, definitions.

So to your point, I see public outdoor events. I'm not thinking about private land. So where does it say in this 9.0 code, 9.08 code, that this is for private land permits for single-use events? Does that make sense?

So we need to go there.

So 9.05? Yes. 9.08.020. specify on private land.

Anything else on 02?

Go to 03. 03, sorry. It's probably you want to have small, like under 199 and then 200. So you don't have 200 into two categories. That just edits in the text.

Okay. Is there a means for Joe and Angela to jump in if they wish with the screen time? They can unmute. They can unmute and just start talking? Mm-hmm. That's what I would recommend, okay? Because otherwise you can't see them. All right.

I'll jump in. Thank you for the invitation. I think given all the work on the agritourism that we did, I'm envisioning a large concert on farmland. And I'm just thinking that maybe we don't want to say all zones, that we don't want to make that clarification. I think we want to say, I would suggest that we say not natural resource lands.

OK. Just to remind the Planning Commission, when we were writing this code, we had envisioned having this be a pathway for agricultural operators that do want to host one-time events that are related to agriculture. As part of this, including the family festival farms who may not have a regular agritourism operation, but just want to do it 1 time per year. So, another alternative to just to throw out there is maybe have some additional limitations related to agriculture require that the events be related directly related to agriculture, similar to agritourism.

Great suggestion.

Mark, say again, please. She said, great suggestion.

Right. To her point, there will be checks and balances from the department if it doesn't comply with Title 14, right? I mean, there would be an opportunity to say no. No doesn't comply with agritourism policy. So we don't need to be that specific to eliminate. So I have to keep it as it is at the all zones.

This code is completely separate from Title 14 and the agritourism code as well.

But if the permitting that they write up conflicts with that, then it would be negated, correct? If they apply for a single use event and it goes against other code, it would still be turned down?

No. This would be reviewed by itself. Separately? Separately, yep.

Yeah, then back to the point, I would recommend, you know, at 9.08, .060 to tighten the gap on the impact. You have a permanent conversion, prevent, you know, convert agriculture, natural resource land, but also minimize or eliminate any temporary impacts.

Where are you in that code, Ms. Shamu? Where are we looking?

0.08060. You look at number eight, natural resource land preservation. They only focus on permanent conversion but didn't address temporary impacts. you know, soil, vegetation, agricultural access. So basically, you want to also eliminate or minimize temporary impacts.

So permanent conversion or temporary impacts, yeah.

Yes, and I will type that language in that number eight.

So address, excuse me, address the temporary impacts and permanent conversion.

And permanent conversion is the number eight sub point.

Yes.

On page five.

Okay. Have you got that? All right. So, are we done with 03? 0-3. Everybody's happy with 0-3? 0-4? Permit application procedure?

Yes. I do have a question on 0-3, maybe just for the benefits of also the commission. Do we have an impact study to pick the number 50, like 51 would cause an impact that would require a permit When we select the number of people, yeah, for the size of the event. So how did we arrive on 50 instead of 75 or 100?

50 is the threshold for agritourism events.

That's why we use that.

Right, right.

And I have a question also for .030 is can a single person or a single property owner apply for two large single outdoor events plus two medium events and two small events in the same year?

No, the intent is just all events are considered events. So if you apply for one event one time of the year, regardless of that being small, medium, or large, and then you do that again later in the year, then you've reached your limit as proposed. So you can't do one of each.

So does it clarify that in the code so that it's clear that people understand that they can have two total and not two in each category?

Oh, I'm sure of it. I'm sure of it, but it doesn't. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. That's a good point.

Okay. Are we ready for 4? 0-4? Okay. Anything on?

That was 0-3-0. Yes, it was. Clarify limit to 2 max per year, regardless of the size of the event. 0-3-0? Yes. 0-2-0.

Yes.

Two total per year, regardless of the size. Per applicant. Per applicant.

Per applicant. Right?

Mm-hmm.

applicant or property on property owner well wouldn't they be the same thing no vendor good for property owner but then applicant could have multiple events on different properties that's okay no well

Okay. It's a little tricky there.

Well, no, I mean, we're still fleshing it out because what's the intent? So again, to Ian's point, a vendor can come out and go to seven property owners and put in two applicants per year and host 14 events.

But I think the intent is to protect the parcel, right, at the event.

not not control the business right and i'm not regulating the capitalism just protect the property yeah okay well we're trying to keep business out of it yeah but you're not if you but i think you could say size per property and or applicant Because what if one person wants to have the same thing on multiple properties?

That's what we just said. Yeah. But we don't want to regulate that. We want to protect the property, to Ian's point. It doesn't matter how many times you do it, but the property's being protected and it's impacted more than twice a year. So it's going to impact the timber, the soil, the private.

Right, but you're also protecting your community by not having multiple.

That's not the intent of the title. The code is not to protect the community, it's to protect the land.

Oh, it's both. It's both. Yep, which is why we have the performance standards to address noise and lighting. But also to clarify for the Planning Commission, as this current draft that we provided to you, it does say as far as frequency goes, a permit for single outdoor events may not be issued to the same applicant or location for more than three consecutive days and for no more than two occasions per calendar year.

captures both that does okay thank you now can we go into three yes okay do you mean four four well yeah we did three of those how about not oh four permit application procedure under um item two part c so how are we notifying

So you're submitting your application 120 days prior. You have 60 to 90 days to complete it. Public comments, 15 days from, to me, 15th and 14th. So just what's the timeline? So what's it really look like from C to Roman numeral I, II, and III?

Yes, so there would be a public comment period. The comment period would be a total of 15 days, and it would be required that it must begin within 14 days of the application being determined complete by our department. So within 14 days, we would need to send out the notice of application with that 15-day comment period.

I understand that. I'm just concerned that 15 plus 14 is 29, and you're getting really close then to the gap between 9,820 days from points A and B. So that's, I mean, yeah. So again, who are you notifying within that? So we would be notifying property owners within 300 feet, I believe. I think Commissioner Moose said that's too small of an impact. For large events. Large events being 500 feet?

I don't know. It depends on the nature of the event. You know, if it's a concert or it is, for instance, it's a bicycle event, it all can be. It can be all different.

Is that standard 300 feet, Robbie?

Yeah, that's the standard noticing radius. And it's 300 feet from the property boundary. It's not the actual event that's like the location of the event within the property.

So that's a football field around the perimeter of the property.

Yeah, and part of the public notification requirements would require us to publish a notice in the Skagit Herald and then also post signs in addition to the notification to neighbors within 300 feet.

On the yellow paper, correct? The yellow?

Yeah, the yellow sign that, yeah, the paper gets attached to.

Would that also be available on website?

Yes, and thank you, Commissioner Mu. We also put all of our public notifications on the website as well.

Right. The reason was I don't remember Skagit Valley Herald was in the store last weekend. I didn't see the paper.

Would you like me to type in a recommendation on that item for you, or?

Maybe under Big 2, Little C, Roman New World 2-2, add that piece that Robbie just mentioned that must advertise and allow the submission of public comments. Oh wait, my bad. With the website, also you'd post on the website. Where would that fit? I think we should honor that. People could check the website as well.

Yeah, so under DIA, it says publication on the department's website. OK, there it is.

Sorry, there. Thank you.

Commissioner, move.

I don't see we have a deadline for determining the application's completeness. And also, as an applicant, if I provide or make revisions on the application, would that restart the clock?

That's a great question.

Yep. So they are for consideration of this paragraph.

Right. Anything else on 04? OK. 05? We're not coming back to 04.

Can I go back to 04? Are there fees for these three permits listed somewhere else in the code?

So we adopt a unified fee schedule, typically on an annual basis. So once this gets adopted, we would need to include that in the unified fee schedule.

Okay. Okay. 05, applications submittal requirements. Nothing? No. Anything online? No.

I think the earlier point about insurance, since it is on private property, do we want to encourage that? Because we're issuing the permit as a county, but it's on private property. We could still be, you never know, liable. Yes.

correct yeah i think it's definitely worth having especially if you've got a thousand people on your property that's high risk liability if somebody falls and breaks their leg or maybe a board falls off at the barn or who knows what could happen can there just be like an indemnification to the county within the permit process that

Any thoughts on that? I don't. I would think any risk on private property would be the landowners. But it's a valid point that there may be risk outside of the property due to the event. So it's something we can definitely check with our risk and attorney on.

But we're permitting it. I think then we are indirectly could be taken to court if something bad happens.

Potentially.

Eventually.

You can get a... Potentially, yeah. Potentially, potentially.

And that's true, yeah. You can get a...

So, yeah, I think maybe we'll write down, if we can write down that as one of the suggestions, is consider an insurance requirement.

Because as a property owner or homeowner, you can get a rider on your policy for a one-day or single event, and that way your homeowner's insurance will cover the activity.

But if we don't mandate it or direct them to do it, they may not do it. Right. And it's double injury. Yeah. The more we explicitly say, hey, by the way, do this rider or do this or do a COI, it would just help out.

Yeah. And she's got it on there.

Thank you. We've got a consumer insurance requirement down. So we're going to move on to 9.08.060, event requirements and conditions. is there anything yes commissioner um

9.08.060 has listed in great detail from drinking water to fire protection, traffic, crowd control. If we are going to list out everything, I would for large, especially for large size event, I would recommend probably require evacuation route. And also, in case of a, you know, like lost children, in those kind of things, you may want to, if you're working on a list, otherwise you may, you know, if it's like a hearing examiner's permit, you will be looking at great details, but since you are doing a full list, you may want to consider more about evacuation and the severe weather event and also about you know children lost how are we going to set that up to reunite with their parents commissioner wright

I concur. I also think it's disjointed. For 1A, it's a tens of a thousand, which is a large event. And then 5, all activities with the event doesn't tell you what size. And then 4 has medium and large. Is there any way to reorganize? What's a small event have to have? What's a medium event have to have? Or all events must have these three things. And then the next tier should have these two more things. And then I think if you're not understanding what you have per event, So maybe reorganize this whole section based on the needs and include what Commissioner Moos said. Like, if you have 50 people, you don't really need an evacuation event. But if you have 1,000 plus, you might need one.

Yeah. For events over 1,000, include. Right.

Because the language is not this consistent. It's maybe a consistency and then a tiered approach to expectations for these requirements.

Anything else on 060? Okay, we'll go to 070, grounds for denial. Commissioner.

Yeah, for denial, I commented earlier probably we should have measurable specific standards. And also we need to have a appeal process.

So consider standards and an appeal process?

Two separate things. Denial, you know, measurable standards, so it's not subjective. And the second is appeal process. So in case I'm denied and my interpretation supports the application, I have a process to go about it.

Is that covered for you?

Yes, if I may go back to the parking. We talked about parking in our last commissioners, planning commission's meeting in July. It probably needs to be event specific. Currently, three to one, if it's 1,000 people, we would require 334 parking space. That is pretty strict. And currently, Washington state, I just Googled this afternoon, looking at large musical events is one to four ratio. So if we are thinking about to be more stringent than the state requirement, probably we need to understand the assumptions there.

And that's under 060. And then five. How would you like me to phrase it for you?

I would recommend depends on the nature of the events and the other conditions. For instance, are you on bus routes? Is that people all live nearby? Probably the parking requirements needs to be event dependent, not have a cookie cutter approach that you use a total number divided by three.

And round it up to the next phone number.

It's going to be a biking event. They all bike there.

They don't need parking spots.

Or it's people coming in groups in families, or it's all coming there individually. You may have different level of requirements.

Anything else on grounds for denial?

under lighting one foot candle illusion leaves is that vertically or horizontally because some some lights go up and doesn't impact the property next door some lights go out so that a vertical horizontal illumination will appear think about football lights go down onto the property they still impact or you have construction lights go up to illuminate the space for the power lines so is it a vertical horizontal illumination does it matter or just i think it applies to all circumstances it's not specific because laser light shows and drone shows create lights and you're just opening another hole go ahead commissioner move okay

Commissioner, move.

Okay. I think that's an excellent point. If we are having it in a code, in an ordinance, I think it has to be specific. It's, you know, the one foot candle is where it's measured. Where does the measurement occur? At what height? That's significantly different. different who's making the determination and what instrument is used. So you will open a whole kind of worm there. When I look at that, I was kind of looking at, wow, it needs to be, I would think needs to be specific because it's a requirement.

Okay, we're done now with six.

Give us more time. We'll find more. You didn't give us a break. We're going to really go hard on this.

Is there anything more on 07-0? Anybody online? Okay, we're going to move on to 080, enforcement. There's only one line here.

Clarifying question, if you submit your permit and your event gets a lot of popularity and it grows in size, is it a resubmitting or is it noncompliance? If you just go with the flow like, oh, I put a medium permit in and now I'm a large event and nobody comes by and sees it, I mean, what's the room for things get very popular very fast and now you're out of compliance? Is that a non-issue, just best intents?

It would seem if they applied for a permit for X amount of people, they went for one of the smaller levels, that they would need to regulate the number of attendees to their event. If they did not, yes, they may be determined to be non-compliant based on any either community complaint or inspection by the fire marshal, a visit from the sheriff's office, anything like that. If we become aware that they're non-compliant with their permit, then that would need to be addressed.

So I ask because you're thinking back to the opening comments from Commissioner Moua. You have a political event, and now you have opposition coming to your event. You didn't regulate your numbers. Now you're above and beyond. But it's your permit. It's your event. But you can't control who shows up in opposition to the free speech. So is there grace there? Or is it kind of circumstantial, like she asked earlier? Is it like a one-off, we can't control, we can't control, of human nature? Or are you going to penalize the vendor

can't you know just concerned that things can blow up with the environment we currently have sometimes from my experience hosting many events it's the venue can only hold 200 i'm going to put my permit in for 200 people kind of thing so if it blows up that's a different story if i can you know right so but the protest counter protest on the outside of the four walls yeah yeah yeah The stuff you can't control.

Right, but you could then be penalized what's beyond your control, but no? Okay.

Commissioner.

Are we thinking about the permit fees identical for all three levels or different?

Something we haven't decided yet, but it would likely be based on the amount of review that's required as each one gets larger, it would likely require a larger fee.

So you would think it depends on the size, size dependent. In that case, if I'm an event organizer, I would like to go a little bit lower, especially I'm right at 198 versus 200 because it's more, would cost more. So that's just, you know, some thought.

Okay. Are we done with enforcement? All right. 090, severability.

This is very standard language that you can find in a lot of sections of code. It's just essentially saying that if one section is found invalid, doesn't make the rest of the chapter invalid. Correct.

so no problems with the severability statement okay i'm afraid to do this but anything else from the whole document can we go back so online is there anybody with anything else to say about the document can you hear me right we can yes

so we're trying to thread a needle tonight i feel like that is we're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist yet and so there's going to be things that we run into or that the county runs into that oh didn't think about that didn't think about that because we're making so many changes here so at this point we've tweaked it a lot and then i i can only imagine that there's going to be a process over the next year or so because there's not a lot of events like this that that are out there that will learn a few things and there'll be some changes but i will say that there's been you know a lot of thought put into this and and you should feel good about all the effort put into it at this point okay thank you joel so if there's nothing else we will

conclude our review of SEC 89.08.

Oh, and Commissioner Raschko, or Chair Raschko, there is an opportunity for the whole commission to vote on the recommendation document, if you so choose.

I didn't realize we were going to vote on this. Okay, that's fine.

Thank you, Robbie.

So can we see the document again, please? Those are the recommendations.

I move that we approve the recommendations made this evening.

Is there a second?

I would second.

Is there discussion available now?

It's moved and seconded. Is there a discussion? Yes.

So to Commissioner Woodmansey's point, do we need to put a caveat of code changes or that fall under next year's docket as we know what we learned from this year? So to the point, like, we think we know what we know, and to this point, well, we don't have a problem yet with any of this. When that all comes to a head in November, does it now get docketed for 2027 for code changes? Or can we put that caveat now, as needed, DPS can come to us, TDS come to us with suggestions?

So it wouldn't go through the docket process, but if planning determines after getting some applications in and we get feedback, or if we learn some things as we go through the process, then we can certainly bring it back for refinement.

I just want to close the door on flexible changes, because we know that we need them. So it's open for more support later on, as we know. Thank you.

Anything else? okay and then uh all those in favor of the document please say raise your hand we need to identify individually and online okay any opposed and there's no abstentions so uh it is approved thank you i apologize i was understanding that we didn't take actions on things under title 14 so i did not think that we were going to be doing that not with all the agendas identified as uh facts and findings and a vote right so anyway uh i do want to thank everybody for all the careful thought they put into this seriously and uh Thank you very much. Okay, so we will move then, if it's okay, to staff report, please. Department updates.

uh department i will share the department has as with a lot of departments have been going through a lot of budget adjustments so just wanted to mention that you have seen a result of some of that here tonight in that our planning teams formerly we've had a three distinct planning teams we now have a singular planning team where all our planners will be able to expand their experience and branch out a bit into other areas of planning that they have not formally had the opportunity. So I'd like to just say welcome and thank you to Jeannie and DP both for being here tonight and helping out. And you may be seeing a bit more of them moving forward.

Thank you. Any questions for Seth?

I was kind of curious about this change to 908. What's the impact on your department?

Well, as no one in the county recollect ever issuing a permit under 908 since the adoption in 1970, I don't know what the impact will be as of yet. It is intended to capture things that formerly were just happening out in the community that we did not know about or we knew about and there just wasn't a clear pathway on what to do about it. Thankfully, most of those did not create enough of a community impact to warrant action, but I think time will tell is the answer on that. I don't anticipate a large body of work based on this, but maybe a small employee per year, but we'll see. Okay, thank you.

Carol?

I love your permit system. I had a hard time reading the graphics. Can you explain to me, on your opening screen, is 84 a past due? But then there's multiple below it that don't add up to 84, and there are different standards and places. So are we 84 permits beyond completion? Or, I mean, is the number from a couple days ago? Or is this part of our budget? We're behind on things? How are we doing with the new permit stuff?

Sure. So the permit software, I mean, we do have some challenges there, but we have some other challenges within the department. And if you're referring to the color line graph on our website, that is intended to represent days to initial review. And so the maximum state mandated time frame for days in review for building permits is 60 days. And we are not meeting our goal, at least in a couple areas of the department and of the review. Specifically right now, building safety review, building code safety review, and land development or stormwater review. Those two areas, we're not meeting our goal of 60 days. So that's what that's intended to represent. So the declining numbers are other teams that that's where each team is at in their queue. So one team might be at 26 days, one team might be at 42 days, while another team that is having particular challenges and the constraint within our department might be at 80 days. Okay, so it's days, not number of permits.

Thank you.

I'm sorry. Correct. It's number of days. So it's the shelf time before it gets looked at. And that goes to the oldest permit in queue. So not all of them are there. Of course, it varies all the way from one on up to the maximum number. But that is what it's intended to measure.

Are they prioritized by department or just prioritized in general? Like this is a high need.

permit or they are they for the most part get added to the same queue and they're worked on in order of complete application so the that's where we're you know our goal is is 60 days or or less and where we aren't meeting it, then we tend to take some additional actions and start looking at additional solutions when we identify a constraint. So for that particular instance of building code safety review, we had some personnel challenges where we had four people doing the work and we had some leave and unexpected leave and medical leave that contributed to only having at some points two people out of the four-person team available and then with their demands on that four-person team we have to handle inspections every day in the county. So the folks who are doing the in-office review were then assigned to go out into the field. Therefore, it was created a constraint for getting those plans looked at. We have responded by calling one of our on-call people who is a recently retired building official from work to some other jurisdictions. So we've responded by activating that on-call person who comes in part-time. And then we're also trying to recruit for additional on-call people and then potentially doing some... As part of this... readjustment of the department, we may take some resources from a vacant position elsewhere in the department and hire another person for that team so that we can get the work done and get caught up. So anyway, that might be just slightly too much detail, but I just want to give you that as an example of we are responsive to these things. This is not acceptable, so to speak. So it is a very great concern to the department, to the county, to the commissioners They want us to be meeting our time frames. They want us to serve the applicants and the community as best we can. So we do track this frequently, constantly, ongoing, and attempt to utilize methods to get us back down into an acceptable range.

you for the transparency all the responsiveness that's good to know something you get out of office email bounces back but you actually say no we're doing our best we're pulling in you know what we have for our historical support so thank you anything else for the department okay so angel have anything to share if you're there i believe she hopped off okay joe have you anything to share

um just thank you for indulging me happening beyond zoom i was not expecting to be gone this week and i was given an opportunity to hang out with my kids in a nice warm place last minute so i appreciate the indulgence and being able to zoom in we appreciate you tuning in thank you okay

Well, I want to first thank the public for your participation and for your comments during the public hearing and the public remarks. And it's very important, you know, because it's, yeah, all the code updates, all the zoning designation change, there is an impact. And we want to understand the full picture and also understand your concerns. And I also want to welcome Commissioner Ian Larson.

Thank you.

Thank you on board, and also want to welcome Planner Jeannie, and sorry, Deepti. Deepti. Deepti, welcome, and thank you, great job. And I want to thank the staff for a great job also. Rewrite code 9.08. Even though we pick it apart, sounds very, very bad. However, it's less than 10 items. You can do that very quickly. All right, well thank you so much.

everything commissioner Wu said and also just for the thoughtful comments from my fellow planning commissioners I appreciate all the hard work that you guys put into asking really pertinent questions so thank you I just appreciate the comments from the public I think they're really important um

probably the reason why i'm here is because i'm a citizen too and i like to be part of stuff so thanks to everybody at the planning department for putting all this together and being very prepared so i'm impressed and thanks for the group for the warm welcome kira

Thank you. Well, welcome, Jeannie and Deepti. Great job on your first time at the board. As a teacher, I understand the nerves of having to type and listen or click and talk. So thank you. You did a wonderful job. And Robbie has big shoes. He's left for you. We've been trained by Robbie, so he's doing a great job with you. Welcome, Commissioner Larson. Congratulations, Commissioner Day, on your new appointment. And thank you, Commissioner Raschko, for allowing the grace for reopening public remarks. We had citizens here who wanted to speak. I was very gracious to open them again and give them that chance because it is difficult to come here but they did come and I know public hearing comments and public comments we just want to comment we want to be listened to we want to be heard so thank you for that grace and board for approving that to happen because I think it is valuable that we do give you time because we do work in the volunteer on behalf of you as well as our own assistantship to your point and then thank you to the staff for another great evening thank you yes I'd like to thank the public thank the staff

welcome our new members and participants and wish everybody a good night so we'll stand adjourned thank you the the value of the tree that we're going to be taking down

Next one is emphasize on on-street construction inspection training. The team is green on this, and I would really like to put an emphasis on getting them out in the field, getting them to understand construction means and methods. But also, it's a safeguard for us. So as they learn when they're out in the field as construction's happening, much more pointed in our comments and get a better result and be able to have very frank conversations with our contractors. And then also,