Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Sixth meeting of the Skagit County Planning Commission is now in session. And we have everybody here. Thank you. We'll take a motion to approve the minutes of August 18th, please.

I move we approve the minutes of August 18th. Second.

Move and seconded to approve the minutes. Is there any discussion of the minutes? If not, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? So the minutes are approved. We have time tonight for public remarks. Is there anybody in the room who wishes to speak to the Planning Commission? No? Okay. Is there anybody online?

No, there is not.

Okay, so we'll dispense with public remarks. Thank you. Which takes us to our main subject tonight, which is deliberations on the 2026 planning docket. So, Ms. Conner.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Deepthi Khanna. I'm associate planner with Kaja County Planning and Development Services. Today we are at a planning commission recommend stage for 2026 comprehensive plan map and development code amendment for docket process. Before planning commission begins its deliberation, I will provide a brief overview of 2026 docket process and where are we at this stage, the process to the point. Petition materials and supporting documents are available on the Skagit County website on under 2026 docket webpage which is at skagitcounty.net slash 2026CPA. The public comment period was held from July 16 through August 20, 2026. Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 18, 2026 and County received 14 public comments on the 2026 docket. The comments and the comments summary is available on our website under the 2026 docket webpage as shown on the screen. I also want to briefly address two items raised in the public comments regarding a RASAR petition for a mineral resource overlay. First, there was a question regarding access to the existing mine. Application material indicated the access is from Allen Road. Applicant has clarified that the access is currently provided by the existing driveway connecting to Old Highway 99. There was also a question regarding potential environmental impacts. Any project-specific environmental impacts would be assessed through the applicable permitting and environmental review process with and when the development permit is proposed. At this meeting, Planning Commission will provide a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. on the 2026 docket petition. Following the Planning Commission recommendation tonight, Board of County Commissioner will hold a work session on October 12th at 2.30 p.m. and on October 19th at 1.30 p.m. Board will hold a deliberation and consider possible adoption of a 2026 docket. Planning Commission recommendation will be forwarded to the board as a part of that process. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions you have before we move into the individual docket items and deliberation and recommendations. Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Yes, just to clarify, at the last meeting we had, there were three items in the docket and there were two presentations. Why did we not re-present about the code changes from the department?

It gives, since the two citizen petitions have applicants that are requesting those changes, it gives the applicants an opportunity just to present what they're requesting directly to the Planning Commission. Since you've already heard from staff, we typically don't re-present those amendments again at the public hearing. So it's almost like their opportunity to provide public comment, but because they're the petitioners, it's just a little bit more of an extended process.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying. People were kind of put off by not having a presentation on that as well. Of course, the two presented in third. We didn't present on our own docket item. Thank you. Yeah.

Anything else?

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. There were quite a few comments about party of record. And if my memory is correct, the first iteration of changes that were proposed have been changed in response to some of those comments. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. So we added, you'll see that party of record definition is organized into four different line items and number four was added and it was not included in the first iteration. We realized during the miscellaneous code amendments public comment process that There was a little bit of a gap that opened up from organizing it this way by not having the option to formally request to receive information via written statement with a complete mailing address, particularly for Type 1 applications, which don't have public comment periods. So it allows someone to request information, become a party of record, and then they get notified of when there's a decision made on that permit. And then that also presents appeal opportunities by adding that fourth bullet.

Thank you. May I ask a follow-up for either one of you? It's my understanding that becoming a party of record is the first step to, but not a guarantee of, standing to make an appeal. So any interested person could appeal a type 1, but under like a type 2 or type 3, normally they would have had to comply with or meet the requirements in one or two, basically testifying or providing written comments. So does adding number four substantively change standing to appeal?

No, I don't think so. And if you didn't submit a comment in order to get standing, it's likely that whoever the appeal body is is going to ask you how you have standing and how it may affect you. And typically, that's always required to be demonstrated. But I think in particular, since that person may have not submitted a public comment, they would have to demonstrate that through that appeal process.

Yeah, I think it, for me, it creates a bit of a lack of clarity. The RCW that was cited to me just reads that a person should receive a notice of a decision, which is substantively different than a party of record. And so I'm just wondering, there was actually a comment that I think explained this very well in the public comments that we received from staff that suggested that perhaps receiving a notice of a decision is a different thing than a party of record and it should be put somewhere else in the code rather than calling it a party of record not not that people shouldn't receive a notice of decision certainly that would be expected but including it under a definition of party of record i'm just wondering if that creates some a a different meaning

I think part of the reason that we phrase it this way too is because we don't issue a notice of decision for a building permit. We just issue the building permit. So by saying you want to request a notice of decision, that would potentially present a gap there. So I think that's another reason it was written that way, which this was written by our representative at the prosecuting attorney's office. So I think that may have been the reason. I'm not entirely sure. Okay.

Thank you.

Just a clarifying question on procedure. At the last meeting, or the last meeting with presentations, and we had two great presentations from the two docket items, and there was a rebuttal to another public comment. I don't know if it was appropriate. What in the future would be the appropriate procedure? I mean, there's public comment, there's presentation. It's not a time for a question and answer rebuttal, correct? So would that have been a censure moment from the chair, or would that be a PD stop, like, no, you can't speak again, you've already spoken to your motion kind of situation?

That's a great question. I am not entirely sure. Given that the presentation is, I'd have to look and see if there's a difference between the presentations given by the applicants for each DACA petition versus a public comment. So not entirely sure. However, Those notes were presented as a public comment as well, a written public comment. So you did receive that information that way as well, and they absolutely have the right to be able to do that.

Correct, but I think there was a slight to the public comment process when somebody who presented stepped back in to give a public comment to someone that's a public comment. So I don't think it should be back and forth amongst our citizens trying to share their viewpoint and then be attacked for their viewpoint or corrected. So just kind of make sure we have a procedure in place for safety for how people have no comments coming. So if people don't feel safe to come and comment without being attacked for their comment, we have a problem in our community. So I want to make sure we have a process that we articulate it because we do have a code of conduct now, what do we call it? Code of conduct for behavior. During the comment?

Yes, yes. So we need to look at that as well and see if that applies or not in addition to the Planning Commission bylaws. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Chair. For Type 1 decisions that carry appeal rights, what specific notice does the party of records receive and when does the 14-day appeal process start?

They would receive notice after the building permit is issued, typically same day. That would likely be just an email. And then the 14-day appeal period would start the day that that permit was issued.

Okay. Thank you. Yep.

I'm going to go back to the previous conversation. I think that what's important when you're having a public hearing and public comments are being made, I think that staff certainly has the ability to ask questions of a proponent in a public hearing if something comes up that is erroneous or needing clarified, such as the access to the site on the Mineral One. And so I don't think that it's not tit for tat. It's trying to get accurate information. And so if I get up there and say something that's blatantly not true, and we handcuff a proponent, no matter what it is, and we handcuff a proponent, that proponent can't say why that's not true. And then we have information that's not true and we're deliberating. That is important for the accuracy of the particular point that's maybe misconstrued or not true one or the other. And so I think that there has to be some leeway to where you've spent all this money getting to a hearing And all of a sudden, a bunch of things are being said that are not necessarily accurate. And I'm not saying that was the case in this. I know the access thing was just a mistake in the application, it sounds like. I think, you know, I don't think a back, I mean, I guess somebody could be out of line in a back and forth, but I don't think that, that it's a, you know, a poor decorum to correct a comment or it may be you misspoke 10 minutes earlier and they got caught and you're like, you're right. I just want to clarify. I didn't, I said that wrong or something. and not have to wait to respond, you know, in writing later. And, you know, real-time fix, if it's available, I think is actually a good thing.

That's a fair point. I just, sorry, Chair, just a fair point, but also there's a process. They don't know they have a chance to respond. They should be correcting it. It should come from the staff, not the audience. It's kind of where we have that flow of process. All I'm asking for is that, what is it? So is it what you're saying, or is it what Robbie said, or is it something new we need to create? Because I think it does need to be safe for people to respond and share. And if there was a correction being made, that's great, but it was a process to make the corrections in writing, not always in verbal, to your point. So yes, we have room to improve. That's all it is.

Yep, and we can certainly look into that before the next docket process. And I recognize that normally we do an annual docket. Last year, we did not have an annual docket, so there's a lot of members here who haven't gone through this process. But... We'll certainly look at that before next year's docket and make sure that that's tightened up.

Okay, so are we done with that? Okay. Thank you, buddy. Anything else pertaining to tonight's agenda? Commissioner Wright?

Can you walk us through the drafts that we have received of the code amendment for 2014? Because there's multiple versions. There's a February version, a May version, and a July version. And there's many, many versions of it. So this is the cleanest version the public has commented on. Is it the July version or the May version? Or have we approved all the different things that have changed?

I heard that there may have been some confusion there from someone from the public. So great question. Want to clarify that? What you saw in February and April, that's been adopted. That's a whole separate code amendment process. So this is a new code amendment packet that was brought to you for the first time in July. And that's the only draft that's ever been released. and likely will be the only draft unless there needs to be some changes made at the request from the county commissioners or we get feedback tonight that results in some changes that need to be made.

So to the point from the person who commented, just confusion of the three different versions, there's newer things on each version. Is that appropriate or how does that go through?

There's only one version of this code amendment packet. draft that you looked at was a entirely different project. They're both miscellaneous code amendments, but since that last one was adopted in May, staff has identified further amendments that would like the Planning Commission to consider in this packet.

Is that typical, then, to have a rolling correction of the same title? It's all Title XIV. It's supposed to be a rolling correction, but it's a docket item, so I just don't know when to stop, because there's new items, like 14-06-0625, or whatever it is, that's brand new that was on the first two versions, so it's kind of... Constantly editing the department to keep making changes.

So normally we have an annual process where we do it this year. We added an extra 1 just because as the planning commission may remember last year, we completely reorganized our code. And since then, we've just identified things that may have been missing or inconsistencies and then also. There's other circumstances where we may be going through an application process and realize, ooh, that could really be improved. That's a gap in our code. So there's a little bit more than usual. I recognize that. And I suspect after this one, I mean, I'm thinking of all the potential code amendments that we may have after this, and they're a lot less urgent. There's a lot less of them. So thank you to Planning Commission for reviewing this many code amendments in a given year. I recognize it's a lot. You may remember in the last miscellaneous code amendments packet, it was A lot of it was pretty small corrections. That's also the case with this 1 with a few exceptions where we added, for instance, the data center. Amendment that was at the request of the county commissioners to address in the in this year. With their moratorium.

Thank you. Yeah. Okay, we're going to move on. Maybe it's appropriate to have an agenda item sometime in the future about process, but right now we need to concentrate on the 2026 docket. So we will turn then to LRPLM 2025-0001, which is the Old Day Creek Small Scale Business Rezone Petition. The floor is open.

Would you like a motion on each item, or would you like a motion to approve, recommend approval of the docket? How would you like us to do that?

We need to have a motion on each item. Okay. Somebody care to make a motion?

I'll make a motion that we recommend going through with this zoning change.

second it's moving second to recommend approval of lrpln 2025 0001 so is there a discussion by hearing none then all those in favor of the motion please say aye aye aye those opposed any abstentions okay thank you LRPLN 2025-003. There is no two, correct?

No. For some reason, our permit tracking system decided to skip number two. They won't make them skip?

Yeah. This is the RASAR mineral resource overlay designation petition. Before we start, I'd just like to comment that our job here is not to discuss air quality or water. quality or runoff or noise pollution or effects on neighbors or any of that. That's the purview of other agencies which would rule on those sometime in the future after somebody has made an application to actually do the mining. What we are charged with here is to make a recommendation on whether there is enough sand and gravel present to be included in the with the mineral resource overlay, okay? So if everybody understands that, I'd like to open the floor to a motion or to discussion.

I have a question. Could Robbie or Lipty explain where in policy 4D-1.1 that the county would authorize to aggregate the resource volume of an existing MRO with the resource volume of the proposed expansion for the parcels that would meet the one million cubic foot threshold?

So that's silent in policy. We don't have a policy that specifically addresses additions to existing MROs. However, if this were a brand new MRO, we would look at the total area. So that's why in our recommendation, in our staff report, we explained that even though the area that's being added is below, it's not a brand new MRO. So we believe it's consistent with that criteria, even though it doesn't specifically delineate or specify a circumstance where MRO is being added to.

Could I have a follow-up question? Okay. Back in 2007, these two parcels were removed and in the record it stated that we no longer have the documentation for the reason these two parcels were removed from MRO designation.

I believe that the county, I suspect that the county was doing such a large overhaul to the mineral resources overlay that they didn't specifically give reasoning for this change or that change to those two parcels in 2007. There was some documentation specifically talking about the mineral resource overlay amendment that they were doing to the entire county based on more accurate mapping that was available. But it didn't specifically give reasoning for these 2 parcels. And if you actually. If you look at the state aggregate resource mapping, it doesn't include the 5 parcels that are here, but after. looking at the applicant's application materials. They have found that there is resource on the property and reached out to Department of Natural Resources to see if they had any further information to provide. And they said it may have just not been mapped in that area because they've never done testing out there. But they looked at the applicant's samples and didn't necessarily see an issue.

Commissioner Wright.

Sorry, thank you. So pertaining to item nine on the facts and findings, would those who spoke at the docket presentation last month be parties of record or they have to re-speak and comment to be in the know about any future permitting process?

So they are party of records for this application. They would not be parties of record by default for any special use permit application. However, a special use permit application would require public notification to an even wider radius than what was given for this process. I believe it's, is it 1,000 feet or 1,200 feet?

Is it going to be heading examiner special use?

Yeah, but mine's in particular called out for having a wider radius.

Wider range, yes. I think it's 1,000 feet.

Yeah, so there's a 1,000-foot radius, so even more people would get notification of the hearing exam or special use permit.

Thank you. And follow-up question to the chair's comment about where assessing the viability of sand and gravel to exist for the MRO. Have we seen any documentation about there being the appropriate amount to Commissioner Muma's point? There's nothing that's been in here about that. So I was taken aback by your comment. Like, we want to talk about sand and gravel opportunities, but we've never seen any data to support any future So that would be an MRO qualifier.

The Planning Commission was given the application materials back in July, which included the samples provided by the applicant in a narrative explaining what aggregate resources are on the property.

So that qualifies for that question. Thank you.

Commissioner Day.

A follow-up question. Thank you. I think I asked this before, but it seems relevant, and perhaps there's an answer now, about the statistical error range in sampling. So if there's just under the threshold, is there a sampling error that's expected that could be larger than what's estimated or underestimated or overestimated?

I am not sure. That's a great question.

All right. Thank you.

OK. Friends of Skagit County specifically asked about the reclamation after resource depletion be addressed at this stage rather than in the future as project review. And is there any policy level commitment to reclamation that is necessary or appropriate at the MRO designation stage rather than leaving it for future permit?

uh no there is not and there's no way for us to condition a designation change or a zoning amendment however the reclamation uh there is pretty well um or pretty specific code at the county level and i believe at the state level for reclamation so it would be addressed during the hearing examiner special use permit and the applicant would have to demonstrate that their reclamation plan is consistent with county code

I move that we recommend approval of LRPN 2026, number 3.

2025. 2025.

Sorry. Thank you. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Let's move and second to approve LRPN 2025, number 3. Further discussion? Commissioner Dane?

I appreciate all the public comments about it, and I appreciate the concerns. I also appreciate the clarification, which addresses some of those concerns. And I think to the Chair's point, this is a mineral resource overlay and that any project specific impacts would be evaluated at the time that any application would come forward. And there would be a hearing process and the applicant would have to meet the criteria in the code for any kind of noise or traffic impacts. And you really don't know that until you see an application. So I think that speaks to why the chair was creating that clarification. So because this is a somewhat narrow recommendation just to include it in the mineral resource overlay, I think based on all of the comments and the presentation by the applicants, that it should move forward.

Thank you. Other comments?

i'd like to make a comment i just think that it's an unfortunate situation that especially for property owners that are adjacent to the property that we're discussing that at the time that they purchased their property they weren't aware of the fact that this originally had been mro mineral overlay properties so if i'm understanding this correctly and so i can appreciate why people would be opposed that the neighbors would be opposed to it because they didn't know that that was a possibility for that land to be used in that way so i just want to acknowledge that it's a an unfortunate situation for both the property owner and for the surrounding property owners thank you

are we ready for a vote okay all those in favor please say aye aye aye opposed all right i oppose and uh any abstentions okay so that's approved thank you and uh C-26-1, general code language cleanup. Am I in the right place? Mm-hmm. Okay. Is anybody wish to make a motion?

I have a question about the comments on the data centers. There are not any mentioning or limitation on the number of data centers, even though we have a square footage limit and also megawatt limit. But we don't have an aggregation of all the data centers' potential impact, the collective impacts on water supply,

you know the pressure on the power grid so any consideration for that yeah so one they would be limited to the bayview ridge light industrial and heavy industrial zone so they'd be limited in that way but it's likely not practical for a data center developer to want to build a bunch of 2,000 square foot data centers. And the reason that we open it up this way is in case a business needs a server room or something like that. And the definition of a data center could be conflated with a server room. So let's say a local business. needs a few hundred square feet for a server room. We wanted to make sure that that option was available. But no, there hasn't been any water analysis or electricity analysis or anything like that on data centers, as this is effectively a ban on larger data centers. OK. Mr. Day.

Could you perhaps clarify what it means to be an accessory use

Yeah, so you have to have a permitted use on the property to be an accessory use. So for instance, if you have a business where you're selling goods, that would be the permitted use. And then if they needed a server room, that would be the accessory use to that primary permitted use.

So the restriction on accessory use means you can't just come build a data center. It has to be a component of our accessory to some other business that you're conducting.

Right.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Wright?

So thank you. feel like we're putting the cart before the horse or so there's so many things out there we have a whole brand new committee looking at all these things all these great opportunities and we're already creating parameters and limits and sizes and locations and we don't know we don't know to your point we don't have any kind of analysis or data and do we have a need for this per se isn't it just enough to start a definition and allow what we want that you said, so maybe just keep the definition. And I know we talked about a moment, requirement B, instead of creating a whole new hoopla that we don't have enough information for to support. So you're saying that we only have, I feel like we're rushing all of this with the data centers. We don't know, we don't know. I think we have a lot going on in our county. What was setting the tone for this to add this to the code?

The county commissioner's moratorium. And this is essentially... pretty much putting that moratorium language into code. So it's essentially a stopgap until someone comes along and maybe there is an instance in the future where we do want to have a more drawn-out, comprehensive process. But for now, this is essentially just clarifying in code what a data center is that is not a utility and putting very strict limits on them for the time being, at least.

Okay, thank you.

Right now, we're calling all the entire category as general code language cleanup. You know, when I look at a general code language cleanup, I'm thinking about minor edits. I wouldn't be able to even filter through, like data center is the new land use category. Probably deserves, you know, more debate and public attention.

so sure that that's an excellent point and i think in the future any items like this would likely be docketed as its own docket petition um since the commissioners passed the moratorium the department just figured since especially given the positive feedback during the public comment period that it made sense in this instance to just get it in there otherwise We'd be going through a whole nother process and the planning commission schedule given the clean energy updates that are coming and the critical areas ordinance update appeal that we have to address is going to be pretty busy over the next year. So given Even though this is not necessarily a general code language cleanup, it's a pretty small amendment. It's not a whole lot of code. So we thought it was easy enough for the public and the planning commission to grasp. And we tried to call out attention to it as much as we could when we did public notification of the amendments.

Thank you. I move that we recommend approval of the code language changes.

Ms. Reyes, second.

I'll second.

It's moved and seconded to approve C-26-1. Is there further discussion on the motion? Commissioner Wright?

Yes, can you please speak to the same we did the data center code 14.06.425. That's a lot of code. It's brand new. It's not just an edit. What guided us to add all of this language that we didn't have prior?

That was in code before we did the entire code rewrite back in 2025, and it got missed. And it's a big procedural step that is important to have for especially for appeals or county commissioner appeals. So that is the reason why that is being added back. Yes, it's more language than usual, but essentially it was in code before.

Follow up. Is there any way to track the changes in the documents online? There's no dated. So this was in 2025. It's now new code in 2026. In prior conversations, you've talked about how things are grandfathered in or new code applies. So this was not there in 2025. It's not here in 2026. But you're in the middle of an appeal from 2024. Where does everybody land with that application or grandfathering in of the code?

Good question. So I don't believe procedures vest, but that appeal specifically said that we needed to do this. So we wanted to make sure that in the future for not necessarily that appeal in particular, but future appeals that this language is here.

Thank you.

anybody else so i guess i'm concerned about kind of where we started with this and that is that you know it's it's a lot of change it's not just a cleanup and a lot of change should have a bigger microscope on it and so i'm you know i think that we should never skip the microscope part just for convenience and i feel like that's what we're doing here we're skipping the microscope because it's convenient and we're not going to get yelled at because it's a popular thing but it still is a problem with the process and so um because of that i'm not going to support the changes so

Any comments? Ms. Higday?

The docket process is a public process. And so I guess that's what gives me less concern about some changes that are substantive. And I also think that, in particular, the data center recommendation is a good one. I do have a concern about the changes to the party of record section because I think it creates confusion. And I think there was a very sound public comment that kind of explained why it's confusing. I plan to support this motion because I made it, but at the same time, I would like to kind of reserve a space in the conversation for a recommendation that we flag that for the Board of Commissioners, that perhaps it could create some confusion and could be included, notice of decision could be included somewhere else. Other than that, I support the changes, and I think the docket process is a public process.

And just to remind the planning commissioner, so for instance, if you did want to approve or recommend approval of this, you do have the opportunity, like we have in previous processes, to make notes on recommended changes, as Commissioner Day was stating.

Yeah, to echo what Commissioner Day just said, I think the party of records, it would be very helpful to include what exactly legal status would party of record this class has, such as receiving notices automatically, standing up for appeal, or any other things. Let's just be explicit on that.

Would you like to amend your motion and recommend changes?

I appreciate the opportunity. I think that it would be better if we include something in the findings to make a suggestion to staff and to the board of commissioners to look at it rather than to try to find a solution by ourselves.

I agree with that. Anything else? all right then all those in favor of approving or recommending approval of c261 please raise your hand okay those against please raise your hand any abstentions Okay. So what do we have?

Four and three. Four to three.

Four to three. Okay. Well, thank you. So we're going to turn to findings of fact.

I'm sorry, does the motion carry?

Yeah, the motion carried. 4-3.

Thank you, everybody. How deep do the findings affect, or if the recommendations are above it? Under 1 there is where you could start that.

Right there?

Yeah.

OK, staff has provided us with a document.

And so there's findings of fact that the department recommended that's pretty much just speaking to what we are doing here. And we figured if there's recommendations that they could go below that. However, the Planning Commission's also, of course, welcome to amend the findings of fact and reasons for action as well.

Okay, we'll start with LRPLM 2025-001, which is the Old Day Creek Road small-scale business If everybody's in agreement, we can just go through the six findings that are in the document and we can approve them or we can change them, modify, or add to the list. So we can read through them one at a time, what is everybody's wishes. okay we'll read through them one at a time goal three c9 accomplishment plan recognizes the land use needs of existing and new business do we really need to do this has anybody a motion that we accept those six findings of facts please second it's uh moved and seconded to accept the findings of fact reasons for action more discussion all those in favor say aye aye aye aye 98 against Abstentions? Okay. So, that is approved. We'll go to L-R-P-L-N 2025-003. They raise our mental resource overlay designation amendment. Does anybody have a motion to make?

I move that we accept the findings of fact on the 003 amendment.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

I'm going to second it to accept the findings and reasons for action on 0003. Any discussion?

And because there is no policy direct stating that you can aggregate both to be designated as well as designated parcels, so I cannot support all these findings or facts.

Okay. Anybody else? Commissioner Day?

Would it be helpful to include in your recommendation? I always find that it's helpful to include the logic. If you're not supporting something, I wonder if the Planning Commission would be open to and if you would be open to putting in a recommendation or just a note or a finding that there is no policy that recognizes aggregation. I...

I don't think it is, if we're adopting this relaxed policy interpretation for everything in this kind of similar situations, then that we need to rewrite the policy. That's what I see. So probably I I wouldn't think we have a policy that we go against. And if there is a logic that makes sense, then we need to revise the policy. That's what I see.

I understand. And what I'm asking is, is there an opportunity somewhere in here to note what you see as the problem?

Yes, because there is no policy to meet this Aggregation you're right.

And so if you if we added that as a finding would that be helpful at all? I guess as a part of our recommendation to the Board of Commission County Commissioners so they can understand Sort of the logical process that the Commission went through I

I may be helpful, but I'm not in agreement with that logic. That's the part. I understand what Rob said. So would you like to say that? Probably. You know, number one is I don't see that policy is there. And if I state that basically there is nothing to support the aggregation at this time. And number two, I see a couple of areas, especially from the public comments on the drainage, whether at this designation stage or at permit stage, is something not quite clear. Can we... really make some investigation at the designation stage or investment going on and then down the road at the project stage to determine something. So I think it's just a bigger hurdle for me to support this motion.

If I could say something, I don't see the problem with the aggregation. When drawing up maps, rather than have a ton of little parcels here and there that have some gravel, they put on a minimum of a million, I think it's a million credit cards.

Yes.

And that makes sense operationally and everything else. You can support that. So if you want to make it a little bigger, you still have that critical mass necessary to be able to operate in an efficient way. And so I don't see why this aggregation should be a big issue. Because you can't look at every little five acres it's added and say it's got to be of a critical mass to operate on its own. I mean, that's not the question. It's whether it could just be additive to whatever exists already. Does that make sense?

Mm-hmm.

kind of falling down that vein if you consider that the infrastructure is already there for this operation and if you had this piece all by itself perhaps it would make sense because then you have all this infrastructure cost roads to build to even get to your gravel and machinery and all that but I think that When you're looking at these overlays, think that is probably pretty common for overlays to be just a little mismarked because you didn't everything's all areas aren't explored and you think you draw the line here i mean it happens all the time in wetlands we get told here's your line and then you come back a year later oh no here's your line and so um that's that happens all and you just lose your property that fast and so when we have an opportunity to keep something at least in the general area rather than go disrupt a whole new area. I think that that's a telling factor. And I think the real point, I guess what the staff is saying is that the aggregation question is silent in our policy. And so it doesn't say yay, it doesn't say nay specifically. And so basically, the concern is that it doesn't say yay, but it equally doesn't say nay. And so that's where I think it's on solid ground that you have to, I think, in the end, you've got to look at the intent of how you're going to utilize these overlays and the practicality of utilizing them and having the ability to expand Certainly, this is just a location. There's pits that are trying to get permits all over the state that are trying to expand and trying to go new and all that. And it's a rigorous process to get to the other side of those permits. But when it seems like to me that in this case that the yay and nay is silent and then so you can't hold it against either side of that. That's how I see that.

And then I appreciate the fact that the altogether the infrastructure for excavation and also logistics are already there. And also the applicant clarified that they would use the old Highway 99 rather than the island route. Do we have some understanding that down the road, if the escalation, the capacity demand going to a certain level, that would be the island route will not be used for hauling the material.

That would be the purview of the other agencies would approve or disapprove of an application to mine.

So I just want to return to the fact of the Planning Commission right now is just talking about findings of fact right now. So does the Planning Commission want to add any additional findings of fact or not, since the Planning Commission already voted on this item? Thank you, Ryan. Commissioner Day.

I would like to add a finding that the Planning Commission recognizes the absence of a policy on aggregation. However, we recognize these lots. Should I slow down? A little bit. OK.

Deep D, so that would actually belong. You can probably delete one in that recommendation that you have down below.

This one?

Yeah. And then you're going to add it. it after number nine it would be number 10 there okay okay she's ready for you okay

Did we get the first sentence? There's no policy on aggregation?

No, just the Planning Commission.

Oh, the Planning Commission recognizes the absence of a policy on aggregation. And then further, however, we also recognize these lots aggregate in a practical way with the existing mine site. Is that good enough language? Would you change that? Aggregate in? In a practical way. with the existing mine site that is adjacent to it.

With the existing.

Thanks. I guess you could say the adjacent existing mine site.

Does that look good?

Does it look all right, Patsy? She says, Planning Commission recognizes the absence, the policy, the absence of the policy of aggregation. However, we also recognize that these lot aggregate in a practical way with the adjacent existing mine site. That these lot aggregate. That makes sense. Yeah, lots.

Lots, right.

I think you need a pass after on recognize or recognizes.

Recognizes.

Yeah, recognizes.

First line. Yeah, recognizes.

Recognizes we. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, that's good. Okay. So now I'm a little confused. We need to amend the motion at this point.

I move that we amend this motion by adding number 10 to the findings of fact and reasons for action.

Second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? Commissioner Wright?

Yes, I mean, pardon my confusion, but of these nine, now ten findings of fact, only one, seven, eight, and nine are not showing bias to future mining when the whole idea was to correct a wrong of an overlay, not to open a pathway for future mining. So I just, I'm not really sure that what we're doing is actually making a difference because we're already showing a pathway. We support two, three, four, five, and six are saying all great things about mining because of X, Y, and Z. Only one, seven, eight, and nine are Proprietary towards the actual just fixing the wrong from 2007. So we're adding more ideas to do what the neighbors don't want. And that's not part of our appeal. You said we're not here to talk about future permitting. We're just here to approve the right of the wrong. So I don't know why we keep going on about these items when there's already a sway to it.

To which ones do you object?

Yeah, so find the facts from the department number two, three, four, five, and six. Clearly talk and support the viability of mining for the policy and road usage and location and how to support the industry, which is great, but it's not what we're actually supposed to be doing. We're supposed to be just approving the right of the wrong from 2007, how it was not correctly put in the MRO. So I'm just making that statement that we're adding more that steers away from the amendment.

I believe that those are requirements to be included in the MRO.

Am I right? Yeah. So these are all policies that are reviewed by the department when making a recommendation on MRO expansion. So they're all applicable in the staff report, which is why we included them. But Planning Commission can amend them as you choose.

Well, my opinion is that basically what is in here is a confirmation that the criteria required are being met in this case. And they're very appropriate to be there. Any other comments?

I concur with that. The converse to that would be if it was six miles away from a public road, it would be, well, it doesn't meet this kind of a thing. Right.

Okay. Any more comments? Okay. All those in favor of the claims to fact, please raise your hand. Those opposed? and any abstentions okay i believe that passes and okay now we need to vote on the entire package i believe recommendations on the changes but we're not done all right let's return to the code changes Is there a motion to approve the findings of fact and reasons for action on C26-1?

I move that we recommend the findings of fact and reasons for action on the code changes.

Is there a second? I'll second that. Is there a discussion? Commissioner Day?

I'd like to add a recommendation. Is that part of the findings of fact or is that separate?

That's probably what we're going to do.

I recommend that we include a note to the Board of Commissioners regarding the party of record and to consider whether adding number four creates a substantive change that could lead to unintended consequences. Can we do that? Would you like me to type that out? Would you? Would you mind? Thank you. Would you mind repeating what you would like to say? Oh dear, I was afraid you were going to ask me that. The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Commissioners and staff, I guess we can't recommend anything to staff, recommend to the Board of Commissioners that they consider whether the addition of number four creates an unintended substantive change in the meaning of party of record.

So create a substance to the body of record.

Substance? An unintended. Right. To create an unintended.

So it was to create an unintended substantive issue to the party of record definition, right?

Unintended? Unintended.

Do you want to read it out loud? Substantive. Substantive.

commission recommends the bocc thank you i think it should say whether the addition of number four creates an unden unintended substantive change to evaluate whether the addition of number four in the current proposal

That's after consider. After consider. Yep.

No pressure. There you go. Yeah, no pressure.

We're all watching you, but no pressure.

Whether the addition of number four creates an unintended substantive change to the party of record definition.

So it should say creates rather than to create?

Creates. Yeah, but they lead to.

Take the word to, huh? Yeah.

creates an unintended substantive change to a party.

We shouldn't be wordsmithing. But anyway. Yes. Okay. Commissioner.

Okay. I would also make a recommendation to the board of commissioners that We explicitly state the legal status of the party of record in terms of receiving notices and standing, appeal standing. Because we created a entity, party of record, and becoming a party of record, what's your legal rights? So you would receive notice. Would you automatically have appeal standing? And for type one, it sounds like for the appealable decisions, you can. So I think it needs to be clarified here. What's your thought?

I have a question. I don't think it's confusing. It's just one more way that you don't have to participate at all. You just literally send a note to the county saying, I want to be a part of your record. And that's what this is saying. You don't have to publicly testify. You don't have to send any other written comment. I think that that's what this is saying. So I don't actually think it's confusing. It's pretty, it's literally, but my question is this on top of that. You go through the whole process. Hearing examiner does their thing, or whoever the approval body is. You get your permit issued. Or you're a day away from getting your permit issued. Is there a cutoff when you can become a party of record? Or is it not until the moment the thing's issued? And at that point, I would assume that you can't then become a party of record.

Right, so it's up until issuance.

So number four would allow that you- Up until you could have not participated at all and at the last minute get standing. Right, yes.

Otherwise, you'd essentially have to either testify at a public hearing or submit a public comment during the official comment period.

That's why I, sorry to speak without being acknowledged. I think it's, for me, it's more helpful to ask a question, just to flag it, for the Board of Commissioners to ask the question, to do the analysis, than for us to try to solve it. I think you're right that it's just another way to become a party of record. And not that a person shouldn't receive a notice of decision, but that's a different thing than being a party of record.

Well, you should only receive a notice if you participated and you're within a certain area. Otherwise, somebody 10 miles away could say, well, I never got a notice. And so, I mean, there's parameters in the law and in the codes that dictate that. And so, I mean, this is wide open now. That being in there, which I'm assuming is there because of the way they're interpreting the law now, but that being in there says somebody can not, you can get all the way to the end, the day before you get your permit handed to you, they can literally shut you down. And they have done nothing, no participation, no nothing, and you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars getting to your permit. And somebody from California can come up and say, not in your backyard. And that's a heck of a burden for any proponent of anything trying to get a permit. It's actually a very rough one. And that's why not very many people do these things. So I think it really expands the thing. And I think it's another reason I'm not going to support the co-changes.

Okay, so where are we going? You wanted to recommend something, but we have a number two. Is that withdrawn?

I still think it's good to clarify what's the legal status or the legal rights for the party of record. Once I become a party of record, what do I get? I get notices, and do I automatically get standing appeal rights? If no, then we explicitly say that's no. So that's where I am.

It's a complicated answer to that question. Exactly.

Yeah, but I think it's good people now thinking that's there automatically.

Commissioner Wright.

That was my follow-up to Commissioner Moo's question. Does the RCW 36.70B.130 indicate that, Robbie, or somewhere else in our code that defines what party record means besides notification?

Here it just, the RCW that's being cited isn't necessarily speaking to parties of record. It's just talking about the notice of decision and who it should be distributed to. And the specific sentence that's been mentioned in the public comments is the notice shall be provided to the applicant and to any person who prior to the rendering of the decision requested notice of decision or submitted substantive comments on the application. So we're just trying to, even though this isn't specifically the state law isn't regarding parties of record, this is our way of trying to be consistent with that.

Anything else? Do you need to amend your motion? It was initially a move that we accepted.

Yeah. Do you have a question? Do you want to still have a second point there? And is that correct? Or would you like me to draft it differently?

I think you need to delete the S on what's, and then probably add a question mark at the end.

Is that sufficient for you?

Yes. OK. Yes.

All right.

And I would just, if I could, sorry, Chair. Commissioner Woodman just mentioned that we probably shouldn't be thinking about convenience and not looking at such as new land use category under microscope. Do we want to make that recommendation to the BOCC County Commissioner Board that for new categories may deserve on its own dotted or examination, such as data center usage. And I don't have the entire packet to look at. I remember when we're looking at the list, there are a few that are not language cleanup. They are brand new in those categories. May I respond to that? Yeah.

that is my whole issue is the title of this docket item is general code language cleanup and it's should say general code language clean with minor um additions or something so the whole process that this has been done you know anybody that looked at that so i'm not going to get involved in that because there's nothing new just you know dot in your eyes interesting cost crossing your t's and so that's not what this is and i know it's you know for a lot of people the whole data center thing is a popular thing and so that's a big part of this but i i the process should still be um have integrity i guess that's that's where i'm at so you want something included here in reference to that

don't think so because it's I'm not supporting it so you know this is recommendations well I guess I could say yeah separated I mean annual code language cleanup is different than new code yeah I mean that was different than new code editing does and T's and your formatting we did last and the spring is different than brand new pages of code

make a recommendation to remove the new code language and move that to a separate docket.

Are you talking about doing it this time or future? We already approved that.

We already recommended approval. Okay. And commissioners, I'll just add, like, I've heard your concerns and will certainly in the future be more careful in the future with the way that we're titling sorts of things like this moving forward.

Is there a procedure we're stepping, though, if you're adding new code and it's not a cleanup? It's that microscope that Joe mentioned. I mean, does new code fall under the same process as just a cleanup language?

No. In fact, code amendments don't even have to be docketed. Only comprehensive plan amendments and map amendments do. So the procedure's been completely followed. But however, I... I will note that, yes, this could have been labeled differently.

Okay. So, would you like to amend your...

I move that we amend the findings of fact and reasons for action to reflect the current list.

Who seconded that?

think patsy did yes but there has to be a second but do you want to second this one please raise your hands okay those against

against i'm i would like to abstain because that's fine yeah that's going to ask that next yeah so we have two abstentions i mean two i'd rather abstain

then oppose okay two abstentions they would it's the same let's just do it again all in favor please raise your hand change this vote it's a different vote we're voting on your recommendations not the actual motion right so yeah normally the votes on the finding of fact it's just the vote on your yeah exactly so we don't need to change them okay okay don't change this is my first time okay okay doing great

It's a work in progress there was just a motion we just voted on it right it was for the findings yeah yeah it's not for the final thing we need to vote next on the recording but uh is that the true results for the findings yes no we don't capture that it's not documented So we'll move on to voting on the recorded motion. That's the entire document, right? All right. So all those in favor of the recorded motion, please raise your hand.

I have a question. My question is, we already voted individually.

Right.

And you can't vote yes if you voted two different ways and hold true to your individual votes.

What you're doing is voting to accept all the prior stuff.

Yeah.

So it doesn't matter in my book.

Bobby? Yeah, so this is just saying, like, yes, we approve this recorded motion. All of your other votes are reflected in the recorded motion on the other pages. So it's essentially an affirmation. So it's not a conflict.

These are all independent. I just wanted, you know.

Yeah, thank you for clarifying. I'll second it.

Okay, so we'll do it all over again. Okay, sorry. Confusion behind us. Okay, all those in favor, please raise your hand. We've got now one, two. We're unanimous. Okay. Opposed? Not abstained? Okay. Wow, what a difference that clarification made. Okay, so that concludes our deliberations. I want to thank everybody for all your hard work on this. Attention to detail. Okay, we'll turn to the department updates.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. So just two quick updates. I wanted to note that the county is going to be rolling out a new website here in the next few weeks. our current website has been around for a few decades now and what we're moving to is going to in my opinion is a substantial improvement and will also allow each individual department to make their own web updates to the website rather than the entire county is going to essentially one or two people to do those updates so i believe september 30th if you go to the skagit county website you're going to see something completely different than what you're used to. Also, just wanted to note at the next meeting in October, we're going to be going over the critical areas ordinance update appeal. There was a appeal of the critical areas ordinance update that the planning commission reviewed last year. I believe there were 12 issues that were appealed and just a handful of those I believe two prevailed and it was specifically pertaining to site potential tree height so we've been working on a new amendment to address the growth management hearings boards decision on that appeal so we'll be bringing that to the planning commission and one of our senior natural resource planners will be providing a presentation on that and then we'll go through the whole legislative process with public comment period and public hearing of then that's what the planning commission is going to be focusing on for the rest of the year any questions for staff commissioner would you mind sending us that decision yeah we'll include that in the application materials or not application materials i'm sorry but the materials to the planning commission thank you anybody else

It's an update on our members. We're missing two. We have one I saw on the paper this morning.

Yes. He is actually in the audience. So starting next week, Chuck Messinger will be on the Planning Commission, and then we have one more vacancy, and I believe the Board of County Commissioners is starting the interview process on that here in the coming weeks.

Thank you. You're welcome.

Okay.

great thank you well um kira anything for the no just thank you as always for our participants our community members who came to listen as well as all the hard work from the board and then all the great conversation and viewpoints and uh from the other commissioner so thank you

I appreciate the commissioners here tonight. I'm learning a lot about how things are researched and talked about. So I appreciate everybody's involvement. Helps me a lot. Joe?

i just wanted to say that my my uh disdain for the title i don't believe any of that was intentional it just happened and so just on the record i want to say that it's not i don't think it was nefarious i just think it happened and and so because it happened i made my stance but so just to clarify that so nobody thinks that i'm thinking somebody's playing games i don't think that at all And I appreciate all the hard work getting to this point and, you know, and the council, the commission is, you know, it's always a pleasure to have the roundtable discussions and hear different points of view.

Okay. Well, I appreciate the public comments submitted to the planning department and appreciate you are here, you know, tonight and to see how we work and also appreciate any, you know, comments in the future and welcome Commissioner Messenger join the team and I appreciate the debate and with my fellow commissioners here. It's looking at this is a lot of work, the code cleanup, rewrite, or the new amendments, and also looking at collecting the facts and the data for the mineral resource overlay parcels, as well as the small residential zone change, that's easier. But as we looking at from various, our own paradigm, different angles, I think those are great, you know, great different point of views how we weigh what potential impact, you know, to our residents, to the businesses, and to the county. And I really appreciate everybody's effort. Thank you.

yeah well ditto i appreciate all the dialogue with my fellow commissioners and i also especially appreciate members of the public who came and testified and wrote comments i think it's just it's so important to this process and i think that these kinds of processes can be frustrating to members of the public and applicants alike and so i really appreciate all the work by staff to um

and and your intrepid typing thank you for that yeah and thank you mr chair for leading us through all of this thank you thank you well i'd just like to say thank you for all of the comments that everyone's made because i concur with um all of the sentiments that have been made here tonight welcome commissioner messenger and um i will not be here at the october meeting i'll be in nova scotia but i may be able to participate by zoom if if i'm lucky so i would i'm if i'm not lucky but anyways but i appreciate everybody's input and the work that everyone's put into trying to understand what the issues really are and try to dive work through that so thank you

Well, I concur with all the thoughtful comments that it made. So I thank everybody, and we will stand adjourned.