Planning 2019-04-25 Item 3 - Adoption of 4/11/19

Browse Search

Page 4 Public Hearing Minutes April 11, 2019 environmental gain, the proposal was approved under the SAMP provisions. The City attorney will review, but we understand the idea that if you do the mitigation on these larger projects you shouldn't get penalized by larger buffers. It seems that the DOE has not adequately dealt with some of these mitigation sites and their buffers. There is more guidance in the shoreline areas that we will try to research. 2) The second part is the vesting. Vice Chair Watters asked about how long the provisions would last. Ms. Dhaliwal said Washington State has doctrine on this, but they were still trying to work out the details. She pointed out that the City was trying to add flexibility and that Ms. Rogers was suggesting instead of one year you get five years after final plat approval. She mentioned that shoreline will be somewhat different than critical areas and this will also be looked at by the City attorney. Vice Chair Watters asked for clarity on how often the code needs to be updated. Ms. Dhaliwal advised that the DOE requires updates at least once every eight years,. but that changes may be made more frequently than that. Commissioner Mann discussed how the building and utility permits can impact the timeline for platting process, saying that five years can goequickly. Ms. Dhaliwal clarified the platting process. Commissioner Mann wondered how that timeframe would work if the buffer ended up encompassing 50% of their property. Ms. Dhaliwal said this is exactly what staff is trying to fix. There was discussion about tying it to the size or value of the project. There was discussion about when the buffer expands into the building and how the non -conforming code woapply in these cases. Staff summarized that their goal was to loosen the non -conforming regululd ations. Commissioner Strander asked for clarification on the science behind the size of the buffers. Ms. Cummins discussed that it is calculated per the best available science utilizing state compilation of current projects. It is an on -going process, so it goes back every eight years and is a very extensive process by the DOE. Vice Chair Watters asked for clarification about comments received from a citizen regarding drainage onto his property making it a wetland. Ms. Dhaliwal pointed out that she had displayed the parcel on the map earlier and recalled it was stated that the wetland was created because of drainage coming onto his property. She explained that the map shows a stream so there is water flow. She further explained that in order to be classified as a regulated wetland it must have three things: hydric soil, vegetation and hydrology. Vice Chair Watters asked if there was anything staff would like to address regarding the letter from Karen Walters ofthe Muckleshoot Tribe. Ms. Dhaliwal summarized comments received from Karen Walters, which included keeping the inventory of streams current to reflect any changes in culverts; addressing total maximum daily load (TMDL) studies on shade and temperature; and allowing offsite mitigation for stream impacts. Staff explained that the results of TMDL studies ultimately urged DOE to determine, that the Green River is too hot for the fish, so its banks need to be planted with trees to provide shade. Commissioner Wafters asked if the proposed buffers will help this. Staff clarified that at present, off -site stream banking program is not available. Vice Chair Waiters wondered if we could predict regulations. Staff said that prediction is hard, which is why we do updates in eight -year increments. This makes better data available, better mapping, etc. Commissioner Mann asked about fees for studies. Ms. Dhaliwal stated that Ms. Cummins currently reviews the studies and the service is included in the application fee. If the City hires an outside consultant to do peer review, then there is a charge associated with that. The applicant receives a quote prior to commencement of work. The applicant is charged for any peer review associated with geotechnical reports. Commissioner Mann then asked whether a paragraph that had been under procedures section had been moved someplace else? Ms. Dhaliwal said there were no procedures under that section, instead it was just a jumbled -up paragraph that was removed. 4