Planning Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON Thursday 7:00 PM June 24, 2021 City Council Chambers Video Recorded www.cob.org Call to Order / Roll Call Present: Mike Estes (Chair), Ali Taysi, Barbara Plaskett, Jed Ballew, Rose Lathrop, Scott Jones and Victor Crosetti Approval of Minutes Public Comment Period Opportunity for citizens to speak informally to the Planning Commissioners on any subject not listed on the agenda. Speakers are allowed a MAXIMUM of three (3) minutes to address the Commission. Speakers will not be required to disclose their address. No testimony received. WORK SESSION Introduction to the 2021 Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update and the City’s current SMP. Steve Sundin explained the different facets of the update and spoke to areas of the plan that will be updated and discussed. He reviewed the existing Shoreline Master Program (SMP). He provided a brief overview on the history of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). He explained what is meant by “Shorelines of the State” and talked about where they exist in Bellingham and why we care about them. He pointed out the City’s SMP implements the rules of the SMA, and shared how the SMP is structured. He discussed the different “uses” that are included in the SMP and explained how the plan itself is structured. Steve explained some of the terminology that will be discussed during the update:  No net loss  Mitigation vs. Restoration  Nonconformity Steve spoke to the goals of the restoration plan and provided a brief overview of the permitting process. Commissioner Discussion / Questions The Commissioners provided staff with a list of items they would like more information on when the SMP comes before them for a public hearing at a later date. Those items included:  Non-conformity Issues – number of non-conforming structures and the environmental impacts of those units.  o Staff provided a quick overview of each shoreline area of the number of structures that are non-conforming (within the 100’ buffer). He spoke to the requirement that all redevelopment or improvements to property, must comply with the existing regulations.  Jurisdiction when property overlaps boundaries (City-Port / City-County). o Staff stated that all local jurisdictions are bound by the regulations in the SMP. He explained the process for those projects that happen to occur in the water. He pointed out that the County has their own Shoreline rules that they implement.  Top 1 or 2 proposed amendments that will effect the environment, residents or the City itself. o Staff mentioned that sea-level rise and coastal storm surge is important to address and establish goals and policies that would facilitate future vulnerability work and future adaptation planning. o Non-conforming sites – addressing he impacts of the shoreline regulations that do not allow for responsible development to occur even though it would not expand the existing footprint.  Expanding water-enjoyment opportunities and how is the decision made about where they would be allowed. o Staff explained that although allowed out-right in many areas, the under-lying zoning must also be considered. It was also stated that there is no plans to remove or expand the water-enjoyment use type.  SMP’s role in capital projects – when might the City consider purchasing a property vs. allowing a use that is not good for the waterway to continue. o Staff stated those decisions would be worked through the Greenways program or the Parks advisory committees. It was pointed out that although the SMP would not include things that direct the City to engage in that action; however there could be room in the goals and policies chapter to encourage it.  Sea-level – how is the determination made to implement the high, medium, or low strategies. o Staff explained what has been done to date with regard on how to conduct a vulnerability assessment. It was pointed out that the assessment would help identify where the vulnerable sites exist.  Identify what the most controversial topics might be o Staff stated that buffer widths, sea-level rise rules, and non-conformity are the top issues historically speaking.  What can be done in the interim with regard to sea-level rise and new development planning for it. o Staff referenced the Waterfront Sub-area Plan, where it requires development to accommodate for sea-level rise. It was also pointed out that a 50” rise (above high water mark) to the entire marine waterfront.  More creative measures that could be included in the plan to help incentivize more appropriate uses redeveloping near waterways. Old/New Business Next meeting is July 8, 2021 – Public Hearing Adjournment Minutes prepared by: ____________________________________________ Heather Aven, Recording Secretary Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff.