Members Roger Horn, Chair Amy Tousley, Vice Chair Mark Derricott Paul Ingman Carol Law Larry Leveen Tom Muller James Reddick Rob Richards Jeanne Marie Thomas Richard Wolf

Planning Commission Meeting Monday, November 7, 2011

City Hall, Room 207 601 4th Avenue East

Olympia, Washington

AGENDA

1. Call to Order 6:30 p.m. A. Roll Call B. Acceptance of Agenda C. Announcements

2. Public Communications (for items not on the agenda) 6:40 p.m. 3. Deliberation – Shoreline Master Program Update: 6:50 p.m. - Deliberation Process - Chapter 6, Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations, Setbacks - Draft SMP ‘Parking Lot’ List - Decide on Tentative Meeting Dates Cari Hornbein, Senior Planner

4. Selection of Nomination Committee for 2012 Officers 8:45 p.m. Roger Horn, Chair

5. 2012 Work Program 9:00 p.m. Amy Buckler, Associate Planner 6. Evaluation of Meeting/Other Thoughts 9:25 p.m. 7. Adjournment 9:30 p.m. Enclosures: Staff Report – Shoreline Master Program Update Staff Report –2012 Work Program City Council Minutes: 10/4/11; 10/18/11 Regular Meeting Draft Minutes: 10/3/11 CPU Draft Minutes: 10/10/11 2011 Work Schedule Upcoming Meetings: November 9 – Shoreline Master Program Update

• Chapter 7, Shoreline Modifications

November 14 – Comprehensive Plan Update • Skyline and View Preservation • Small Lot Consolidation and Contaminated Parcels

November 21 – Land Use & Environment Committee, 5:30 p.m.

• Comprehensive Plan Implementation Strategy November 21 – Regular Commission Meeting

• Deliberations – Shoreline Master Program Update

Planning Commission Deliberation Process

Purpose: This process is intended to provide a general framework to guide the Planning Commission in its decision-making but is not intended to be overly rigid. Deviations to this process may occur from time to time.

Step 1 Information phase - Gather information regarding the proposal:

• Staff presentation and Q&A on the proposal,

• Gather information from the public through public testimony (if appropriate),

• Close public testimony,

• Staff follow-up on questions generated from public testimony or staff report.

Step 2 Discussion phase - Potential effects of proposal – both positive and negative: • Start with a free form discussion and evaluation of proposal- both pros and cons,

• Weigh policy/code change against Comprehensive Plan policies and goals,

• Following free form discussion, formally go around the table and have each commission member state their position on the proposal (~2 minutes each),

• Follow-up among commission members – Q&A on viewpoints,

• Request staff to provide their perspective on any issues raised (as appropriate),

• Close discussion phase. Step 3 Decision phase - Formulate a recommendation:

• Chair will begin with a restatement of the staff recommendation.

• Is there a motion to approve policy as presented by staff? If yes, motion is made and vote is taken. If motion succeeds, recommendation is made.

• If no motion to recommend as presented by staff or if motion fails, is there an alternate recommendation? If yes, open floor to discussion of motion. Discussion should generally follow format in Step 2. Commission should consider if motion is significantly different from the original proposal, and if so, whether additional public testimony should be taken. Repeat this process as necessary to develop a recommendation.

• Successful motion will generally be captured in the minutes and transmitted to the Council in this manner. Where desired by the majority, a recommendation may be forwarded in letter format.

• Provide opportunity for dissenting opinions to be stated – minority report.

• If no motion is successful, deliberation ends and no recommendation is made.

The listed times for each agenda item are approximate only. If you need special accommodations to participate in this meeting, call (360) 753-8314 by 10:00 a.m. three days prior to the meeting

and ask for the ADA Coordinator.

Hearing-impaired individuals may call the Washington State Relay Service by dialing 711 or 1-800-833-6384 and ask to be connected to the phone number listed

above, or call the City of Olympia’s TTY phone number at (360) 753-8270.

COUNCIL STUDY SESSION

COMMITTEE DATE_________

AGENDA ITEM ________

Shoreline Master Program Update – Staff Report 11/7/2011 Page 1 of 2

OLYMPIA PLANNING COMMISSION Olympia, Washington November 7, 2011

Shoreline Master Program Update

Deliberations DIRECTOR’S Conduct deliberations on the Draft Shoreline Master Program RECOMMENDATION: with emphasis on Chapter 6, Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations (Table 6.2B-Shoreline Setbacks); review and take action on revised deliberation process and “parking lot” list. STAFF CONTACT: Cari Hornbein, Senior Planner

Community Planning and Development, 360.753.8048 ORIGINATED BY: Community Planning and Development PRESENTERS AND OTHERS NOTIFIED: Cari Hornbein, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised Deliberation Process 2. Shoreline Setback Table – Urban Intensity BUDGET IMPACT/ SOURCE OF FUNDS: NA PRIOR PLANNING COMMISSION/PUBLIC REVIEW: - Planning Commission Briefing – overview and schedule of Shoreline Master Program Update on January 4, 2010

- Series of public meetings on January 14, January 21, February 10, and February 24, 2010

- Series of Planning Commission Shoreline Committee meetings between March and September 2010

- Planning Commission Briefings on April 19, May 3, May 17, June 21, October 18, and November 1, 2010

- Public hearings on November 15, 2010, and January 10, 2011 - Deliberations on January 10 and 12, 2011; February 2, 7, and 28, 2011;

March 7, 21, and 23, 2011; April 4, 6, 18, and 20, 2011; May 2, 4, 16, and 25, 2011; June 6 and 8, 2011; July 18, 2011; August 1, 15, and 29, 2011; September 19, 2011; October 3, 5, 17, 19, and 24, 2011.

BACKGROUND: At the October 24, 2011 meeting, Commissioners discussed proposed procedures for completing deliberations on the Draft SMP, and reviewed revisions to Chapters 1, 3, and 4. These chapters were accepted with changes requested by the Commission. Revisions will be made and brought to a future meeting for final action.

Three topics will be discussed at the upcoming meeting: 1) the deliberation process, 2) shoreline setbacks, and 3) the “parking lot” list.

Shoreline Master Program Update – Staff Report 11/7/2011 Page 2 of 2

Deliberation Process

Revisions have been made to the draft deliberation process based on input from Commissioners at October 24, 2011 meeting (see Attachment 1). Chair Horn will review the changes at the upcoming meeting.

Shoreline Setbacks

The Commission will continue deliberations on shoreline setbacks, focusing on the Shoreline Residential and Port Industrial designations. If time allows, Urban Intensity will also be covered. Commissioners are reminded to bring the matrix of proposed shoreline setbacks for the Natural, Shoreline Residential, and Port Industrial designations dated October 3, 2011. See Attachment 2 for matrix of setbacks in the Urban Intensity designation. In addition to these three items, Commissioner Tousley will introduce and distribute a series of tables that consolidate the shoreline development standards into a single matrix for each designation/sub-designation. This approach is modeled after Bellingham’s Shoreline Master Program.

ANALYSIS: NA OPTIONS: NA

Shoreline Master Program Update OPC November 7, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of 3

Draft Proposal with Revisions- SMP Deliberation Procedures For Discussion on 11/7/11

Voting Procedures 1) Informal Votes

a) By show of hands b) No motion necessary c) Go around table for positions as necessary d) Chair identifies who voted yes or no or abstained e) Applies to:

i) Review of text as edited by subcommittee/staff ii) Review of tables with subcommittee options iii) Voting procedures iv) Consideration of other proposals (e.g., designation/sub-designation hybrid)

f) Reconsideration of informal votes i) Must be moved and seconded by Commissioners who voted on prevailing side i)ii) Needs motion and second ii)iii) Majority must approve motion to reconsider iii)iv) Use informal vote process for issue being reconsidered

2) Formal Votes

a) Go around table to identify positions b) Requires motion and second c) Try to reach majority recommendation if no majority

i) Chair asks if anyone would like to change vote ii) If no one changes their vote, split vote stands

d) Chair asks if anyone would like to reserve right to provide minority/majority opinion report i) Not mandatory even if right has been reserved ii) Doesn’t preclude providing report later

e) Applies to: i) Final votes on chapters and tables ii) Adoption of rules iii) Final vote on entire package

f) Reconsideration of items after formal vote has been taken i) Must be moved and seconded by Commissioners who voted on prevailing side or were not

present for vote ii) Majority must approve motion to reconsider iii) Use formal vote process (including motion and second) for issue being reconsidered

Shoreline Master Program Update OPC November 7, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2 of 3

3) Final Vote

a) After formal votes on all chapters, tables, and maps b) Vote held on entire SMP proposal c) Follow formal vote process d) Can reserve right to provide minority or majority opinion on entire package or any component d)e) Staff will provide final date for submission of majority/minority reports

Review Procedures 1) Chapter text as edited by SMP Committee or full Commission (track changes version)

a) Initial review i) Chair goes through chapter by page(s) or section(s) ii) Staff explains edits where necessary iii) Informal votes on proposed changes iv) If no changes requested or further changes are minor, hold formal vote v) If staff needs to make changes or if items were tabled, vote on elements of chapter that

were not changed or tabled vi) Staff notes changes, accepts items that were not changed, and makes new revisions for

second review

b) Additional reviews i) Chair goes through new changes and tabled items only ii) If no changes are requested or further changes are minor, hold formal vote iii) If changes are made that require further staff work and further review:

(1) Vote on elements of chapter that were not changed (2) Staff accepts items that were not changed, and makes new revisions for next review (2)(3) No changes to text that has already been approved

iv) Repeat additional review process.

2) Chapter 6 use/setback/height tables with options from SMP Committee

a) Initial review i) Staff provides table with color coding for consent and non-consent items ii) Chair asks members for any general questions for staff iii) Votes apply to all reaches within designation/sub-designation unless Commissioners allow

exception through informal vote process iv) Consent items

(1) Chair indicates consent items (2) Includes all items on which SMP Committee reached consensus (3) Chair asks if any Commissioner would like to pull a consent item(s) from list

Shoreline Master Program Update OPC November 7, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 3 of 3

(4) Pulled items moved to non-consent list (5) Informal vote held on all remaining consent items

v) Non-consent items (1) Chair goes through items by use/use group within a designation/sub-designation (2) Chair identifies options from Committee and number of votes for each (3) Allows opportunity for questions and discussion (4) Commissioners state positions (5) A Commissioner can propose new option; must be adopted using informal vote process (6) Hand vote on options (7) If no option receives a majority vote, Chair asks if anyone would like to change their

vote to another option or offer compromise position (8) If a majority cannot be reached, the no-majority proposal stands

vi) If no items have been tabled, hold formal vote on entire designation/sub-designation vii) If items have been tabled, hold informal vote on elements of chapter that were not changed

b) Additional reviews

i) Staff provides table reflecting Commission votes from initial review ii) Staff explains tabled items and related questions iii) Chair goes through tabled items only using non-consent process above iv) If no additional items are tabled, hold fiinalfinal formal vote on designation/sub-designation

using formal vote process v) If additional items are tabled, repeat additional review process.

3) Parking lot – Includes items that have been discussed by Committee or Commission but tabled for

further discussion/action. The parking lot list is not intended for decisions that have already been made (see reconsideration process). a) Use as checklist b) Make sure we address each item c) Any Commissioner can add item to list, with consent of full Commission d) Address items as they come up in chapter and table reviews d)e) Revotes on list will be held at 12/5 Commission meeting

Shoreline Master Program Update OPC November 7, 2011 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 1 of 2

Olympia Shoreline Master Program Planning Commission - Setback Table

NOTE: Each cell indicates multiple options for setbacks and the number of commissioners supporting each option. A dashed line indicates consensus with the staff recommendation to prohibit a use. Where a 200’ setback is noted, the use would be prohibited. Primary Use of Building or

Structure Staff Setback

Recommendation Shoreline Designation – Urban Intensity

Shoreline Reach Area BUDD – 3A BUDD – 4 BUDD – 5A CAP – 3B Agriculture (new) -- 4 - - 5 - - 5 - - 4 - - Boating Facilities Marinas 30’ 2-30’ 1-50’ 1-70’ 2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’ 1-15’ 1-30’ 2-50’ 1-

100’ 4-200’

Launch ramps 0’ 4-0’ 2-0’ 3-200’ 5-0’ 4-0’ Boat houses& storage (moorage)

30’

2-30’ 1-‘50’ 1-70’

2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’

2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’

3-30’ 1-200’

Accessory structures 30’ 1-30’ 2-50’ 1-70’ 2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’ 2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’ 4-200’ Commercial Water-dependent 30’ 2-30’ 1-50’ 1-70’ 2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’ 2-30’ 3-50’ 4-200’ Water-related and enjoyment

30’ 2-30’ 1-50’ 1-70’

2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’ 2-30’ 3-50’ 4-200’

Non-water-oriented 50’ 3-50’ 1-70’ 4-50’ 1-200’ 5-50’ 4-200’ Industrial Water-dependent -- 2-30’ 1-50’ 1-200’ 2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200 2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’ 4-200’ Water-related and enjoyment

-- 2-30’ 1-50’ 1-200’

2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’

2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’

4-200’

Non-water-oriented 40’ 3-50’ 1-70’ 4-50’ 1-200’ 2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’ 4-200’ Recreation Water-dependent 30’ 2-30’ 2-50’ 2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’ 2-30’ 3-50’ 4-30’ Water-related and enjoyment: Viewing platforms /wildlife blinds /interpretive areas

10’

1-10’ 3-15’

1-10’ 3-15’ 1-200’

1-10’ 4-15’

4-15’

Trails & shared use paths3 10’4 1-10’ 3-15’ 1-10’ 3-15’ 1-200’ 1-10’ 4-15’ 4-15’ All other water-related recreational structures

30’

2-30’ 2-50’

2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’

2-30’ 3-50’

3-30’ 1-200’

Non-water oriented 30’ 2-30’ 2-50’ 2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’ 2-30’ 3-50’ 4-200’

Shoreline Master Program Update OPC November 7, 2011 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 of 2

Olympia Shoreline Master Program Planning Commission – Setback Table

Primary Use of Building or

Structure Staff Setback

Recommendation Shoreline Designation – Urban Intensity

Shoreline Reach Area BUDD – 3A BUDD – 4 BUDD – 5A CAP – 3B Residential Maximum density No maximum 4-No max 5-No max 5-No max 4 - - OHWM Setback: Budd Inlet Capitol Lake Chambers Lake Ken Lake Grass Lake Ward Lake Percival Creek

30’ -- -- -- -- -- --

2-30’ 1-50’ 1-70’

2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’

2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’

4-200’

Transportation Roads/railroads 30’ 2-30’ 2-50’ 2-30’ 1-50’ 2-100’ 2-30’ 2-50’ 4-30’ Trails/shared uses paths3

10’4 4-15’

5-15’ (footnote)

1-10’ 4-15’ (footnote)

1-10’ 3-15’

Parking 4-50’ 2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’ 2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’ 4-30’ Utilities Utility buildings & facilities5

30’ 3-30’ 1-70’

2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’

2-30’ 2-50’ 1-200’

4-30’

All other building & structure uses not listed above

50’

3-50’ 1-70’

4-50’ 1-200’

4-50’ 1-200’

4-50’

Notes: Except as otherwise provided in this chapter all buildings and structures exceeding 30 inches in height must comply with the standards of this table.

1. Some uses listed are not permitted as new uses in particular environment designations. See Table 6.1. 2. Also see Chapter 7.9 regarding Vegetation Conservation Standards. 3. Trails and shared use paths may be located within the shoreline setback and vegetation conservation areas when providing access from

an upland area to the shoreline. 4. Boardwalks are allowed over-water in the Urban Intensity, Urban Conservancy and Aquatic shoreline environments. 5. Utilities are allowed within setbacks where necessary to connect upland utility lines with in-water utility lines.