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 1, 2010

FIRE STATION Training Room 100 Eastside Street NE, Olympia

AGENDA

1. Call to Order 6:30 p.m. A. Roll Call B. Acceptance of Agenda C. Announcements D. Approval of Minutes (10/4/2010, 10/18/2010)

2. Public Communications (for items not on the agenda) 6:40 p.m. 3. Deliberation: Isthmus Comprehensive Plan 6:50 p.m. Amendment/Rezone 4. Briefing: Electric Vehicle Ordinance 7:30 p.m. Brett Bures, Associate Planner 5. Briefing: Shoreline Master Program 7:45 p.m. Cari Hornbein, Senior Planner 6. Selection of Nominating Committee 8:45 p.m. Roger Horn, Chair 7. 2011 Work Program 9:00 p.m. Cari Hornbein, Senior Planner 8. Subcommittee Reports 9:20 p.m. 9. Evaluation of Meeting/Other Thoughts 9:30 p.m. 10. Adjournment 9:40 p.m. Enclosures: Staff Reports: Shoreline Master Program Briefing 2011 Work Program 2010 Work Schedule OPC Minutes – 10/4/2010, 10/18/2010 City Council Minutes – 10/19/2010

Future Meetings:

Planning Commission: November 15, 2010 • Briefing: Scoping for Dark Skies Ordinance • Public Hearing – Electric Vehicle Ordinance • Public Hearing – SMP Update

Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee: • November 17, 2010 – Agenda – Downtown e-poll; Neighborhood Planning • December 1, 2011 – Agenda – Neighborhood Planning

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 ________ OLYMPIA PLANNING COMMISSION

Olympia, Washington November 1, 2010

Shoreline Master Program Update

__________________________________________________________________ COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Receive briefing on Shoreline Master Program update. STAFF CONTACT: Cari Hornbein, Senior Planner,

Community Planning and Development, 360.753.8048 ORIGINATED BY: Community Planning and Development PRESENTERS AND Cari Hornbein, Senior Planner OTHERS NOTIFIED: Stacey Ray, Urban Forester ATTACHMENTS: 1. Summary Table – Draft Shoreline Master Program 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 Subcommittee meetings

between March and September 2010 Planning Commission Briefings on April 19, May 3, May 17, June 21, and

October 18, 2010.

BACKGROUND: Overview of SMP Update Process: In 2007, the cities of Olympia,

Tumwater, and Lacey began the shoreline master program update process. Thurston Regional Planning Council was retained to coordinate the update process.

From 2007-2009, the groundwork for the shoreline update was laid.

Existing conditions were inventoried and analyzed, which in turn created the foundation for the proposed shoreline environment designations, and subsequently, uses, development standards, and policies and regulations for each shoreline designation. All this work culminated in a series of reports, plans, and a draft shoreline master program, all of which was transmitted to the City in June 2009. The draft prepared by TRPC was intended to serve as a ‘model’ master program to be refined by each city to address local conditions.

From January – February 2010, the City held a series of public meetings

to inform the public of the upcoming process. From March – September 2010, the Planning Commission held a series of meetings to discuss a

Page 2 of 3

broad range of issues to be addressed in the updated shoreline master program. A series of briefing papers were prepared and are available on the Imagine Olympia Website at www.imagineolympia.com (note: the briefing papers were updated prior to the open house). For each topic area, these briefing papers provide an overview of Ecology’s Guidelines, the existing SMP, and proposed approach in the Draft SMP.

Several handouts were also prepared for Planning Commission briefings

held on dates noted above. The staff reports and attachments from these briefings are available for review on the City’s website at

http://www.olympiawa.gov/city-government/advisory-

committees/planning-commission/planning-commission-agenda-and-minutes.aspx.

On October 20, the City hosted an open house which served as the

‘kickoff’ to the public hearing process. The Draft SMP and Restoration Plan were posted to the City’s website and made available by CD the same day.

Upcoming Process: The public hearing will be held on November 15,

2010. If necessary, the hearing will be continued to December 6 and 13. Planning Commission deliberations are scheduled for January – February 2011, followed by City Council review from March – May. After Council action, the locally approved SMP will be sent to Ecology, either in late May or early June 2011. This schedule meets Ecology’s revised timeline for local adoption. Overview of Draft Shoreline Master Program: The Draft SMP was prepared in accordance with the Department of Ecology Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-260). Key components of the Draft SMP include the following:

• Permitting/administration • Nonconforming standards • Shoreline environment designations • Policies and regulations for shoreline uses and activities • Critical areas • Vegetation conservation • View protection • No net loss • Mitigation • Restoration • Public access • Shoreline modifications

Most of these topics were addressed in the briefing papers prepared by staff, which can be found on the City’s website (see link above). In preparation for the upcoming briefing, Planning Commissioners are invited to review the briefing papers, as well as the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines, which can be found on the Department of Ecology’s website at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/SMA/guidelines/index.html.

Page 3 of 3

The attached table provides a summary of each chapter of the Draft SMP.

ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS: Receive briefing on Shoreline Master Program update in preparation for the public hearing process.

ATTACHMENT 1

Draft Shoreline Master Program Chapter Summary

November 1, 2010

Page 1

Chapter 1: Introduction This chapter lays out the purpose and intent, and governing principles, and basic provisions of the SMP. Section 1.7 contains language regarding incorporation by reference of the critical area regulations.

Chapter 2: Definitions Contains definitions. Terms noted in italics are intended to supplement or replace existing definitions in OMC 18.02 and would apply generally to OMC Title 18, and not be a part of the City’s SMP. Terms not in italics are intended to apply only to the SMP.

Chapter 3: Administration This chapter contains provisions regarding shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits, and shoreline variances. Also addresses: exemptions; uses that are not specifically identified in the SMP, referred to as ‘Unclassified Uses’; and nonconforming uses and buildings. All permit criteria are taken directly from the WAC; they were included in the draft for ease of review, but can be replaced with a citation at a future time should the Commission choose to do so.

Uses that are exempt from the requirement for a substantial development permit are identified in the WAC and RCW. Common exemptions include: development that does not exceed a cost or fair market value of $5718.00; normal maintenance and repair; construction of a single family residence; construction of a residential dock if under a certain dollar threshold; construction of a bulkhead for single family residence; navigational aids such as channel markers. Uses that are exempt from a shoreline permit must comply with the provisions of the SMP.

In general, nonconforming uses would be subject to the nonconforming standards in OMC 18.37. Additional provisions are included in Sections 3.7 requiring avoidance of adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions; compliance with vegetation conservation requirements; limitations of expansion (no expansion of nonconforming structures within shoreline setbacks, horizontally or vertically); and compliance with critical area regulations (existing standards in 18.37 allow expansion of specific nonconforming uses and structures within critical areas/buffers).

Chapter 4: Shoreline Jurisdiction and Designations

This chapter identifies shorelines within the City of Olympia that are regulated under the Shoreline Management Act and establishes shoreline environment designations. A purpose statement, designation criteria, and management policies are established for each designation. In general, the purpose statement and designation criteria are taken directly from the Guidelines.

ATTACHMENT 1

Draft Shoreline Master Program Chapter Summary

November 1, 2010

Page 2

Chapter 5: General Policies and Regulations

This chapter establishes policies and regulations for general shoreline uses and activities that could be found in any shoreline designation such as: archaeological, historic and cultural resources; scientific and educational activities; signage; parking; water quality; view protection; public access; shoreline ecological protection; mitigation; restoration/enhancement; and vegetation conservation. The last four categories address one of the key requirements of the shoreline update – that any use or development avoid the net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes. Section 5.7 sets forth the policy framework for ecological protection; then identifies regulations for achieving no net loss and mitigation. This section also sets forth provisions for analyzing cumulative impacts of proposed development. Section 5.8 outlines the requirements for shoreline restoration and enhancement, and Section 5.9 establishes policies and regulations for vegetation conservation.

Chapter 6: Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations

This chapter sets forth policies and regulations for specific shoreline uses and development including agriculture; aquaculture; boating facilities; commercial, industrial, and residential uses; recreation, transportation, and utilities.

Uses are identified as permitted, conditional, or prohibited on Table 6.1. Development standards such as density, setbacks, and building height are included on Table 6.2. In general, setbacks are increasing under the proposed SMP. Building heights would be capped at 42 feet within the first 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark and 65 feet in the second 100 feet. New or expanded overwater uses would not be allowed. New covered moorage would also not be allowed.

Chapter 7: Shoreline Modifications

This chapter addresses structures or activities that change the physical configuration or quality of the shoreline including dredging, filling, boat moorage (piers, docks, floats, buoys), restoration/enhancement activities, shoreline stabilization, and structures such as breakwaters and jetties.

Shoreline modifications are identified as permitted, conditional, or prohibited on Table 7.1. In general, bulkheads or other ‘hard’ armoring would be prohibited and allowed only when certain criteria can be met. No armoring is the preferred approach but if it can’t be avoided, then ‘soft’ armoring (e.g., bioengineering) would be preferred over ‘hard’ armoring. Individual docks would require a shoreline conditional use permit. Piers or docks in fresh water would be limited to 50 feet in length; in saltwater, length would be limited to 100 feet. Grating would be required as a decking material for light penetration.

Restoration Plan Prepared in accordance with the Guidelines. Establishes restoration goals and policies; establishes restoration priorities; and identifies existing and on-going restoration projects and programs.

OLYMPIA PLANNING COMMISSION Olympia, Washington November 1, 2010

2011 Work Program

__________________________________________________________________ COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Prioritize 2011 Work Program items and review/approve regular

meeting dates. 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 2011 Work Program 2. Preliminary Schedule of Regular OPC Meetings BUDGET IMPACT/ SOURCE OF FUNDS: NA PRIOR PLANNING COMMISSION/ PUBLIC REVIEW: 2011 Work Program first reviewed on October 4, 2010.

BACKGROUND: Every year, the Planning Commission prioritizes projects that will come

before them the following year as approved by the General Government Committee. Staff identified a list of 15 items to be prioritized by the Planning Commission, either in categories (e.g., low, medium, high); or sequentially (1-18).

A preliminary schedule for regular OPC meetings in 2011 has been

generated. Some of the dates noted on the attached schedule do not fall on the first or third Monday because of holidays; per the OPC’s rules, alternate dates must be approved by the Planning Commission. There will be a total of 22 meetings in 2011.

ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS: Prioritize 2011 Work Program items. Discuss and approve regular meeting schedule for 2011.

MINUTES OF MEETING

Olympia Planning CommissionMonday, November 1,, 2010Fire Station Training Room100 Eastside Street NEOlympia, WA

CalI to OrderChair Roger Horn called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m.

Attendance

Members Present: Mark Derricott, Roger Hom, Paul Ingman, Carol Law,LarcyLeveen, Thomas Muller, James Reddick, Rob Richards, JeanneMarie Thomas, Amy Tousley, and Richard Wolf

City of Olympia Staff: Senior Planner Cari Hombein, Associate Planner Brett Bures, andUrban Forester Stacey Ray

Others: Recording Secretary Cheri Lindgren

Acceptance of AgendaFollow up discussions on the draft vision statement and the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) letter will bediscussed during subcommittee reports.

Commissioner'Wolf moved, seconded by Commissioner Muller, to approve the agenda asamended. Motion carried.

AnnouncementsCommissioners Thomas, Law, Muller, and Richards reported that they are unable to attend theNovember | 5, 2010 meeting.

Commissioner Law arrived at the meeting.

Approval of October 4r20I0 MinutesThe following changes were requested to the october 4,2010 minutes:

o Within the second line of the last paragraph on page 3, replace "Gardener" with "Gardner" and"Muffoe" with "Muffo."

o Revise the second sentence within the third full paragraph on page 7 to end with "source" andstrike the remainder of the sentence.

o Delete the first sentence at the top of page 1 l.

Commissioner Leveen moved, seconded by Commissioner Wolf, to approve the October 412010minutes as amended. Motion carried.

Olympia Planning CommissionMinutes of MeetingNovember l,20l0Page2 of 14

Approval of October 18,2010 MinutesThe following changes were requested to the October 18, 2010 minutes:

o Replace "advised" with "disclosed" and "treasurer" with "foundation" within the first and secondlines of the second parugraphonpage 4.

o Insert "However," at the beginning of the next to the last sentence within the last paragraph onpage 8.

o Reword the last sentence within the last paragraph on page 8 to read, "It's a reasonable assumptionthat if allowed the first signif,rcant amount of market rate housing in the downtown would mostlikely occur on the isthmus."

o Replace "6299" with*6692" within the fust and last bolded paragraphs on page 11.

Commissioner Leveen moved, seconded by Commissioner Wolt to approve the October 18,2010minutes as amended. Motion carried.

Public Communications (for items not on the agenda)JimLazar,1907 Lakehurst Drive SE, thanked the Commission for its letter to the Council on theCity's CFP particularly regarding comments on the Olympia School District (OSD) CFP. He urged theCommission to review the Council's discussion on the issue at its October 19 meeting. The Council isconsidering whether to accept or reject the OSD CFP as an element of the City's CFP. An importantitem within the public facilities section of the comprehensive plan addresses walkable neighborhoodsand schools. It appears that the text was inadvefently deleted when amendments to the stormwaterchapter were adopted several years ago. Staff is re-creating the section in the comprehensive plan.The OSD CFP does not identifu projects to accommodate growth in some parts of the City, such as theTrillium/Bentwood area between Boulevard and V/iggins Roads. On October2S,the HearingExaminer issued findings, conclusions, and recommendations on the Trillium development. TheCommission should read the document, which provides an example on why the Commission's workmatters. The Hearing Examiner recommended denial of the master plan on three grounds:

¡ The master plan violates the development code and comprehensive plan with respect to transit.o The master plan conflicts with the comprehensive plan, and engineering, design, and development

standards specific to "block size."o The City Council should scrutinize whether a land use decision establishing a precedent of busing

students to portable facilities for an undetermined period of time is consistent with thecomprehensive plan and Olympia Municipal Code (OMC) 18.05.020 and 15.04.030. If the Councildetermines such a precedent is not consistent with those provisions, it should deny the master planfor the reasons provided within the conclusions. Olympia's comprehensive plan calls for walkableneighborhood schools.

ZenaHartangr3240 Centerwood Court, referred to the term, "no net loss of ecological function."There are incredibly good documents addressing what "no net loss of ecological function" would reallymean for the Budd Inlet area. In historical times, the inlet was mud flats. It's unlikely the inlet willretum to mud flats. Mud flats had an ecological function to produce clams, oysters, and fish thatsupported large Native American villages. She asked that the Commission consider that information,as there is a significant net loss of ecological function today.

Olympia Planning CommissionMinutes of MeetingNovember 1,2010 Page 3 of 14

Commissioner Leveen asked to receive an electronic version of the Hearing Examiner decision on theTrillium master plan.

Deliberation: Isthmus Comprehensive Plan Amendment RezoneChair Horn reviewed the Commission's motion on October I8, to tqble action on the isthmuscomprehensive plan/rezone agenda item to the November 15, 2010 meeting. Commissioners Thomas,Muller, Law, and Richards are unable to attend the November l5 meeting.

Commissioner Wolf said he's reluctant to reconsider the motion until staff has an opportunity toexplain legal options related to a recommendation.

Associate Planner Brett Bures reported he consulted with legal counsel regarding the Commissionforwarding a recommendation other than the two outlined in the staff report. Legal counsel advisedthat the Commission can forward an alternate recofllmendation. However, a different recommendationcould require a reevaluation of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination, possiblycreating a need for another public process. Those issues would be addressed at the Council level andafter the Commission forwards a recoÍlmendation.

Planner Bures addressed questions from the Commission:

o Currently, housing is permitted in the Urban Waterfront (U\Ð zoningdistrict. Housing is notrequired in UV/ or Urban V/aterfront Housing (UW-H) zontngdistricts. Townhouses are not apermitted use in the UW zone. The Commission could recommend the UV/ zone with townhousesas a permitted use.

o The Commission could recommend a new zotingcategory, UW-H 35, for the isthmus properties.o One "floor arearatio" (FAR) is allowed for commercial development within the UV/-H zone and

housing is not required. If a developer wants to build greater than one FAR, then housing isrequired. The equivalent of one floor can be commercial within a strucfure. Maximumdevelopment coverage in both zones is 100%. (Commissioner note: the definition for FAR is in18.02.180.)

o If the recoÍìmendation is UW-H 35, the maximum height of any gross floor area or occupied spaceis 35 feet. Currently, a 35-foot height limit can be exceeded by 18 feet for roof structures, such assatellite dishes, stair towers, housing of elevators, HVAC, and other similar equipment. Theequipment cannot occupy more than 33Yo of the total roof area. Nothing in the City's codeprohibits structured parking on a roof.

Commissioner Muller moved, seconded by Commissioner Tousley, to reconsider the motionfrom the October 18 meeting and tabling action on the isthmus comprehensive plan/rezoneagenda item until November 15,2010.

Discussion ensued on the Commission's responsibility to review SEPA comments. Planner Buresadvised that comments received as a result of a new SEPA decision are forwarded to the Council.There were no comments received during the comment period for the SEPA decision issued for theisthmus comprehensive plan/rezone agenda item. Senior Planner Cari Hombein added that it's the

Olympia Planning CommissionMinutes of MeetingNovember 1,2010 Page 4 of 14

SEPA Responsible Official's responsibility to review the comments and forward them to the leadplanner. Comments are included in the meeting packet for the Commission's information. Ultimately,the SEPA Responsible Official has the authority to reissue a determination.

The motion to reconsider the motion from the October 18 meeting carried unanimously.

Commissioner Leveen moved, seconded by Commissioner Reddicþ to rescind the motion totable action on the isthmus comprehensive plan/rezone agenda item to November 15. 20L0, andconsider the matter immediately. Motion carried unanimously.

Commissioner 'Wolf referred to a potential conflict between a 42-foot height limit for properties withinthe first 100 feet of the shoreline based on the Draft Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) and the proposed 35-foot height cap for isthmus parcels. He suggested considering a 42-foot height for isthmus parcels forconsistency with the SMP. Planner Hornbein advised that the isthmus area is very limited and otherUW properties along the waterfront would not be affected by the proposed amendment. CommissionerV/olf said he's concerned that there are two different height limits for properties adjacent to theshoreline. Planner Hornbein encouraged the Commission to keep the two height issues separate untilthe Commission deliberates and forms a recommendation on the Draft SMP. Commissioner Wolf saidthat if a 35-foot height limit is approved for isthmus parcels, it's possible a 42-foot structure could bebuilt next to a 35-foot building.

Commissioner Muller said that prior to the zoning change in January 2009; the height limit for theisthmus area was 35 feet.

Commissioner Law asked whether there is a project for a 42-foot high building that vested before thezontng change. Planner Brett replied that a land use application was approved and has since expired.

Commissioner Muller said he understood that if the property reverts to UW-H with a 35-foot heightcap, the Capitol Heights Building could not be redeveloped into a hotel/motel. Planner Buresconfirmed that the UV/-H zoning district does not allow hotels.

Commissioner Leveen said the issue involves height, zoning type, and permitted uses.

Commissioner Wolf expressed opposition to developing recommendations on a piecemeal basis.Permiued uses in the UIV-H zoning district are more restrictive.

Commissioner Leveen said the only signifrcant use not allowed in UW but permitted within UW-H is"co-housing."

Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns regarding the additional 18 feet in height allowed for roofstructures within either zone. One option is limiting the roof structure to a camouflaged mechanicalpenthouse. Planner Bures provided additional information as outlined in OMC 18.06.100. There areprovisions within basic commercial design review criteria, specifically, in the downtown wheremechanical equipment must be screened from view, such as aparapet or penthouse. Commissioner

Olympia Planning CommissionMinutes of MeetingNovember 1,2010 Page 5 of 14

Thomas asked whether antennae would be screened. Planner Bures advised that the standards requiredevelopers to screen mechanical equipment to the extent possible.

Commissioner Law commented that she would like to see housing on the isthmus. After the lastmeeting, she visited the area and counted building stories using the Capitol Center Building as areference to determine the extent of views of the mountains and the sound from a fourth story. She

suggested including a bonus for three-story residential buildings.

Discussion ensued on the likelihood that structured, basement, andlor first floor parking could pencilout with 35 or 42-foot building height cap. Commissioner Wolf expressed disappointment thatdevelopment would most likely build surface parking.

Commissioner Muller pointed out that the four-story Capitol Steps residential development on EastsideStreet has underground parking. The issue is whether underground parking is possible on isthmusproperties.

Commissioner Richards suggested eliminating the following temporary uses within the UW-H zoneinvolving parking lot sales, temporary surface parking lots, and parking facility - commercial.

Commissioner Leveen moved, seconded by Commissioner Tousley, to recommend rezoning theaffected parcels to 35 feet in height.

The Commission discussed the motion, the 35-foot height cap in light of the 42' cap in the Draft SMP,and surface parking.

Commissioner Leveen advised that the motion doesn't change the current interim zoning.

Commissioner Ingman recommended establishing a "not to exceed" height limit and a height cap

lower than 35 feet. The issue is views looking down to radio towers and elevator stairwells fromCapitol Campus. Buildings with roof structures could be 53 feet high, which is three times higher thanthe Oyster House restaurant.

Chair Horn asked whether the motion reflects that the Commission is recommending UV/ 35. PlannerBures advised that is the intent of the motion.

Commissioner Wolf recommended combining a recoÍìmendation that includes UW-H, as he'suncomfortable supporting a 35-foot height limit without knowing the zoning.

Commßsioner Leveen offered afríendly ømendment of rezoníng the øffectedparcels to UW-H witha 3í-foot heíghr Commßsioner Tousley accepted thefriendly ømendmenl

Commissioner Thomas recommended discussing the additional 18 feet in height allowed formechanical equipment. Commissioner Richards commented that the UW zone outlines designguidelines for view corridors that are not provided within the UW-H zoting district. CommissionerLeveen said unless there is a glaring error, land uses could be reviewed as part of the comprehensive

Olympia Planning CommissionMinutes of MeetingNovember l,20l0Page 6 of 14

plan update process. Commissioner Tousley added that the review could also include ancillary rooftopequipment.

Commissioner Thomas said she's comfortable recommending the pW-H zone. Landuses could beaddressed during the comprehensive plan update. Her concern is with visual clutter including antennaeon top of buildings blocking the view of the mountains. There is an opportunity to address the issue.

The motion carried to recommend rezoning the affected parcels to [IW-H with a 35-foot height.Commissioners Ingman and Reddick opposed.

Commissioner Thomas moved, seconded by Commissioner Reddicþ to recommend limiting theuse within the l8-foot area above 35 feet to fully camouflage mechanical equipment from allviewpoints including above and on all sides for isthmus parcels.

Planner Bures commented that antennae and flagloles can be painted to match the sky. He askedwhether the intent of the motion is fully enclosing mechanical equipment in a penthouse structure or aprogram where an applicant presents camouflage options. Commissioner Thomas suggested the latterwould be accepable. Planner Bures reported the 18-foot height limitation for mechanical equipment isadministered through the commercial st¿ndards. The motion might infringe on design reviewrequirements. Planner Hornbein agreed, as there currently are screening requirements for mechanicalequipment. Planner Bures reviewed an excerpt from the City's design review requirements for basiccommercial, which describes ways to screen mechanical equipment. Commissioner Thomas said herconcern involves views from above.

Commissioner Tousley acknowledged the concerns. However, the issue applies to several structureswithin the City. Screening might result in more of an obstruction rather than solving the issue. Theissue could also be discussed as paÍ of the comprehensive plan update.

Commßsioner Ríchards offered øfriendly ømendment whereby the Planning Commissíonrecommends the Cíty Councíl consider lìmìting the use withín the 18Íeet øbove 35feet and tofullycømoutløge mechanical equipmentfrom every víewpoint including above øndfrom all sidesforßthmus parceß.

Commissioners commented on the proposed motion:

o A requirement to firlly camouflage mechanical equipment may be too restrictive and could hinderdevelopment within the City.

o Camouflaging equipment could result in creating a wall of obstruction. It's difficult toaccommod ate alI situations.

o The City's adopted codes have provisions to protect views. More review is needed to fullyunderstand the issue.

Commissioner Thomas accepted the friendly amendment. Commissioner Reddick did not agree withthe friendly amendment.

Olympia Planning CommissionMinutes of MeetingNovember lr20l0Page7 of 14

Commissioners Thomas and Reddickwithdrew the motion.

Commissioner Ingman moved, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to recommend eliminatingthe height exemption of 18 feet above the 35-foot height limit.

Commissioner Ingman agreed with Commission Tousley concerning the potential of creating more ofan obstruction through a camouflage requirement. The 35-foot height limitation should not exceed 35feet.

Commissioners Wolf, Muller, and Law opposed the motion for the following reasons:

o Removing the exemption is a step in the opposite direction to achieve infrll density downtown.Structures adjacent to the isthmus areacanbe 42 feet high with the ability to extend that height by18 feet to accommodate mechanical equipment.

o Placing mechanical equipment inside the building reduces valuable floor space.o Eliminating the height exemption reduces the opportunity for housing on the isthmus.

Commissioner Reddick commented that it appears to many, the answer to achieving density downtownis to place it directly on the waterfront; however, according to Planner Bures there is plenty of spacefor increased density downtown for housing, and density is increasing in other areas of the City. Hesaid he supports the motion.

Commissioners indicated that public perception on the issue has been clear over the last few years.Restricting the ability to go above the height cap to house mechanical equipment would limit what canbe constructed on the isthmus to the point that development might not occur at all. It was pointed outthat the previous 35-foot height allowed for exceeding the cap by l8 feet for mechanical roofstructures. What will drive people to live downtown are urban amenities. Views are good urbanamenities that make housing downtown desirable. It's important to protect view corridors. SeveralCommissioners commented that they can't support the motion, but understand the intent. Theprovision for ancillary equipment is provided throughout the code. An option is reviewing the code inits entirety as it relates to the issue. The SEPA checklist does not address the subject. Commissionersfavored returning the zoning that was put in place by the original comprehensive plan. A broaderdiscussion of roof structures can be accomplished during the comprehensive plan update.

Commissioner Thomas said the motion does not address her concern regarding mechanical equipmenton roof structures.

The motion failed. Commissioners Ingman,I)erricott, Richards, and Reddickvoted for themotion. Commissioners Tousley, Leveen, Wolf, Law, Muller, Thomas, and Horn opposed.

Commissioner Thomas reemphasized her concerns of increasing height limits by allowing visualclutter.

Commissioner Tousley suggested that all zoning districts could be addressed during the comprehensiveplan and development regulations update.

Olympia Planning CommissionMinutes of MeetingNovember 1,2010 Page 8 of 14

Commissioner Thomas moyed, seconded by Commissioner Ingman, to recommend the Councilexplore ways to preserve the isthmus parcels from visual obstructions to views from above.

Commissioner Wolf said he would not support the motion. The view from the capitol spans the entireCity. He concurred with Commissioner Tousley about addressing the matter on a broader level.

Motion failed. Commissioners Ingman, Richards, and Thomas supported the motion.Commissioners Tousley, Leveenr rilotf, Law, Muller, and Horn opposed the motion.Commissioners Reddick and I)erricott abstained with no reason stated for the abstention.

Chair Horn commented that minority reports from the Commission are possible. Staff was asked toprovide additional information to Commissioners regarding minority and majority reports.

Senior Planner Hombein suggested the Commission exercise caution in discussing the isthmus agendaitem in the future in the event the Council remands the issue back to the Commission.

Briefing: Electric Vehicle OrdinancePlanner Bures reported Senate Substitute House 8il1 (SSHB) 1481 requires most cities and countiesalong Interstate 5 in the Puget Sound region to allow electric vehicle infrastructure (EVI) as a usewithin most zones. The proposal allows EVI as a permitted use in all areas except those zonedresidential, resource use, or critical areas, and as an accessory use inresidential zones.

Ecotality, an electric transportation storage technologies company, was selected by the U.S.Department of Energy for a grant of approximately $100 million to undertake the largest deploymentof electric vehicles and charging infrastructure in U.S. history. Ecotality parhrered with Nissan todeploy electric vehicles, such as the Nissan Leaf, and the charging infrastructure to support them. TheNissan Leaf will be released in2011. The City must have infrastructure approved and adopted byordinance. Proposed code changes will be provided at the November 15 meeting.

Ecotality does not have a standardized EV charger design at this time. However, based on examples,the chargers appear to be similar to the parking boxes in downtown. The chargers will be located nearparking stalls. Staffwill provide the Commission with additional information on battery chargingstations prior to the next meeting. Commissioners were asked to provide suggestions,recommendations, and requests including notification and materials to be submitted for the publichearing.

Three types of chargers include long, medium, and short-term charging. The location of long andmedium-term chargers is unknown at this time. Ecotality is interested in locating charging stationsalong the I-5 corridor for travelers near shopping centers and commercial districts. Costco has electricvehicle only parking stalls, which are for current electric vehicles. The Nissan Leaf is a differentvehicle requiring a specifrc type of charging station. Quick chargers take approximately 90 minutesfor a full charge.

Olympia Planning CommissionMinutes of MeetingNovember lr20l0 Page 9 of 14

Commissioner Tousley suggested notifuing the City of Lacey and the City of Tumwater regarding thepublic hearing. She asked whether changes to the building code are required. Planner Bures repliedthat the building code currently addresses installation of panels enabling different methods ofdelivering electricity in residential homes.

Commissioner Muller asked how motorists will pay for charging. Planner Bures said it's unknownwhether Ecotality will assess a fee. The pay stations are designed to accommodate debit andlor creditcards to pay for service. It's possible Ecotality will initially absorb the costs associated with theintroduction of Leafs and eventually institute pay stations for customers charging their vehicles.

Discussion ensued on whether charging stations qualifi' for green power credits.

Chair Horn recessed the meeting from 8:40 p.m. to 8:42 p.m. for a break.

Chair Horn advised Commissioners not attending the November 15 meeting to listen to the meetingtapes to participate in the deliberations on EVI.

Chair Horn asked Commissioners to share whether they intend to submit a minority andlor majorityreport regarding the isthmus rezone. Commissioner Derricott indicated he will submit a minorityreport. Commissioner Thomas said because of time constraints, she will send an email to the Councilconcerning the two motions that failed. Planner Hornbein said she will follow up with the entireCommission on protocol for communicating with the Council. Commissioner Wolf expressed interestin providing the majority report.

Briefing: Shoreline Master ProgramPlanner Hornbein reported the role of the Shoreline Master Program (SlvIP) Guidelines is to assist localgovemments in developing, adopting, and amending master programs consistent with the overarchingpolicy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). She referred to the briefing outlineand the policy statements, which are summarized and taken from state statute and the WashingtonAdministrative Code (WAC).

Another important concept is that the SMP is a planning tool as well as a regulatory tool. As aplanning tool, it's intended to balance and integrate objectives and interests of local citizens, address a

variety of shoreline conditions, consider and influence planning and regulatory measures for adjacentland, and address conditions and opportunities of specific shoreline segments by classifuing intoshoreline environment designations. Shoreline planning lays the groundwork for establishing policiesthat in turn form the basis for regulations that govern use and development along the shoreline.

Required master program contents include policies, regulations, administrative provisions, and otherdocuments by reference (critical areas regulations). The City has the option of incorporating masterprogram provisions into other plans and regulations, such as the comprehensive plan and developmentregulations.

Olympia Planning CommissionMinutes of MeetingNovember 1,2010 Page 10 of 14

Some basic conceps of the SMP update include utilizing scientific and technical information,protecting shoreline ecological functions, reserving the shoreline for preferred uses, environmentalimpact mitigation, and restoration to improve shoreline ecological functions over time.

Planner Hornbein provided an overview of the basic steps of the update process. Thurston RegionalPlanning Council (TRPC) produced an inventory and analysis of shoreline conditions. Other steps

include establishing shoreline policies, establishing environment designations, developing shorelineregulations, public participation throughout the entire process, cumulative impact assessment, localadoption, and a review by the Department of Ecology (DOE), which could take up to 12 months.

Shoreline program highlights include increased setbacks (Table 6.2 of the Draft SMP), nonconformingprovisions, building height caps, vegetation conservation, critical areas, view protection, visual impactanalysis, public access, shoreline modifications, no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, and a

cumulative impact assessment.

Planner Hornbein responded to questions from the Commissioners on how to obtain information priorto the hearing. The briefing papers arc available on the City's website at

commission-agenda-and-minutes. aspx.

Justification for the designations is contained in a report prepared by TRPC. Commissioner Leveensuggested an outline illustrating what is new and links to "vvhy" would be helpful. Planner Hornbeinreplied that DOE's checklist, which was distributed last spring, provides such information but isn'tscheduled to be completed until later. There isn't sufficient time available to staffto prepare a separate

document outlining what is new and the rationale in time for the hearing. Much of the rationale are

contained in the guidelines and addressed in briefing papers. Additionally, tapes of the last half of theshoreline subcommittee meetings are available.

Planner Hombein described the hearing process. After staff presents the staff report, the Chair willopen the public hearing and the Commission will take testimony. If necessary, the hearing will be

continued to December 6 and 13. The Commission will then deliberate on a recoÍtmendation. Staffwill assist the Commission with its decision-making processes. Staff has developed a recoÍtmendationbut if the Commission desires alternative language, the Commission can direct staff to developlanguage for review at a future meeting.

Commissioner Thomas said an option is expanding SMP highlights contained in the briefing outline toinclude a reference to the appropriate briefing paper(s), which would be useful to the Commission and

the public. Planner Hombein acknowledged the concept and suggested staff could identifu the maintopics and develop a resource list. She referred to section headings in Chapter 5 of the Draft SMP,General Policies and Regulations. One option would be to include references to various resources foreach of the topic areas. The staff report could cover the rationale for recommendations concemingbigger issues that will receive the most attention from the public such as setbacks and heights.

Commissioners were also interested in having a better understanding of what drove certain changes

from the state.

Olympia Planning CommissionMinutes of MeetingNovember 1,2010 Page 11 of 14

Commissioner Thomas offered that it might be adequate to use simple terms such as "required" or"discretionary" for certain topic areas.

Commissioner Wolf commented that there are documents available, such as those provided at the openhouse.

Discussion ensued on a format for the public hearing. Chair Hom advised that the notice for theNovember 15 public hearing was published. Planner Hornbein commented that it's diffrcult to managea structured public hearing because some citizens are not able to attend to offer comments on ascheduled topic area. She explained how public testimony could be managed, such as establishing a

time limit for public comments. Additionally, if attendance is high, the hearing may need to becontinued.

Urban Forester Stacey Ray provided an overview of the Draft Restoration Plan, which is an appendixto the Draft SMP. The existing program does not address restoration in a specific chapter orcomponent. For cities with any shorelines with impaired ecological functions, SMPs must includegoals, policies, and actions for restoration of such impaired ecological functions. Specific goals andactions shall be identified in an implementable document with a scientifically based prioritizationframework. Restoration plans must consider and address the following subjects:

o Identify degraded areas, impaired ecological functions, and sites with potential for ecologicalrestoration.

o Establish overall goals and priorities for restoration of degraded areas and impaired ecologicalfunctions.

o Jdentiû existing and ongoing projects and programs that are currently being implemented, or arereasonably assured of being implemented, which are designed to contribute to local restorationgoals.

o Identify additional (new) projects and programs needed to achieve local restoration goals, andimplementation strategies including identiffing prospective funding sources for those projects andprogfams.

o Identiû timelines and benchmarks for implementing restoration projects and programs andachieving local restoration goals.

o Provide for mechanisms or strategies to ensure that restoration projects and programs will beimplemented according to plans and to appropriately review the effectiveness of the projects andprograms in meeting the overall restoration goals.

Urban Forester Ray advised the Plan's goals and objectives will change and evolve as resources,programs, and scientiftc data change and evolve. Feedback from DOE has been positive. Thedocument appears to meet DOE's requirements.

The Commission commented on the acknowledgements page. It was noted that some names are notspelled correctly. The acknowledgements page is the same for both the Draft Restoration and SMPplans. It should be noted that the plans were prepared by staff that have not been reviewed by theCommission or adopted by the Council. The covers for both plans indicate "Draft." The

Olympia Planning CommissionMinutes of MeetingNovember 1,2010 Page 12 of 14

acknowledgements pages are intended to reflect what they will look like when the Council adopts thedocuments.

Planner Hornbein advised that staff anticipates issuing a corrected version and could also include anote that the plans are draft and not adopted until the Commission deliberates a recommendation andthe Council adopts the plans.

Discussion ensued on how the Restoration Plan is integrated in the CFP. Urban Forester Rayexplained that the Restoration Plan will not be an element of the CFP. Projects highlighted in theRestoration Plan are currently identifred in the CFP. Planner Hornbein said the Restoration Plan couldbe used to identifu a list of projects to consider for mitigation. Another component concemsimplementation.

Discussion ensued about the subcommittee exploring options to best facilitate the Commissiondeliberating a recommendation on the Draft SMP. Commissioners offered comments. Spendingseveral hours revising language within draft plans is not an efficient use of the Commission's time.The Commission is facing a significant workload with no break. The public hearing is on November15. If necessary, the hearing will be continued to December 6 and 13. The Commission will haveapproximately eight meetings to complete deliberations prior to forwarding a recommendation to theCouncil on March 1,2011. It's possible deliberations could be segregated by topic area. Whenreviewing the 2011 work program, the Commission should consider the volume for each meeting toensure it's reasonable. Ctrrrent seated members tend to ask more questions and request moreinformation than previous Commissions.

Senior Planner Hornbein encouraged the Commission to review the SMP Guidelines.

Selection of Nominating CommitteeCommissioners Derricott, Reddick, and Ingman volunteered to serve on the nominating committee andpoll members interested in serving as Chair, Vice Chair, Finance Committee Chair, and SMP and CPUsubcommittee chairs in20ll. The Commission is scheduled to nominate and elect officers at itsDecember 6 meeting.

Commissioner Denicott left the meeting.

2011 Work ProgramPlanner Hombein asked the Commission to review a preliminary 2011 work program list andrecommend a sequencing order.

Chair Horn suggested the Commission consider identifring projects for 2011,2012, and for either yearif time allows. His suggested projects for 201I include the SMP update and CPU, dark skiesprotection, plat extensions (201 I or 2012), open space code (201 1 or 2012), design code update,critical areas update (2011,2012), parking code, environmental policy update (2011 or 2012), and CFPand other annual comprehensive plan amendments.

Olympia Planning CommissionMinutes of MeetingNovember 1,2010 Page 13 of 14

Commissioner Richards suggested considering mobile food vendors as soon as possible because itcould have an immediate impact on food vendors currently in the downtown.

Work items requiring a public hearing will entail more time and effort by the Commission and staff.

Commissioners reviewed the list of project titles and recommended the following sequence to theGeneral Government Committee (GGC):

o Shoreline Master Program Updateo Comprehensive Plan Updateo Dark Skies Protectiono Reclaimed Water Ordinanceo Streamline Land Use Tableo Plat Extensionso Open Space Code þrivate development)o Design Code Updateo Critical Areas Update (will follow the SMP update). Parking Codeo Sign Code Updateo Environmental Policy Updateo CFP & Other Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendmentso Storm & Surface Water Program Evaluationo Mobile Food Vendors

20t120rt20r720t22012

2017-201220t2

Late20ll201220rt2012

20tr-201220tt20t220tt

Feedback from Commissioners included the observation that the work program is substantial and thefollowing comments. A work plan has not been developed for the design code update. The listrepresents an ideal situation. The SMP update, CPU, and CFP and other annual comprehensive planamendments are the priorities for 2011. If time permits, the Commission can work on other projectsfrom the list. The Council could identifr other projects for the Commission's purview. The SMPupdate will take place during the first quarter of 2011 while the CPU will span 2012. Perhaps somebriefings and public hearings could be scheduled for the same meeting. Meeting agendas should bemore realistic. Meetings were originally scheduled to end at 8:30 p.m. Additionally, manyCommissioners are also attending two to three subcommittee and/or liaison meetings a week.Commissioners also spend time preparing for the meetings. Staff was asked to develop a work plan forthe CPU and integrate that schedule into the 2011 work schedule. At this point, the Commission isproviding guidance to staff about projects that are essential and some that can be pushed out. Staff candecide how to handle projects that are "in the middle." The GGC and staff will make aftnal decisionconcerning the Commission's 2011 work program. Another issue is whether the outcome of thereclaimed water ordinance will impact the comprehensive plan update.

Subcommittee ReportsCommissioner Leveen provided an overview on the presentation of the Commission's CFP letter to theCity Council on October 19. Commissioners Leveen, Horn, and Wolf attended the public hearing.The Council and members of the public appreciated the Commission's review of the CFP. At the

Olympia Planning CommissionMinutes of MeetingNovember l,2010Page14 of 14

October 26 study session, staff responded to and agreed with a majority of the recommendationscontained in the letter. Some Councilmembers were concemed about how school impact fees arecalculated and other aspects of the Olympia School District's (OSD) CFP.

Commissioner Wolf thanked Commissioner Leveen for his hard work. Councilmember Buxbaumdirected staff to respond to the Commission's letter. Commissioner Wolf asked st¿ff to provide theCommission with a copy of the response to the City Council. Commissioner Leveen advised that staffresponded to the letter verbally during the October 26 study session. A video of the study session canbe viewed on the City's website. Commissioner'Wolf asked staffto prepare a sunmary of theresponses to inform the Commission's review of next year's CFP.

Commissioner Thomas reported the focus meetings for the high-density corridors topic are scheduledfor November 8 and 9. Commissioners were asked to attend the meetings.

Commissioner Thomas reported the draft vision statement will be presented to the Land Use andEnvironment Committee (LUEC) on November 15. The meeting begins at 5:00 p.m. Commissionerswere provided with copies of the draft statement at a previous meeting. Chair Horn emphasized thatthe statement is not afinalized document, which he will clarify at the LUEC meeting.

The Planning Commission did not object to forwarding the draft vision statement to the LUEC.

Staff was asked to follow up on the role of the Planning Commission at the focus meetings.

The next CPU subcommittee is on Wednesday, November 17. Commissioner Thomas advised thatshe's unable to attend the meeting.

Commissioner Ingman offered to attend the Design Review Board (DRB) meeting on November inCommissioner Muller's absence.

Commissioner Leveen requested a copy of the document showing all of the focus meeting topics,dates, times, and locations.

AdjournmentWith there being no fuither business, Chair Horn adj he meeting at

Prepared by Cheri Lindgren, Recording Secretary, AmePuget Sound Meeting Services

ber 15,2010