[0:07] Good to say something about recording. There's a red dot at the top. Yeah. Yeah, it says it's recording. Okay. Thank you. All right. So it's 630. We'll follow to order the planning commission meeting September 2nd, 2026. We'll do our roll call online. We have Mr. Matt Loch, joining up. And we have Mr. White.

[0:31] any?

[0:33] Mission if it's given.

[0:35] Mission bovers.

[0:36] Present.

[0:37] Mission cool on.

[0:38] And mission seal.

[0:40] So we will move at six three.

[0:44] We will open a public comment time for non agenda items.

[0:49] Is there anyone here for anything that is not on the agenda?

[0:53] There's no one in person.

[0:55] Anyone online?

[0:57] No, I'm good.

[0:58] Go on.

[0:59] Thank you.

[0:59] So at 631 we will close the public comment for non-agenda items and move on to the approval of minutes from August 5th, 2026.

[1:10] Is there any discussion or look for a motion in a second?

[1:16] Motion to approve.

[1:18] I'll second.

[1:19] All in favor?

[1:21] Hi.

[1:22] Hi.

[1:22] none opposed. And we will go on to our public hearing and

[1:28] possible recommendation for the 2026 amendments to the capital facilities

[1:32] element of the conference point. Don't you never just stop to present.

[1:36] All right, so this was introduced to the Plank Commission at your last meeting

[1:39] and these are some fairly basic amendments that we felt were necessary to

[1:44] a capital facilities element prompted principally by our new police

[1:48] service contract with King County Sheriff. But while we were in there we wanted

[1:52] to address a number of other things. We received a number of documents from the

[1:56] SNCC Army tribe, which are requests for amendments to the comprehensive plan, and that included

[2:00] specific edits to the capital facility development. So we addressed the SNCC Army tribe's initial

[2:06] comments. They recently submitted more additional comments, which I distributed with planning

[2:11] commission tonight for the public hearing tonight, and I'll go into those in a little bit here.

[2:16] The other amendments are about just reflecting changes to facilities that have been developed

[2:24] in plans since the time of the 2024 update to our comp plans.

[2:29] Notably, our stormwater section, we're referencing to upcoming requirements under what's called

[2:36] the National Pollution Discharge Illumination System.

[2:38] some fades to that we will have to enter about in our water system section about the water supply agreement and intertile is allowed water association, which is new since 2024 in our municipal building section referencing to the new police office at the old community and economic development office, over by the library and the police service section.

[3:06] So with regard to your additional comment, the only comment we received was from the

[3:12] Sacramento Tribe.

[3:13] The Planning Commission has that.

[3:15] They were looking for three principal amendments and two of the amendments staff have reviewed

[3:21] and are not generally comfortable with.

[3:23] The third amendment we feel is fine.

[3:25] The two amendments that we're not comfortable with are on page 12 of the document or page 19

[3:31] of your packet.

[3:33] capital facilities element, policy 1.4, the tribe was looking for, changing the word

[3:40] coordination to consultation in the planning for capital facility improvements.

[3:46] So consultation is a very specific process that setup, drop consultation is required for state

[3:54] agencies conducting capital facility improvements and it can also be triggered when a city is doing capital

[4:04] facility improvements involving grant funds from the state. We wanted to keep it some more specific

[4:12] that way, so we're providing coordination with the tribe and the planning for capital facilities

[4:17] improvements and we will do that consultation when required. But we felt like just changing the word

[4:23] to consultation was a little too broad and might set up some false expectations about

[4:27] what the required process would be.

[4:30] So we wanted to staff recommend keeping that word as coordination.

[4:36] The next one that they had requested was on the next page, page 13 of the document, an

[4:44] element or a couple of facilities element, policy 3.3.

[4:48] They wanted to add some words there, promote high quality, and they've added, suggested

[4:53] that it's sustainable, resilient, and safe design and site planning for the construction

[4:59] of capital facilities, taking the consideration of future climate-related stressors.

[5:03] To act refined with that, we can incorporate that at it.

[5:08] Then policy 3.4 just below that, it was the same request, so they had request adding tribal

[5:17] consultation provided outreach and notification for tribal consultation and to solicit and encourage

[5:24] involvement assistance tribes and agencies for setting capital cities. So that tribal consultation

[5:29] is required in certain circumstances and we will certainly do that when required. However, we felt

[5:36] like it was a little too broad and setting up potentially unrealistic expectations about process

[5:41] as just a blanket, say, or a consultation.

[5:46] So with that, those were the requested edits

[5:51] that they provided and other than that

[5:53] and their comment letter,

[5:54] they just requested kind of early and continuous involvement

[5:57] with the tribe and recognizing the relationship

[6:00] of them as a sovereign government,

[6:02] which we certainly do that be coordinated regularly

[6:06] that the snow quality tribe

[6:07] has got quarterly coordination meetings

[6:08] where we talk about upcoming projects

[6:10] and make sure that they're aware and have that opportunity for the engagement.

[6:16] So with that, staff recommended the approval of the document with the one additional policy revision.

[6:24] Suggesting but from the trial on that.

[6:27] Thank you. We'll turn it back to planning commission to discuss and then we'll open the public hearing after we discuss and ask questions of staff.

[6:54] Yeah, I didn't have an opportunity to change that in the packet, but just if you're looking

[7:01] about 3.3 just immediately after word quality. It would be adding sustainable, resilient, and safe.

[7:08] And then I was here just, um, you can't really get it. I was the consultation risk cooperation.

[7:15] There would be no discussion with the lawyers and I think this is outlined by the treaty that

[7:20] they've all under and they're going to shift us. Like, you mentioned there are, we have like enough

[7:25] but when it's required to consult with them.

[7:28] And it sounds like it's not all it is,

[7:30] which might be a different impression

[7:31] that they have based on the letter that got from that.

[7:35] I'm curious where that isn't right.

[7:36] And just so we can confirm,

[7:38] like you don't actually actually have a consult with you

[7:40] for this reading of your referencing.

[7:44] That was something to talk about.

[7:46] I'm curious if it's not clearly defined so.

[7:49] Yeah, so the consultation requirement

[7:51] is a part of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,

[7:56] which require consultation when engaging with tribes involving federal funds and then

[8:02] under the state, it's required specifically for state agencies and then projects involving

[8:09] state funds under the executive order that I write it down somewhere.

[8:15] Yeah, I've got it.

[8:16] Here is the executive order, 2102, archeological and cultural resource consultation.

[8:44] I think there's some of the contention here is, you know, more specifically, they feel they're lumped in with everyone, like there will not be any set.

[8:54] that separate process for them,

[8:56] then there is already for the public and I think that's

[8:59] their attention.

[9:00] And so highlighting, they're saying basically,

[9:02] where required it would be separate consultation

[9:04] to try to maybe refer to the law you mentioned.

[9:08] I think that when required would be a appropriate addition

[9:11] to that.

[9:13] I have been in the reference to law that way.

[9:16] I would like to check the situation specifically

[9:18] like when is that?

[9:20] You know, I'm a little confused.

[9:22] I'm a little reluctant to put one law on there because then if there's others that

[9:27] you're not catching, one also, this no calming tribe has some other things that some

[9:34] of the other tribes in Washington don't have because they didn't have, you know, their

[9:38] sovereign lands, until much later. So that would, I mean, same thing. I just was wondering,

[9:43] okay, do they have something different outside of the laws that the rest of Washington have?

[9:50] But so I think, you know, we're necessary that works.

[9:54] I just think when I, if I were to read as a supplier,

[9:57] if I initially thought it would then be,

[9:58] where do I find out where to find it?

[10:02] Yeah, sure.

[10:02] It's the other kind of overall objective that guides,

[10:06] kind of how we approach policies here,

[10:09] is a combination of plans should be very high level

[10:12] and policy focus.

[10:14] And so this is something that we push back

[10:16] on a lot of different agencies and governments

[10:18] that provide comment and individuals that provide comment is there's a tendency to want to have everything in the policy.

[10:25] But as soon as you do that for everything, you comprehensive plan balloons into the thousand age document.

[10:30] And you've kind of lost your ability to keep stay focused at a high level.

[10:35] So we always dig down as we develop regulations and implementation plans that implement provisions of our comprehensive plan and that gets into more specific detail.

[10:46] Yeah, I think that makes sense. I don't wonder if this outline of what mean consoling non-

[10:52] might still be at that high level. And maybe your evidence is much to sighted whether

[10:57] to find me who's thinking, it would be useful if it says when required to have some sort

[11:02] of guidance, as a person reading it, where I could find out with evidence, without necessarily

[11:08] legal for being where we're when we're required by applicable state and federal

[11:16] regulations.

[11:20] I mean, I think that's the essence, you know, in the term, where would then, if I were

[11:25] like that, we'll be my next step to try to figure out more about it.

[11:29] Well, I mean, it's a policy document again.

[11:32] So if you're a citizen, call the city and we might further information.

[11:37] So,

[11:44] let me see if I've captured your suggestion.

[11:48] The amendment to policy 3.4 then would provide outreach notification for tribal consultation

[11:54] when required by applicable state and federal requirements, and solicit and encourage

[12:00] the involvement of citizens, tribes, and agencies in the sighting of capital facilities.

[12:05] Yes, and I think you probably can take out the tribes and second path.

[12:09] Oh, I'll get that first.

[12:10] Yeah, that makes sense.

[12:12] They're trying to hit on the same point.

[12:14] They mentioned that they are not stakeholders, which true, or I could understand why they

[12:19] would say that.

[12:20] But maybe I didn't be clear for enough, but didn't you say stakeholders?

[12:23] No, we didn't.

[12:25] Okay.

[12:26] Now, they're recognizing that they're a sovereign government.

[12:29] The thing that we don't have the staff capacity to address is a separate notification process

[12:34] to try.

[12:35] So yes, we will provide a really coordination and consultation we're required to then, but we can't set up a process by which we're starting to develop a project.

[12:47] We want to send that out to all agencies, governments, individuals that require or request a notification.

[12:54] We can't set up a separate process for each separate government.

[12:57] And so that's where we're pushing back a little bit too to say we're a small government

[13:02] trying to deal with a huge amount of workflow and we have to keep our own processes a little

[13:08] bit contained and simple.

[13:13] I think this seems like a good option because it's still inclusive and I'm actually really

[13:20] proud of North Bend and Washington as a whole because I do feel like we include, you know,

[13:26] tribal consideration, a lot more than a lot of states do, but I mean, we can always do better,

[13:32] but if you said there's only so many resources.

[13:39] That's a question regarding the amendments that see at 1.4 with the difference between

[13:46] the word consultation and the word coordination. The late person, but I think consultation,

[13:53] I mean, it could be an official thing like, I'm going to get a counsel from firm to look at doing

[13:57] something my backyard, or I can go consult with my neighbor about what he thinks is the best

[14:03] product from the hedges here. In this case, and consultation has got a very specific meaning.

[14:08] So, let me try. That's got an old website about, this is what tribal consultation means.

[14:13] Okay. And it's a relatively long process. So, okay, that's why we're a little cautious about where

[14:20] that consultation is engaged. Okay. You certainly will do that when that's required, but if we're

[14:25] planning a sidewalk replacement. And that's not required in consultation for any reason we don't

[14:31] want to necessarily engage that process because of the amount of time that it would take.

[14:36] Yeah. And then what about coordination? I mean, coordination is not a

[14:42] term specific to, doesn't have kind of meaning to it that consultation does.

[14:50] Okay, but I mean, let me say ensure ample tribal coordination in the planning for

[14:56] capital, capital facility improvements.

[14:58] How is that being done?

[15:00] I mean, if you do not, if you make changes, but do not coordinate those changes with the tribe, what are the implications to that? I mean, these are polls. These are file-level things that we say we want to do. And then we dig down further when it comes to our notification requirements when it comes to, I don't know, developing the review process for each of those projects. That's where we dig further and say, okay,

[15:29] this is what we're going to do with the tribe as a part of the review process.

[15:35] You said you have to be recording games, right? Yeah, so I feel like that's a

[15:39] good thing. Along with email, of course, a lot. I think that captures what we think,

[15:45] that's what I thought.

[15:55] I'll kind of just, if it's okay, I'll just go through to some of the

[15:58] So I had B3, strong water and surface water facilities, like it's...

[16:08] 8 or 8.11 out of a lot of raised up to B3, strong water and surface water facilities.

[16:15] The second happened that this currently the city of North Bend is particularly updating this plan,

[16:20] which is an history of coming from the fact that it's 0.27, the plan is to be prepared for cities.

[16:26] Since that's going to add it to be changed, do you want, I mean, I know you already put

[16:33] an effort to add it, but I was something that all the work specifically wanted to put

[16:38] in, so I don't want to change content that they requested.

[16:42] That is actually something I asked, but I wanted to ask as well, the same idea from a policy

[16:50] point and from a comprehensive plan, it seems interesting to put something that you're saying

[16:55] you will do in the future, just have to go change it when you've met when you've got to go do it.

[17:00] So it's different from other words, I guess, but normally you'd want to keep something like that out

[17:05] so you don't force yourself to have to make a change when it is implemented.

[17:10] I agree with you, but I also don't want to have a conversation about where they

[17:18] different questions and things specifically.

[17:21] You can tell me.

[17:22] Yes.

[17:23] My hands are tied.

[17:25] They're playing the commission.

[17:26] They go crazy.

[17:29] Okay.

[17:29] The next thing I had is this very similar page six,

[17:33] slash page 13, the project delay.

[17:39] This is, to me, this reads like,

[17:41] you want to do stuff.

[17:44] And here's one of the things we want to do.

[17:45] like this can just be an endless list of all the stuff the city wants to do. So I don't

[17:51] really see that this has a place of self sense of life. There's just something that's

[17:56] already been a group of city council is like this we are doing this for sure.

[18:01] They're an interesting project. So then I guess I felt similar. Like unless it's something

[18:06] they just like we have voted this is happening seems like I mean it's awesome. I like

[18:11] I agree. I mean, there are many things you would love to do for future. She would put them all here.

[18:19] Having a reference in the comprehensive plan, especially our capital facility's element,

[18:24] helps it to be eligible for grants and uses certain funds. So I believe that's one of the reasons

[18:32] that it's been here.

[18:36] Why is it limited?

[18:39] It's not. No, I mean, each capital facility's element is also

[18:42] adopting by reference capital improvement plans for transportation and parks so those have much

[18:50] more extensive lists of projects that then make those projects eligible for use of impact fee

[18:57] revenue and grants a whole number of. Would the idea of a project delayed be that city

[19:04] maintains ownership of either the property or the building? Yes, the property with the city

[19:09] It's not going to, it's a private public partnership.

[19:13] So the city would only contribute funds

[19:15] toward the public realm.

[19:17] But it would be a sense to be in the

[19:18] one-to-the-medical building section then.

[19:20] It is owned by the city, certainly.

[19:27] We would provide a building and $75,000 of support.

[19:32] When the city is built, it's not cross the city.

[19:33] No, I'd be much, much more than that, right?

[19:37] 75,000 is just a very small component

[19:39] just reflecting the public benefit portions of the project.

[19:44] And

[19:49] the next thing I just had a brief question about is pay,

[19:55] slash page 15,

[19:57] level service for police, and I think also the firefetch, and I mean, that response tonight

[20:05] for police emergencies, all the right-of-flight minutes, dispatch the right-of-three minutes.

[20:09] That has not been edited.

[20:11] Is that confirmed with the King County Sheriff there?

[20:14] That was our adopted level service from the police, and they said, yeah, that's our level

[20:20] service for North Bend as well. Are there, they're planning to plan according to that level service.

[20:29] Then there was a, in section D, 0.2 is 16, especially on food and districts.

[20:43] For instance, utility, local improvement districts, you would,

[20:47] And financing is a tool that is, so it's a small type of tool, that is a tool that is.

[20:56] Thank you.

[21:00] Finally,

[21:04] five, page 17 slash page 24, second sentence, which is change of the or limited

[21:13] tax term obligation balance, LTGOs, which be approved by the Council of the Board of

[21:21] but not replaced if it's need be or yeah, thank you.

[21:28] Thanks.

[21:31] That was it for my thoughts. Thanks.

[21:35] Okay.

[21:35] Sorry. I'm at same line.

[21:37] It's councilmanic or weren't married in their own.

[21:39] I got it right.

[21:41] It's wonderful.

[21:43] It was so brilliant.

[21:48] Well, the idea that it had not been altered.

[21:51] It's also councilmembers.

[21:52] Yeah, I'm kind of sorry, it's a lie or a foreign concert.

[21:56] Yeah, so it's a limited.

[22:02] Hey, any other?

[22:05] I did at one door for the Flea section.

[22:08] The very first sentence, the very good one again, the findings.

[22:13] With the sample, well, that was the piece that he said,

[22:19] at the very top, age 14, sentence, and full teaching.

[22:23] This is kind of just a bit big, but the first sentence is like following the conclusion

[22:27] of contract agreement with some of our city of so-called me and all that.

[22:30] I was wondering if that was really necessary.

[22:32] Can we just say new contract is this year moving forward, which I think is what it said.

[22:38] Like the old sentence, in May, 2019, we contract with so-called me, so rather than explaining

[22:43] that we're leaving so-called me to say in May, 2026, we are contract with KCSO.

[23:00] Well, why don't we open the public hearing at 653?

[23:05] No one is helping any person.

[23:08] Is Cooper, did you want to speak on the item?

[23:12] No, thank you. Carry on.

[23:15] Thank you.

[23:17] We will close the public hearing at 553 and turn it back to the commission for more discussion or emotion.

[23:23] I

[23:27] also do approve with the changes noted.

[23:31] I will second.

[23:33] I think we can do all in favor.

[23:37] Hi.

[23:38] And none opposed.

[23:43] So let's see.

[23:46] Okay, and I think that's it.

[23:50] Just an announcement.

[23:51] Our next meeting would normally be October 6th.

[23:54] We're going to cancel that one because.

[23:55] because I'm going to be away at a conference and I just have from that available as well.

[24:02] So we're going to come back to you in November and bring some updates to our multifamily

[24:10] tax exemption regulations promoting affordability for multifamily housing and then also, and I remember

[24:19] what it also did, yeah, November will be our next meeting.

[24:22] in a minute. It's October 7th. October 7th. Okay. Thank you.

[24:28] Thank you so much. So we will close the meeting at 6.54.

[24:34] Thank you very much.

[24:36] Thanks, everyone.

Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript