Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTask Force Meeting 4 Notes 20201012JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4450 | email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Task Force Meeting 4 Summary | Monday, October 12 | 5:30 pm – 7:42 pm | Location: Virtual Meeting Attendees TASK FORCE MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE 1. Cliff O’Brien – Port Ludlow Associates, Residential/Commercial Construction & Development 2. Gordon King – Taylor Shellfish, Aquaculture 3. Amy Leitman – Marine Surveys & Assessments, Marine Biologist 4. Chris Kelley – Oceanographer, Aquaculture 5. Brent Vadopalas - Citizen at large District 1, Aquaculture 6. David Wilkinson – Climate Action Committee, Atmospheric Science 7. Craig Durgan – Citizen at large District 3, PUD#1 8. Ron Rempel – Citizen at large District 2, Wildlife Biologist 9. Arlene Alen, Planning Commission Member, District 1 10. Lorna Smith, Planning Commission Member, District 2 11. Richard Hull, Planning Commission Member, District 3 TASK FORCE MEMBERS ABSENT Phil Andrus –Citizen at large District 2, former County Planning Commissioner Staffing COUNTY Greg Brotherton – County Commissioner, MRC Member, HCCC member David Wayne Johnson – DCD, Associate Planner, SMP Periodic Review Project Manager Linda Paralez – DCD, Acting Director WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Michelle McConnell, Regional Shoreline Planner with WA Department of Ecology CONSULTANTS Lisa Grueter, AICP – Principal, BERK Consulting, Facilitator, Consultant Project Manager Amy Summe, PWS – Associate, Senior Biologist/Permit Specialist, Shannon & Wilson Julia Tesch – Associate, BERK Consulting, Engagement OBJECTIVES Review and discuss scoping document for remaining changes needed to achieve consensus. AGENDA Time Topic of Discussion Presenter(s)  5:30 – 5:35 pm Review meeting objectives Lisa Grueter, BERK  5:35-5:40 pm Approve Minutes Task Force  5:40 – 5:50 pm Public Comment Public Attendees  5:50 – 6:00 pm Results on Story Map and Survey as appropriate David Wayne Johnson, Jefferson County DCD  6:00 – 6:30 pm Group Discussion Pt 1: Review / approve scoping document Lisa Grueter, BERK and team; All  6:30 – 6:40 pm Break All  6:40 – 7:20 pm Group Discussion Pt 2: Review/ approve scoping document All  7:20 – 7:30 pm Questions, Next Steps, and Adjourn Lisa Grueter, BERK  Notes Lisa Grueter called the meeting to order, reviewed attendance. Ron Rempel moved to approve the minutes with a correction to Arlene Alen’s last name. Christopher Kelley seconded. No objections to the motion, approved by consensus. No public comment. Lisa Grueter reviewed survey notes. Lisa sent out 83 or 84 survey responses on Friday for the group to review. There were a few more responses over the weekend. David Wayne Johnson: Survey deadline extended through November. David reviewed an example comment questioning how beach access permits are approved and if permits are only available to wealthy residents. There was no location given; the County processes permits based on how they are consistent with SMP. Will have a separate listening session with the tribes within the next 3-4 weeks. Survey deadline is now November 30. Table of Motions and Discussion Item Motion Aye Abstain Nay Status  A Ron Rempel moves that we select Option 3. Amy Leitman seconds. Review Conditional Use Permits and Variance Permits for Proper Level of Review. Option 3 – Focus on Permitting Levels, Maintain Standards: Maintain protective standards to achieve no-net-loss of shoreline ecological function, but reduce unnecessary CUPs/variances. Potentially adjust administrative versus discretionary CUPs. Examples include but are not limited to: existing single family home expansions and septic systems. Ron Rempel Christopher Kelley Richard Hull Gordon King David Wilkinson Cliff O’Brien Lorna Smith Brent Vadopalas Arlene Alen Amy Leitman None Craig Durgan Option 3 approved by majority.  Discussion of “A” Ron Rempel: Option 3, naming a few specific options, is helpful. But how would this impact how DCD would go forward? Will any of the options make a difference in getting to the same place? Ron Rempel moves that we select Option 3. Amy Leitman seconds. Craig Durgan requests clarification about what Option 3 means. Ron Rempel requests clarification on the process and what will happen as a result. Craig Durgan was on a different Task Force to make specific recommendations. Did not find that the intention to create a scoping document was clear at the beginning of this process. Lisa Grueter noted the Resolution creating the Task Force and the Welcome Letter both had the charge; the Task Force was provided a couple of examples of other scoping documents in prior packet. Greg Brotherton clarifies that the scoping document is to create guardrails for the actual policy changes. Task Force will still have the opportunity to provide guidance for specific code as the process proceeds, at the public hearing for the planning commission or the BOCC. We are trying to give guidance to staff. Craig Durgan: The Task Force is watered down. The Task Force is full of people who rubber-stamp things. Greg Brotherton: This is an effort to bring more citizen input into this process. This is not the end of citizen input. There are a lot of subject matter experts on this Task Force. It’s the last meeting of the task force, so it’s hard to change that scope now. Craig Durgan: When you have 12 people, 3 of whom are from the Planning Commission, and this goes to the Planning Commission anyway, you should have 3 more citizens. Need to reach out to average citizens, not just people who have a vested interest in this. Greg Brotherton: We did not turn down any applicants. Lorna Smith: As a member of the planning commission, one of the problems with the Critical Area regulatory planning changes is that the planning commission was not kept updated during the many months of planning. By the time it reached the planning commission, had very little time to review reams of documents. Felt were being pressed to review significant material with very little time. Appreciates being part of this task force so she can help provide context. Craig Durgan: Planning Commission members shouldn’t be voting in the Task Force if you will be reviewing the scoping document in the Planning Commission. Very different from Critical Areas Task Force where you made specific recommendations. You have a few citizens here who aren’t on the Planning Commission. It is name only. It’s like a rubber stamp. It’s become a waste of time, if this is how you’re going to do the Task Forces. Reach out to people – not the same people. I’ve been on the water for 30 years. Have a commercial property, salmon bearing stream in Chimacum Creek. Not seeing the value of the Task Force. Ron Rempel: Where the rubber meets the road is what the DCD turns out that will go to the Planning Commission. After they do their drafting, but before the scoping document goes to the Planning Commission, can the Task Force meet with David again to provide input on whether DCD has done what the Task Force has suggested? That could placate some concerns. Lisa Grueter: Could add this to recommended items. David Wayne Johnson: Have a deadline problem. Task Force doesn’t have an oversight ability in that regard. Have a scheduling issue. Lisa Grueter: Can we invite the Task Force to come to the Planning Commission meeting that will discuss this scoping document? Craig Durgan: I can understand what David Wayne Johnson is saying about not having the staff. In a lot of ways, that’s because they haven’t allowed things to happen in Jefferson County. They’ve shut things down. They had an opportunity 15 years ago to let things happen, in the UGA, with septic. But that was shut down. Nothing’s happening – there’s vacant property they’re now talking about putting sewer in. Property owners are growing weeds. Task Force is the same problem. You’re not going out and going to the people and seeing what needs to be done – you’re going to the same people and doing nothing. Run into a deadline. But knew this deadline was coming up, and now using it as an excuse to railroad through and get what you want. And in the meantime, nothing happens around here. Don’t have the staff because don’t have the revenue. Don’t have affordable housing because that won’t get built. It’s a cycle.   Discussion of “A” Ron Rempel: Option 3, naming a few specific options, is helpful. But how would this impact how DCD would go forward? Will any of the options make a difference in getting to the same place? Ron Rempel moves that we select Option 3. Amy Leitman seconds. Craig Durgan requests clarification about what Option 3 means. Ron Rempel requests clarification on the process and what will happen as a result. Craig Durgan was on a different Task Force to make specific recommendations. Did not find that the intention to create a scoping document was clear at the beginning of this process. Lisa Grueter noted the Resolution creating the Task Force and the Welcome Letter both had the charge; the Task Force was provided a couple of examples of other scoping documents in prior packet. Greg Brotherton clarifies that the scoping document is to create guardrails for the actual policy changes. Task Force will still have the opportunity to provide guidance for specific code as the process proceeds, at the public hearing for the planning commission or the BOCC. We are trying to give guidance to staff. Craig Durgan: The Task Force is watered down. The Task Force is full of people who rubber-stamp things. Greg Brotherton: This is an effort to bring more citizen input into this process. This is not the end of citizen input. There are a lot of subject matter experts on this Task Force. It’s the last meeting of the task force, so it’s hard to change that scope now. Craig Durgan: When you have 12 people, 3 of whom are from the Planning Commission, and this goes to the Planning Commission anyway, you should have 3 more citizens. Need to reach out to average citizens, not just people who have a vested interest in this. Greg Brotherton: We did not turn down any applicants. Lorna Smith: As a member of the planning commission, one of the problems with the Critical Area regulatory planning changes is that the planning commission was not kept updated during the many months of planning. By the time it reached the planning commission, had very little time to review reams of documents. Felt were being pressed to review significant material with very little time. Appreciates being part of this task force so she can help provide context. Craig Durgan: Planning Commission members shouldn’t be voting in the Task Force if you will be reviewing the scoping document in the Planning Commission. Very different from Critical Areas Task Force where you made specific recommendations. You have a few citizens here who aren’t on the Planning Commission. It is name only. It’s like a rubber stamp. It’s become a waste of time, if this is how you’re going to do the Task Forces. Reach out to people – not the same people. I’ve been on the water for 30 years. Have a commercial property, salmon bearing stream in Chimacum Creek. Not seeing the value of the Task Force. Ron Rempel: Where the rubber meets the road is what the DCD turns out that will go to the Planning Commission. After they do their drafting, but before the scoping document goes to the Planning Commission, can the Task Force meet with David again to provide input on whether DCD has done what the Task Force has suggested? That could placate some concerns. Lisa Grueter: Could add this to recommended items. David Wayne Johnson: Have a deadline problem. Task Force doesn’t have an oversight ability in that regard. Have a scheduling issue. Lisa Grueter: Can we invite the Task Force to come to the Planning Commission meeting that will discuss this scoping document? Craig Durgan: I can understand what David Wayne Johnson is saying about not having the staff. In a lot of ways, that’s because they haven’t allowed things to happen in Jefferson County. They’ve shut things down. They had an opportunity 15 years ago to let things happen, in the UGA, with septic. But that was shut down. Nothing’s happening – there’s vacant property they’re now talking about putting sewer in. Property owners are growing weeds. Task Force is the same problem. You’re not going out and going to the people and seeing what needs to be done – you’re going to the same people and doing nothing. Run into a deadline. But knew this deadline was coming up, and now using it as an excuse to railroad through and get what you want. And in the meantime, nothing happens around here. Don’t have the staff because don’t have the revenue. Don’t have affordable housing because that won’t get built. It’s a cycle.  Added motion Ron Rempel moves that the Task Force have a meeting after DCD drafts the changes with a member of DCD to review those changes before it goes to the Planning Commission. Craig Durgan seconds. Unanimous. None None Motion carried unanimously.  Discussion See under “A”, related discussion.   B Richard Hull moves to adopt Option 2 with some form of the suggested change (“Consider appropriate number or density of buoys.”). Cliff O’Brien seconds. Mooring Buoys. Option 2 – Modified: Review permit type and standards for buoys compared to other shoreline facilities for boating. Consider where there are good locations for buoys. Review buoy standards versus anchoring, and unintended consequences of SMP regulations. Clarify permitting standards surrounding eelgrass beds, including differences between areas with eelgrass patches and full eelgrass coverage. Consider appropriate number or density of buoys. Richard Hull Cliff O’Brien Ron Rempel Amy Leitman Lorna Smith David Wilkinson Christopher Kelley Brent Vadopalas Arlene Alen Craig Durgan Gordon King None Option 2 approved by majority.  Discussion of “B” Craig Durgan: I’m not sure how you’re going to regulate year-round moorage versus seasonal. That’s making a lot of work. If someone moors their boat year-round but then takes a trip to Alaska, does that count as seasonal moorage? Density is a good idea. Don’t want boats to swing into one another. Depends on what size vessels you’re considering mooring. Ron Rempel: Suggests modification of language from “consider limitations on” to “consider appropriate number of” buoys. Should consider damage to the shoreline, rather than the number of boats on mooring buoys because it looks bad. Amy Summe: Have seen this in a number of SMPs. To avoid crowding, such as boats running into one another during storms, grounding, interactions with eelgrass. Typically, there’s at least one buoy per single-family residential lot. Then consider other locations for mixed-use or multifamily homes to have a certain number. And then the density on a given parcel or area is more important. Would take further consideration. Gordon King: Craig has a good point – who’s going to police it? Currently, with anchoring, things aren’t allowed to anchor more than a month but no one can enforce it. It’s a waste of time to make a law that can’t be enforced. It’s a really big problem – how do you allocate it? At what point does DNR get involved? In most cases, you’re anchoring on state property, which the county doesn’t own. David Wayne Johnson: DNR has final approval. The County can issue a permit. Amy Leitman: You used to be required to put mooring balls where they were anchored at the bottom at least 150’ away from one another. There were limitations based on shellfish area. Unsure where the overlap with the County and DNR is. May have some regulations either way. Christopher Kelley: One of the issues with a mooring buoy is that people are putting a personal item on property that’s not there. That may be disagreeable to some neighbors who are able to see the boat. Doesn’t think that every waterfront house should have a mooring buoy. Could impact a lot of people on the shoreline who don’t want to look at boats. First have to find areas that are appropriate for mooring. Then find appropriate numbers. There is so much caretaking with the way you build your house with respect to impacting your neighbors’ views, but there doesn’t seem to be consideration for buoys. Gordon King: Tribes are left out of this issue. May be moot. Tribes are not in favor of allowing any things that can interfere with fishing, especially in the last 3 years. Craig Durgan: If you have to go to DNR anyway, why are we concerned about this? Lisa Grueter: Two areas of confusion: (1) do the regulations promote the lowest-impact method of anchoring boats? (2) unclear eelgrass standards. Amy Leitman: DNR regulations don’t look at options – they just cover whatever you’re going to apply for. Won’t make suggestions based on what will be lower impact. Rich Hull moves to adopt Option 2 with some form of the suggested change (“Consider appropriate number or density of buoys.”). Cliff O’Brien seconds. Gordon King: Not sure that this program will be able to take this on, so abstains. Amy Summe: In-water and over-water shoreline modifications, you’ll run into needing permits from a number of agencies. The shoreline master program is what is required. Even though duplicating other agencies, need to show that the SMP is appropriately protective in isolation. It’s unfortunate that it’s something we’re stuck with.   Discussion of “B” Craig Durgan: I’m not sure how you’re going to regulate year-round moorage versus seasonal. That’s making a lot of work. If someone moors their boat year-round but then takes a trip to Alaska, does that count as seasonal moorage? Density is a good idea. Don’t want boats to swing into one another. Depends on what size vessels you’re considering mooring. Ron Rempel: Suggests modification of language from “consider limitations on” to “consider appropriate number of” buoys. Should consider damage to the shoreline, rather than the number of boats on mooring buoys because it looks bad. Amy Summe: Have seen this in a number of SMPs. To avoid crowding, such as boats running into one another during storms, grounding, interactions with eelgrass. Typically, there’s at least one buoy per single-family residential lot. Then consider other locations for mixed-use or multifamily homes to have a certain number. And then the density on a given parcel or area is more important. Would take further consideration. Gordon King: Craig has a good point – who’s going to police it? Currently, with anchoring, things aren’t allowed to anchor more than a month but no one can enforce it. It’s a waste of time to make a law that can’t be enforced. It’s a really big problem – how do you allocate it? At what point does DNR get involved? In most cases, you’re anchoring on state property, which the county doesn’t own. David Wayne Johnson: DNR has final approval. The County can issue a permit. Amy Leitman: You used to be required to put mooring balls where they were anchored at the bottom at least 150’ away from one another. There were limitations based on shellfish area. Unsure where the overlap with the County and DNR is. May have some regulations either way. Christopher Kelley: One of the issues with a mooring buoy is that people are putting a personal item on property that’s not there. That may be disagreeable to some neighbors who are able to see the boat. Doesn’t think that every waterfront house should have a mooring buoy. Could impact a lot of people on the shoreline who don’t want to look at boats. First have to find areas that are appropriate for mooring. Then find appropriate numbers. There is so much caretaking with the way you build your house with respect to impacting your neighbors’ views, but there doesn’t seem to be consideration for buoys. Gordon King: Tribes are left out of this issue. May be moot. Tribes are not in favor of allowing any things that can interfere with fishing, especially in the last 3 years. Craig Durgan: If you have to go to DNR anyway, why are we concerned about this? Lisa Grueter: Two areas of confusion: (1) do the regulations promote the lowest-impact method of anchoring boats? (2) unclear eelgrass standards. Amy Leitman: DNR regulations don’t look at options – they just cover whatever you’re going to apply for. Won’t make suggestions based on what will be lower impact. Rich Hull moves to adopt Option 2 with some form of the suggested change (“Consider appropriate number or density of buoys.”). Cliff O’Brien seconds. Gordon King: Not sure that this program will be able to take this on, so abstains. Amy Summe: In-water and over-water shoreline modifications, you’ll run into needing permits from a number of agencies. The shoreline master program is what is required. Even though duplicating other agencies, need to show that the SMP is appropriately protective in isolation. It’s unfortunate that it’s something we’re stuck with.  C Ron Rempel moves to use Option 2. Christopher Kelley seconds. Climate change and sea level rise. Option 2: Add in Comprehensive Plan climate policies like Option 1. Plus, strive for consistency with Port Townsend’s SMP. Ensure that policies and permit standards do not limit projects that are proactively addressing projections in sea level rise due to climate change. Consider elevation, not just distance from the ordinary highwater mark, for shoreline permitting Ron Rempel Amy Leitman Lorna Smith David Wilkinson Christopher Kelley Richard Hull Arlene Alen None Cliff O’Brien Brent Vadopalas Craig Durgan Gordon King Option 2 approved by majority.   Discussion of “C” David Wilkinson: I’d like to find the status of the Local 2020 comments provided. Will the City be reviewing those? Lisa Grueter: Yes, they’re attached to the Task Force packet for October 5 and 12. Those comments in matrix form were attached via email to the Task Force this week. They mostly included additional policies. There was a change proposed to locating development in such a manner that it accounted for future sea level rise. Staff had proposed a change to ordinary high water mark in light of sea level rise. Gordon King: Requests clarification on Option 2 regarding permitting not limiting projects. Lisa Grueter: Some SMPs will address setback of structure but not the height. Amy Leitman had an example from another SMP where there were competing regulations. Amy Leitman: Competing regulations came from Department of Ecology. Because of sea level rise, it would have been a better option for the property owner to build higher than some regulations allowed. Gordon King: Language should be specific about what is not being limited. It seems like a fairly general statement. Lisa Grueter. The last sentence was intended to give more direction. David Wayne Johnson: It is general, but I understand what it is saying. Gordon King: Will the public understand? David Wayne Johnson: None of this language will end up in the SMP as is. This is just about language to guide where to focus regulatory reform. That’s the permitting process, not necessarily environmental protections. No guarantee any of this will be changed. Christopher Kelley: In Local 2020, had also projected sea level rise. If wanted to incorporate a projected rise in sea level through 2050, would need to determine how 22” of sea height would impact shoreline in different areas. If that will be incorporated in the SMP or the permitting process, will you require homeowners on each property to survey and identify what 22” will look like on their property? Can the County come up with a funded survey of their own to mark that boundary around the county, not at individual homeowners’ expense?  D Craig Durgan: Moves Option 1. Christopher Kelley seconds. Marine trades and economic development Option 1: Ensure SMP permitting process does not unduly burden marine trades. Cliff O’Brien Brent Vadopalas Craig Durgan Gordon King Amy Leitman Christopher Kelley Richard Hull Arlene Alen None Ron Rempel Lorna Smith David Wilkinson Option 1 approved by majority.   Discussion of “D” Christopher Kelley: Requests clarification of what marine trades includes. Does it include aquaculture? Lisa Grueter: Includes ship and boat building/maintenance/repair, passenger ship/charter ship activities, fishing and seafood processing, marina and recreational boating, maritime education and training. Includes aquaculture. Gordon King: What is an undue burden? Whenever you try to get a permit, particularly when it’s marine related, I’m not sure how that would impact marine trades. Lisa Grueter: Some of the marine trades have some activities that need to be taken to ensure no net loss. But not put barriers beyond what’s necessary. Gordon King: Who would write the language in the SMP? If we suggest that marine trades should be encouraged, it’s kind of wooly language that doesn’t mean much. Meaningless without specifics. Perhaps practically useless. Ron Rempel: I think it’s helpful because when they start looking back at the Comprehensive Plan, they’ll be able to say that the SMP recognized the needs for marine trades, and when you look at the Comprehensive Plan, more things can go on in association with the area in jurisdiction under the SMP. May not make a lot of immediate change. Lorna Smith: I like option 1 because the original of the SMP was to promote water-dependent uses. Most marine trades would be that – if not exactly, close. Having some relationship to the water, certainly. What seems to be missing in Option 2 is “where appropriate and where public access is encouraged.” The other stated purpose of the SMP is to maintain public access. We often see private property on the shores and the public is excluded. We all want to see more marine trades, we should encourage the opportunity in the county, but we also don’t want to turn backs on the public and the shoreline.  E Ron Rempel moves to use Option 1. Cliff O’Brien seconds Boat Launches. Option 1 – Original: Encourage development of new public boat launches and improvement of existing boat launches in SMP. Cliff O’Brien Brent Vadopalas Gordon King Amy Leitman Richard Hull Arlene Alen Ron Rempel Lorna Smith David Wilkinson None Craig Durgan Christopher Kelley Option 1 approved by majority.  Discussion of “E” Lisa Grueter described the options. No discussion.   F Christopher Kelley moves to accept the item. Ron Rempel seconds. Shorelines of Statewide Significance. Review how Shoreline Management Act purposes are carried out with use allowances and permitting Cliff O’Brien Brent Vadopalas Amy Leitman Christopher Kelley Richard Hull Arlene Alen Ron Rempel Lorna Smith David Wilkinson  Craig Durgan Gordon King Item approved by majority.  Discussion of “F” Gordon King: Suggesting possible changes to the present SMP? Lisa Grueter: Depends if there’s a finding of inconsistency. It would be looking at the SMP for consistency with use allowances. David Wayne Johnson: Might also be able to clarify the shorelines a little better. Gordon King: Seems like opening a can of worms. Without the specifics, uncomfortable supporting this. Who is going to suggest the changes? The commissions were make the changes, but who would suggest the changes?  G Christopher Kelley moves to discard Item G. Brent Vadopalas seconds. Priority Aquatic Environment. Review allowed activities given purpose of environment. Review in relation to Aquatic Environment. Cliff O’Brien Brent Vadopalas Craig Durgan Gordon King Amy Leitman Christopher Kelley Richard Hull Arlene Alen Ron Rempel Lorna Smith David Wilkinson None None Item discarded unanimously.   Discussion of “G” Gordon King: Who’s reviewing it? I thought the Task Force was doing the review, but now sounds like someone else. Lisa Grueter: The scoping document is to identify areas for review, then staff makes the review. Gordon King: problem is suggestions that major changes will be made to the SMP. But not sure if it will become more conservative, more liberal. All this does is tell the Planning Commission to change however they feel. Craig’s original point: Not really sure what we’re doing. Lisa Grueter: This came about because there were not significant differences between Priority Aquatic and Aquatic Environments. Christopher Kelley: Just had some specific questions about why certain things were allowed in Priority Aquatic. This is just asking someone to review one more time and ensure it looks sensible. Gordon King: Not opposed to a review. Just want more clarity. Lisa Grueter: Can add words limiting this to housekeeping review. Christopher Kelley moves to discard Item G. Brent Vadopalas seconds.  Motion to Extend Meeting Gordon King moves to extend the meeting by 20 minutes. Ron Rempel seconds. Unanimous approval.   Motion passes.  Discussion No discussion.  H Lorna Smith moves to delay consideration until there is state guidance. Ron Rempel seconds. Aquaculture. Review net pen policies to expand County capacity for aquaculture. Christopher Kelley Ron Rempel David Wilkinson Gordon King Lorna Smith Cliff O’Brien Richard Hull Amy Leitman Brent Vadopalas Arlene Alen None Craig Durgan Item delayed for consideration until there is state guidance.  Discussion of “H” Lisa Grueter reviewed the item and the potential that the item may need more time than the periodic review allows unless housekeeping in nature. No further discussion.   I Ron Rempel moves to include in the scoping document. No second was made. Craig Durgan moves to table the motion. Ron Rempel objects. No others object to tabling. CAO/SMP Consistency Vegetation/Noxious. Seek consistency in the CAO and SMP regarding existing landscaping and noxious weeds.    Topic tabled.  Discussion of “I” Lisa Grueter introduced the item and referred to the emails transmitted last Friday and that morning. No additional discussion.  Staff Item #35 Craig Durgan moves to table. No second. Ron Rempel moves to accept the change to Item 35 on the staff list. Lorna Smith seconds. Docket #35. Define what is needed in a "planting plan" in subsections 18.25.660(8) & (9).Clarify planting plan related to other SMP standards and definitions with attention to regulatory reform to address implementation needs and avoid unnecessary paperwork and expense. Ron Rempel Christopher Kelley Richard Hull David Wilkinson Lorna Smith Arlene Alen Brent Vadopalas Gordon King Craig Durgan Cliff O’Brien Amy Leitman Motion passed.  Discussion of #35 Craig Durgan suggests that the item be tabled. Not much time to review. Let staff address this. Ron Rempel: If we know what direction we need to go, we should give direction. $5-7k for planting for habitat management plans. Amy Leitman: A simple plan can be under $1k. There are certain criteria where the habitat management plans apply – especially if in a critical area. If there’s no impact or if limited trees, can develop specific standards, e.g. tree replacement.