►
From YouTube: Bothell Shorelines Board - September 12, 2022
Description
CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
July 11, 2022
4. NEW BUSINESS:
5. PUBLIC HEARING: 2022 Shoreline Management Code Amendments (continued)
6. STUDY SESSION: None
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None
8. REPORTS FROM STAFF
9. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS
10. ADJOURNMENT
A
B
So
I
wanted
to
let
the
board
know
that
that
has
not
been
done
and
a
gift
for
a
couple
of
options
on
proceeding.
We
could
we
could
go
ahead.
The
board
could
go
ahead
and
conduct
a
meeting
tonight
and
make
a
recommendation
pending
legal
review,
and
we
could
then,
if,
if
there
was
not
any
substantive
changes
that
came
about
via
the
legal
review,
we
would
go
ahead
and
and
proceed
to
counsel.
If.
B
A
A
B
A
D
C
B
E
B
F
B
G
I
kind
of
like
to
get
it
as
far
as
we
can
tonight,
but
put
off
a
decision
until
our
missing
members
have
a
chance
to
review
the
video,
and
you
know
we
may
have
a
very
short
meeting
in
October
I.
Just
you
know,
agree
with
everything
we
put
together
tonight
or
you
know
they
may
have
substantial
input
that
differs
from
what
we
do
tonight,
but
I
would
like
to
delay
a
decision
until
they
have
a
chance
to
weigh
in.
C
H
A
A
G
B
G
C
D
F
B
F
B
Normal
right,
this
is
a
public
hearing
and
we
will
accept.
We
have
accepted
public
comment
in
writing,
have
not
received
any
anybody
who
joins.
The
meeting
wishes
to
comment
could
can
comment
for
the
record.
That's
a
good
enough
for
three
minutes,
but
we
don't
have
anyone
in
the
queue
here
tonight
so
and
and
I
can't
remember.
If
you
officially
reopened
the
public
hearing.
A
A
A
E
C
I
What
it
looks
like
on
your
end,
so
okay,
excellent,
so
same
kind
of
format
as
our
our
prior
three
meetings.
Just
this
first
slide
here
just
draw
the
tension
with
the
fact
that
we're
kind
of
moving
ahead
with
feedback
provided
by
all
of
you
at
our
July
11th
board
discussion
and
then,
of
course,
tonight
any
new
discussion
and
potentially
a
recommendation
or
might
conclude
the
meeting,
but
remain
optimistic
on
that
front.
I
I
And
so
this
kind
of
text
that
I've
shown
here
kind
of
could
condenses
all
of
the
various
edits
over
the
past
number
of
meetings
and
just
shows
the
most
recent
change
kind
of
with
the
final
proposed
text
and
I
I
can
read
it
out
loud,
real,
quick.
Just
that
fills
are
only
allowed
with
the
conditional
use
permit
when
placed
to
protect
or
restore
ecological
functions
or
when
accessoried,
a
permanent
Improvement
to
or
modification
of,
existing
Bridges
trails
and
Roads
and
after
mitigation
sequencing
has
been
applied
to
minimize
the
impact.
A
G
You
know
I
think
if
you
had
small
piles
that
hold
the
trail
up.
I'd
probably
be
okay
with
that,
and
you
know
I
guess
similarly
with
Bridges.
If
we
make
an
effort
to,
you
know,
make
sure
the
runoff
from
the
bridges
gets
contained
and
you
know
cleaned
up
before
it
gets
back
out
into
the
environment
that
you
know,
like
I've,
said
at
previous
meetings.
I,
really
don't
like
the
idea
of
saying
you
know
we
can
widen
Beardsley
and
widen
it
into
the
flood
plain
rather
than
widening
that
toward
the
buildings.
A
H
H
A
I
Communication
sequencing
is,
is
a
very
broad
term.
That
applies
to
anything
that
has
impacts
and
just
requires
you
to
avoid
minimize
and
then
mitigate
in
any
critical
area,
including
floodplains,
is
required
to
undergo
mitigation,
sequencing
and
I
think
it
even
applies
to
other
types
of
environmental
impacts
that
are
not
necessarily
biological
or
or
I
have.
Oh.
I
The
the
this
conditional
use
language
again,
it's
for
a
conditional
use
permit.
So
it's
not
just
a
a
flat
allowance.
Folks
are
going
to
have
to
demonstrate
through
a
pretty
robust
process
that
they
have
applied
mitigation
sequencing
to
avoid
and
then
minimize
and
then
finally
compensate
for
any
impacts
that
they
couldn't
avoid
or
minimize.
They
also
have
to
meet
the
other
conditional
use,
permit
criteria
of
Department
of
ecology
and
then,
finally,
once
the
city
has
gone
through
its
review
process,
it
goes
to
Department
of
ecology
and
they'll
conduct,
an
additional
review.
I
So
there's
a
a
lot
of
Hoops
and
hurdles
and
barriers
in
the
way
that
will
really
I
think
minimize
the
amount
of
times
this
is
even
pursued
and
strictly
be
limited
to
those
things
where
it
is
a
public
safety
or
a
feasibility.
Question
I
think
that
David
Boyd
has
spent
some
time
talking
internally
to
staff
to
explore
what
are
the
different
options
for
Beardsley
as
one
example.
But
there
are
a
number
of
other
projects
where
roads
may
need
widening
and
their
adjacent
to
a
flood-napped
floodplains.
I
So
this
isn't
just
a
Beardsley
issue
and
again,
like
I,
said,
a
mitigation
sequencing
is
is
included
in
this
language,
but
even
if
it
weren't
mitigation,
sequencing
would
be
required
anyway,
as
part
of
the
application
of
the
rest
of
the
shoreline
master
program
and
other
regulations
to
any
kind
of
proposed
activity
in
a
flood
plain
or
a
wetland
for
that
matter.
But
as
David
Cox
mentioned,
this
is
specifically
speaking
to
floodplain.
Fills
a
wetland.
H
E
H
H
I
I
H
A
C
B
I
Yeah
I
mean
each
project
would
have
to
go
through
mitigation
sequencing,
regardless
of
the
the
footnote
here,
because
that's
required
from
all
for
all
developments
in
the
in
Shoreline
jurisdiction
and
in
the
City
generally
speaking.
So,
but
yes,
I,
think
if
there,
unless
there
are
technical
reasons
or
engineering
reasons
or
some
other
reason
that
I
wouldn't
be
qualified
to
speak
to
where
they
couldn't
do
that.
If
it
were
considered
feasible,
then
that
would
be
something
that
they
would
have
to
consider
and
potentially
chooses
the
preferred
option.
A
H
But
I
think
where
I'm,
yes,
I,
think
if
we
kept
a
Prohibition
it
would
still
be
prohibited,
but
my
challenges
I'm
looking
at
where
it's
like
we're
trying
to
relax
it
a
bit.
So
the
city
has
some
flexibility,
but
don't
worry,
there's
still
a
conditional
use
permit,
which
is
the
highest
standard
and
the
biggest
burden
but
in.
But
if
it's
a
road
we
don't
need
that
right.
D
Either
you
it's
so
quickly,
I
mean
how
do
staff
even
I
mean
there
is
no
conditional
use
permit
Amy
to
our
way
of
thinking
that
do
you
have
any
additional
thoughts,
I
mean
where,
on
one
hand,
we're
saying
you
don't
need
it
if
there's
a
roadway
and
then
you're
turning
around
saying,
but
we
have
the
highest
of
David
said
the
highest
protection.
We,
those
are
two
opposing
that
are.
A
H
Entirely,
if
that's
the
conscious
decision
we
have
high
intensity
now
is
existing.
We
say
that
it
is
allowed
it's
permitted
and
it's
just.
It
should
be
a
conscious
choice
of
the
board
that
that
natural,
the
protection
in
the
natural
environment
applies
for
some
situations,
but
not
others,
and
but
not
others
is
transportation.
So
we
should,
if
we're
doing
that
up.
Yes,.
B
B
H
A
H
Right
but
to
me
I
I
feel
like
David.
Maybe
you
could
help
with
my
understanding
of
this,
but
changing
it
from
prohibited
to
conditional.
The
city's
intent
was
thinking
about
roads,
I
mean
think
about
the
Beardsley
project.
Yeah,
really
you
don't
even
need
to
make
it
a
conditional
because
you
already
have
a
permitted
under
high
intensity,
so
maybe
you
leave
it
private.
It
I
mean
it's
awkward.
H
I
would
want
a
footnote
that
explains
it
honestly
in
the
code,
but
the
cities
to
me
the
hands,
if
you
put,
can
make
it
I
mean
it's
already
there
on
the
figures
but
C
on
page
19
that
gives
the
city
it.
It
makes
it
very
clear
that
that
road
project
is
high
intensity,
in
which
case
the
fill
is
permitted.
So
you
don't
need
to
ask
for
the
conditional
that
would
be
apply
in
other
situations,
except
for
looking
at
other.
You
know
if
there's
other
needs
that
I'm
not
aware
of
like
the
trail
example.
A
D
D
D
Is
the
purpose
of
what
is
the
purpose
yeah?
What
what
you
know?
We
don't
want
to
be,
in
my
opinion,
we're
trying
to
find
some
appropriate
Middle
Ground
so
that
there
is
the
conditional
use
permit
for
or
or
that
is
prohibited
in
certain
areas,
but
that
there's
also
city
has
some
ability
to
move
right.
D
D
Like
the
bridge
that
well
forget
the
bridge
that
goes
over
by
the
Sammamish
River,
you
know
the
one
that's
narrow
that
we
wanted
to
talk
to
100.
The
second
102nd
like
that's
forget
about
it,
I
know,
but
that's
a
road.
So
it's
me
that
would
I
know
that
it's
also
a
bridge,
but
wouldn't
that
count
as
I.
H
D
H
B
A
H
K
Yes,
please
I
was
just
gonna
say
that
ecology
would
probably
be
pushing
to
only
allow
high
intensity
of
existing
right
of
ways.
So
if,
if
something
needed
to
expand
beyond
the
current
map
right
away,
it
would
probably
be
considered.
You
know
natural
if
it
was
in
a
natural
environment.
So
I
just
don't
know
if
there's
areas
where
the
right-of-way
would
need
to
be
expanded
to
to
incorporate
a
new
road.
So
just
just
another
thought
about.
A
I
I
was
just
making
a
note
of
raelyn's
comment
that
that
this
the
specifications
C
stating
that
road
rights
of
way
are
automatically
high
intensity
should
apply
only
to
existing
Road
wide
right
of
ways.
If
I'm
interested
understood
her
correctly
and
not
expansions
of
right-of-ways.
Is
that
what
you
said?
Raylen.
K
D
G
Thank
you
concern
is
how
do
we
deal
with
things
like
100,
second,
where
it
needs
to
be
widened
for
safety,
and
you
know
kind
of
get
a
standard
of
you
know.
You
have
your
car
lanes
and
your
bike
lanes
and
your
sidewalk
and
that
bridge
was
built
before
that
standard,
and
you
know
it's
kind
of
a
environmental
impact
we'd
probably
like
to
allow,
but
we
need
to
limit.
G
I
B
C
B
K
Yeah
and
I
was
mostly
bringing
up
this
topic
about
the
previous
footnote
that
we
were
talking
about.
This
looks
fine
to
me
and
to
be
developed,
doesn't
to
me
breathe
that
it's
an
expanded
right
of
way.
It
just
means
an
undeveloped
existing
right
away.
So
the
highlighted
language
looks
fine,
I'm,
mostly
bringing
it
up
yeah
regarding
the
previous
footnote
to
think
about.
If
there
are
roads
that
need
to
be
expanded
into
the
natural
designation,
then
that
footnote
would
still
apply
because
it
would
be
outside
of
the
existing
right-of-way
right
yeah.
I
I
A
I
C
I
Like
what
started
this
whole
Journey
part
of
it
was
the
what
I
think
it
was
washed
out
the
experience
they
had
working
through
this
and
it
it
said
prohibited
and
they
ended
up
getting
a
variance
because
fills
are
accessory
to
the
proposed
use
or
modification
which
was
permitted.
And
so,
although
it
said
prohibited
in
the
use,
Matrix
it
turned
out
and
RaeLynn
can
maybe
explain
this
better.
I
So
that
was
a
whole
bunch
of
contortions
and
legal
stuff
back
and
forth
between
washdot
and
the
city
and
ecology
and
I
think
it
was
extremely
complicated
unnecessarily
so
perhaps
considering
where
it
ended
up
in
the
end.
But
it
was
the
hearing,
examiner's
recommendation
I,
think
to
to
fix
that
and
not
leave
that
Prohibition
in
there
that
that
precipitated
all
of
this
hurdles
and
hoops
and
and
extra
process,
it's
just
more
straightforward,
I
think
to
to
do
it
this
way,
but
still
again
keeps
all
of
the
very.
I
I'm
not
sure
what
you
missed,
but
I
was
just
kind
of
emphasizing
that
this
kind
of
solves
the
problem
that
the
hearing
examiner
was
recognizing,
with
a
more
straightforward
permit
pathway
rather
than
a
Prohibition.
That
leaves
room
for
a
lot
of
time-consuming
and
expensive
wrangling
by
all
parties,
and
it
still
has
the
mitigation
sequencing
piece
which
is
very
important
and
is
particularly
I,
think
in
conditional
use,
permit
and
variance
permit
cases
very
strictly
adhered
to
and
reviewed
by
ecology
and
and
the
city
and
and
others.
H
B
I
D
D
F
I
Item
next
one,
okay.
Hopefully
this
is
an
easy
one
for
all
the
discussion.
Last
time
we
you
chose
to
retain
the
existing
four
bucket
Wetland
buffer
system
and
the
numbers,
and
all
that
I
did
or
attempted
to
do
with
this.
Subsequent
revision
was
to
add
in
a
very
clear
buffer
table
for
those
applicants
that
don't
want
to
apply
the
minimization
measures,
because
that
table
was
missing
from
the
code.
I
It
just
had
a
more
a
flexible
requirement
that
or
a
suggestion
that
the
city
could
consider
increasing
the
buffers
if
the
minimizations
weren't
minimization
measures
weren't
used,
and
so
this
just
makes
it
very
clear.
Minimization
measures,
one
table,
no
minimization
measures
the
other
table,
and
so
that
had
a
few
little
sort
of
minor
changes
throughout
to
make
sure
that
that
flowed
and
was
clear
and
I
can
pull
that
up.
If
that's
helpful,
the
actual
text
that.
C
C
D
C
D
D
D
D
I
G
Yeah
see
before
we
talked
about
maybe
facing
buffer
size
on
tree
height,
and
we
got
the
memo
that
said
that,
based
on
1960s
trees,
you
know
Alders
or
what
we
had
and
they're
about
100
feet.
So
there's
no
point
in
changing
it.
But
if
you
go
back
to
1850s
before
this
area
was
logged,
there
were
five
common
tree
species.
In
addition
to
altars,
you
had
Western
red
cedar,
Douglas
fir
big
leaf
maple
and
Western
hemlock
and
some
of
those
trees
got
to
230
280
feet
high.
G
So
that
would
be
a
substantial
change
relative
to
what's
in
there
now,
also
with
warming,
we're
likely
to
start
getting
California
trees
up
here,
for
example,
there's
Giant
Sequoia
on
the
Wayne
golf
course,
and
they
get
up
to
380
feet
so
you'd
be
looking
at.
You
know
close
to
400
foot
buffers
if
you
use.
C
I
Okay,
this
had
to
do
with
a
lot
of
discussion
that
we've
had
about
the
30-foot
Bridge
limit
and
I.
Think
the
focus
of
the
last
meeting
was
on
weather
and
how
to
add,
more,
even
more
specific
language,
limiting
impacts
to
to
Wetlands
associated
with
the
restoration
on
either
side
of
102nd
south
of
the
existing
Bridge
Crossing
and
I
worked
with
that.
I
I
So
there's
more
explanation
in
the
memo
of
course,
but
that
was
kind
of
the
the
thought
process
and
I
ended
up
just
thinking
and
discussing
with
ecology
that
sticking
with
what
we've
already
done,
which
is
prohibited
unless
you
have
a
shoreline
variance,
essentially,
should
provide
appropriate
protection
of
those
adjacent.
Wetlands.
A
Okay,
I
I
have
some
comments,
I
think.
First,
one
relates
to
the
recent
discussion
that
you
brought
up
David
Cox,
which
is
this
issue
that
if
there
is
an
existing
Road
there
that
right
of
way
as
it
currently
exists,
you
could
not
require
a
conditional
use.
Permit,
okay,
but
that's
just
for
the
road
right
away
and.
A
A
A
So
I
just
took
a
comment
from
this.
Restoring
Wetlands
is
a
powerful
additional
tool
to
combat
climate
change,
and
this
comes
from
a
study
from
a
scientist
at
Duke
University,
and
it
is
printed
in
the
American
geophysical
Union
carbon
sequestration.
Potential
of
wetlands
is
great
peatlands.
Salt
marshes
and
other
Coastal
Islands
cover
just
one
percent
of
the
Earth's
surface,
yet
they
store
20
of
our
planet's
ecosystem,
carbon.
A
D
A
A
A
It
is
requesting
again
that
we'd
be
looking
at
effects
upon
climate
change
whenever
our
growth
management
act,
which
means
our
critical
areas,
ordinances,
which
eventually
will
mean
the
shoreline
master
program,
considered
climate
change
issues,
but
we
can,
even,
under
the
current
guidelines,
considered
climate
change
issues.
So
just
it's
not
as
clear
that
they
will
be
required
and
that's
simply
I'm
just
emphasizing
that
it
does
that
we
can
consider
this
as
a
climate
change
issue
at
this
time.
D
I
I
have
a
comment:
this
is
Suzanne
I
I'd,
like
it
better.
Where
Amy
proposes
that
language,
because
at
least
then
it's
a
part
of
an
assessment
that
might
have
more
value
and
quantitative.
You
know
analysis
versus
sticking
it
in
a
footnote
and
yeah.
Take
Jim's
point
I.
Think
there's
less
actionable
in
that
Footwear.
It's
not
clear
of
what
a
person
reading
that
is
supposed
to
do.
D
A
J
A
H
I
And
I'll
I'll
look
at
the
full
Wetland
code
again
and
see
if
they're,
because
I
agree
just
a
general
Wetland
delineation
report,
where
you
don't
have
impact
and
you're
not
talking
about
mitigation.
Maybe
you
don't
need
to
try
and
force
a
discussion
of
climate
change.
Carbon
sequestration
there,
but
if
you
were
developing
like
a
mitigation
plan
and
related
assessments
and
documents,
so
I'll
I'll
find
what
I
I
think
is
a
good
place
for
it
and
and
bring
that
back.
If
that
works.
G
G
G
G
G
We've
discussed
some
before
that,
these
time
delays
in
achieving
no
net
loss
or
effectively
resulting
in
that
loss-
and
you
know,
we've
had
these
policies
in
place
for
about
30
years
30
years
now,
and
you
know
we're
seeing
things
go
from
bad
to
worse.
Instead
of
stabilizing
the
way
to
long-tended,
and
you
know
part
of
the
reason
that's
happening
is
you
know
the
time,
delay
and
mitigation
and
achieving
the
objectives
that
it's
intended
to.
J
G
B
A
I'm
certainly
delighted
to
hear
that
and
I
hope
to
expand
not
only
for
this
issue
of
wetlands,
which
is,
we
should
have
thought
about
it,
but
this
happened
necessarily
and
and
also
to
tweet
canopy.
That's
a
number
a
number
of
jurisdictions
so
looking
at
the
tree,
canopy.
Also,
okay.
Okay,
any
other
comments
on
this.
I
I
The
site
potential
tree
height
map,
fish
and
wildlife's
mapper
shows
105
feet
in
this
area,
so
basically
all
of
the
Wayne
Golf
Course
areas
or
105
and
there's
other
places
in
the
city
along
the
Sammamish
River
for
some
reason,
which
show
94
or
100,
as
well
as
105
for
red
Alder
based
site
potential
tree
Heights
in
close
proximity
to
the
river.
So
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
why
they've
got
these
multiple
different
numbers
for
red
Alder.
I
Someone
and
I
can't
remember,
who
now
at
the
moment
asked
that
we'd
check,
specifically
with
fish
and
wildlife
staff,
and
so
I
did
that
and
asked
them
the
question
and
they
just
referred
back
to
the
site
potential
tree
height
damper,
which
again
says
105..
They
did
also
note
that
you
know
it's
a
good
idea
to
plant
taller
trees
within
the
shoreline
buffer
to
assist
with
that
provision
of
shade
to
the
river,
but
that
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
be
linked
to
a
buffer
width.
I
You
can.
Even
if
the
buffer
was
50
feet,
you
could
still
plant
200
foot
tall
trees,
but
that
was
his
suggestion
that
folks
could
plant
taller
trees
in
that
105
foot
buffer
and
also
just
kind
of
thinking
more
broadly
about
the
Wayne
Golf
Course
former
Wayne
Golf
Course
limitations
and
looking
at
the
conservation
easement
that
applies
and
then
other
Shoreline
master
program
Provisions
specifically
for
the
urban
Conservancy
environment.
I
I
D
Oh
I
just
had
a
question:
Amy
I
noticed
on
this
map
that
we
don't
see
the
shoreline,
jurisdiction
and
I'm,
assuming
it's
really
the
site
potential
tree
height
boundary
of
105
like
roughly
and
just
wanting.
Maybe
us
if
we're
going
to
put
this
map
in
anywhere.
If
we
add
the
shoreline's
jurisdiction
to
it,.
I
Yeah
that
the
mapper
didn't
allow
me
to
do
that
and
and
I
sort
of
just
went
back
and
forth
between
the
mapper
and
Google
Earth,
trying
to
figure
out
just
from
my
own
understanding
like
where
the
heck
is
Shoreline
jurisdiction
on
this
figure
anyway
and
I.
Think
it's
just
like
right
about
I
think
this
is
about
200
feet
like
right
in
here,
so
it
was
kind
of
something
like
I.
D
I
use
the
mapper
there's
a
function,
you
know
the
arcgis
function
for
distance
and
it
did
look
like
it
paralleled,
roughly
the
Contour
site
potential
tree
height,
but
I'm
not
sure
what
Our
intention
is
long
term
for
this
map,
but
I.
Just
that
was
one
observation.
I
had
it
would
be
nice
to
see
what
Juris
I
mean
we're
really
talking
about
the
site:
potential
tree
height
for
red
Elder
of
105,
I,
think
near
the
Sammamish
and
you're
in
the
shoreline
jurisdiction
right.
G
You
know,
I
was
saying
that
you
know
the
105
is
based
on
red
Alder.
But
if
you
go
back
before
logging,
you
know,
we've
had
230
280
foot
trees
in
that
area,
or
at
least
the
Upland
part
and
the
Lower
West
part.
It
was
Lake
Washington,
so
there
were
no
trees
at
all
in
that
area.
Historically,
so
we
kind
of
have
a
shifting
Baseline
issue.
G
G
You
know,
230
feet
high
when
they're
through
growing,
so
rather
than
have
that
105
foot
buffer
along
the
shoreline,
keep
in
mind
that
you
know
the
potential
tree
height
here
you
know
is
really
hundreds
of
feet,
not
the
100p,
that
is
on
the
map,
because
I
don't
think
the
100
105
94.
Whatever
is
really
best
available.
Science
for
this
particular
location.
I
And
one
thing
I
was
thinking
about
was
that
at
some
point
in
the
past
this
was
probably
a
more
active
flood
plain,
in
which
case
you
would
rarely
end
up
with
those
mature
Douglas
Firs
in
an
active
flood
plain
depending
on
the
flood
frequency
and
that
sort
of
thing.
So
it
seemed
like
this
was
more
consistent
with
a
presumption
of
a
more
active
Dynamic
kind
of
riparian
area,
rather
than
a
fairly
stable
and
infrequently
flooded,
that
Bliss
fur
or
Hemlock
Community.
But.
G
The
western
part
historically
was
Lake
Bottom,
so
it
wasn't
even
flood
playing.
You
know
the
light
got
lowered
when
they
put
the
locks
in
and
there's
been
a
lot
of,
fill
moved
around.
So
you
know
that's
why
that
area
is
relatively
dry
now
that
you
know
on
the
Eastern
portion
of
Wayne,
where
you
know
historically,
it
was
dry.
G
G
So
those
would
be
the
potential
and
said
the
golf
course
decided
that
they
were
going
to
plant
Giant
Sequoia
and
you
know
with
the
climate
change
we're
experiencing,
it
probably
could
survive
there
and
grow
to
its
full
380
feet.
So
you
know
if
we
shift
the
Baseline
to
you
know
the
present
trees
that
are
there.
G
Yeah,
the
city
has
a
grant
for
the
east
side
of
the
river
and
they
have
a
consultant
who's
working
on
the
plan
right
now
and
that
work
includes
meeting
with
stakeholder
groups
to
see
what
the
stakeholder
groups
want.
And
you
know
there
are
various
restoration
options.
So
thinking
about
adding
side
channels
to
the
river
and
restoring
we
need
a
creek.
There
are
some
wetlands
in
the
upper
part
of
Wayne
that
could
be
reconnected
to
Juanita
Creek,
and
you
know
back
when
we
were
doing
the
grants
to
acquire
the
land.
G
The
reviewers
were
pretty
excited
about
the
potential
to
get
all
that
restoration
work
done,
and
you
know
those
would
be
probably
funded
through
Puget
Sound,
acquisition,
restoration
grants
and
I
think
you
know
after
the
consultant
completes
the
design
that
they
do.
If
the
city
does
decide
to
go
for
a
fairly
comprehensive
restoration,
it
would
be
easy
to
get
the
money
to
do
that.
They're,
not
looking
at
the
West
Side.
A
Indeed,
there
are
limitations
on
it,
but
that
that
it
would,
we
know
we
know
and
as
as
the
as
the
wdfw
pointed
out,
we
desperately
need
to
shade
the
stream
and
reduce
the
temperatures
so
that
so
that,
whether
whether
the
site
contingency
is
listed
as
105
within
that
Shoreline
jurisdiction,
you
could
certainly
plant
plant
taller
trees
there
and
get
more
shading.
So
I
I
hope
that
we
can
work
towards
that
within
the
entire
storyline
jurisdiction,
because
it
clearly
would
be
of
enormous
benefit
and
I
think
we're.
C
G
That's
why
we
got
the
land
so
that
we
could
do
that.
It's
one
of
the
few
places
along
the
river,
where
you
could
reforest
it
without
tearing
buildings
down.
So
you
know
that
was
a
big
selling
point
in
our
grant
applications
and
we
do
have
whale
Scout,
which
is
a
local
non-profit.
That's
meetings
and
restoration
work
already.
So,
even
though
there's
not
significant
funding
to
do
that,
they're
clearing
out
a
lot
of
the
invasive
species,
so
that
when.
K
D
It's
in
oh
I
was
going
to
say:
that's
really
encouraging.
Actually
it's
exciting
to
hear
that
there
are
some
these
types
of
Grants
and
efforts
underway.
I
didn't
realize
that
I'm
wondering,
though,
in
in
the
in
terms
of
what
we're
looking
at
here
with
the
100
foot,
buffer
and
and
I
guess,
I
felt
comfortable,
leaving
things
as
they
are
with
100
foot
buffer.
Is
there
a
reason
that
these
new
initiatives
would
cause
us
to
want
to
change
the
buffer
like
it
seems
with
Amy's
comment
about
the
conservation
measures
in
place?
D
G
G
Like
I
said
there
are
plans
to
put
a
trail
from
Blythe
through
to
the
east
side,
and
that's
you
know
going
to
have
to
you
know
at
least
part
of
it
be
in
Shoreline
buffer,
even
with
100
feet,
but
the
exact
routing
of
that
trail,
you
know,
is
flexible
at
this
point.
So
if
we
decide
that
you
know
we
wanna
150
foot
buffer,
that
would
be
more
appropriate
for
big
leaf
maple
than
they'd
route.
H
This
is
David
Cox
I'm,
just
saying:
I
was
I
lean
towards
leaving
at
the
100
foot,
I
think
for
the
for
this
parcel
of
land
as
well.
It's
very
well
protected
and
I'm,
not
necessarily
opposed
to
a
trail
but
paralleling
the
crossings
are
worse
than
than
paralleling
I.
Think
there's
stuff
that
they
can
do
it
well.
I
We've
had
a
lot
of
discussion
and
I've
prepared
a
bunch
of
figures
before
looking
specifically
at
undeveloped
or
vacant,
or
nearly
vacant
Parcels,
which
would
have
the
potential
to
take
advantage
of
the
shoreline
reduction
option
if
their
buffers
were
degraded
and
they
were
high
intensity
or
Shoreline,
residential
and
I.
Think
at
the
last
meeting
kind
of
at
the
end
of
it,
it
was
suggested
that
maybe
we
didn't
need
it
at
all.
I
Just
in
brief
here
are
some
of
the
existing
conditions
that
these
substantial
or
that
these
single-family
homes
are
in
this
section
of
the
Sammamish.
River
is
a
lot
of
them.
They
have
buffers
significantly
substantially
less
than
the
100
foot
standard
buffer,
which
is
way
up
here
and
in
some
properties.
I
didn't
show
it,
but
it
would
actually,
you
know,
be
like
in
a
roadway,
so
there
really
there
really
isn't
a
way
for
them
to
redevelop
and
get
to
this
100
foot
buffer
and
recognize
this
100
foot
buffer.
I
Without
this
buffer
reduction
option,
and
even
with
the
buffer
reduction
option,
they
have
to
give
quite
a
bit
in
order
to
get
to
them
the
maximum
reduction
they
could
get
is
40
feet,
so
they'd
still
have
a
60-foot
buffer.
That
would
be
basically
restored,
except
for
some
small
carve
outs
for
Access
and
and
that
sort
of
thing,
but
even
that,
even
with
a
reduced
buffer,
it
would
be
a
net
gain
in
the
function
of
all
of
these
Riverfront
properties.
I
D
Oh,
this
is
Suzanne.
I
I
have
Amy
a
concern
about
the
definition.
We
talk
about
substantial
Redevelopment
for
Shoreline
and
high
intensity,
but
when
I
look
through
the
shoreline
master
program,
there
isn't
actually
any
definition
for
substantial
Redevelopment.
We
have
development
and
then
we
have,
and
then
we
have
substantial
development
but
not
Redevelopment,
and
then
we
have
substantial
Improvement
and
both
of
the
definitions
for
substantial
development
and
substantial
real
Improvement
really
focus
on.
Even
though
they
don't
say
it.
You
know
more
kind
of
the
homes
it's
like
exceeds.
D
You
know,
five
thousand
dollars
is
adjusted.
That's
substantial
development
and
substantial
Improvement
is
50
of
the
market
value,
but
we
haven't
defined
Redevelopment
and
my
concern
is
not
so
much
with
the
shoreline
residential
I.
Obviously
we
have
residents
in
the
shoreline
area
and
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
in
2012
trying
to
make
sure
that
they
weren't
unduly
didn't
experience
and
do
hardship
with
the
buffers.
D
But
my
concern
is
with
the
high
intensity
and
we
actually
don't
have
a
definition
for
what
substantial
Redevelopment
is
for
the
high
intensity
environments
and
that
so
to
me,
without
that
definition,
it's
a
carte
blanche
of
buffer
reduction
without
a
real
Clarity
of
what
what
the
the
definition
is
for
the
high
intensity
and
so
I'm
I'm
concerned
about
that
I
mean
what
is
it
we're
allowing
in
high
intensity?
What
what
is
substantial,
Redevelopment
in
high
intensity.
E
I
I
think
it's
the
same
for
Shoreline,
residential
and
high
intensity.
Is
that
it's
based
on
the
cost
of
the
alteration
exceeding
50
of
the
assessed
value
as
a
metric
for
when
an
applicant
has
proposed
changes
or
modifications
to
their
project
that
have
reached
kind
of
a
a
certain
point
where
okay,
you
you're
more
than
50
percent
of
the
assessed
value,
that's
substantial!
You
need
to
deal
with
a
new
buffer
and
or
pursue
formally
A
reduced
buffer.
You
know
offering
up
these
this
menu
of
enhancements.
I
Substantial
development
is
a
totally
separate
thing,
so
maybe
there
is
kind
of
a
word
issue
here
where
it
could
be
confusing,
so
substantial
development
is
defined
by
the
whack
and
the
RCW
and
has
a
very
specific
definition,
so
substantial
Redevelopment.
Basically
our
definition
is-
is
just
this
Redevelopment,
where
the
cost
of
the
alteration
exceeds
50
of
the
assessed
value.
A
A
A
We're
trying
to
kind
of
out
guess
what
the
shoreline
master
program
and
the
act
itself
has
established.
There
is
no
such
thing
in
the
in
the
SMA
and
the
RCW.
They
very
clearly
talks
about
the
50.
There
is
no
thing
there
is
nothing
that
addresses
what
we're
talking
about
today,
we're
making
it
up
and
and
we're
making
and
and
it
there
as
I
understand
it.
A
And
I
I
assume
that's
fairly
standard
in
most
jurisdictions
or
if
it's
a
major
flood
or
something
so
that
that
they
that
can
be
done,
but
I,
don't
I,
I
I
tend
to
agree
with
Suzanne
I.
Don't
think
we
we're
offering
someone
something
because,
as
you
say,
well
it's
difficult
for
someone
to
go
through
a
variance
procedure.
That
variance
procedure
is
in
the
shoreline
management
act
and
required
by
it
for
a
particular
purpose
and
I
think
we
should
abide
by
that
and
not
be
offering
some
other
option.
C
A
I
guess
one
question
I
would
have
too
is
in
your
diet.
It
was
two
the
points
I
would
make
alongside
this.
One
is
in
your
illustration
that
you
have
in
the
memorandum
there
I'm
not
sure
where
this
picture
is
taken
from
in
the
first
place,
because
it
it
actually
shows
a
whole
bunch
of
mobile
home
parks
that.
A
At
the
shoreline
residential,
there
is
very
little
development
for
what's
called
Redevelopment
of
parcels
in
Shoreline
residential
there's,
a
little
bit
along
North
Creek,
there's
3.39
acres
and
along
the
Sammamish
River
0.52.
This
is
the
cumulative
impact
analysis
and
then
it
has
lineal
feet
along
North,
Creek
and
along
the
Sammamish,
but
it's
very
little
it's
a
particularly
long
as
Sammamish
is
361
feet,
so
we're
dealing
with
a
very
small,
very
small
amount
of
land
outside
that's
different
for
the
high
intensity
and
I
would
tend
to
agree.
There's
absolutely.
D
Yeah
Suzanne,
just
this
is
Suzanne.
So
my
concern
is,
you
know
we
have
this
high
intensity
buffer
reduction.
We
haven't
defined
substantial
Redevelopment,
we
really
haven't.
We
don't
have
a
clear
idea.
What
that
is
and
we're
also
the
you
know
the
Planning,
Commission
and
whatnot
are
exploring
the
missing
middle
housing.
I
I
feel,
like
we've
got
all
these
pieces
and
I'm
just
concerned
that
we
don't
just
open
the
door.
I
I
like
Clarity,
much
like
the
theme
tonight
about
what
exactly
substantial
read
about.
H
D
D
That
would
be
how
it
goes
up
yeah.
It
would
be
also
helpful
to
understand
you
know
I'm,
not
really
that
concerned
about
the
short
the
residential
Shoreline
Redevelopment,
but
I
am
much
more
concerned
about
the
impact
of
in
the
high
intensity
areas
and
and
how
we
Define
Shoreline
Redevelopment
in
those
areas
and
buffer
reduction
and.
A
I
would
add
to
that.
Yes,
I
agree,
but
I
am
still
concerned
about
the
shoreline
residential
because
of
the
fact
that,
as
one
looks
at
this
missing
mental
housing,
for
example,
I
have
no
clue
no
idea
at
all
what
this
may
or
may
apply
to,
because
talking
about
it,
putting
throughout
the
city
with
as
far
as
David's
War
up
on
this,
but
not
this,
it
doesn't
be
restricted.
B
H
So,
potentially,
if
I
wanted
to
buy
one
of
these
or
redevelop
one
of
these
bracket,
Landings
once
and
I
thought
it
made
economic
sense
to
expand
it
by
up
to
10,
but
I
want
to
go
forward
so
and
make
it
well.
You
know
two
family
housing.
Instead,
I
could
use
this
variance
process
to
try
and
gain
some
growth.
That
would
be
a
Redevelopment.
It's.
H
A
H
A
I
think
the
way
I
view
this
we're
looking
at
it
with
different
eyes
just
because
for
what
they
need,
it
has
not
been
used.
We
really
don't
have
a
track
record,
except
for
the
high
intensity
that
one
we
know
this
one
and
that
for
the
for
the
undeveloped
land,
I
think
we've
solved,
there's
very
little,
where
we've
taken
that
off
the
books.
H
A
I
I
But
it's
kind
of
hard
to
see
with
these
Maps,
but
a
lot
of
the
whoops.
Where
am
I
here,
oh
on
the
Sammamish
River
I.
Think
this
is.
Is
this
the
lazy
wheel,
kit
right
here
what
I
intensity
there's
some
more
of
that?
There's
I'm,
not
sure
what
what's
going
to
go
in
here.
That's
high
intensity
and
then
there's
all
those
other
single
family
homes
yeah.
All
this
other
yellow
stuff
is
Shoreline
residential,
but
it's
a
number
of
homes.
I
You
mentioned
that
the
whack
doesn't
Define
substantial,
Redevelopment
and
you're
right
that,
essentially
we
made
it
up,
but
I
don't
think
it
didn't
come
out
of
out
of
nowhere.
There
was
a
lot
of
thought
and
this
is
more
kind
of
a
land
use
topic
that
I
think
was
more
Lisa
greeter
from
Burke.
She
was
the
land
use.
Planner
and
oh
I
forgot
his
name,
the
other,
the
city
Shoreline
planner,
who
was
involved
before
pardon.
I
But
again
this
was
a
choice
that
was
made
after
a
lot
of
discussion
back
in
2012
that,
rather
than
set
the
buffer
or
the
shoreline
setback
consistent
with
existing
conditions,
which
is
what
a
lot
of
jurisdictions
did.
They
wanted
to
kind
of
set
the
bar
higher,
but
then
still
provide
opportunities
for
people
to
be
able
to
redevelop
and
modify
their
homes
without
having
to
go
through
a
variance,
because
we're
also
one
of
the
things
ecology
wants
is
not
to
create
situations
where
you
have
just
environment
or
Shoreline
variances.
I
Feet
would
be
their
minimum
buffer
that
they
could
obtain
on
this
property,
which
would
be
an
additional
setback
of
20
feet
if
they
plus
they
would
have
to
do
all
of
the
a
variety
of
buffer
reduction
options
in
this
area,
depending
on
what
they
choose
out
of
that
menu.
So
the
idea
again
was
that
it
would
reduce
variances
that
are
unnecessary,
achieve
Improvement
in
ecological
functions
and
still
provide
a
pathway
for
just
single-family
residential
property
owners
to
modify
their
homes
significantly
and
I.
I
Don't
I
don't
I'm,
not
a
home
builder
or
home
remodeler,
but
I
think
it's
probably
not
that
hard
to
get
to
50
of
his
best
value
in
today's
climate
of
costs,
but
but
that
was
the
whole
entire
thought
and
the
substantial
Redevelopment
again
was.
We
had
to
come
up
with
some
threshold
that
would
trigger
nope.
It's
time
you
now
have
to
comply
with
the
standard
buffer,
and
this
is
what
the
what
the
city
landed
on
is
its
threshold.
I
The
whack
doesn't
Define
this.
It
leaves
a
lot
of
flexibility
to
Shoreline,
to
local
governments,
to
develop
their
own
strategies
and
ways
of
defining
buffers
and
setbacks
and
existing
development
versus
Redevelopment.
So
long
as
in
the
end,
you
are
able
to
demonstrate
no
net
loss
of
ecological
functions
which
which
the
city
did
and
I
think
it
was
Anne.
You
mentioned
some
earlier
mapping
as
part
of
the
cumulative
impacts
analysis
which
tried
to
show
Redevelopment,
but
that
it's
a
little
bit
apples
and
oranges.
I
Oh,
this
is
again
straying
outside
of
my
territory,
but
I
think
it
had
something
to
do
with
the
value
of
existing
improvements
relative
to
some
other
metric,
which
then
on
a
you
know,
a
mathematical
model
sense
was
made
it
likely
to
redevelop
so
it
wouldn't
have
captured.
You
know
you
know
the
random
single-family
residents
that
just
doesn't
like
their
home.
I
The
new
owner
comes
in
and
wants
to
tear
it
down
and
put
their
own
stamp
on
their
property,
so
kind
of
an
apples
and
oranges
thing
there
I'm,
probably
missing
a
few
other
points
and
I
don't
know
raylen.
This
might
be
well
well,
I,
guess
one
one
more
point
I
want
to
make
too
is
that
if
we're
going
to
remove
this
pathway
for
Shoreline
residential
in
particular
and
probably
for
high
intensity
too
I,
think
that
would
be
the
type
of
change
that
we
couldn't
and
David
Boyd
you'll
need
to
confirm
this.
H
H
C
G
C
I
They
can
well
they
the
most
land
remembered
they
can
go
or
river
where
they
could
go,
is
still
60
feet
from
the
ordinary
high
water
mark
so
like.
If
this
house
proposed
a
substantial
Redevelopment
instead
of
being
45
feet
from
the
river,
it
would
have
to
be
60
feet
from
the
river,
because
that's
the
lowest,
you
can
go
under
the
buffer
reduction
options.
They
could
pursue
a
variance
if
they
wanted
to
go
beyond
what
this
buffer
reduction
option
allows
them
to
do,
but
they
could
at
least
get
they
could
just
get
to
60.
G
Okay,
you
know
I,
guess
thinking
in
terms
of
climate
change,
we're
seeing
extreme
weather
events,
so
I
spent
years
working
on
a
compromise
in
the
Klamath
River
Basin.
That
was
based
on
50-year
weather
patterns,
and
you
know
finally
got
everybody
to
agree.
And
then
this
year
we've
got
a
thousand
year,
drought
and
kind
of
the
whole
agreement's
falling
apart.
G
K
E
H
C
I
E
A
I
I
disagree,
so
I
think
I'm
going
thinking
back
on
to
the
discussion
that
we
had
with
wdfw
that
they
specifically
talked
about
the
importance
of
a
minimum
100
foot
buffer
that
would
be
allowed.
That
would
basically
provide
a
a
a
cleansing
of
the
soil
for
pesticides
and
herbicides
and
and
any
other
toxics.
A
So
65
feet
is
considerably
below
100
feet,
and-
and
this
is
this-
is
you
know,
I,
don't
know
if
and
call
it
new
information,
but
it
certainly
is
something
that
we're
all
cognizant
of
now
of
the
importance
of
that
of
that
buffer.
So
we
should
be
incorporating
the
best
available
science.
That's
it
period.
A
Two
I
disagree
that
Amy.
When,
when
this
was
caught
on
the
docket
to
council,
it
was
very
clear
that
consideration
of
this
alternative
buffer
probation
was
included
in
the
in
the
consideration
that
we
are
going
to
be
doing
so
that
I
I
don't
think,
as
this
goes
outside
of
what
was
designated
and
in
the
docket
when
when
this
was
brought
up.
A
And
thirdly,
again
I
bring
up
the
issue
of
the
high
intensity
and
and
again
this
definition
of
what
Redevelopment
means,
because,
for
example,
next
to
the
probably
the
only
piece
of
property
but
I
don't
know,
what's
covered
in
Redevelopment
of
the
high
intensity.
I,
don't
know
if
we're
talking
about
high
intensity
of
significant
high
intensity
along
North
Creek,
for
example,
that
could
be
redeveloped
at
other
areas
where
we
could
be.
We
would
absolutely
not
want
to
have
a
a
any
lesser
buffer
than
is
what
is
currently
there.
A
A
A
But
but
now
you,
when
I,
look
at
the
figures
that
I
just
talked
about
earlier
and
get
showing
the
amounts
of
land
and
the
different
definition
areas
you're
telling
me
they
really.
Wouldn't
we
really
they
really
weren't
viable.
We
don't
know
that
they
were
came
up.
So
we
really
don't
know
what
we're
talking
about
in
terms
of
amounts.
A
We
can
guess
maybe
more
closely
to
the
Suburban
residential
just
because
we're
more
familiar
with
it,
but
the
high
intensity
is
a
very
complicated
issue
and
and
just
as
a
one
one
point
is
back
to
this
definition.
This
security
Gun
Club
issue,
as
I
pointed
out
in
our
last
discussion,
the
property
next
to
that
I,
went
out
and
took
pictures
that
is,
is
not
really
vacant.
There's
an
old
shed
there.
A
So
we
we
when
we
first
talked
about
it.
We
thought
well
that
that
was
it
was
considered
vacant.
So
that
would
come
off,
but
no
there
is
an
old
shed
there,
and
so
would
that
be
considered
redeveloping
that
old
as
a
high
intensity
and
and
with
that
which
is
exactly
where
we
would
not
want
to
see.
Another
type
of
disaster
like
we've
got
down
in
the
security
Gun
Club,
so
I
am
really
close
to
move
ahead
with
this.
A
H
H
A
H
C
D
Well,
I,
you
know
the
more
that
you
have
in
terms
of
a
filtration
distance,
I,
think
that
was
generally
understood,
then
certainly
I
understood
that
then
I
think
David
did
maybe
from
our
technical
backgrounds
I.
My
concern
is
twofold
and
I
think
that
the
you
know
board
as
a
whole
is
feeling
this.
We,
we
don't
want
to
eliminate
options
for
property
owners
to
have
flexibility
in
these
places
where
they,
you
know
they.
They
need
some
flexibility,
the
other
side
of
the
coin.
D
It's
really
undefined
what
the
impact
of
substantial
Redevelopment
is
in
the
high
intensity,
and
that
is
primarily
my
focus
is
what
are
we
talking
about?
What
is
the
impact
to
the
buffers
in?
What
is
substantial,
Redevelopment
mean
for
high
intensity?
Are
we
if
we
allow
the
buffers
to
be
reduced
in
that
area,
and
so
that
was
perhaps
more
my
concern
when
you're
talking
talking
about
a
greater
than
50
percent
development,
now
you're
talking
about
a
pretty
significant
change
and
the
ability
to
apply
for
a
buffer
reduction
in
those
environments
that
was
more
like.
H
A
A
So
that
and
remember,
we've
got
what
three
business
Parks
we've
got
apartment
coal,
which
may
or
may
not
be
affected
by
that
and
and
the
quadrant
North
the
Monte
Vista
yeah,
so
yeah
I
I
agree
more
with
Suzanne.
Although
I
have
some
concerns
about
the
about
the
subs
about
the
shoreline
residential
too,
but
less
concern
than
I
do
about
the
high
intensity.
H
At
the
securite
one,
but
they
didn't
do
the
shoreline
bearings
they
were
able
to
do
what
they
did
without
it,
we're
not
the
variance
but
the
buffer
reduction
and
just
historical
information.
We
did
talk
about
that
those
properties,
including
that
they
can
or
not
vacant
one
next
to
it.
10
years
ago
there
was
some
discussion
of
whether
or
not
it
should
be
high
intensity
or
not,
and
the
decision
of
the
board
was
to
maintain
their
ability
to
develop
that
thank
you,
but
high
intensity.
C
C
D
A
C
I
So
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
you,
couldn't
just
leap
across
Urban
conservancy
and
get
down
to
60
feet
and
there's
also
a
lot
of
I,
think
Levee
and
parcel
boundary
limitations
and
other
sorts
of
things
that
make
it
very
unlikely.
I
think
that
there
would
be
a
lot
of
pursuit
of
buffer
reduction
along
North,
Creek
kind
of
similar
same
kind
of
analysis.
I
I
mean
we
could
do
that
as
the
vacant
and
underutilized
parcel
analysis
that
I
kind
of
did
where
a
lot
of
this
has
got
Wetland
limitations
a
lot
of
the
buffers
where
in
different
areas
are
not
degraded.
So
again
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
pursue
it,
even
if
they
were
immediately
adjacent
to
abutting
the
creek
and
again
you
know
other
kinds
of
wetland
and
other
existing
conditions.
Sort
of
circumstances
are
would
really
limit
their
potential
as
well
to
to
use
the
buffer
reduction.
E
A
I
Yeah
again,
it's
like
there's
a
lot
of
functioning
narrow
but
functioning
buffer
in
here
you
know
and
then
there's
kind
of
the
developable
area
outside
of
that.
So
again
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
pursue
the
the
reduction
to
encroach
into
these
retained
kind
of
forested
riparian
areas
along
here
as
an
example
and
I
think
David
Boyd,
maybe
could
speak
to
this
better.
But
my
thought
was
that
the
council
was
envisioning
like
tweaks
to
the
buffer
reduction
mechanisms
and
and
options
and
stuff,
rather
than
like
a
wholesale
removal
of
a
of
a
pathway.
I
B
But
I
would
I
would
agree,
I
mean
you
could
say
removing
that
ability.
It
is
within
your
purview
in
terms
of
reviewing
it,
but
if
we
are
going
to
remove
an
entitlement
from
a
significant
number
of
property
owners,
I
do
think
that
additional
Outreach
would
be
warranted
and
and
really
wasn't
envisioned
in
in
what
in
in
the
docketing.
D
Property
Owners
unnecessarily
or
impacting
Property
Owners
period,
reducing
a
pathway
without
appropriate
discussion,
and
it's
for
me.
It
was
just
it's
hard
to
know
what
this
means
like
in
the
broader
scheme
of
things.
That's,
what's
really
that's
why
I
couldn't
wrap
my
head
around
it
like?
What
does
this
mean
really
for
for
the
city?
Is
it
just
a
partial
or
two?
Is
it
is
a
bigger
deal?
It
could
have
compromised
the
buffers
in
a
way
that
we
really
would
see
a
negative
impact.
That's
that's
my
concern.
My.
H
A
A
Missing
middle
housing
agus
attached
dwelling
units
and
so
forth,
where
we
would
could
be
very
well
at
more
impervious
surface
along
the
shoreline
and
and
our
no
net
loss
is
the
bottom
line.
But
there's
movement
towards
seeing
that
gain
because
of
all
the
obvious
reasons
and
the
Sammamish
River
is
the
only
major
River
of
North
Lake
Washington,
and
it
is
a
very
high
priority
for
a
restoration
of
any
sort
that
can
be
done
because
we're
in
really
bad
condition.
A
A
That's
okay,
I,
I
I
think
we
have
to
know
first
of
all,
exactly
what
we're
talking
about
and
I
agree
100
with
Suzanne
about
the
definition
because,
but
it
may
mean
different
things
to
different
people
and
then
secondly,
I
think
we
have
to
look
at
it
with
new
eyes.
Let's
see
whether,
but
but
that
may
take
more
Outreach.
C
A
C
H
G
Well,
I
have
a
comment
when
we're
talking
about
Redevelopment
I'd,
like
to
see
it
considered
on
a
building
by
building
basis,
where
you
have
properties
with
multiple
buildings
is
if
you're
talking
about
a
10
expansion
that
one
business
wants
to
do
other
businesses
on
the
property
or
kind
of
staying
where
they
are.
You
know
you
can
get
a
much
bigger
footprint
than
you
know.
If
you
just
looked
at
that
building.
G
So
if
you
said
this
building
can
get
10
bigger
or
you
can
increase
the
value
50
if
it's
done
on
building
basis,
that's
a
smaller
increase
than
if
you
say
well,
you
know
this
property
has
four
buildings
on
it
and
I'm
gonna.
You
know
triple
the
size
of
my
building,
but
that's
only
a
50
increase,
because
there
are
three
other
buildings
there:
sort
of
just
kind
of
avoid
that
as
a
loophole
for
you
know,
I
guess
the
incremental
development
or
larger
developments
by
individual
businesses
who
happen
to
be
on
rented
property.
A
Okay,
Caroline
and
GMU
were
okay
with
this,
so
we've
reached
a
point
where
I
don't
think
we
can
go
either
any
any
new
direction
to.
We
have
one
very
strong
request
for
the
definition
of
what
this
means,
and
so
that
would
mean
that
we're
going
to
have
to
have
some
time
coming
back.
The
question
is:
do
we
want
to
if,
if
we
are
even
considering
more,
what
do
we
need
to
do
yeah
and
do
we
need
to
do
greater
Outreach?
Just
for
this.
A
D
Yes,
I'd
like
to
Define.
It
definitely
I'd
like
to
see
the
impact,
but
I
actually
am
more
comfortable
leaving
it
in
place,
rather
than
trying
to
pursue
a
complete
elimination
of
this
option
at
this
time.
I,
don't
think
that
we're
ready
for
that
I,
don't
think
we
were
set
up
in
this
particular
process
to
do
that.
D
But
but
I
would
like
to
see,
but
with
the
definition
yeah
I'd
like
to
see
the
definite
that
with
the
high
intensity,
if
we
were
talking
about
a
greater
50
value,
what
would
that
look
like?
Would
that
mean
that
we'd
have
buffer
reduction
possibilities
along
North
Creek,
or
would
it
mean
that,
basically,
from
what
Amy
was
showing
us,
doesn't
look
like
there's
a
lot
of
potential
for
buffer
reduction?
That's
going
to
impact
the
existing
buffers?
So
if
that's
the
case,
then
I'd
say
leave
it
alone.
D
D
What
I,
I
actually
have
a
my
biggest
concern,
was
in
2012
was
that
we
have
a
pathway
for
Shoreline
residents,
who
would
own
property
to
have
some
ability
to
redevelop
their
property
appropriately
and
and
I
support
that
I
am
more
concerned
about
commercial
practices
where
there'd
be
a
buffer,
a
request
for
a
buffer
reduction
that
could
impact
North
Creek
or
cause
problems
with
the
Sammamish
and
other
in
other
property
areas.
That's
that's.
That's
really
my
specific
concern
so.
A
J
Well,
regardless
I
just
cannot
get
comfortable
with
changing
property.
You
know
for
those
definitions
and
for
the
very
narrow
scope
that
we
might
find
that
changes.
These
definitions,
I
can't
get
comfortable
with
changing
those
properties,
owners
capabilities
and
we're
going
to
have
a
a
difference
of
opinion
on
this.
It's
pretty
solid
that
that
are.
J
K
G
Or
not
depends
on
whether
people
are
planning
to
expand
horizontally
or
vertically
is,
if
they're
expanding
vertically.
Then
you
know
that's
something
that
we
can
encourage,
and
you
know
it's
not
likely
to
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
water
and
any
restoration
they
do
to
mitigate
that
expansion
would
be
beneficial.
G
J
G
Yeah,
but
we're
also
talking
about
changes
that
homeowners
can
make
to
what
exists
so
there's
kind
of
changes
in
the
law
and
then
there's
changes
on
the
ground,
and
you
know
those
are
different
things.
We
could
probably
use
some
input
from
staff
on
you
know
if
we
do
reduce
their
ability
to
build.
Is
that
a
take
that
they
need
to
be
compensated
for
and
then
also
to
point
and
raised
earlier?
Is
you
know?
What's
the
attempt
of
the
GMA
to
prevent
Redevelopment
that
exceeds
50
percent
of
the
assessed
value?
G
And
you
know,
if
that's
the
case,
then
you
know
we
are
trying
to
create
new
rights
by
defining
substantial
Redevelopment,
and
you
know
that
may
be
a
direction
that
we
should
not
be
going,
but
there's
nothing
in
the
GMA
that
has
that
50
limit
in
it.
If
that's
just
something
the
city
did
historically,
then
you
know,
maybe
we
can
redefine
that,
and
that's
fine
and
you
know
it
may
be
kind
of
raising
that
cap
could
be
the
mitigation
for
limiting
the
direction
that
they
can
build.
H
I
feel
like
we're
at
it.
This
is
David
Cox
I
feel
like
it's
disappointed.
I'd
be
I,
would
I
feel
like
we
need
to
make
a
motion
on
this
and
move
forward,
so
I'm
gonna
I,
don't
think
we
should
take
this
to
another
meeting
I'm
going
to
move
that
we
adopt
the
shoreline
buffer
reduction
with
enhancement
option,
as
proposed
in
the
current
packet.
A
A
A
C
H
A
B
A
G
G
A
card
with
three
Davids
in
the
meeting
I
would
like
to
wait
to
vote
on
this
till
we
have
a
definition
of
substantial
Redevelopment
in
front
of
us
that
was
Legacy,
cabling
the
vote
until
the
next
meeting
and
give
staff
and
our
Consultants
a
chance
to
put
a
definition
of
substantial
Redevelopment
in
front
of
us.
First.
A
D
A
A
D
We'd
already
talked
about
that's
what
it
was
trying
to
say
is
we
were
we
agreed
to
remove
the
reduction
option
for
new
development,
or
we
were
talking
about
that,
but
we
want
to
retain
the
reduction
option
for
substantial
development
for
Shoreline
and
residential
and
I.
Would
my
motion
was
to
evaluate
the
impact
of
the
of
the
substantial
Redevelopment
on
the
high
intensity.
A
D
High
intensity
and
you're,
suggesting
Amendment
on
Shoreline
and
I
have
no
problem,
but
I
don't
want
to
see
the
the
I
I'm
in
agreement
with
the
larger
group
about
keeping
the
substantial
Redevelopment
option
for
Shoreline
residential.
So
I
don't
know
that
we
need
to
look
at
that
because
well,
that's.
A
G
D
G
C
H
D
C
C
C
A
C
H
D
A
C
A
C
H
Ahead:
remove
reduction
option
for
new
development
in
Shoreline,
residential
and
high
intensity
and
retain
reduction
option
for
substantial
Redevelopment
in
the
shoreline
residential
period;
property
request,
additional
information
on
substantial
Redevelopment
and
high
intensity
for
our
next
meeting.
That.
A
C
A
A
A
H
D
A
A
C
A
A
Okay
and
I
don't
know
just
not
because
I
don't
agree
in
context
of
what
you're
saying,
but
I
still
have
some
real
concerns
about
what
we
really
mean
by
substantial
development,
even
as
it
applies
to
Shoreline
residential,
but
based
on
what
what
I
will
hear.
I
would
say.
I
would
be
very
happy
to
change
my
vote,
but
I
just
want
to
know
what
we're
talking
about
her
discussion.
H
B
J
Go
ahead
so
yeah
I
I
still
don't
see
the
I
I'm
opposed.
You
know.
I
would
like
to
accept
it,
as
is
without
any
contingencies
and
moving
forward
without
extending
the
meeting
on
this
I.
Don't
know
that
we're
gonna
move
the
barn
anyway,
even
with
a
definition.
I
think
that
what
we
have
now
and
what
staff
has
put
together
is
sufficient
to
make
the
decision
so
I
do
not
want
to
continue
this
discussion.
I
like
this,
as
is
without
adding
more
discussion.
That's
my
No
vote
and.
D
B
J
C
H
This
is
David
Cox
and
I,
move
that
we
adopt
the
Shulman
buffer
reduction
with
enhancement
option,
as
proposed
in
the
current
packet.
That
would
remove
the
reduction
option
for
new
development
in
Shoreline,
residential
and
high
intensity
and
retain
the
reduction
option
for
substantial
Redevelopment
in
Shoreline,
residential
and
high
intensity.
A
A
G
Yeah
well
I
think
what's
missing
is
the
definition
of
substantial
Redevelopment
and
the
understanding
of
what
that
means
and
I.
Think
after
we
get
that,
you
know
we'd
be
able
to
vote
one
way
or
another
I,
just
kind
of
feel
like
we're.
Handing
out
a
blank
chat
until
we
get
the
definitions
in
place
and
I'm,
not
in
favor
of
a
blank
chat.
G
H
D
D
Me
we
have
the
definition,
but
we
don't
have
the
impact
of
the
definition
and
that's
where
I've
been
struggling
because
I
feel
like
it
could
matter
to
us
in
terms
of
the
buffer
I.
Think
it's
our
board
is
sort
of
split
along
those
individuals
that
feel
more
comfortable
with
the
facts
that
have
been
presented
and
those
of
us
that
are
perhaps
looking
for
a
little
more
reassurance
or
data
to
feel
comfortable,
and
so
there's
a
Continuum
there
of
where
our
comfort
lies.
G
The
Gap
that's
understanding
what
the
environmental
impact
is
and
then
other
considerations
like
what
do
you
do
to
your
neighbor's
View?
So
you
know,
if
you
allow
it
with,
you
know,
say:
We'll
retain
it,
for
you
know
50,
but
not
for
a
hundred
percent.
Then
you
may
be
protecting
views
and
you
know
trying
to
figure
that
out
tonight.
I
think
is
more
than
we're
up
for,
but
that's
something
that
you
know
I.
Think
staff
could
put
together
a
good
recommendation
for
us
to
consider
next
month
that
you
know
we
could
probably
build
consensus
around.
A
C
A
A
H
C
H
A
D
The
data
and
I
just
like
to
observe
in
Prior
meetings
we
haven't
actually
had
a
vote.
What
we've
done
is
request
information
and
then,
when
we've
had
it
come
back
and
and
agreed
or
moved
on
so
I.
Don't
do
we
need
another
motion
or
could
we
just
say
if
we
need
to
meet
in
October?
Would
there
be
a
legal
review
that
could
could
help
us
I
mean
I,
don't
know
about
the
next
steps
right.