Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Great. Good evening, everybody. Welcome. This is the planning commission meeting for the city of Edgewood, 10/13/2025, and we'll call the meeting to order at 06:00.

Our first order of business is the pledge of allegiance. So if you would please stand and join me in the in the pledge. Great. Thank you. Now we'll do roll call, and it's called by the chair rather than staff now. Is that right? Okay. Carly Gillery is me, and I'm here. Tom Green?

Here.

Jan? Here. Thank you. Leila?

Here.

Thank you. Carly? Here. Thank you. And Joanne? As an excused absence. Okay. Great. The next item on the agenda is our consent calendar or our consent agenda. And I ask for a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented.

Commissioner Fury moves to basically approve the consent agenda as presented.

Thank you. How about a second?

Commissioner Church seconds.

Thank you. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the consent agenda passes. Okay. So now we're in item number three on the agenda. It's the citizen comment period. And this period is reserved for public comment on any items that are on or off the agenda. So if we have any citizens in person or online that would like to offer some comment, now is your time.

Staff would just ask that anyone who has comments regarding the three public hearings reserve their comments for said public hearings. But any other topics, please use the raise hand feature online if you'd like to speak on that.

Thank you for clarifying that. Yeah. Item four a is the next item.

We can't hear anything. Of course.

Can you hear me when I'm talking?

Yes. But not anyone in the audience.

Oh, of course. Okay. Thank you for that. So public comment for this moment and on the agenda right now would just be for anything that's not on the agenda. So if you have something related to one of the items in the public hearing section of the agenda, please reserve that for when we get to that point in the agenda. We'll have a similar public comment format for that too. Do we have anyone online?

Seeing no hands at this time.

Okay. And I'm guess I miss what I'm hearing is the folks in the room would like to comment on items on the agenda. Okay. Great. Okay.

So next, we're on number 4a. Let me read my script. So we're conducting a public hearing for the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Implementation Code Amendment. And the format of the public hearing is a one way communication, offering citizens, an opportunity to present testimony on that specific agenda item for the Planning Commission's consideration in our decision making process. So please frame your testimony as a statement of fact or opinion rather than, you know, a Q and A, a live Q and A with Planning Commissioners.

And then when you when it's your turn to provide testimony, please approach the podium. We have a microphone over there so folks online can hear us as well. And then if you're online, you can use the raise hand fun function in Zoom. And we I'm gonna rely on staff to help me, call on folks to provide public comment. And before we start oh, and when you provide your comment, please state your name for the record, and then you'll have three minutes to offer testimony.

So let's call to order the first public hearing, the 2024 comprehensive plan implementation code amendment. The time is 06:05PM. And I'd like to ask staff to provide a a presentation for us.

Thank you, vice thank you, vice

chair. On the topic of the '24 accomplishment plan implementation amendments, under the GMA, we're required to conduct a periodic review and update to the comprehensive plan, which was done in, and adopted 01/01/2025. However, the city still needs to amend its development regulations to ensure compliance with the legislation changes. Since, 01/01/2025, we've already updated, development reg regulations regarding fifty two ninety, permit processing, accessory dwelling units, impact fees, middle housings, and short plat unit lot subdivisions. However, there's additional ones that are all being incorporated with these amendments to finalize out the twenty twenty four periodic update.

These include the manufacturer housing regulations, co living regulations, multiple religious organization regulations, the use of existing buildings for residential purposes, and natural resource land. I'll briefly go over just scrolling through the development regulation updates. And under definitions, we provided a variety of updates for consistency throughout the development regulations and updates to meet state requirements, including items like adding definitions for coliving, definitions for kitchenette kitchen, updating definition for a multifamily design review and design reviews, and variety of consistency updates. As part of the religious organization amendments, we updated the temporary use permits to allow hosting the homeless by religious organizations, which is a requirement of state law. We additionally updated the DP process to be a little bit more clear on the application prop process and allow city the chance to request for revisions and comments.

On the housing incentives program was updated also for religious organizations. So we just updated the these regulations to match the allowance of density increases for a religious organization. On home business, we did a cleanup of it to specifically with the limited home business. Just for clarity purposes, a lot of it is just repeating the home business portion of the code, which is eighteen one hundred and zero seventy. And so we start referring back to that instead of having the exact codes just repeating back to back.

We also updated the manufactured homes based on the updated state legislation. We added new code for the residential use of existing buildings. This is primarily the use of commercial buildings being converted into residential. We do not see that being a high priority for the community being we don't really have those type of facilities available, but we have to have an encode to allow for it. Co living is one of the major updates that we added to this.

It will apply to all zones which are at least six units or multifamily or middle housing, including zones which allow fixed multifamily units as a component of mixed use. Primarily, it'd be focused in our town center, MUR districts. And these provide regulations as we've been working through for parking, what the definition of sleeping units are, shared kitchens, and community facilities. Again, these are all requirements. We the agenda has items that show more detail about the whole process, co living, what it is, how it fits.

If there's any more questions on the co living, I would suggest you go through each one of those documents because it goes into quite detail. But, again, we don't think this is gonna be a item for the city because we just don't have the facilities that really allow for this or the density and transit to really require this, so we don't expect it to be used. Natural resource lands, is title fourteen one twenty, the recommendation here is to fully remove this chapter. As the comprehensive plan has noted, there are no more natural resource lands within the city. As such, this section of code no longer complies with the comprehensive plan, so our recommendation is to re just to remove it.

In the packet, we included the supportive housing type list type checklist from commerce, the periodic update checklist for commerce, and then the CPO determination. And vice chair, that's our staff presentation on that topic.

I just have one quick point of clarification for the attending public. This is not the rezone item that you may be here for tonight. So if you have comments regarding the rezone item, please hold on for the next item on the agenda.

Staff, thank you for the presentation and the clarification. So that's right. We this public hearing is for code amendments for development standards relating to the items explained by staff just now. So if there's anyone here in person or online that would like to offer testimony related to this proposed code amendment, please go ahead and head to the podium and or use the raise hand function online. Do we have anyone online?

All hands online.

Okay. So seeing none, let's close are there any additional staff comments?

None at this time.

Okay. Thank you. So let's close this public hearing. The time is 06:12. Alright. So our second public hearing is the 2025 annual comprehensive plan amendment. Let's see. Let's call this public hearing to order. The time is 06:12PM. Staff, would you please provide a presentation for us?

Thank you, vice chair. And again.

We have the, the public hearings for the 2025 annual comprehensive plan, zoning map amendments in accordance with the Growth Management Act. These may consider amendments to the comprehensive plan, text and map amendment no more than once annually. The, city council on 02/25/2025 approved the final docket via resolution twenty five zero seven six eight. The resolution directed the Edgewood Planning Commission to review the future land use study and map amendment for the West Valley Highway overlay area and make recommendations on whether the proposal or some modification thereof should be adopted or denied. The county planning commission was also directed to review the 2024 composition plan and zoning map for scrivener's errors and consistencies and make recommendation for adjustments as appropriate.

The Edgewood Planning Commission was directed to complete this review and to conduct such public hearings that may be required. Just for the public hearing, I identify what the West Valley Highway study area is along West Valley Highway. The nearest east nearest intersection would be with Drovita. The highlighted black outline area is the West Valley Highway study area. At this time, I would like to have Spencer Easton with SCJ Alliance to present the findings from the future land use study that they completed.

Right. Thank you. And thank you to the planning commission for the opportunity to present to you this evening. Are you seeing my presentation? Yes.

Great. Thank you. So as as mentioned, the West Valley Highway overlay area has been identified as a priority for evaluation of alternative land uses. But according to the Edgewood Municipal Code, any changes to zoning policy must avoid unmitigated significant adverse impacts to things such as transportation, utilities, and environmental features. So the purpose of our land use study was to look at several zoning scenarios and determine whether there would be significant adverse impacts.

This figure shows the current zoning of the overlay area, so it is the area outlined in red. As you can see, portions of it are zoned residential, which is in green, public in blue, and commercial, which is in red. To the West is other areas of Edgewood, but to the to the east are Pacific, Sumner, and a small portion of land that is in unincorporated Pierce County. So Sumner adjacent zoning in Sumner is light industrial and interchange commercial. In Pacific is light industrial and commercial zoning.

And the the small there's a small sliver, kind of a mauve color, which is the Pierce County, zoning, which is zoned in employment center. There are constraints on development within the overlay area. So there is there are steep slopes, up to 65 to 70% slopes in some areas. There are also wetlands and fish and wildlife conservation areas. So there are a lot of of critical areas in the overlay area, and there's also limited utility availability.

Utility infrastructure is is only partially developed in the study area, and water and sewer service availability varies. See. So we looked at a total of four scenarios. The first two, which we have labeled scenarios one a and one b, would both rezone the entire overlay to one new zoning district with the exception of the public zone parcels. So scenario one a would be to rezone to industrial, and scenario one b would be to rezone to business park.

Scenario two would be to rezone to match the zoning in the adjacent jurisdictions to the east. So there would be several different zones based on what the adjacent zoning is. And then scenario four that we looked at for the purpose of comparison was no action maintaining the existing zoning. So I'll I'll walk through some high level conclusions for each scenario. So scenario one a rezone to industrial.

You can see on the map the public parcels remain blue in public zoning, but the rest of the overlay area would be rezoned to industrial shown here in gray. We found looking at the specific uses allowed in the industrial zone compared to the specific uses allowed in the zoning districts to the east that the the uses were fairly complementary to the adjacent jurisdictional uses similar uses. We also found that this had scenario had a low trip generation, and therefore, we found would not have a significant transportation impact. Also, depending on the specific use, the utility demand could be low. Some of the uses allowed in the industrial zone, things like, car washes might have a higher utility demand, but those could be screened out with the utility availability requirements for new development.

And some screening or other mitigation measures might be needed to avoid displacement pressures on the existing residential development in the area. Scenario one b similarly would rezone all of the nonpublic parcels in the overlay area, but in this scenario to business Park. And we found looking at the business park zone and the specific uses that were allowed, things like commercial, retail, supportive care, education, recreation, that they were only somewhat compatible with the adjacent uses to to the east in Sumner and Pacific, less compatible than industrial. We also found that this scenario would have a higher trip generation, vehicle trips, and that could potentially create an adverse traffic impact, and the projected trip generation would require a more detailed technical assessment to confirm what what the impact would be. But similar to scenario one a, this scenario would have a low utility demand.

Then scenario two, you can see, the public parcels again would remain public, but there would be some areas that would be zoned industrial, which is shown in gray, commercial, which is shown in red, or business park, is shown in light blue. So the the purpose would be to match the adjacent zoning to the east, and therefore, this would have a lot of, compatibility with the adjacent jurisdiction zoning, but it would also have the highest trip vehicle trip generation and, again, would potentially create an adverse traffic impact that would would need a more detailed technical assessment and would also have a higher utility demand. Then we looked at the no action scenario, which would maintain the existing zoning. There would continue to be incompatible residents residential uses compared to the light industrial uses to the east. It would continue to have moderate traffic trip generation.

The low intensity residential use would support preservation of critical areas in that area, and infrastructure and environmental constraints would continue to limit the development feasibility. So our final recommendation was a rezone to industrial. We found relatively few daily traffic trips. Many of the industrial uses would place a low strain on utilities, and the city's utility availability requirements would screen out uses that would cause an issue. We did, after finishing the report, got a memo from Sumner that they looked at their utility capacity, and they looked at this this scenario and the potential build out and felt that it was consistent with their available capacity.

At full build out, it might require some system upgrades, but very doable system upgrades that would certainly not constitute a significant impact. We also found that this was aligned well with uses in the surrounding jurisdictions and would create more regional compatibility. But one concern would be the need for engagement with current residents, to see if there were potential impacts and void to avoid displacement pressures. So that was our recommendation, and that, brings me to the end of my presentation. So thank thank you for the opportunity to present to you this evening.

Thank you, Spencer, for your presentation. The future land use study was provided in the packet materials under attachment d. If anyone would like to have a full review of those analysis. As Spencer was mentioning, with the recommendation, it was to industrial. The staff report documents identified the area being rezoned from r one to industrial to as part of that process, amendments needed to be consistent with EMC eighteen sixty two hundred, basically determining that it's consistent with comprehensive plan, community needs, critical areas, those those criteria.

As we were working through this document, we wanna make clear that this doesn't necessarily mean that any of the existing residential homes suddenly can't be there. They are allowed to continue as grandfathered into the use and can still be expanded. Additional units can be added. It doesn't change the the existing uses on those properties that currently are there. However, nothing would stop a neighbor from selling the property and then some industrial use moving in to mitigate for any impacts.

The city code requires landscape buffers and screening, so there would be some design review considerations, landscape, and additional screening. And we would focus on making sure that the residents themselves are not impacted visually aesthetically from these industrial uses. So, again, they would and primarily, as the as as Spencer mentioned, that area is highly constrained by the steep slopes, critical areas. So we didn't, in our discussions, think that'd be, like, warehouses would move in. It'd be more of the construction yard.

The typical businesses that have moved in, I wanna not say illegally, but not permitted, those would probably be more would be actually be permitted, but we didn't expect to see any major industrial development like you see across the street in Sumner. So that was the item being proposed. I'm gonna call this just the item one a for this review because the annual amendments also include text and scribner error consistencies updates, which are provided on on on the screen. And these are just finding errors inside the comprehensive plan themselves that just needed to be updated, either scrivener's errors or parcel not being fully accurate based on the the county data at the time of the comprehensive plan starting process, which was about 2024. So we there's also for one b, the zoning map, comprehensive map plan, perimeter errors, inconsistencies as shown on your screen.

Oh, couple of pages of them. Most of them are just minor text table update as we go through. Lastly, while we are in in the comment period, the CEVA comment period right now, we have received comments from the Peelope tribe. We received comments from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Washington Department of Ecology. We have looked at those comments, but we're not ready to respond fully to those comments at this time, and we'll further discuss those in discussion and have a written response to those at a future meeting. And that is it for the presentation for this item.

So with that, staff, again, thanks to the public for attending this evening. Want to reiterate what the vice chair stated at the beginning of the public hearing section of the agenda tonight. This is an opportunity to provide your comments to the planning commissioners for their consideration. It is a one way communication, but that is in no way meant to discourage you from having questions about this whole process. Unfortunately, this is not the venue for those questions. Staff is more than happy to have a conversation with you after the meeting to to go over any questions you may have, but at the same time, encourages you to make any comments you might have regarding the proposal before us. Thank

you, staff. So let's open the public comment period. Let's start with folks in the in the room. If you'd like to offer comment, please go ahead and approach the podium. State your name and, three minutes apiece.

Hello. My name is Monte Munson. I guess I I probably have a lot of the same concerns as other folks here. You know, I my family lives down on West Valley. We don't have a very large piece of property. You know, we have roughly about an acre that's flat. I don't see what could be really done with it industrially. I guess I'm here. My biggest concern is is my property value and and what industrial zoning could could do to it. Also, the resale of my property.

I've been doing some research and reading and found that I may not be able to sell my property as to as a as a residence for for single family living. Right? So it my understanding is that through this rezoning, I would only be able to sell as industrial, which to me is makes my property completely useless, and I don't understand why anybody would be interested in it for that. I could understand maybe light commercial, like, maybe somebody could put an incredibly small car lot on it or something like that. But it is an extremely wet property with a lot of water draining into it, and I don't see the use for it.

So that is my biggest concern, and I will stay here and and ask questions if that's how it it works. But, really, I I do appreciate the clarity on what we can do with our properties to retain them, you know, improve them, those kinds of things. But then, you know, as somebody that has been working on his properly property for a long time. You know, I have a 100 and my property is well over a 100 years old, and I'm actively have been restoring it for the last eight years, and I take a lot of pride in that. So a lot of this, what I'm hearing from you guys is encouraging in the fact that, you know, maybe that's not gone, but at the end of this, I would like to know that my hard work doesn't mean that my property value is gonna diminish and that my family's gonna be looking for somewhere and all my hard work is just gone.

You know? Because that's you know? I work hard, and my my house is my retirement. Like, that is what we've put our money into. That is our livelihood. You know? We don't have a lot of money. It's everything goes into that property and bringing it up that one day, you know, we'll be able to sell it and actually get our money back out of it. So, any any clarity with with any of that kind of, you know, thought, I I believe other people would probably be interested in that as well, but that's that's my biggest concern. You know, a lot of the property that's outlined in there to me is looks useless for for industrial.

Like, it it really is. Like, I mean, I'm sure you guys have have all been down there. You know what's down there. It's a lot of small houses that are slammed right up against West Valley. And, you know, it's I don't I don't see the motivation behind it, quite honestly. Like, I I really don't. So thank you for hearing me.

Thank you for your comments. Others?

We do have

Yeah. We have a couple in the room. Thank you.

Sorry. I didn't, clarify upfront. It's three minutes.

My name is Katie, and I kind of have a lot of the same concerns that were obviously previously spoken. And I will, of course, will stay for afterwards for the questions, but some of the concerns also. I've been in my home in that area for thirty years. Same thing. I've put a lot of money into into fixing it up and making it my home.

So there is concerns as far as what impact this has or if at some point, you know, resale value or if something changed a few years down the line where we are then potentially forced out of our homes if there's something that wants to be built and constructed there. Washington State is the fifth highest most expensive states in The United States cost of living. My home right now is valued low to mid fours. I'm fortunate to have my home and have it paid off. I'm a single income home.

I make good money, but I don't make what could be offered for my home in that area. I'm not going to find anything in this area for low to mid fours. You are going to I live on a five house street. There's retired couples that are on my that are on my in my neighborhood that are on fixed incomes as well. You would force us to potentially have to leave our homes that we've lived in for twenty or thirty years and move somewhere undesirable.

That's Lakewood, Spanaway, or somewhere out that's, you know, less desirable area, high crime area, fixer uppers. I mean, that we would have to the the the cost of living right now in the home, the market right now is high priced. It wouldn't even be feasible for some of us that are on our homes to have to be forced to sell or be bought out to then buy something and relocate and not even be able to live in the area that we feel safe in, or have to buy a home and take out an extra loan. And then and also with that, have to put in money to to, to fix it up. I mean, I've looked at the market, because I've looked at moving a few times, and the market's just not desirable.

And there's a lot of us on our street that are fixed incomes. So this is kind of kind of an uncertain process that I will ask more questions later to kinda know the details. But this would impact a lot of a lot of people and a lot of people that have been in this area for, like I said, twenty to thirty years.

Thank you for your comments. Others?

Hi. My name is Gurvinder Kera. Unfortunately, I disagree. I think trying to get commercial is great. It's like, my reason would be, like, it's extremely loud there. We just moved over there. It was it's a bit loud for a house. I think if, yeah, if you guys do turn a commercial, I'm on board. I think that'd be great.

Thank you. Staff, do we have folks online?

We do have two hands online. I'm gonna recognize Jorah first. You would unmute yourself and and Hello. Please.

Can everybody hear me okay?

Yes.

Hello. Yes. Me and my family, we also live on the same road, and we've been living here for almost a decade. And we think that this is a great initiative that the city is doing. We are really proud at how far the city has came in developing these new amendments and the proposed change.

I think this is gonna bring a lot of opportunity for the city. And I think it makes sense that everybody has concerns, which I'm sure through dialogue can be addressed. But overall, I think this is a great initiative. We support it. It supports everything that is around that corridor is industrial, is light industrial.

That whole corridor should be industrial, and it's about time that the city of Edgewood, you know, rezone the property for that. I think that has become evident with the history of people that have been using it for commercial or industrial purposes, whether legally or illegally. And I think that, you know, this is a great initiative overall by the city. Everyone's on board. If there is houses on that corridor and the property changes to industrial, that's not going to mean less money for, you know, the homeowners.

And I can only think of good things that it might bring. You know? Now if it was changed to commercial, that could be a concern because of just the amount of sheer amount of traffic and things like that that might affect the homeowners. But I think industrial is the appropriate right step for the city to take, and we fully support it. And, you know, we think that the city should go through with this. And that that's all for now.

Thank you. We will now recognize Samsung. You would unmute yourself. And

Hello. Is that me?

Yep. We can hear you. Yep.

Well, my name is John. And I live to the west of that, and like one gentleman said, it's loud. And if it gets to go more industrial, it's gonna get louder to the people on the ridge. So just with that in mind, I'm I'm not for this.

Thank you. Next, I will we will recognize m Crater. You would unmute yourself, please.

Hi. My name is Angie. I am actually a neighbor of Katie's who spoke earlier, and I am very concerned about the amount of traffic it might generate as it is our West Valley. We live right off West Valley, and it is so busy, especially with the 167 right now. We can't even get out of our own driveway.

It is I can only think that if this becomes industrial, yeah, you say it's gonna be warehouses, but that means more trucks, more truck traffic, probably all times of the day and night because, yeah, we hear it across the freeway, but, personally, it's not that bad. I guess our house is built real well. I don't know. But it just I am very concerned about the additional traffic that it would generate having industrial that close to us. Thank you.

Thank you. And that appears to be all the hands we have online, Sharon.

Thank you for all the public comments tonight. Are there additional staff comments before we close the hearing?

Yes. I recommend anyone that can stay to the discussion item. There'll be more discussion on this topic when we get to the discussion items.

Thanks for that clarification. And staff is committed to staying a little bit after the meeting as well to answer questions. Great. So let's close this public hearing. The time is 06:40.

And we have one more public hearing on the agenda. The critical areas ordinance update. Let's call this public hearing to order. The time is 06:40PM. Staff, will you please provide a presentation?

Thank you, vice chair. Yes. Let me share my screen. We are here for the public hearing on the 2025 critical areas ordinance update. The, purpose of this update is to update a critical area ordinance to, as required by the Growth Management Act as part of the ten year periodic update.

And, again, as mentioned earlier, the, 2024 countermeasure plan, was up, updated in December 2024 and effective January 1 at twenty '25. Critical areas are lands that are natural hazards or lands that can pose risk to life property in areas and support unique, fragile, or valuable resources. These include wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geological hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife conservation areas. Critical areas provide functions and values such as water quality protection and enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, ledge storage, protection of drinking water in quality and quantity, erosion and slide control, protection for natural hazards, and recreation. The city or Edgewood critical areas are regulated under title 14 critical area critical areas.

As part of this process, staff and the planning commission have been working through the best available science to update the city's regulations to, match that best available science. It is a pretty intensive update that includes a lot of changes, so I'm gonna walk through them more generally here. But the all the updates have been provided as attachments through red lines, and, more details are provided in the summary, for each item. Under general provisions, we have updated the purpose, the applicability, and administration to match the best available science and requirements for the type of permits. We updated the critical area protector measures to clarify what they are, when they're required, the applicability of the building setback, and posting of notices of application.

We updated the clarification on critical area reports. We updated the clarification on mitigation plans. We updated the variance process for the critical areas to allow applicants to request critical area variance to reduce certain buffers or hazard hazard standards. Branches shall require hearing exam or approval and special criteria apply. We also updated and provided new alternative criteria for, wetlands and fish habitat.

We updated the appendix. We updated all the definitions to match the best available science. Just to name a few would be, Adrombus fish, critical areas, best available science, aquifer recharge area, erosion hazard, slopes, priority habitat, or riparian management zones. We updated the use and activity, exemptions, based on the best available science about what is what would, and by exemptions, meaning, they're exempt from the requirements of the title 14 and addressing those, standards, except for some standards still require, mitigation to avoid no loss of habitat function. We clarified the nonconforming use structures and reasonable use exceptions.

Under wetlands. Yep. Yep. Wetlands. We updated the buffer standards, again, better align with the Department of College 2014 wetland rating system and most recent guidance.

We removed one of the tables, and it said required 33% buffer addition of the mitigation measures provided in table fourteen forty. The 32 is not provided. This is because the two tables were causing confusion for applicants, but reducing it to one with the clarification language was needed. We also updated wetland ratings or categories retained but with clarified with tie ins to buffer standards. We added functionally discounted buffer statement, stating that if, there's a significant improvement in the buffer, for example, if the buffer extends across the street, that I would actually end at this significant improvement street, but wouldn't go across the street because it's functionally disconnected.

We updated the wetland review procedures, allowed activities. We also, specifically with the wetland review procedures, we, verified the one family dwelling wetland certification process, that just needed updated language for clarity. The biggest part of this update was the mitigation requirements. It was a wholesale update to align with the, Department of Ecology guidance. Most of it was just providing additional guidance.

It didn't change any specific, requirements or mitigation ratios. It was just how to better, meet those standards. On fish, wildlife, and conservation areas is probably the single biggest change in our critical areas ordinance based on the changes in best available science. Yep. Oh, as part of that, we've also updated the what which includes priority habitat and species, small natural ponds, flood hazard areas, waters of the state, docked water bodies, and protected lands, and including streams and waterways.

The biggest item here is the buffer standards, the Fish And Wildlife Conservation Area for piping. Based on the best available science and discussion with planning commission, the recommendation is to retain the buffer terminology. The riparian buffers, required must be consistent, consist of undisturbed native vegetation along water bodies and have a standard buffer width of a 100 feet for all streams. Right now, our code talks about type s, which is a shoreline stream. We don't have any of those, so we're recommending that removal.

Type f, where it would remain, a 100 feet, and that's, type f for clarity is a fish bearing stream. Type n p and n s are a variety of nonfish bearing streams. Those buffers would be increased from 60 feet and 30 feet to a 100 feet. And the extent of buffer would be measured ordinary high water landward from the ordinary high watermark. We did updates on riparian non riparian buffer averaging to ensure no net loss.

We did include administrative buffer reductions as part of the proposed guidance. We clarified the review procedures and allowed activities. In part of that, that clearing grading erosion control in fish habitat areas or buffers are allowed only in critical area or when the critical error report shows result measures have been provided to avoid and mitigate the impacts and no net loss and identified what requirements are needed for that. In aquifer recharge and wellhead protection areas, we did largely focus on clarification language so that there was no specific updates to the maps or buffers for this. Those primary identifying the review procedures, clarifying the aquifer recharge standards.

A lot of times it was causing confusion for applicants, so we just clarified those based on the best available science and updated the assessment reports. On volcanic hazards, this is another one that didn't have any significant updates, primary consistency updates, and how the review process is done and updated to prohibit grading during, the wet season unless a geotech report was provided. Seismic hazards also didn't have any specific, updates other than clarifying and consistency updates. On the erosion hazards, we did make some changes on the erosion hazards because it there was section there regarding shoreline standards. That was a carryover from Pierce County.

We removed those as we don't have any shorelines and did clarifying updates and requirement updates. Additionally, we offer that's not what I was going through it. Frequently flooded areas only had one minor update. The last update to the freaking frequently flooded areas was done in 2021 that followed the state model ordinance. Talking a lot now.

I'm forgetting. As per eighteen sixty zero twenty, the plan has authority to make recommendation and propose amendments. We believe that these conform with the GMA, that these conform with the comprehensive goals and comprehensive plan. The proposed amendments for the area, which look here substantially changed. We have new and best available science, so that criteria is met.

For the assumption upon the cease comprehensive plans based on no longer valid, again, same criteria that best available science has changed, and they reflect the currently well held values of the residents. I would like to note here that we have had received comments from fish and wild Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Natural Resources. They had provided we had met with them before the dosing documents went out. Many of their comments have been incorporated with the updates here. However, not all of them because it took additional time.

We'll and we were we weren't sure if additional comments were really provided during the actual comment period because they were provided before the comment period started. And, so, we have not received any additional ones, so we'll be compiling those and providing specific responses to any upcoming meeting. And that's it for the presentation today.

Okay, staff. Thank you for the presentation. So if there are folks in the audience that would like to provide comment on the code amendments to critical area ordinance, please, now is your opportunity. Staff, do we see anybody online?

Seeing no hands online.

Okay. So seeing none, we'll close the public hearing on the critical area maintenance update, and the time is 06:52. Okay. Great. So now we're on the portion of our agenda under discussion items a through f. So this is the part where, some of the com the commissioners get to ask staff questions. So, staff, will you help lead us through this portion of the agenda?

Yes. Thank you, FaceTruck. The first item is the 2024 concert geez. Talked way too much today. 2024 comprehensive plan implementation amendments. We had the hearing. The documents are provided in the agenda item four a. This has been an item that we've had discussions at, at least two other previous meetings with little comment back on those changes, but there haven't been any significant changes since our last meeting. And we invite the planning commission, to review and discuss any of the materials and request staff to prepare any final edits for formal recommendation to city council for at the next meeting.

Thanks, staff. Like you mentioned, we have talked about this item a number of times. And there's been, excuse me, a number of directives from the state level that have sort of instigated all of this work. So I'd like to ask my fellow commissioners if you have questions or comments for staff after today's public hearing. Commissioner Church. Go ahead.

Hi. I did notice, a little more detail, regarding the the development by religious organizations. And I was wondering if we could take a moment to look at that area in the documentation where it provided somewhat of a development bonus to those organizations for providing housing, for unhoused families, if I understand it correctly. And I was wondering I'm sorry. Did did you wanna say something, Steph?

No. You you can continue.

Okay. And so I was just wondering, with that consideration, have we also thought about future needs that, different communities, like unhoused individuals that may come into our community might need? So I guess, basically, what I'm asking is if the the updates include the ability to provide a bonus for religious organizations to provide more housing, for unhoused community members, are we also making other plans to provide more community services as well for them, seeing as if we have more community members of of different backgrounds and and different needs and financial needs, are we also considering what other developments we might need to plan for?

Great questions. We have not done that type of analysis of what that actually mean. These are state law updates that require us to allow bonuses, density bonus, for religious organizations under these specific criteria. So all we have done at this time was to update the code to allow for that. We have not dived into other changes to other various codes or what that might mean for any other services just because it is a state law requirement.

So our first initial action was to get it in the code as required, but there is opportunity to discuss what that means also to for different codes for different development regulation updates.

Thank you.

Other commissioner comments or questions?

Okay. Seeing none, I heard and read in the agenda that the next step then would be for us at our next meeting in November to offer a recommendation to city council. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. So we look forward to providing that recommendation in November. Okay. Great. The next item, the next discussion item is the 2025 annual comprehensive plan amendments. Staff, you wanna walk us through that, please?

Yes. We held the public hearing this evening on the 2025 annual comprehensive plan and zoning map draft amendments. To kind of, a little bit further describe the process, The city council needs to make a final recommendation by the end of the year on the total annual amendments in order to meet this state requirements. There's the two items under this. There's just the the future land use map and zoning map changed from r one to industrial for the West Valley I mean, study area.

And then there's the other item, which is the Scrivener's text and comprehensive text and map updates to correct some errors. During the comment period, we did receive comments from the Philip tribe, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Ecology that had concerns with the rezoning of those properties to industrial. And now I'd like to let community development director, Metzar, go a little bit further.

Thank you, Josh. As as you mentioned, we did receive some substantive comments from other agencies with regard to this rezone proposal, and we are under a tight deadline to adopt, modify, do something by the end of the year in order to allow staff to more thoroughly review the comments and coordinate with those agencies on an appropriate response. Staff's recommendation would be to actually table that particular item on the docket. And in order to do that the cleanest way possible after consultation with council, our recommendation to the planning commission would be to suspend the rules and take an action tonight recommending that the city council effectively remove the West Valley Highway overlay study and rezone item from the 2025 comprehensive plan amendment docket, but, encourage them to revisit that with the 2026 comprehensive plan amendment docket. So not trying to, squash the item, but, again, allowing for more time for further environmental review of study.

So to follow-up on that question for staff, that sounds like it would also offer opportunity for the folks who have provided testimony tonight and others to chat with y'all about their questions and concerns.

I absolutely would. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. So suspending Robert's rules of order, I heard you say that. What do you need me to say in order to do that?

Believe we would need a, motion and a second from the commissioners to suspend Robert's rules, and, and then a follow-up motion would be to then take rec rec action on a recommendation to the city council as previously discussed.

Commissioner Fury, so I move that we suspend the Robert rules, and then I'll follow-up with a motion to send the 2025 amendments to the 2026 doc doc. Is that correct?

I'll I'll just Yes. To simplify, we'll let's just work with the suspension motion first.

Okay.

Thank you, commissioner Fury. Do we have a second?

Commissioner Linwa, I would like to second that.

Thank you, Commissioner Linwa. Let's have a vote. All in favor, say aye, please.

Aye. Aye.

Those, those opposed? Hearing none, the motion passes. Now we're on to our second motion.

So, again, the suggested motion would be to recommend the city council remove West Valley Highway steady and rezone from the 2025 comprehensive plan amendment docket and add it to the 2026 docket as as that is appropriate.

Thank you, staff, for clarifying that motion for us. Do we have a a motion?

Well, commissioner Fury will try again as as you so move. So move. Okay.

Thank you. Commissioner Fury, do we have a second?

Commissioner Church seconds.

Thank you, Commissioner Church. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion passes. So in addition to staff staying committing to stay after the meeting to chat with folks in the room, it sounds like we have, at least another year to work through some of this.

I'll I'll just kindly clarify. Hopefully, not an entire year.

Oh, sorry. But staff's available for question and answer afterwards and, moving forward. Thank you.

As as I show, the item still left is the text, discriminatory errors, and map updates. Bank commissioner have any comments or questions on that item. I'm happy to answer.

Thank you for clarifying that. That was that was one b, part of the of the proposal. Okay. So the we saw a lot of proposed changes to the code or to the text, and a lot of it is not dimininous, but what was the word that you used to describe that? Nonsubstantive. Nonsubstantive. Right. Typos, errors, etcetera. So commissioners, are there comments or questions? Alright. Hearing none. So next steps then, we'll see this on our agenda in November. Is that correct?

Yes. And then for the general public, what the as long as city city council does also approve this change in the annual docket, we will be renoticing SIPA just for the text amendments and removing the overlay study rezone out of it. So you'll get an update on that if city council approves that.

Thank you for the clarification. So next on the agenda then is discussion item five c, interim zoning ordinance. Staff, please walk us through this one.

Thank you, vice chair. Juggling a few mice here. So, we put this item on the agenda following the prior one because they are somewhat related. We've been having conversation about the interim zoning ordinance again for for several months. Planning commission is charged with reviewing the interim zoning ordinance that council enacted earlier this year and coming back with a recommendation.

With with the West Valley Highway overlay study, we were looking at this kinda falling in line with that. If if there were properties that were gonna be rezoned to add employment figures, then there might be some things that may or may not need to be tweaked along the Meridian Corridor, specifically in the Business park zone. So with tonight's action, that takes a little bit of a different trajectory, but not, significant in staff's view at this moment. But, staff will gather ourselves and and come back with some more information for the planning commission's iteration. But we do believe that we're at a point where we can entertain scheduling a public hearing on this item now and eventually get to a recommendation to the council before the end of the year.

As summarized in the gen in the staff report before you, we're proposing some red line changes to the interim zoning ordinance based on feedback we've received to date. Stepping back from the 50% commercial building footprint language instead focusing on minimum ground floor building frontage along arterial roadways. Also, focusing on the zoning district purpose statements to align those with the 2024 comprehensive plan goals and policies, and once again allowing residential uses in the business park to zone. We'll be working on that in the coming weeks. But that's really it in a nutshell.

Happy to take any questions commissioners might have this evening. Again, we do feel that we're at a point now to bring this forward for a public hearing next month, but we have we have until March 2026 for the interim zoning ordinance to formally act on something. Well, I I will say there's not not pressure to have a public hearing in November, but, I don't think there's any reason to put it off from staff's perspective.

Thank you for that, staff. Question before I ask commissioners if they have questions. I heard you mention its relationship to the overlay. Can you can you describe that differently? I don't know if I understand what you meant.

Yeah. Thank you. So in the Business Park zone, there are just a handful of parcels available for development at this time. And staff's concern for that zone in particular is that the one of the main purposes of Business Park is for employment, which is why the interim zoning ordinance disables any new residential development in that zone. With the West Valley Highway overlay study recommending the rezone of the that area to industrial, then we would have seen an increase in potential employment figures in that area, which the loss of the potential loss of employment figures in the Business Park zone, we could easily justify by the gain of potential employment in the industrial zone.

But now that we're taking some more time to evaluate that, staff still feels it's once again appropriate to allow for residential development in the Business Park zone, because there there are still other areas of the city that allow for employment opportunities. And, we do recognize that, while maybe not to the level of employment figures was originally thought of multifamily and some residential developments do provide employment opportunities just as a part of them being built and maintained.

Thank you for that clarification. Commissioners, do we have comments or questions for staff? Commissioner Church?

Yes. Hi. I guess I just I was wondering if you could clarify that a little bit, what you just spoke about as far as employment and the understanding of employment across different zoning. Is there I'm I'm trying to want I'm trying to figure out the benefit of providing employment in an industrial park. I'm wondering how that employment opportunity is tied back to our our community benefits specifically, other than knowing that, you know, jobs might be made available in the future if there's more businesses.

But we have no guarantee that the people who are employed at those future businesses would actually reside in our city. So I guess I'm just still wondering, like, how does that, you know, benefit our our growth?

Thank you, commissioner. I can

answer that one. The comprehensive plan has allocated growth targets for both population and employment. Our numbers are allocation and then dividing that up between the different zones are focused more into those that do develop more employment numbers. So Business Park was originally meant to take more of our employment allocation. However, as time has gone on and other developments have happened in that area, specifically apartments, those employment opportunities in that zone no longer exist as initially hoped for.

And the idea of not allowing or allowing apartments fully in that zone because it's now largely 80% apartment to allow for apartments would be compensated by the small increase of employment provided by the industrial zone. So it's primarily the the idea is that we have this allocation of employment that we we should be meeting, and we were the initial thought was we would be offsetting the business part part by the industrial. But as Jeremy mentioned, since that is no longer tied together, we're gonna be reevaluating what that means. But we it might be so small of a change because the current business park and our current allocation is already has those apartments in place. So there it might not be a significant change of employment allocation or, for that zone allocated for that zone that it it might not be it might be made up in other zones now, if that makes sense.

More like the mixed use center, town center.

Understood. Thank you, Seth.

Commissioner Fury, I have just one question. When you talk about whether, you know, the commercial allocation that we're looking for in the zoning, is this specifically based on a study of what our tax base needs to be?

It's actually a regional allocation process at, part of the buildable lands report and part of our, basically, at the Puget Sound Regional Council. They, that current allocation targets, and they're basically assigned for a variety of items from population, area of land, rent growth as well. And so we are given those allocation numbers, and then it is up for us as the community to decide which to go and how that could get it into the city. So

I'm a little con confused. So the allocation requirements are coming from whom again?

Puget Sound Regional Council. It's the regional authority that does the growth targets for Pierce County, King County, Oklahoma County. Think it's a house. Their targets, they're they're pushing more meeting the population. Unfortunately, the average would just based on our current employment numbers haven't been meeting our employment targets, and it's been difficult for us to get there.

Thank you. Any other commissioner comments or questions? Okay. So in the staff report, I saw three items that were posed to the Planning Commission, scheduling a hearing. So I hear staff recommending that hearing be scheduled for November and that we also provide a recommendation at that meeting. That's for the staff report. Is that still something that is recommended by staff?

We would actually push for recommendation at the following meeting.

Okay. Public hearing in November, commission recommendation in December, and there's also a note about the city economic development advisory board. Could you talk a little bit about that, please?

Certainly. There was some discussion at a prior commission planning commission meeting about interfacing with the EDAB directly. But just based on a number of factors, Not sure if it still makes sense to try to have any kind of a joint meeting versus inviting those members that might be interested in having a conversation about this to a planning commission meeting, talk about it in more detail.

Understood. Thank you. Yeah. Please extend the invitation for them to attend the next meeting if they wish. And, also, if they've had conversations in their meetings already, if we can see those meeting minutes, I think that might be helpful as well.

Thank you. Any other staff comments on this one?

Nothing further on this.

Okay. Great.

Schedule up for the hearing.

Thank you, Saf. Now we're on five d, which is the critical areas ordinance update. There was a lot of proposed changes in this one. Do you wanna walk us through that?

Yes. However okay.

I was okay. Sorry. I was trying to get my screen up. Gotcha. Yeah.

So we have the public hearing tonight on the 2025 critical area ordinance update. So we we've obviously been meeting since June on this topic, going through a variety of items and, the going over the best available science. At the last meeting, we had a discussion on the, fish and wildlife habitat, buffers and what the commission initially thought and recommended moving forward with a 100 foot buffers. Like I mentioned at the hearing, between the planning commission, me last planning commission meeting and the noticing documents that were issued, staff met with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington Department of Natural Resources, and Washington Department of Apology to discuss their common initial review forum. Washington Department of Natural Resources just had some minor updates.

I was able to incorporate all there into it. The Washington Department of Ecology also had some minor update that its reputation, nothing significant, and was able to incorporate all those as well. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife did have a a variety of comment that we have looked over. We we incorporated any comment that was a quick change, text update update to some of the guiding document. We incorporate those right away.

So in the packet, those are all there. There are some other comments that hadn't been addressed yet, but we were waiting to see if there would be any additional comment before running up a full staff report addressing each one of those comments. So as of and they let us know at the time when they were providing it that they might not provide any additional comments that we might be getting. So with the comp period being closed, our plan would be to go through them and actually specifically respond to each one of them. Just the the biggest item, though, is that they do recommend a bill the larger buffer utilizing this depth guidance.

And understand that some city don't have it, that that is still gonna be their recommendation for a planning commission to consider. Staff will go through it and provide a written response, for next meeting. But that's the update I have for you from the last meeting. Is there any other comments or questions regarding, particular area updates that, were provided?

Yes. There are. I have some, but I'll open it up to commissioners first if you have comments or questions. Commissioner Church.

Yes. Hi. Regarding the critical ordinance and the department comments you received, and maybe I I didn't hear you if you, shared this already, Steph. But are is it your intention, to share those comments with the board or publicly on our website? I I was just wondering because in, for example, the West Valley Highway rezoning, the feedback from the consultant was that there was considerable, site specific environmental constraints, and any kind of building in that area, would have to, consider, you know, extensive buffer requirements and stormwater management and mitigation standards.

So I was just wondering if the critical ordinance is considering also that rezoning or the other way around that when we do get to the rezoning topic in in the upcoming months that we are looking at the critical ordinance updates?

So the, plan is for staff to provide basically almost a a line by line item response to all the comments received. We could also provide the actual written letter as well, but the idea would be that we provide line by line item and then our response to each one of those for planning commission to review. We typically wait till after the public hearing, though, to compile those just in case we hear additional comments during the the comment period. So between now and the next meeting, Steph will be working on addressing each one of those comments comment letters, and that way part of the package for the next meeting. Regarding the rezone, some of the comments that we did receive from, like, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife did recognize in their comments in the rezone that we are updating accrual error ordinance and that might be beneficial.

There there's nothing related right now in either one to each other other than anything in the rezone area as with any development property or development in the city. It would be subject to the critical area ordinance at the time of application. So if they, if regulations get updated and the COA gets updated, any development, industrial, you know, family would be subject to those regulations to get updated.

Okay. Understood. And so then with the additional building and potential impacts, regarding, like, our critical recharge to our aquifer or storm, runoff, all of those things would be considered and and steps towards mitigation mitigating any of those hazards would also be appropriately planned for, I assume?

Correct. The the difference between the rezone is that sometimes agencies would like to understand the environmental potential environmental impacts as part of the rezone, but that is what we'll be looking at in the 2026 as part of the rezone is what those impacts could be. However, any development right now would be subject to the development regulations regarding aquifer recharge, wetland, all those item. And so we that's where the critical area ordinance comes in play.

Thank you.

Other commissioner comments or questions? Okay. I have I'll I'll narrow it down to two. There's a number of different types of critical areas. There's landslide hazard areas, and then I read about erosion hazard areas.

And they sound quite similar, and they're regulated differently. So the question here is, could one have both hazard areas on their property And a steep slope, for example, a landslide hazard, there's an opportunity to request a reduction to the buffer up to 25%, and if more, a hearing examiner decision. Whereas an erosion hazard area has an administrative process allowing for a reduction of buffers. Am I understanding that correctly? Could you speak to that a little bit, please?

Yes. So you're correct. Often, lot of jurisdictions have combined the two. Landslide and erosions are combined into just geological hazards. Previously, Pierce County or city of Edgewood had, when they incorporated, included what Pierce County was doing.

This is how Pierce County had broken it up, and we had kept it similar way. So we have landslide hazard and roads hazard separately. Landslide hazards are the more concerning of the hazards between the two because of the potential impact and the safety, let alone environment on neighboring property, and that they take significant amount more review and consideration than erosion hazard. Typically, our erosion hazards are just handled by the storm water management plan. And so there typically isn't a necessary a buffer to deal with with erosion hazards, but usually they have them or don't, and then they deal with the regulations from the storm water management manual.

Maybe to to add a layer to the erosion hazard piece as Josh spoke to. Pierce County has shorelines. Pierce County has rivers. Edgewood does not. So our scope of erosion hazards is significantly lower than those of Pierce County.

So a lot of our updates were trying to reconcile some of those that have been accidentally left in, the city of Edgewood code even though we don't have those same issues.

Thank you. Last question is related to opportunities to reduce buffers. I've worked with codes that have allowed in some instances, a property may be uncovered 100% by one of these critical areas and or buffers, and a reduction as permitted 25%, like the code says, may not be enough to develop that property to its its full potential, to build a single family home, for example, is there opportunity to further reduce the buffer? So in the case of the hearing examiner decision, does that permit process allow for a reduction to allow that single family home? So it may be a may include intrusion into the hazard itself.

Could you speak about that, please?

Yes. So there's a a couple of items for this one. If a property is fully encumbered, they are allowed reasonable use of their property. There's a reasonable use permit process, and it's through the hearing examiner meets specific criteria. We have some properties in the city of Edgewood that have developed single found smaller single family homes, properties that are fully encumbered by wetlands and wetland properties.

In those instances, they even have to put their driveway through a wetland. They are required, in that case, still to mitigate those impacts. So even though they would be allowed to impact those resources, they have to show that their impacting is no net loss, so they can't impact the function. So they have to figure out a way to still do the project, but not actually impact the overall function of the wetland. There's a variety of issue ways to do that.

A lot of it will require state and potentially federal permits in order to do that. And so that would go through a reasonable use permit. The and now just for you remind me of one other item, the from Fish and Wildlife. They are also recommending that the 100 foot buffers are not they don't wanna see the, buffers reduced for, for averaging. A 100 foot is meant for the pollution generating capture.

And so we're still reviewing that, but I just wanted to note that because that's not a normal practice right now. You're allowed to average down, so that would be a new change. On wetland buffers, there is averaging allowed, and you can go down to the 25% to allow for buffer averaging, buffer reduction, as long as you're showing no net loss. You can get further reduction through a variant process through the hearing examiner showing that your site is so encumbered and or the site is unique. It it couldn't be a situation where you're creating the issue.

Like, you're just wanting to build this large house, so you just the city just needs to accommodate it. That's not the case. There's something with the property themself itself that is restricting any type of reasonable development, and that would go through the hearing exam. Same thing with landside hazard. If they're identified in landside hazard, then there's a buffer created.

For example, if there's a property that the neighboring property has a landside hazard and the buffer extends onto their property, it could be reduced, but we would require that a geotech report would be done, analyzed, and make sure that no one's gonna be impacted by any potential problem. Hopefully, that answers a lot there.

Yeah. Definitely great information. Thank you. Commissioner Church?

Yes. Just clarifying that, point that staff made that a geotech, report would need to be done. If any of those, reports have to take place, before a build is it happens, is that the developer's responsibility to cover the cost of those those reports?

Great question. Yes. It's a requirement of the the permit submittal, often for even completeness to get into their door, that all the necessary reports are done. So any developer would need to provide the wetland report, the habitat assessment report, the geotechnical report, and also pay for the third party review. So we typically send out these reports through the third party for review for accuracy. So, the developer pays for not only the report, but also the review of that report and any revisions that are needed.

Mhmm.

Okay. And so then we can specify then too as a city where we do not if there are specific areas where we would want to absolutely maintain that 100 feet buffer. Right? For example, like, in that area, like, if we do move forward with the West Valley zoning rezoning and that public parcel there specifically, we can specify for the that surrounding boundary area, correct, that we cannot that anybody who develops near that cannot reduce their buffer. Right?

Because what I'm concerned about is the the complexity of the responsibility there. And if the developer wanted to develop in that area and it hadn't was extra steep and had even more hazards to mitigate that, then the city would also have to be responsible for for our public boundary area.

So any yes. So if the public property has a stream going through it, it would need to be protected as the CEO has. However, if it's adjacent property that the buffer extends to, unless there's stated in the code that a certain reach upstream buffer can't be reduced, the city couldn't stop it from being reduced unless the code specified that no buffer reduction is allowed. Otherwise, it could be considered a illegal taking of property. Some jurisdictions are taking the approach of a buffer along, let's just say, has to be a 150.

And so they would say this stretch of stream is a 150, no buffer reduction. But we can't really do it at a property level. It's more of a stream, wetland level or citywide level. And I would recommend it keep it try to keep it out of citywide. It's easier to manage and discuss with the public.

I just wanna make a note for the record that, commissioner Green dropped offline, but we still have quorum, so we can continue.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Commissioner Linhua?

Hey, everyone. I'm trying to stay online. I am having some connection issues, so I've been kicked off a couple times. I do apologize, but just wanna let you know that I'm trying to stay logged in. And if I leave, it's only because of that.

Thank you. Alright. So any other comments on the critical areas ordinance before we wrap it up? Okay. Seeing none. We've got two more discussion items. The public works design and construction standards. We've talked about this in the past. Why don't you tell us more about it, staff?

Yes. Thank you, vice chair. Those of you who have been around a while may recall actually being part of a conversation or two. But tonight, this item is not meant to dive into a whole bunch of detail at the meeting. I wanted to bring materials forward for the commissioners to digest over the course of the next month.

I'm happy to, entertain any questions that you might have this evening. We also have our public works director, Chuck Henderson, available online for any specific questions. But, just to to summarize something that I have been working on very closely for many years to try to bring forward some localized standards, so that we're not continuing to rely on standards by reference from Pierce County. That's not to say that we're looking to have drastically different standards than Pierce County, but we recognize the need to have our own road cross sections, that sort of thing that fit our local character and aesthetic. At the same time, we're looking at bringing forward new public works code to help implement local permitting processes and and then modifying a couple of chapters of public works code to bring things in line with not only the localization effort, but to align better with Senate Bill fifty two ninety work that was done earlier this year.

There's your high level summary. Happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Mister Henderson, thank you for attending our meeting tonight. Is there anything that you wanted to add? If not, that's okay. Hendriksen, my apologies.

Okay. Great. Oh. Unmuted, but we don't hear you.

No. Nothing to add. Sorry.

Okay. Great. Thanks for being here with us.

Yeah. No

problem. Commissioners, do we have questions or comments for staff tonight? Seeing none. Or wait. Can you show me the panel?

I'll send my work.

No hands up. Okay. Great. So no deal do no detailed discussion tonight is what I heard, but can we expect to see this on our agenda next month? And would you like for us to bring questions or comments?

Yes and yes.

Okay.

Always welcome questions, in between meetings by email as well.

Okay.

But assuming that the commissioners don't have any substantive comments, I I don't see any reason not to schedule a hearing for the month of November. I will note we included the draft details. I think that's probably primary focus for this body, to make sure what we're proposing, particularly with those road cross sections, is consistent, with with the planning commission's understanding of a comprehensive plan, etcetera.

Okay. So we can expect a public hearing next month. Thank you. Alright. We have one last discussion item.

I'll make this quick because it's

Thank you. It's 26 annual comp plan amendment process. Staff.

Yes. So we're already preparing for next year's annual update. The application period is December 31. So right now, we're just reaching out to all the boards and commissions to see to start getting input on any recommendations. So the any member from the planning commission can recommend development regulation updates or comprehensive plan text updates as part of this.

And so at next month meeting, we would hope in any planning commissions a discussion on this item to see if there's any regulations that they or plans to plan updates that they would like to see next year that we can start working on compiling the docket. Doesn't mean they have to be done or anything like that, but we'd probably recommend if it's a planning commission item, that action item that they recommend being put on the docket, a preliminary docket, but we can discuss that more next month.

Thank you. Commissioners, questions, comments? Seeing none. We've made it through the discussion item portion of the agenda, and now we're on to number six, staff and commissioner comments. Staff, do you have any comments?

I will take this since Josh has had a lot on the plate tonight. Very simply put, we recognize that the next meeting is scheduled for November 10, which happens to be the day before Veterans Day and wanted to see if any commissioners are planning any trips for a holiday weekend, if we should be looking to reschedule that ahead of time, or if November 10 is still a good date to have our next meeting.

I'll be here. Other commissioners?

I will too.

Commissioner Church?

I have tentative plans for the holiday weekend.

Staff a quorum would be how many? Four?

It would be four. And I will say that at tomorrow night's council meeting, we're anticipating the appointment of a seventh planning commissioner. Okay. And we can certainly follow-up with commissioner Green and chair over field in the meantime.

Excellent. Thank you. Keep us posted. Commissioners, do you have comments? Seeing none, we can move to number seven and adjourn. The time is 07:41. Thanks, everybody, for being here.