Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good

afternoon, and welcome to the city of Gig Harbor Planning Commission. I'm Jason Jordan, the vice chair. I guess we'll start with role, if that's okay. Commissioner Burkhart, I don't see, so I'm gonna assume he's not here. Commissioner Anderson? Commissioner Cornell? Commissioner Here. Henderson? Here. Commissioner Zhou? Here. Alright. Did anyone sign up for public comment?

There's Approval of minutes.

Oh, approval of the minutes. Okay. Great. Next order of business is approve oh, I should just follow this. Approval of the minutes. Do I is there a motion and a second?

I move to.

Seconded.

There's a motion and a second. All in favors?

Aye. Aye.

Opposed? The motion passes. Okay. Next up is public comment. I don't see anyone on the, on in the building. Is there anyone online that signed up to speak?

If you'd like to make public comments, press 9 to raise your hands.

Okay. Hearing none, seeing none, the agenda item today is for, review of the critical areas code update. And I see that we've got an another exciting presentation from our community development director, Eric Baker. Over to you, Eric.

Thank you very much. For the record, my name is Eric Baker. I'm the community development director for the city of Gig Harbor. The the critical areas ordinance actually, it's critical areas code, which is title 18 o eight in the city code, is required to be updated every ten years, and that that time has come. I have a presentation. How many people saw me present this a very similar presentation to this last year? So Okay. So you got two folks. There's going to be a lot of similarity. Again, we are gonna be talking about code at this point.

We're also gonna be talking about some relatively technical scientific information being provided by a nonscientist, so I apologize for that upfront. Let me share my screen. So, the draft that you, were received as part of your packet is the initial draft of the critical areas ordinance, and, the code update. We do expect this at the beginning of a conversation. We do wanna sure that we're getting out with stakeholders, developers, property owners, etcetera, as we move through this project.

We are like like I mentioned, I think, at last meeting, we are attempting to handle a big chunk of this conversation first before entering into the other conversations regarding housing code and other elements of the zoning code, just to make sure there's enough oxygen, for everyone to be able to review the documents that that we are providing. So, again, going back to why we are updating, just as a refresher, our comprehensive plan, which our environmental regulations exist, and then direct code, is kind of the bottom rung of, the state to growth management act, GMA at the top, two sets of regional codes, both vision twenty fifty, which is the Puget Sound Regional Council's regional document that includes Pierce County and its cities. And then the countywide planning policies, which again is just Pierce County and all of its cities. Those regional our comprehensive plan has to be consistent with all three of those. The growth management act, again, like I mentioned, requires the critical areas ordinance to be updated every ten years.

Those regulations need to be reviewed against a planning speak called best called best available science. And that best available science is to ensure that the regulations are protecting no net loss of function and values of a variety of different critical areas. I'll go into more detail about what I mean by critical area. But, again, we are not looking at necessarily improving the environment, but the key component is that development through the regulations of the code are, in general, creating no net loss of functions to any of these. Best available science, people may wonder what that is.

Obviously, it is new scientific information that's been made available since the last ten year update. That used to be a very wide wide range. Local jurisdictions could do their own, analysis and kinda determine what they felt best available science was. Now, the Department of Ecology and Department of Fish and Wildlife have stepped into that role and have really kind of shrunk those sideboards on what, again, reliable peer reviewed science looks like when it comes to water quality, wildlife, sediment rates, all the things that are go in to protecting our streams and protecting our wetlands. This was due on 12/31/2025.

I do not have a way back machine, so we are going to be a little late. The reason being is we wanted to make sure there was adequate time to have a full and robust conversation, plus we had new a whole series of new planning commissioners and new council members coming on. So at that point, we decided that it was going to be better to have the all the gang here before we actually try to launch into this so that we don't have to recreate the wheel. So it's scheduled for consideration the first half of this year, which means that this was the first of what will likely be multiple presentations and conversations. This one, I plan on being the most presentation of it.

The rest is really going to be you folks asking questions, us responding, us making sure that you're getting the information that you need. But, likely, the planning commission will be holding a public hearing on this sometime in late March or early April for council consideration sometime by the June. I'm gonna pause there. I'd I'd wanna pause at each one of these slides. If anybody has any questions, please raise your hand or or stop me.

Alright. So when I talk about critical areas, what do I mean? Oh, sorry. I that was a sneeze. Not a question. Not a question. Okay. Good. So what do what do I mean when I say we need to update regulations related to critical areas? Well, we have a series of natural features.

These natural features that are covered by the critical areas regulations are wetlands. I'll talk more about those in a moment. Streams, those are also now called fish and wildlife habitat areas because streams was too short. Steep and unstable slopes, there's another name that comes along with that as well that is substantially longer, but, again, it is topography. Percent grades that we need to be careful when we're building in or around.

Flood hazard areas, obviously, that's going to be the shoreline. That's going to be most of our flood areas along a number of our, streams that don't have the deep incised ravines. And then we also have critical air critical aquifer recharge areas. I'll talk a little bit about that. But, we receive all of our water from aquifers.

So we need to be very careful about what types of uses we allow over the to be built over the top as they can create contaminants. The contaminants get down into the aquifer, and then we have a water supply issue. While we're gonna talk about all of these five, I do expect that a vast majority of our conversations can be focused around wetland and stream protections as those are the ones that have the greatest interface with potential development. Impacts not just people looking to develop vacant land, but also people who may be looking to redevelop or, expand, their existing homes. So, usually, when we go through these types of updates, which I've done too, there's a lot of feelings around wetland and stream protections.

Yeah. The update process, we are part of the way through. There's been a lot of things that have been happening behind the scenes. We contracted with an environmental consultant. It's the same environmental consultant that has been overseen our critical areas review for permit applications for five to six years. So they were very familiar with our current code. They're also a consultant team that had done work for the city of Port Orchard. They did work for Pierce County. They did work for a number of other organizations. So they were familiar with best available science, not just in general, but best available science as it applies to the Kitsap Peninsula because not all science applies to all areas equally.

The project team, including the consultant and staff, went through and reviewed current code against best available science to determine where the gaps in our code were. Based upon this gaps gap analysis, we were preparing draft code amendments. Those are the ones that you see today. We are in the process of doing public outreach and stakeholder groups. This is kind of the kickoff in many ways for that for that effort. And then the planning commission and council will be considering, like I mentioned, by the 2026. Any questions about the schedule? Alright. So now has everybody got a little bit of water? Because this is gonna get dry.

Now we're gonna talk about some of the actual components on what makes up categories of wetlands because each category of wetland and streams all have different regulations based upon their importance to the overall ecology. When we're talking about wetlands, the Department of Ecology has what they call a wetland rating system. I I mentioned that the Department of Ecology is really kind of the best available science expert on this. When it comes to wetlands, we have a wetland rating system that rates wetlands in a four four level scenario. Categories one through four, one being the highest, four being the lowest.

Examples of these categories is category one, again, the most environmentally sensitive and most ecologically important are our estuaries, bogs, and any kind of large system. So think about the wetlands down at the at the mouth of Donkey Creek. That would be an example. Also, kind of freshwater bodies that are associated with the shoreline, those are also going to be category ones. Those are going to have the greatest protections.

Category twos oftentimes have a variety of habitat, but are often connected to a stream system or other wetlands. So now we're not talking about isolated wetland systems. We're talking about wetlands that an impact in one area could have an impact further down. So category twos receive the second greatest amount of, protection. Category threes are the most common.

Basically, when you're driving around this area and you see a forested, alder grove that, looks a little swampy, that is usually a category three wetland. Those are smaller in size and usually disconnected from a stream and disconnected from a larger system. They receive a good amount of protection, but not as much as ones and twos. And then lastly are the category fours. These are usually isolated, small, or they have low habitat areas.

A lot of agricultural areas, farmland, most of those are category four wetlands in a lot of ways because they are they they don't have a lot of habitat diversity. They don't have brush and trees. They just have grass. And in general, that grass depends on the hydrology of the soil to continue to grow. Category four wetlands were the least protected for a long time, and actually, in many ways, they were allowed to be impacted up to about fifteen years ago.

That has changed dramatically, and now category fours are being protected relatively significantly. Any questions about the four categories? The categories are important because when we're talking about protections, we take the categories and we compare them against the use that is being proposed to be built near them. And I'll talk a little more about that in a moment. So wetlands, the key component is that we're protecting the wetland features itself, but also the areas around.

And I'm gonna talk about what buffers are. But, again, some of the wetland features, we are talking about if you are going to impact the actual wetland. I'll have a map coming up here showing that we do have some delineations of wetlands. But when a project comes in and they are within 300 feet of one of those mapped wetlands, they are responsible for reviewing for potential wetland impacts. While we have some pretty accurate mapping, wetlands have this ability to change over time.

So any project that, again, is within 300 feet, even 300 feet feels like a long ways, but wetlands have the ability to shift. Streams have the ability to shift. It is important that we have those analyzed for any potential wetland impacts. If for some reason you need to build in a wetland, either a, fill a portion of it or and we're just gonna go filling a portion of it. You are responsible for mitigating that impact.

And the amount of mitigation is dependent on the category of wetland that you are building over. The the higher the the higher the classification, the more mitigation is necessary, as well as the use that you're proposing. Largely, runs from low to high. Low is building passive recreational trails or certain agricultural activities. High would be anything that includes impervious surface.

Think housing developments. Think shopping centers. Think all of that. Those types of fills of wetlands, if they are of a particular size, don't just need to go through our critical areas ordinance. They also need to go through the federal agency called the Army Corps of Engineers who needs to review the project for potential environmental impacts.

When you're talking about mitigation, we are talking about a we have a preference on how you go about doing it, and we really focus on on-site mitigation first, finding some way to expand the wetlands somewhere else on your property or to build a wetland somewhere else on your property. That last part is particularly hard. If particularly hard. If you can't do on-site mitigation, you are allowed to think about off-site mitigation. That is think, what a wetland bank is.

A wetland bank is a place where somebody has taken a wetland. They have restored it. They have received credits for doing so, and a developer can pay, to pay for those credits in exchange for impacting their wetland. Obviously, the the impacts are not necessarily being handled in the same system. So you're hurting one area, and you're making another area better. That's good holistically. But, depending on how far away that is, you still are potentially having an impact on a system. It is something that is allowed, but, again, we have what we call mitigation sequencing. You start by avoiding. You then minimize.

You then mitigate on-site, and then you can mitigate off-site. So we try to move in in that order. K.

Yes, please. So it's, it's my experience recently that, the federal government and particularly the army corps less inclined to regulate wetlands. They're they're really shrinking back what they view to be a regulated wetland. And my sense is is that the state is attempting to step in and and, regulate wetlands differently, than they have in the past. How how will this critical area update address any of that?

The, currently, while there were substantial changes at at the federal level, we have state, laws that are still in place that keep the protections in the state of Washington the way they were before the federal government did their thing. Unless the federal government's gonna come and, try to adjust states' perspectives on that. Pretty much everything that we are proposing here should be expected to stay relatively the same over time. Got it. And then, that'll be under state authority and not federal authority. So it wouldn't be Clean Water Act authority? It it wouldn't be a 100%. Again, the Clean Water Act has been adjusted. It has not been repealed. So there's a lot of components that still apply.

However, when you are looking at the sequencing of of codes, state code can be more restrictive than federal code. It just can't be less, and local code can be more restrictive than state code. So the state code is still more restrictive than what the federal government is doing in a lot of in a lot of things, which means that that is the code that we're following. And, again, we can't do less than the state is requiring, which, again, is following best available science, ensuring no net loss of function. But we do have the ability to, make them more restrictive if we chose.

That is something that probably you're going to hear public testimony of folks who would like us to shift from no net loss to net ecological gain. What that term means has not really been has not been legally legally discussed, which, of course, is where the reality of any code actually is sorted out. Net ecological gain pretty much means if you're gonna develop near a wetland, the wetlands gotta be in better shape after you're done than before. But, again, no no net loss. You can pretty much say, here were the functions before you graded.

Here's what the functions were after. What exactly is, the proper amount of gain feels like a very subjective determination that I'd be very curious how they would sort out.

Got it.

And last quick question. Is there anything happening in this in Olympia with this cycle that's gonna change critical areas that we need to be mindful of?

Oh, we have there's a series of bills that are trying to, reduce, certain regulations, including critical areas for certain types of housing. Affordable housing is one of the examples. Those bills are proposed every session, and they never go anywhere every session, because there is no real nexus between the two. Affordable housing is important. Environmental protection is important. But getting one while giving the other, there is no real nexus between the two of them. And with our current state legislature, there's not a lot of movement on that. Right? The legislature would like to see both happen at the exact same time, oftentimes on the exact same property, which is our challenge.

In the second bullet point Mhmm. Where we start talking about medication being preferred Mhmm. On-site, that suggests that there's some discretion there. And if so, you know, who gets to determine whether on-site mitigation is enforced? I'm not sure if that's the right word or not.

No. It's a good word.

Yeah. Or allowing, say, a developer to use one of these outside banking resources?

Yes. So the way that it works is that the developer will come in and they will have a wetland biologist come in and prepare a report that has a mitigation strategy. Either a, they can do it. If they can do it on-site, they describe how they're going to do it on-site. That is then reviewed by our consultant, Farrellan Gretty, is our wetland consultant to assess the other biologists work to make sure that it is scientifically firm.

That recommendation then is discussed with staff. If at some point someone is proposing off-site mitigation, the the bar is pretty high indicating that you really have no place else on the on the property to put this. There is no part of the wetland that is diminished in some way. Let's say you have you you have a wetland and you're gonna fill a portion of it, but there's a portion of the wetland that is just grass. That area of grass can be restored into trees and and shrubbery to improve habitat value.

That gets credit that can be utilized to balance out the potential fill. But, again, once you cross more than an acre of wetland fill, you're now in army corps land, at which case, then it is entirely up to up to the army corps what they approve and don't approve. Since the changes that was alluded to at the federal level, I have not seen any dramatic changes in outcome. I have seen dramatic changes in the time it takes to process those permits. Oddly enough, they are taking longer, which seems like that would be the antithesis of the federal administration's interest.

So, yeah, I I don't believe that federal changes are going to make it easier to fill a wetland. The process will likely remain the same. So along with wet with wetlands, you also need to protect them and the area around them. Wetlands are sensitive. Wetlands can be disturbed, polluted, a numb a number of other things.

So wetlands are, to be protected by buffers first and setback second. So, the area around a wetland has a a buffer of a particular width based upon, again, as I mentioned, the category of wetland that it is and the proposed use that you're proposing near it. So that those two together, generally, generate how wide the buffer has to be. These buffers are intended to be undisturbed by development. So you aren't allowed to grade in them.

You aren't allowed to put buildings in them. They are they are intended to be remain as they are. The beyond the buffer, there is then also a setback from that buffer. The setback is there because, obviously, if anybody's going to grade for or build a building, you can't put it right up against the buffer without hurting the buffer. So there needs to be some ability for a bulldozer to get around the outside of your building, and 15 feet is the numb is that number.

Much like what I talked about with wetlands, buffers are allowed buffer widths are allowed to be adjusted. Buffer widths in the code are going to be what I call bulk regulations. They are a one size fits all scenario. It is basically kind of the best protection for the most is how I would describe it. However, because it is a bulk regulation, we do have a similar process to mitigate for impacts if you are going to build or clear within the buffer.

That follows the same type of sequencing. You're supposed to avoid hitting hurting the buffer. You then have to minimize your impacts to the buffer. You then have to mitigate for for the buffer, and each of those have different things. Some of the examples of what that looks like, one is called buffer averaging.

Let's say there's a 100 foot buffer and you are you need to get with within 75 feet of wetland. So you're 25 feet less. You can propose 25 feet or more somewhere else on the property. That then will average out to to the regulation. You also if you have a buffer that, again, much like a wetland is denuded or not working as well as it should, say it's grass right up to the wetland, you can propose to mitigate.

You can plant trees, plant bushes, again, making the buffer better in that area. That also can be a mitigation strategy. So there are ways to adjust the buffer widths on a site specific basis. Bulk regulations are great for people who don't wanna do the the additional analysis and and it they it is generally the right answer for the most properties. But science and wetlands and science and streams and science and all critical areas really benefit from a site specific analysis.

And a site specific analysis developed or created by the developer and reviewed by staff can actually get to a more specific answer that might not just be the one size buffer fits the entire length of of the wetland. Yes,

ma'am.

So the buffer, just so that I understand correctly, the buffer applies to the structure that's being built. Correct? Not uses in the buffer area. So if you were to, I don't know, have a little make yourself a fire pit, you could do that in the buffer?

No. It actually applies to both. Buffer buffers are intended to be left alone or improved. So no clearing, no logging, definitely no structures. All of that is not intended to be in a buffer area without a habitat management plan showing how you're gonna mitigate for that. So the the the main point I wanna bring across is I'm about to show you some numbers, and those numbers to in the proposal are gonna look very bigger very bigger. They're gonna look bigger than, the ones that are currently in code. I just wanna highlight the fact that those, again, are the bulk regulations. Those are the starting points. There are opportunities to adjust those.

However, it does require analysis. Analysis costs money. So consultants don't work for free. So there is a cost related to doing that, but there are ways to work with these and get reduced buffers in certain areas in exchange for other improvements to the wetland buffer area. But, again, the buffer is an area that surrounds the feature that we're protecting. So it is an area that's intended to be left alone. The setback, you can grade it. You can you can put pavement. You can you just can't put structures in it. Nothing above grade.

It's mainly the the 15 feet is there for people not to end up hurting trees in the buffer or hurting vegetation in the buffer. Let me pause there. So what you're seeing here is an example of some of the wetlands that are located here in Gig Harbor. If you take a look kind of in the upper left hand corner, you see what's the Latitude 47. That's the industrial complex located there.

That area has a wetland system just to the south of it. All the areas in kind of that, light green color, are expected wetlands. They aren't a 100% delineated, but we do expect that there are wetlands located in that area. And that comes from a wide variety of data. All of this mapping is based upon data from the net from the federal level, the state level, the county level.

And then as development proposals come in and people do wetland delineations, they do that site specific research, We take that information, and we work it into our mapping. So every time a project comes in, our information about wetlands gets, gets better. I show this map because we do have a certain number of wetlands located in our community, and they are located in areas that at times are close to existing development. So when we're talking about buffer widths, a a project may have been proposed with a certain buffer. Let's say it, was proposed with a 50 foot buffer.

Some of the proposals you may be seeing will be turning that from a 50 foot buffer to a hun to a 100 foot buffer. The thing I wanna be clear on this is that does not mean anything to the existing approved project. No one's homes are getting torn down. Nobody's, businesses are be are being torn are are being destroyed. However, it does have an impact on what can be done in that land in regards to redevelopment or in regards to expansions or additions to homes.

So when I highlight critical areas, it is not just people who own vacant land. It is people who happen to have a home or or a home or a building that happens to be near a wetland that now may be inside the buffer and thus impacting what they can do in the future. Thoughts on or any questions? So now the scary slide, the first scary slide. So what you see here are, again, the four categories of wetlands, why I went with a digit a a numeral in the first one and then then then the others.

I apologize for that. So we're at category one through category four. They have different classifications, and we've broken it down into what our existing code shows. That's in that middle column. And then what our draft code shows.

What we are looking at with a lot of, the wetland buffers is we really are trying to keep the maximum buffer as close to what it is today as possible. The downside is what's changing is some of the lower buffer widths. When you see a range of 125 to 250 feet, remember I told you that buffer widths were based on, not just the category of wetland, but also what you're looking to propose next to it. When you're looking at the low number there, let's say we're looking at wetlands of high conservation value, the one to the 125 foot buffer would be for a low impact, like a passive recreational trail. Best available science is largely saying that a 125 feet generally is not enough.

So what you're seeing here in the draft, instead of being a 125 to two fifty, it's now just two fifty. So, again, for the high the high uses, housing developments, commercial structures, decks, things like that, the buffer roughly is staying the same. However, the range is going away. But I do wanna highlight that what you are looking at is if you don't meet certain classifications, like in we'll we'll just utilize let let's use category two wetlands as the example. The range is going away in in one.

But if you look at not meeting, above characteristics under category two wetland buffers, you note that instead of 50 to a 100, it's now 100 to 225. My liberal arts degree still says that those numbers are different and those numbers are bigger. That would be an instance where if somebody was built near a category two wetland or wanted to build near a category two wetland, the new code would require an additional 120 a 125 feet to be reviewed for buffer width and required mitigation if somebody wanted to build within it. So that is going to have an impact on developable land in our community, and have an impact on where people's existing homes may be located within the buffers. This is not a new occurrence.

These buffers have been going up ever since I I participated in the first critical areas ordinance back in 1998. It used to be 25 foot buffers and 50 foot buffers, and then best available science figured out that, okay, that might be great for shading wetlands and shading streams, but, water quality and sedimentation isn't handled by that. And then a series of other, potential pollutants, were being considered. So wetland buffers have been getting larger over time. So this would not be the first time that an increased buffer might have an impact on an existing development. However, this is the newest instance where this could be occurring.

Eric? Mhmm. So when we updated GMA last year, the I I think it was last year.

The comprehensive plan?

Yeah. Yes. The comprehensive plan under GMA. We set up a in there, there was a goal for, housing. Mhmm. Right? Yep. So, and it was a fairly aggressive goal, and we were wrestling with the state's mandate on on ADUs. Have you looked at, like, how that number gets impacted by these proposed buffer changes, and and are those goals that we set forth in that plan still achievable?

It is going to be achievable, just not the way we've been developing over time. There I think like we discussed last time, this critical areas ordinance update is going to make less land developable in our city. However, the phase two code amendments for housing are going to be looking at taking what land is remaining and allowing more of it to be developed. So the goal between the two operations is that we are going to be able to meet our housing goals by allowing greater heights of development, allowing reduced setbacks. So whatever land is left over instead of having to let's use an example of, the R 1 zone, which currently has a 30 foot rear yard setback and a 26 foot, front yard setback.

Let's say the wetland is increased in that area. But to mitigate for that, we would be talking about reducing the buffers, the setbacks in that zone from, 30 foot rear yards to maybe 10 feet. So you're recapturing some of the land and then allowing people to build higher. So, single family detached homes are going to be a challenge to, meet our housing goals, but housing that that's attached or housing that is multifamily, is something that is going to need to be pursued to be able to meet our housing goals, but that is the follow on exercise to this.

And, best available science has to be followed. That's state law. So city council doesn't even have the option to reduce these buffers. Is that correct?

Best available science, it it while it is not the wide sideboards we had once before, they are still our sideboards. There still is a little wiggle room in between, and it really kinda comes down to the having the scientific data to deviate from some of these. Basically, what you're seeing here is relatively similar to what other jurisdictions in our general area have done. They have been adopted. They have gone through their appeals period.

So, from a risk scenario, a lot of these types of buffers have been done in this area recently, thus should be considered semi safe harbor in regards to potential appeals. That does not mean we can't have conversations that based upon certain other scientific information that's brought forward by members of the public saying, well, I've seen studies where you don't need 225 feet to handle certain nutrient loads getting into the wetland, you can do so with a 150 feet. The planning commission could review that information and say, okay. That is compelling. We recommend that that be a 150 feet.

However, that would be lower than some of the other jurisdictions that we've with that we are nearby, and some folks may notice that difference and wonder why that is the case. So there is the opportunity to make some changes to this. The interim version that we have right now is kind of the safe location. Do we can again, the safe location, some people are gonna argue is not safe enough. It needs to be bigger.

There's gonna be a lot of folks that are gonna come and say, especially when we get to stream buffers, that they need to be bigger. And then there's gonna be a number of developers or folks who are interested in developing their property, indicating that you're impacting my private property rights. They need to be smaller. And that's why I'm happy I'm sitting here and not there.

I think I heard you say earlier that any changes that are made in the plan don't necessarily apply or or that will be made in the plan don't necessarily apply to existing development. Development can range from concept all the way to breaking ground and everything in between. So what do what do we consider something to be existing development? That's the first part of the question. And then the second is, I know the plan was due by the end of the year. We're a little late.

Mhmm.

When is the official cutoff date? Is it when we adopt the plan, or was it the end of the year due date?

Honestly, at this point, we are if someone wanted to appeal us for a failure to act, they could right now. Though the appeal would not be done by the time would would not be concluded by the time we had finished it. So as long as we're making good progress in earnest and probably find a way to conclude this conversation on the schedule that's proposed, we are very likely safe. When you're talking about what does what what is developed, developed is usually, someone who has an approved building permit. You've that's what's called vesting.

Is everybody aware of what the term what vesting means? That is a it's a term that basically indicates that at a particular level, you are safe as you were approved and as you're built regardless what changes, and that's at building permit. So as long as you have an approved building permit for any of the structures, whether it's built or not, as long as that building permit remains active, you are vested. However, if you have a preliminary plat, if you have well, I guess preliminary plat's a bad example. If you have a short plat, preliminary short plat, one that you haven't final yet, you haven't built the roads or anything like that, you aren't vested, and these new regulations could have an impact on your proposal.

So, conceptually, there could be projects in the works that become vested sometime this year. Mhmm. And they would be subject to the existing rules, the new rules. Correct?

Yes. Historically, that tends to create a little bit of a, I guess, what we call a permit application rush right before the code is to change. So usually when we go through this, we make sure that when a code's adopted, there is a certain amount of that it isn't it doesn't become effective immediately. There's usually a two week period so that it kinda spreads out that potential permit rush while people try to get vested under a previous code. It it's one of those things that that's unavoidable. I get the only way to keep that from happening is to not tell people it's happening, and that is not transparent, and that's not how government works.

Going back to commissioner Jordan's comment about and this this, like, chart is really helpful to kinda see what we currently have and what what you're proposing. I guess my request or something would be because I'm I was also assuming that these numbers in the draft were directly based on best available science. So it would be really helpful if we knew where there is deviation and why. So it the deviation could be, I don't know, 50 feet. But why did we deviate 50 feet, you know, and it or, you know, add an extra 50 feet If it if it's because it's our peer cities are doing that, our neighbor cities are doing that, then that's that's that is a just you know, that's your reasoning.

But I just Yeah. Wanna be prepared to know where we're deviating and where we're, like, right on it. Yeah.

The difficult part will be determining exactly what we're deviating from. It it's gonna be where we are in the range. And so, like, why did we I'd what I'd I hear what you're asking is why we're why are we on this part of the range and not this part of the range? And I think you you hit on some of those. Some of those are we have larger jurisdictions that have done robust best available science reviews.

So they've done not only looked at what the Department of Ecology has provided, but did their own analysis on soils similar to ours, wetlands similar to ours. We're piggybacking that work because small jurisdiction, we can't necessarily afford a $250,000 best available science review. But I can provide more detail on exactly how we came to these numbers as it's a very, very fair question and one that will be asked repeatedly.

Eric, one last quick question. Sorry. I know you wanna keep going. Happens to the existing so you explained the the applicant, the developer vested. What happens to the existing homeowner that's near a wetland who had a home approved at a 150 foot and now that it's two fifty?

Mhmm.

Is their house nonconforming?

At that point, their house would be considered a nonconforming use. Our nonconforming code still allows them to be restored if they are, burned down. That's a common question we get on this when we talk about nonconforming uses. If it's destroyed by natural by natural acts, they are able to be replaced where they were. But, yes, you would be a nonconforming use.

If you wanted to add on a deck, you would need to, operate under the current code, which you would have to figure out how not only you address the impacts of you adding the deck, but the impacts of your house being located within there, which leads to a lot greater mitigation conversation.

Did I hear you right? So if there's any modifications on a nonconforming property, they have to mitigate?

I I would have to go back and take I do believe there is a particular threshold for life safety, other related issues. Like, if, yeah, if if you're there's a fire hazard and it requires you to add on a little bit to provide something, you are allowed to do that. But the limitations on a nonconforming use are very, very few. Again, you're you're safe if you stay exactly as you are. If you are going to change, oftentimes, you're gonna get if you're building out towards the wetland or if you're building more square footage, that definitely would trigger the new coats.

And just to be clear, mitigation may not be an it might just be a no. You can't do it, Not even mitigate.

Yep. Got it. Again

So that's a good point.

Yeah.

So that that means that nonconforming property owners might not ever be able to add that garage or they they're stuck at that point. K.

That that could be the implication for certain properties. But, again, that determination, I don't think we would ever say, no. You can't because there is a what's called a reasonable use exception. Let's say you have a vacant property that you used to have developable land on, and now you now it's entirely within a wetland or in a wetland or wetland buffer. You can apply for a reasonable use exception, which does give you some ability to build something on the property.

It isn't necessarily what you want to build on it, but there can be an argument, and this is approved by the hearing examiner exactly what you could build in there. So you'll never hear me say that something cannot be built on a piece of property regardless of these codes. That just that there are codes in place that are gonna require a significant amount of review and a significant amount of mitigation on-site or off-site. The cost of doing so may be outside certain people's economic abilities.

Have we done any analysis to understand how many of our homes will be impacted by these changes?

We're currently running through our geographic information system, the mapping I showed. We are gonna be notifying everybody who's within 300 feet of those wetlands. Again, the maximum buffer, to let everybody know that this is occurring. That will also give us an idea how many potential homes are within the 300 feet. But the key component for us is that folks know that this is happening, that this does not come as a surprise because that's not good for them and not good for staff when they show up six months after it's approved to say, what happened?

So I guess that's kinda goes to my my question is is if it's not required for us to have hard numbers, why not leave some flexibility for future decisions such as maybe narrowing the gap? Like, let's just say on number one, maybe it's not one twenty five to two fifty. We're about 200 to two fifty, like, leaving some flexibility, especially for those existing properties Do you know, wouldn't it cause us a lot to just make it so rigid?

That's what the mitigation is for. The site specific analysis is that flexibility. The key component of bulk regulations is we need a place to start from so that the site specific analyses can then, address. Okay. It isn't really two fifty on this property with this wetland. It really should be two twenty five. So, yes, that flexibility does exist, but you usually do not impose it in bulk regulations. You create an avenue for a site specific way to address it.

That begets the question then, why did we leave some with bracketed options?

That was a what I will follow-up on, I believe, the answer to our question on this is going to be that it was the Department of Ecology's guidance. Alright. So the end of the first scary slide. So streams are relatively similar to wetlands in the fact that they are a series of categories, this time ranging one from one to five. The one through three are fish streams, so they have fish habitat, and types fours and fives are nonfish.

So as you're kind of looking through them, they are one through five. The type s streams are the portions of the stream. And when we're talking about typing a stream, the entire length of the stream can have different types as you move along. A type s stream or a type one stream are, again, like the mouth of Donkey Creek. That portion of the stream is, connected to an estuary. It's connected to a shoreline. It is the highest, it is the highest, sensitivity, the most important. It has the most protections. Type two and three, again, have fish habitat. So oftentimes, they have rocky base rocky bottoms.

They have the ability for salmon to get up. They don't have fish barriers. Fish barrier is a term indicating that there's a culvert or there's some kind of, topographic impediment that keeps fish from being able to go any further. But type two and three streams have fish, and they have fish fish habitat in them. They have slightly less protection.

And then type fours and fives, those are, again, smaller. Type four is a year round stream. The n p is means nonfish perennial, and the n s means nonfish seasonal. So type five would be nonfish seasonal, which means the streams don't run all year round. Anybody who has a stream that goes dry in the summertime, that would be a type five or an NS stream.

One that has no fish but runs all year round, that would be a type four perennial. And then anything that has fish fish on it is a three or better. Any work within the stream banks is not covered by us. So we only handle the things that are on the outside of what's called ordinary high watermark. So streams get so full most of the time.

So that is the edge, and that's also where the buffers start. They start at the edges of the streams. So but any work, say, somebody wants to clean out debris from inside the stream, there's no part of these regulations that apply to work inside the stream. That is handled by the department department of fish and wildlife through an entirely separate permitting process that we are not involved in. So with five types of streams, they also have five types of buffers.

They are also bay or five sizes of buffers, and they are also based on the concept of no net loss. So, again, measured out from ordinary high watermark on either side, there's going to be a distance in which you aren't allowed to build. Or if you do build within it, you have to do the habitat management plan, and you have to do the potential mitigation. So, again, what you're gonna see is bulk buffers that, again, are the starting spot. And then from there, people are are able to move forward and propose site specific changes if necessary.

And then also like wetlands, the buffers, when we get to the edge of them, there is a 15 foot setback required where again you can clear, you just can't build anything within it to again protect the buffer. But it is 15 feet a building has to be 15 feet further from the numbers that you're gonna see here in a moment. Any questions about streams? It it it works somewhat like the wetland system as there is the feature itself, in this case, a stream, the buffer that is intended to be a no clear, no build zone, and then a setback on top of that, which is a don't build any structure area. So this is another example of the of the mapping.

This actually is, Donkey in North Creek. What you're noting here is those lines that you see in red indicate that those are type f streams. The areas in green are type n. Those are nonfish perennial streams, and I don't have any n s's actually located on this map. Stream typing is also a important characteristic and oftentimes is also covered by a developer when they are proposing a development.

Obviously, if you're going to be building near a stream, you would like it to be as low a category as possible. Stream types are generally governed by the Department of Natural Resources. However, where a stream moves from one seg one type to another, like the middle stream you see there that's red and then it turns to green, there can be conversations about where that point really is. Very likely, there is a culvert located where, that red and red and green happens, and the culvert is too small for the fish to get through. Thus, that becomes a fish blockage and everything that is upstream from it is now a type n stream, nonfish perennial, no fish, but runs all year round.

We do have a number of these streams, not a significant amount, but I will say that there is, as you'll note from these pictures, a number of homes that are located relatively close to those stream ravines. So the slide that goes along with this, one of the things I would do wanna note about the type four n p, NP streams, it has been in my old job more than fifteen to twenty years before I saw before the last time I had seen a stream type not have any buffer. Our code currently has that on the NS streams, and I had not seen a 25 foot buffer since 2005. So when you look at the differences in numbers here, this isn't necessarily this is a change. But the numbers that we have currently in code are very, very low by best available science from ten years ago's viewpoint.

So this may be one of those situations where for folks who are looking to develop around streams, the last ten years was borrowed time before best available science caught up. But this is where you're noting that the type s streams are staying the same. Type two or type f streams are a 150 feet. Type three, also f streams, are also a 150 feet. And then n p is moves from 25 to a 100, and n s moves to a 100. Those are dramatic changes. I there's no way to sugarcoat it. There's no way to say it otherwise. So development that's located within those would have to go through the same mitigation strategy we talked about before. You try to avoid getting in the buffer.

You try to minimize the amount of of impact you have on the buffer, then you have to mitigate potential impacts to the buffer on-site. And then if you can't, you mitigate off-site. All of those are done through habitat management plans, slightly different, not slightly, significantly different than the wetlands, but also those are usually done by a trained habitat biologist, somebody with a, bachelor of science degree, not me with a bachelor of arts. Questions on that?

Well, I assume we're gonna make the same notices with all of the changes. Correct?

Yes. That that we're going to any of the changes on here, everyone who is going to be impacted and within. In this case, we're probably gonna go within 200 feet of any stream, take the maximum buffer. Not saying that folks are gonna be impacted with they're within two hundred feet, but, again, we wanna be safe and make sure that more people know, not less people. That is all the really hard things.

So for now, we're gonna kinda downshift in some things that really are not getting significant changes at all. Hillsides and bluffs, those are also called steep slopes. If you're gonna build near a slope of a particular percentage, you need to get a geo you need to get a geotechnical analysis. If you're going to build within a certain distance, that bulk standard, there is no one number. It is how what's the vertical of the of the slope.

If it's a 100 foot from the top of the slope to the bottom of the slope, it's a 100 foot buffer. However, if you get a geotechnical report, you can reduce that to pretty much the same amount as the setback for the zone. So let's say going back to a r one zone with a 30 foot rear yard setback, you could take that 100 foot buffer and reduce it to 30 with a geotechnical report. Additionally, there's also a 10 foot setback on that, again, so that you're not disturbing vegetation. The soils we have in our community are I think you've heard me colloquially call it where the glaciers threw up.

So we are pretty much soil that has been ground out of other areas and deposited throughout the area in a form of of clay and tightly packed sand. That creates a scenario where water does not percolate down into the soil particularly well. Due to that vegetation, some vegetation is not growing necessarily that deep into the soils. However, vegetation is particularly important to keep this keep the slope intact and the amount of vegetation that's at the top of the slope is also important, again, to maintain those slopes. Anybody who's lived in this area or lived on a shoreline has seen sloughs.

They've seen landslides in many cases. This is particularly bad for the people who have the homes at the bottom of the bottom of the slope. These geotechnical reports are particularly important. Most projects, if they're going to build near a slope, get one, mainly because their insurance company says you need one. We are not changing any of the calculations related to this.

The this is remaining roughly the same. We are changing a little bit of the vernacular because the process was confusing to some folks. But there is no buffer increase as it applies to hillsides and bluffs. Any questions related to those? Again, it is, the geotechnical report that is going to generate, what the regulation looks like, and that is gonna come with an engineer stamp.

Flood hazard areas. Again, our flood hazard areas are largely along our shorelines and largely along our major streams that don't have the insized ravines where, basically, the when you get the edge of the stream, then it just goes straight up. There's no flood zones on that. The flood zones can't get can't climb. Gravity is a thing.

However, shore our shorelines are a a component of this. This area is also not changing dramatically as our flood hazard areas are largely driven by FEMA, the federal organization that handles flood insurance and the flood insurance administration. These are indicate that if you're going to build within a flood zone, you have to, a, submit certain studies, b, develop in certain ways. And if you follow that, you're able to go ahead and develop. Again, there are no changes proposed to the flood hazard areas outside of making sure that our code matches the FEMA regulations.

It is one of those. It's easy to understand that if you're gonna build in a flood zone, yeah, you probably need to build to a particular standard. This works not just for private property, for but for public property. I think you heard me talk about climate change and how a lot of our, public infrastructure is located right down on the shoreline, whether that be a pump station or lift station for our wastewater treatment plant or stormwater outfalls, those types of things. It's really important that you build them with flooding in consideration so you don't end up backing up your system in a way that ends up polluting your shorelines or stream beds.

Any questions about flood hazard areas? I started with the scary ones so that everyone's just in too much shock to be able to ask questions later on. It's all tactical.

Just because I come from the insurance industry. Why are we relying on insurance companies to tell us where critical flood areas are.

We aren't. It's actually the federal the the the flood insurance administration is actually a a federal a federal organization. Got it. So yeah. No. Yeah. State Farm isn't coming out and telling me what telling me what the flood thank you. That that's something I really should include in this. Because anytime I say the word insurance, people are gonna assume that GEICO is standing out there telling me what my regulations need to be. I'd know.

The flood insurance administration is a component of the federal government. They handle insurance rates to one one depending on how you feel about them. The they have a good handle or a poor handle on it. So, yes, that that organization the FEMA maps are driven by technical information. The state of Washington also has a series of flood maps as does Pierce County.

But because the flood insurance administration is the entity that gets people paid when bad things happen to their property, Gig Harbor historically has hung on to that standard versus trying to go it alone as, again, flooding is a significant issue to private property and public property, and we don't wanna create any scenario where getting paid during a natural disaster is harder. Any other questions? Lastly is critical aquifer recharge areas. Again, you are not seeing substantial changes here other than the changes in definitions. The definitions that we had in regards to certain uses were confusing or were not consistent with other state statutes.

A lot of folks are gonna read critical aquifer recharge areas, and they're going to say, so you're gonna tell us how much water is in the ground. No. That's not what this code does. This the amount of water in the ground actually, the local government does not have any control about that water in the ground. We do not own it.

Just like we don't own stream beds and we don't own portions of the bay, though that's all owned by the state of that's all owned by the state of Washington as is every drop of water that's located in our aquifers. However, we are responsible for ensuring that we are not allowing any uses on the top of the ground that could potentially contaminate the water that's in the ground. Again, the water that's owned by the state of Washington. And, also, depending on where where you are in the court cases, in many ways, owned by the native tribes that came before the state of Washington. So there's a very delicate balance on there that I won't go into because it doesn't isn't really related to what we're talking about here, but it makes our regulations very important to make sure that if we are going to allow a gas station, propane a propane tank facility.

Anybody doing hazardous metal like or I'm sorry, hazardous material manufacturing. If they are going to locate, a, we discourage them to be located over critical aquifer recharge areas, which are the aquifer itself, but also a certain distance from every wellhead that we have in the city. And we have a lot of wellheads. The city is made up of a lot of different water districts that the city has has assumed over time, but there's a lot of wells. If you're going to build within any of those wellhead radiuses or over a aquifer, you have to do a hydrological report that basically describes how your development has all the safeguards necessary that if a failure occurs, you have an earthquake, a car comes and crashes into your facility, that you have the ability to contain the hazardous material in a way that does not allow it to soak into the soil.

K? We can all agree that is just like flooding areas, these two are the ones that we get the least amount of comment on because everyone's like, yeah. Okay. Probably a good idea. And it those two regulations oftentimes are not a no. You can't. It is a you can if type regulation. So if a a permit came in for, say, a gas station in a wellhead radius, we would require That hydrological report would say you have to put in x, y, and z, catch basins and other things to capture, the hazardous materials if it were to leak out, and they could the development would have to be built to that, to that standard.

Eric, on the this critical aquifer recharge area, when's the last time the aquifers have been surveyed?

The Department of Natural Resources has done a number of different studies over time. Oftentimes, it is the responsibility of the water companies and water providers. They they have the greatest I'd knowledge of exactly what the various well levels are. That is done through what is called a consolidated water plan for the entire county. So largely, it's the it's Pierce County who kind of doesn't control that but monitors that and provides the information to the state.

If you are looking to drill another municipal well, say a well that's going to serve a hundred, hundred and fifty homes, you need to get a water right from the state of Washington. I would say getting a water right is hard, but that would entail that people actually get water rights. Water right processes can last up to a decade, fifteen years. Some people have been waiting almost two decades to get water rights. So that leads to different conversations about water reuse. If you ever seen the jurisdictions who are looking at recycling their sewer water and using it for irrigation, etcetera, they don't have to get additional water water rights yet are allowed to use that water for other things.

Thank you. And then, so I just wanna make sure I'm understanding.

Mhmm.

Based on the best available analysis, there's no additional setbacks No. That that science is saying we need to consider as part of this?

No. Again, much like the geotechnical report, we aren't the the the regulations that apply are directly attributed to the information that's provided by the hydrologic engineer or in the steep slopes, the g the geotechnical engineer. So as they come forward, they are almost all site specific, situations. So, no. There's no additional changes. The process remains the same. The only thing that's different is the clear is the clarity of the code so that people understand when we say hazardous material uses, what that means.

I guess what I'm struggling with is why is it different if I have a habitat biologist Mhmm. That will write up a report saying there's no wetland versus a geotechnical engineer. Why do we treat those differently? Why are we prescriptive for wetlands and not prescriptive for slopes?

Because in many ways, usually, the term engineer falls into it. The statement that will be made is that anything can be engineered. It's just whether you can afford to engineer it that way. The wetland biologists are not engineers. You can't necessarily The wetland biologist is pretty much saying, if you do this, this will happen, but they don't really have the ability to wave away an impact.

They can balance impacts. They can assess how little of an impact you might end up having, but you're not actually saying that they are not saying that if you do this, you are a 100% safe. So it's a difference between the planners in my department and the engineers that are down the hall. Two entirely different measures of how they go about doing their business, and one carries substantially more weight because, again, anything can be engineered, but not anything can be waved away as not having a bile not having a biological impact. So regulations are necessary on one while there's more flexibility on the other.

That's a good question. I've not had that in in any of my conversations. That's a good that's a that's a good one. Alright. So the other revisions that you're gonna see as you go through the code, we went through and we revised language to better reflect definitions and process.

We improved consistency with the DOE requirements and the rating system. That was a lot of the wetland stuff we talked about before. And then we improved clarity on mitigation sequencing that avoid minimize mitigate on-site, off-site. So, again, making it clear, exactly how you can go about doing that as, again, the best answer is site specific always. I no one will ever develop a bulk regulation that is better than somebody going and taking a look at a specific piece of property.

So we really wanna make sure that those avenues are clear. They take the least amount of time, and they cost the least amount of money. As as was mentioned, we do have housing goals. So everything we require a develop a developer to do is going to increase the cost of housing. So speed, clarity, consistency, all significant goals.

You wanna know more? If you do, we have some websites. The critical areas, website is up. We are going to be adding to that. As we get comments from state agencies or, major stakeholders, we're gonna be putting that comment on the website. We will be providing it to you as these topics come up, but if you have just an urgent need to find out if anybody submitted comment, you'll be able to go to the critical areas webpage. Also, if you wanna take a look at the various critical area features in our community, the Harbor Atlas is available. You can see all of the wetland systems. You can see all of the stream systems. That is overlaid with parcel data.

So if you wanna know, okay, what is the zone of that piece of property that has a wetland, how many units was supposed to be able to be developed on it, the public can do that. You can do that as well. So these are the two sites that are particularly beneficial, to be able to do a more granular look at any potential implications. We also will be providing, additional, information about the potential impacts of these scary slides that I showed earlier as we move through this process. That was faster this time. Right? Too much? Alright. Damn. Time flies when you're having fun.

I have a question. So I know that you're gonna break down some of these costs and expected impacts to us as we keep going. Mhmm. But when we get down to the end of it, will we build to provide homeowners before they buy a property, maybe the estimated cost to develop that property before they buy it? Because, like, I we my husband and I bought a property out in Belfair, and, you know, we were first time homebuilders. And so they mentioned all these things. You're probably gonna need this or this or this. You know? And we're like, oh, sure. We just love it. It's so great. And then you

get into it,

and you're like, how much and how much for the geotech? And we had to go through all of that. And then the geotech comes back and says, you need all these things. And so I'm just kinda wondering how many like, how how are we gonna equip people once we set these new rules so they don't end up not being able to develop something that they buy. I don't know if that's gonna be part of the process later.

It is the site specific flexibility, and then it is the exhaust valves of things like a reasonable use exception. You can still do something on the property. How that's going to affect housing price, that is a very good question. However, the city very carefully not only will I not say you can't develop on a piece of property, I very rarely will tell you how much it will cost to do so because there are too many variables located in that. What you wanna build, where you wanna build it, after you've drilled some perk holes for geotechnical analysis, you we have no idea what you're gonna find.

So we rarely opine on that. What we can tell you is what are the permit fees gonna cost, what are the, various, engineers and biologists you might need, recommend that you get those upfront before you actually sign on a dotted line. So we do have the clarity that comes through that, but I'd there'll there won't be a time in this process where I'm gonna give you a number saying these changes are gonna infect a property by this number because I will be wrong at least half the time, and that other half the people are gonna tell are gonna say I lied to them.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

This is just a housekeeping question. Have we provided these red lines already to the general public? Are they available?

Or They're available on our they're available on our website. We're gonna be doing a full marketing push starting next week indicating that it's out there. We're gonna be scheduling virtual workshops, which for is gonna feel kinda like this, for people to understand within breakout rooms afterwards where people can then kinda talk amongst themselves virtually. We're also gonna do one in person so people can come in. That will be more of an open house type structure where people will be able to come and ask questions.

Not I'm pretty certain not a lot of folks are gonna wanna talk about the aquifer recharge areas, but everybody's gonna wanna talk about wetlands and streams. We're gonna have opportunities for everyone to be able to get their questions answered and not necessarily on a citywide basis, but on a here's my property. I got this stream. What does that look like type scenario? We have also made it available to the master builders.

We've made it available to the environmental community. So, again, a number of the key stakeholders that we expect to be providing input during this process do have access to the documents. But again, we are going to notify everybody by postcard who is within 300 feet of a wetland or stream, and we are going to notify everybody else through the gigabyte. Anybody who is not currently a subscriber to the gigabyte, our weekly newsletter, I strongly recommend you do so because it has all kinds of helpful nuggets. And then, also, we'll be using all forms of social media.

In these documents may also be available on our local libraries, though I have had those walk off pretty quickly. So it it's one of those things that we employ somewhat infrequently.

Can you just quickly run down the timeline or all of this, like, I don't know. Yeah.

We're we're gonna be asking you to make a decision in two weeks. No. I'm kidding. It it we are gonna be going through this is our initial draft. So, again, this is intended to be educated by public comment and other information.

So we're gonna have the workshops, etcetera. We are going to continue to meet with you folks to get additional questions out to make sure that you have the information that you need. That will then lead to what's called a staff draft that is likely going to be available come March. That staff draft will be the beginning of the formal adoption process where then we go back to you to hold a public hearing to hear from the public yourselves and then to deliberate and create a recommendation. Again, the idea being is that you'll be working probably through the month of April and then the council, month of April, probably May, and then, the council will take it from there leading us to the June.

So I don't wanna wreck your entire summer with this, just a part of it. Anybody who, was participating in why I wake up at 04:00 in the morning? Now you know why.

Okay. I lost my agenda on my PC. So sorry. Was there anything else on the agenda? Alright. So, before I ask for a motion to, adjourn, any, final commission comments or questions? Being none My

next meeting is the nineteenth, and we will be, electing chair and vice chair.

Oh, good.

And welcome our members so we can have a.

Great. We do have, is there another are there any other board members coming?

It's a good one. We're gonna have one more, so we can go forward.

Okay.

Okay.

And we do have the meet and greet opportunity at 05:00 beforehand. I will bring cookies. So I I can guarantee that those those those will be be here, but it it's a good opportunity for you to meet the other staff, the nicer people than me that work in our department. Cool. But not nicer than Michelle. Of course.

You're all nice.

Alright then. A motion to adjourn.

To adjourn.

Seconded.

Alright. It's moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Alright. The motion passes. Good night, everyone. Go