Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Thursday, 05/14/2026, call to order the Gig Harbor Planning Commission open public hearing. I will start with a roll roll call. Thanks. Mark Perkar, I'm here. Kim Anderson? Katie con Cornell?

Here.

Jim Henderson? Here. Rosie Joe?

Here.

And Brent Wozniak? Here. Okay. With that, entertain a motion for the approval of the minutes for March 19.

Motion to accept.

And second.

I'll second that. Alright.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Opposed? Approve approval of the minutes is complete. Let's see. Public comment of non agenda items. Do we have anybody available for or wishing a public comment on non agenda items, Michelle?

Okay.

Okay. We'll go ahead and move forward then with the agenda items. The on the agenda today is a review and potential recommendation for the critical ordinance or excuse me, critical areas code update. And to start that, we'll turn it over to Eric Baker for a staff report then.

Very much. Thank thank you very much. For the record, my name is Eric Baker. I'm the community development director. Kinda feel like I, threw a party and no one showed up, but, we definitely sent out notifications to everybody who's been participating throughout this whole process.

Either a, I have successfully made everybody happy and or probably a very, very different reality. But, the purpose of tonight's meeting is, to give the public an opportunity to testify on the most recent draft critical areas code update. Unfortunately, I do have a PowerPoint presentation that I was going to share, but for some reason, it is not Showing up on the screen. One moment. We have lots of technical issues, but this one is new.

Yes.

Am I gonna have to

do this presentation as an interpretive dance? We're gonna protect the eelgrass.

Hey. Stop sharing again. Yes. Suck it to me. Anybody know a joke?

Yeah.

Okay. Well, let me see how much I can do. Because this this won't have the benefit of the PowerPoint presentation, which for you folks will be merciful because you've seen it before. I will try to kinda just kinda run through some of these kinda orally. So, again, we're here for the critical areas ordinance code update.

Jurisdictions are required to update their, critical areas ordinance every ten years. That is based upon best available science. Best available science is, the most recent scientific information about how to achieve no net loss of function from new development. So when we're talking about no net loss of function, we're talking about a wide range of things from water quality to temperature to wildlife habitat, fish habitat, all of it. As I indicated, it's required every ten years.

Best available science used to be a grassroots type, endeavor where local jurisdictions would do their own best available science review. Nowadays, it is very driven by the the state agencies. The state agencies, provide you what, they, perceive as best available science, especially as it applies to wetlands and riparian management zones, otherwise known as streams. So what's covered in the critical areas ordinance? The critical areas ordinance, again, provides protections, regulations, requirements for new development for, again, the preservation of no, of no net loss of function for wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas or streams, streams in unstable slopes, flood hazard areas, critical aquifer recharge areas.

Those all five of those have a series of, regulations that apply to them, some substantially more, a lot more content when it comes to wetland regulations as again the Department of Ecology stipulates very clearly how you need to go about categorizing wetlands, what type of buffers and other protections are necessary. There are fewer of that direction for some of the other sections, though you'll find that wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat are the most impactful. So wetlands come in roughly four categories ranging from one to four. One is the most, habitat sensitive, the most important. You're talking about s hey. I'm so excited.

Did catch a bunch of buttons.

I'm so excited. So I there wasn't anything in the other slides that I need to necessarily go back to that, we'll, we'll be missing. So, wetlands, what we're largely looking at here is we're looking at the four types of wetlands from one to four. Category one are your estuaries, the mouth of Donkey Creek, all the way down to category fours, which are the small isolated wetlands that oftentimes appear as just smaller damp areas, not a lot of habitat diversity, usually grass, something something of that nature. But it does include wetland soils and is valuable for uncertain number of wildlife types, salamanders being example, and also is beneficial for retention of water.

Everything about wetlands, water has to go somewhere. If you fill a wetland, that water does does just doesn't go away. It the water pooled there for a reason. The water now has to go someplace else. So we don't just preserve wetlands for wildlife. We also preserve them for humans. This is an illustration of just a portion of the city. We have wetlands. If you're if you're going East West, you're going uphill or downhill. Every time you're at the bottom of a downhill, you are likely in a wetland or stream or some other feature.

So you'll note here that most of our wetlands that you see mapped, these are mapped wetlands that come from a series of sources from both the federal and state government, as well as some that have been produced by Pierce County. As we get new wetland data, wetland data largely comes from new wetland delineations, a project comes in, they need to do a wetland delineation, they provide that information, we put it into the system. But what you see here is a series of wetlands that have implications on the developability of land. Streams also are classified from one to five. Type one, two, and three are considered fish streams, streams of fish and fish habitat.

And then type four and fives are nonfish streams. There's nonfish perennial, the ones that run all year round, and nonfish seasonal. The type s streams are again shorelines of the state, much like the wetlands around Donkey Creek. You're also looking at the mouth of Donkey Creek would fall into a type s stream category. We do have maps of these, and I do just show this map to show that not all streams are one classification.

Sometimes they have fish habitat up to a particular point and then no fish habitat beyond that. This is important because the regulatory requirements are substantially higher for fish streams versus nonfish streams. We're gonna be talking a lot about buffers. These are some of the most impactful to development protections that are imposed by the Critical Areas Ordinance. And while we are adjusting the buffer widths, buffers are not new.

Buffers have been in every Critical Areas Ordinance for the last twenty years. Largely, they are intended to serve a number of different purposes. They're intended to stabilize, say, the stream bank as you get close to it. They're intended to provide shade to reduce water temperatures. Also, they are intended to provide water both quality and quantity so that water coming from the uplands aren't coming into the stream in a way that could be contaminated.

And then as you get to the outer edges, you're now really providing wildlife habitat. As we develop, we do find a lot of wildlife in our backyards, but there's a lot of wildlife that does not enjoy hanging out in your backyard. They need abilities to move from one part of the community to another part of the community, from one wetland system to another wetland system, from the shoreline to a forested area, and our critical area buffers are the our way of doing that. I'm about to talk about wetland buffers. Wetland buffers aren't just how important the wetland is, it is also what you're looking to put next to it.

If you are looking at how much buffer you need to provide, you need to look at whether you're a high, moderate, or low use. For all practical purposes, most development are high uses. They're either residential developments of greater than one dwelling unit an acre, largely all residential development in the city, commercial, retail and services, industrial, active recreation. Moderate, you're talking about lower densities, which we do not have zoned in the city any longer. Pave trails, like the Gushman Trail would also fall in there.

And then low is largely forestry, small goat path type trails through our passive recreation parks and utility corridors. I'm gonna focus a little bit on this because the this is really where most of the impacts are felt on people looking to develop their land. What you're looking at here is based on best available science, we have increased in certain instances, and we have flattened the amount of variation between low intensity uses and high intensity uses. Why is that? That's because best available science has indicated that even the low intensity uses or the moderate intensity uses have significant impacts that need greater buffering than we thought when we imposed the buffers ten years ago.

The older ones in green are the new buffers as it is in the draft. Why are the numbers shown in red down in category two? After we had the first draft and we've had a series of presentations with the planning commission, we asked for both public comment and state agency feedback. State agency feedback from the Department of Ecology indicated that our buffers for category two wetlands were too small. What was that number before?

That number before ranged from 100 to two twenty five feet. They indicated that per their best available science, a 150 to 300 feet was what they recommended. It is also the regulations that are in place in both Pierce County and Kitsap County, which are the two jurisdictions that are next to us. So from the last time I presented, these buffers have been increased in the most recent draft. And then as you move down category three and four wetlands, those are the wetlands that we have the most of, those are largely staying the same and still maintain a certain amount of variability.

Moving into stream buffers. Stream buffers are the ones that we had, the least protections in our existing draft. 25 foot buffers were nonexistent in, Kitsap County back starting back all back in 2025 or 2005. So, again, having some of these buffers, they obviously had not been updated based upon best available science. What you're noting here is that instead of having a variation of buffers, you're now looking at basically having fish streams having a 200 foot buffer and non fish streams having a 100 foot buffer.

Why are non fish streams going up so much? Best available science has indicated that nonfish streams from temperature, water quality, everything, eventually they run into either shoreline or they run into a fish stream. So the lack the lack of protection on those has impacted some amount of habitat, fish habitat in a negative way. Thus, buffering is necessary for all those qualities I mentioned when I showed you the buffer slide, water quality, wildlife habitat, shading, temperature, etcetera. The, again, red numbers, never a good sign.

If you are looking to develop your land, those numbers previously were a 150 feet. They are now shown as 200 feet based upon guidance from, both state agencies and best available science. Other jurisdictions, 200 feet is utilized by Kitsap County for fish streams. A 175 feet is utilized in Pierce County. I just wanna highlight that because previous planning commission, members have asked for that comparison.

But all of these are just bulk buffers. These are okay. If you don't want to do a site specific analysis, if you don't want to expend the money to hire a wetland biologist or a habitat biologist, those are the buffers that you have to follow. But those buffers are are not the best answer for every lot. Every lot has different characteristics, and site specific analyses are always the best way to ensure the best protection.

So there is flexibility in the current in current code. The first of which, as you're talking about a number of these buffers and in looking at a number of our developed areas, there is the concept of, of impacted buffers or buffer breaks. That's where you have a wetland on one side of the street and someone wants to build on the other side of the street. Or you have a stream on one on one side of someone's house and then someone two doors down wants to build, but they're still within that 200 feet 200 foot buffer area. Obviously, the buffer is intended to provide all those uses that I showed you in the in the previous slide.

What you're noting is that if you have a house or a shopping center or a road, you are dramatically impacting that, that buffer. And to a degree, the buffer ceases to have a certain amount of value on the other side of some of these, what are called roadways or substantial developments. We have language on our code both for wetlands and streams that takes into account buffer breaks. So not every 200 feet is a full 200 feet. Beyond that, we do have a series of opportunities for site specific analysis by either wetland or habitat biologists to say, okay, these are the buffers that are established in general.

But based upon the habitat characteristics of the property that we're looking at, the vegetation, the tree canopy, all of those, there may be a way or a different way to provide flexibility for development. All of those new proposals, a wetland or habitat biologist can come forward and say, no. You don't need a 200 foot buffer here. You can get the a hundred and fifty fifth a 150 foot buffer will work fine and provide no net loss if you do x, y, and z. Those x, y, and z's can be buffer averaging, more buffer in in one area of the property to in exchange for less buffer in another.

I it can be replanting vegetation. Say you have a buffer that runs up to a stream and it's grass or it's just brush leading up to it. You can replant that area to again improve the buffer over time. You also can move forward and you can ask for variances in certain situations. I purchased a I purchased a property.

The buffers have changed. I don't have space on my property now. I did not create the situation. Variances don't allow you to build anything you want, but it can allow you to get additional value out of the property. So I highlight the fact that while the buffers are increasing and those buffers are going to have an impact on probably another 300 acres of Gig Harbor in one way or another.

You do have opportunities through habitat habitat studies and wetland studies to be able to address those while still maintaining no net loss. Those were the two biggest sections. I'm gonna kinda fly through these others as these are not dramatically changing. We also have regulations for hillsides and bluffs.

Eric, sorry to interrupt you.

Yes, please.

We have had a couple questions come up. Do you wanna handle those as we go? Or

I I am entirely open to how the planning commission would like to proceed. Okay. It it Yeah. Go ahead. I guess, generally, with a public hearing, there's a presentation. The planning commission will ask clarifying questions only. Nothing that leads itself to deliberation. The public have the opportunity to have the opportunity to testify, and then the public hearing is closed, and then deliberations can be it can begin. But if there are clarifying questions on things I've said, anytime is an excellent time to do that. Great.

Okay. Thank you so much for clarifying. I wasn't sure because of that if you wanted to finish first, and you can still answer this question after. But I was curious having read the public comment from the master builders. Mhmm. They made a comment in there about that they were recommending that we stick to not going higher than the state recommendations. And so I know we referenced Kitsap and Pierce standards, but how can how do how does what we're doing here compare to the state standards was my question.

Basically, what you're seeing here on the wetland buffers is you are looking at the state standards. So, there there's little d there's little to no deviation from the state standards for wetland buffers. For stream buffers, stream buffers is a little more complicated. It kinda comes down to exactly what state guidance is. Certain feedback from the Department of Fish and Wildlife has been focused on the concept of site potential tree height, really establishing I I I kinda gave a presentation on that previously.

I go back into what that is. That is not necessarily utilizing a specific number. But based upon the tree canopy in your buffer, that will determine how wide the buffer is. The downside is someone has to do an analysis of what that buffer is for you to determine how much of your land you can't build on. Thus, we are trending towards bulk buffers for people who don't want to go to the site specific analysis.

200 feet can be everyone can determine what 200 feet is. You don't need a biologist to say that is that's that's 200 feet. Or so a site potential tree height, Douglas fir stands, if they are what area in your buffer, your buffer is wider. If you have Madrona stands or Alder stands, your buffer is smaller. So in general, what you're seeing here is both Pierce County and Kitsap County wrestled with this issue and have gone through the appeals period.

Actually, I believe Kitsap County was appealed on this item, and their numbers have gone through some additional legal vetting. I don't think unless we went with site potential tree height, which staff is currently not recommending, there is no smoking gun absolute number. So that's why we're looking at the jurisdictions that are closest to us.

So is it then from the the master builder's comment is that that this is ref they're referencing to this. So you're saying that our stream buffers are higher than the state, but you're saying that because of the way we're going about it?

No. Actually, I would probably indicate that the numbers we have here are a good placeholder for site potential tree heights in a lot of ways without having everybody having to pay for it. I guess what I would indicate or pay to find out what that buffer really should be. I don't believe there is a specific number that is laid out in state guidance for it. I do believe that in the master builders, they they are largely indicating don't go any further than you absolutely have to.

When it comes to stream buffers, that number is not as clear as it is with wetland buffers. What you have here, I believe, is a conservative. This is what the state would be requiring and has been consistent with the conversations we've had with state agencies.

So then would you say that do you feel like then after all the research that this does, this is not any farther than we need to go?

That is yeah. That that is a diff that is a difficult question because it it really trends toward, do you want to be conservative or do you want to be liberal in regards to how and I don't mean politically. I mean, way how you wanna be in regards to the concept of no net loss. Obviously, Pierce County, felt that they're able to get to a 175 feet on on streams. Kitsap did not feel comfortable.

Obviously, they're in the same same geographic area. I would say 200 feet would be more conservative in regards to no net loss as, obviously, Pierce County moved forward with a 175. Like, an argument could be made for a 175 based upon the fact that Pierce County surrounds the entirety of us. I think it really would be up to the planning commission through their deliberations as to exactly where they wanna fit on the do we wanna be safer or less safe when it comes to the term of no net loss with the idea that, yes, the more land that you're encumbering with these with these in with these requirements, the less land that is gonna be available for development of housing and other things that we need. I'm I'm sorry.

I the the on stream buffers, I don't have a clear definitive answer like I usually have.

Thank you. You can continue. Can

actually, I Yeah. Yeah.

I had some similar questions, but I guess just more clarifying question and Yeah. Maybe just shorter answers for me because I I get a little lost. Yep. But something you said was that the state would be requiring. And then then in my mind, I'm that that competes with what is the state requiring. So what I'm trying to and maybe you can point on the screen so I can better understand this. Like, where is the minimum versus where we are at and with the state? And, I guess, question, do we have to do we have to go do we have to follow what commerce is saying on a minimum number, or is this a recommendation and we can do something different?

Commerce doesn't weigh, commerce doesn't weigh in on this topic, but I definitely see I definitely see where you're going on this. Honestly, I believe if you were to ask the state the state agencies specifically, they would recommend that you utilize site potential tree height, in which case these numbers, in certain cases, may be low depending on the on the lot. If you have a doug if you have a mature Douglas first stand, you're probably looking at 225 to 230 foot buffers based upon how site potential tree height is calculated. If you're talking about an older for if if it's an older forest, it could be closer to a 150 or a 175 feet, but that's gonna be on a parcel by parcel basis as to what the what the answer is. We are trending towards utilizing bulk buffers so that people clearly know what the requirement is and don't have to pay for a study just to do anything on your property.

So what I read in the public comment, summarizing in the three, comments that we received, was there's a desire for predictability

Yes.

But also flexibility.

Exactly.

So I heard what you said around, I mean, predictability. Mhmm. But then does that, in your opinion, maybe create a conflict with and maybe this is where you say, well, we have a variant, a conflict with somebody who thinks that their site may be eligible or they would like to do something different.

Mhmm.

Am I tracking? Like Yep. Kinda what Yes.

I basically, the way that we have structured the code is that for folks who are just looking for, I don't want to go to any additional work effort, I don't wanna deal with any additional uncertainty, the bulk buffers are for that purpose. So it's like, okay. I'm 200 feet away. I'm good. I'm gonna just gonna design my project with 200 foot 200 foot buffers.

However, if I want flexibility, if I wanna try to get to one seventy five or one fifty, and I have the ability to do that on my property, the flexibility, which we have a very good array of options, especially for streams, through wetland and habitat biologists to be able to make recommendations for the proper answer for that lot, which provides that little flexibility you're looking for. Because, yes, you're entirely correct. The, development community would like to have both of the both at the same time depending on the lot that they're currently trying to develop.

Speaking about the on current lots that they're trying to develop, if the if the project has been already permitted

Mhmm.

Will will these changes impact their project? Will they have to reevaluate if they haven't started building, but they've got a permit and they've got approval to, will these changes impact where that building goes on the way?

If they it it depends on the existing entitlement they have. If they have a preliminary plat, it you may there may be some additional impact. If but if you have final plats or building permits, these will not impact you.

Okay. Alright. I mean, my mind is where how you know, just considering the building community

Mhmm.

And, you know, just how this is gonna impact them versus also giving some flexibility that they're asking for and being able to have some site specific, you know, changes. One other question, and you may not know this, but if these changes re you know, increase the buffer, does that have any change in the property tax that somebody's paying on the property that you know, given that now they have less property that they may have been able they would be able to use versus prior?

Very easily, the board of equalization takes into account the developability of land. Critical areas, if you have a specific critical area on there, that that's a lot easier. The buffer because of the flexibility in the buffer, you may be able to do a lot more than 200 feet depending on what the site site specific is. I believe that also is a site specific determination for the board of equalization. But, yes, you are able to get, your property taxes reduced. And if your property is almost entirely encumbered, by it, I think there are specific tax programs that are available as well.

Maybe this is my last last question, but on this area. But if you go back a slide, just remind me these existing numbers, we're looking the draft is increasing those. We're increasing those because

Best available science indicates that the current widths are not adequate to provide no net loss of function. Either a, they don't provide adequate water water quality treatment. They don't b, they don't provide adequate shading, or they don't provide adequate wild wildlife have wildlife connectivity. There's probably about 10 others that I could add if I was an actual scientist. But, yeah, the the the numbers that we have right now are not equivalent to what current best available science says is necessary to meet no net loss of function if you are going to protect the streamer well.

And so is is it realistic for our building community to be able to then whatever the draft changes the existing to increases it, that they can that somebody in the building community can come back and ask for something that is closer to what is now existing. Is that realistic?

It if you're talking about type f streams, I think it is realistic to see a 150 foot buffers to but to be able to get all the way down to 100, you're going to need to, a, have specific qualities on your property and areas to mitigate for. Because, again, it is all about making something else better to because I might be making this one area worse. So it all becomes a site specific balance. Getting down to 100, I I don't see as as likely. Getting down to 25 foot buffers, 25 foot buffers are yeah. They I think they are a artifact of a past.

Alright. Thank you.

You might not know the answer to this question, but I'm gonna take a stab at it anyway. We started at a 150, and then we modified to 200. Correct?

Mhmm.

In the proposal?

Yes.

Pierce County is still at a 175?

Correct.

Port Orchard's still at a 150?

Port Orchard's process is still in play. They aren't they are not complete. So, again, the Port Orchard information that we're utilizing was based upon their draft. So they are shifting sands, so we're we're really not comparing ourselves at this moment. Though I will say that the consultant who did our best available science review, same one is doing Port Orchard's.

Okay. So we we anticipate that Port Orchard might might swing, but do we know why Pierce County has landed on one seventy five for their best available science and we landed at two hundred?

One seventy five, they took a look at potential tree height. They took a look at a number of other aspects, and they felt that based upon their tree canopy, a 175 was was something they were their electeds were comfortable with. Again, you can fall on either side. You can either get down to one seventy five and potentially have some situations where you may not be meeting no net loss or you can be at 200, and in certain cases, you may be providing more than no net loss. So if the planning commission wanted to move forward and they said no, I think Pierce County, surrounding jurisdiction, felt that a 175 was appropriate for a fish stream, it would be appropriate for the planning commission to discuss. Maybe ours should be the

same. Thank you.

I have a question. How did staff evaluate the cumulative, impact of the expanded buffers plus setbacks plus, say, mitigation requirements, like, kind of on the overall housing capacity? And the second part to that question is how might this proposal of the critical area of regulation, like, impact the city's ability to achieve its housing goals?

In general, you can make an assessment that the new buffers are going to have an impact, not not make undevelopable, but there'll be additional regulatory requirements for around 300 additional acres of land. That is developed land. That's vacant land. Actually, of that of that land, very little of it is truly vacant largely because very little of Gig Harbor's land is truly vacant. So when it comes to housing, I think you have heard me talk about the other endeavor that we'll be starting immediately after this, which is our update to zoning codes.

We a 100 acknowledge that to meet state requirements for the protection of critical areas, we are impacting the amount of horizontal developable land in the city. In part of phase two codevelopment and the update of our zoning ordinance, we are gonna be focused on how to maximize maximize is not the right word, to increase the ability for development to occur on the land that is left. I think you've heard me talk about our very, generous setbacks that we have that take up a certain amount of land, in development. We have very limited heights. We have very limited amounts of impervious surface you can put on individual lots.

We will be talking about adjusting all of those as well as creating incentives for higher densities. So instead of a property only having one home and serving 2.5 people, you can now have four homes on it, and now you're serving eight to 10 people. So I know that this is this will have an impact on the overall amount of developable land. We're hoping that we are going to be able to recapture a certain amount of that housing capacity through adjusting our zoning regulations as a follow on to this. I entirely understand that these two conversations are incongruent, that we are we have housing needs, and we have housing regulations.

We need to make things cheaper. We need to make things, more diverse when it comes to housing types. And then we're also required to protect the critical areas which are throughout our community. We have to do those two things equally. So there is a middle ground to that, and we're hoping to be able to achieve that with this critical areas ordinance update and the, coming, development code updates.

Follow-up on that. Who is requiring us to do that? Which? The I guess, trying to your like, when you explain, like, we're required or we have to protect our streams, our wetlands, like like, who's the governing authority that's requiring us to do that?

The it's the growth management act that indicates that we need to be protecting our, critical areas based upon best available science for no net loss of function. Ultimately, the adjudicating body on those is the growth management hearings board. Like I mentioned, Kitsap County had been appealed and went before the growth management hearings board and was required to shift their was to shift their buffers. That is it it largely is one of those scenarios that if you're appealed to growth management hearings board, and ultimately, the courts will decide what the right answer is. When it comes to housing, which was properly indicated, there's a series of state statutes that indicate that we need to change our development codes in very specific ways or some very general ways, all of which, if we do not achieve certain housing targets or make progress towards certain housing targets for people making less than a 100% of annual median income.

There's the Housing Accountability Act, which allows the Department of Commerce to certify our comprehensive plan. So in that case, housing would be the Department of Commerce indicating you have done good or you have done bad through the Housing Accountability Act. If we don't meet our housing targets, there's a possibility that we could be jeopardizing certain state funds.

Oh, sorry. Go we'll just

go ahead, Katie, and then I'll ask my next question. How

much are we anticipating? I know it's gonna be a large range, but how much do sites site specific analysis cost? Because my concern is that we're trying to increase workforce housing.

Mhmm.

And anytime somebody now is required because the buffer's larger and if they wanna adjust that, they have to now add these extra costs that's gonna be passed on to the cost of the housing. So how much added cost is this gonna now range if someone's building a very small one to four housing development?

It is one of these times I wish I had a developer in the room who would tell me exactly what that what that number is. As you as you did indicate, it does vary. It varies dramatically depending on the type of wetlands, the size of wetlands, and the amount of deviation that you're looking for because there is the assessment of the critical area and the buffer, and then there is the proposal of the alternative. The more creative the alternatives, the more expensive the alternative could be. Creating a wetland someplace else is a lot more expensive than planting some additional trees in in in a in a lawn area.

The analyses alone can run 15 to $20,000 for a overall project. If we're talking about an individual single family home, you're you could you're likely talking about less. But if you're talking about a subdivision or a multifamily project, you're talking about tens of thousands of dollars that have to go into that that get amortized out over the cost of all of the homes.

Just to be able to see if they can go under the $200.

200.

Or two sorry. 200 feet.

Yeah. It they're wishing it was $200.

Yeah. I know. Right. Sorry. But so So the higher the we make this number, the more people, essentially, that are gonna be required to pay this extra site specific plan, which will then increase the cost of housing.

I I would say that I cannot disagree with that statement, though I I will probably indicate even at a 150 feet, most of the developable land in this community is still going to be having to request some kind of site specific reduction of of buffers just due to the fact that there are significant challenges with what land remains.

I I had looked it up, like, ten minutes ago, and Google says the average for, like, a single family lot, that wetland assessment would be, like, 2 to $4,000 for, like, an average person trying to build a home.

That's just for the delineation of the there's a there's a wetland determination, which is what type of wetland do I got? And, then there's a wetland delineation, which is what type of what type do I have and how big is it, which

Yeah. It says, delineation report.

Okay.

Would be from 25 to $4 as the average residential project.

Great. And then then that then on top of that, I guess, you have the mitigation plan that would come along with it if you wanna deviate because that just tells you what your current reality is.

I but but to clarify, you're saying that if they just go off the standard 200 number, then they don't need that.

Yep. Right. K.

So just piggybacking on commissioner Cornell's kinda comments around less you know, more expensive how you know, this could make housing more expensive. But then, also, we could get less housing out of the project because of the buffer. And then I feel like then Mhmm. These changes then impact our comp plan or at least Commerce's expectation of the amount of housing that we should create when now we have less land available to put that housing.

I I think we may be drifting into deliberations, but I will but but I will I will add add some yeah. Yeah. I yeah. Then we're gonna

let Eric finish his presentation, and then we'll Yep. And we'll look for I will. Then there's, yeah, questions and then public comment, and then we can deliver it. Yep. Alright. Thanks.

So you can cover that. Cover okay. Hillsides and bluffs. If you're gonna build next to a steep slope, you either, a, have to stay back dramatically from that slope or, b, you need to get a geotechnical report saying that building close to the slope is not going to create a landslide hazard. Obviously, these regulations are in place to avoid mass landslides like we saw in Snohomish County about ten to fifteen years ago. If you get a geotechnical report to indicate, you can build as close as 25 feet from a from a steep slope, which a lot of our jurors a lot of our, cities do. I'm sorry. A lot of our development does. You also have a 10 foot building setback. So you have to have a 25 foot buffer, and then you have to be set back 10 feet.

All of the buffers have some form of setback largely because if you're gonna build something, you're not going to build it right up against the trees in the buffer. There's going to be some kind of disturbance, and you need to protect them from that. This area this section is staying almost largely exactly the same. Flood hazard areas, again, now we're talking about not necessarily can you develop in a particular area, but how can you develop in a particular area. These are driven by federal, FEMA and flood insurance rate calculations to ensure that both public and private property are not damaged by rising tides, floods, and the other things that we're seeing so so more often.

So more often. That's not good. More often nowadays. And then lastly, critical aquifer recharge areas. This this is not a question of how much water is in our aquifers.

This is how what regulations do we have to put in place to keep us from contaminating our aquifers. Largely, this has a requirement for hydrologic reports for hazardous uses like gas stations or sheet metal manufacturers. Anyone who's utilizing hazardous chemicals that if there is a spill of some kind, we need to ensure that that spill is contained on-site, doesn't make it into the water table, and worse yet, does not make it into the aquifer. So much like flood hazard areas, these are not no, you can't regulations. They are what are you going to do if something bad happens and making sure that you have a plan for that.

So we'll cover that. Update process. Where are we going from here? I'll just kinda cover where we're going from here. We're having this pub this public hearing starting next week. We tonight and next week, we can have deliberations if necessary. And then the planning commission will make a recommendation to the council who will then consider the final outcome throughout June. That will include another public hearing. From there, I will conclude and allow the public to testify on the most recent draft dated April 30.

Do we have any?

I I think now you have to open the public open the public hearing, in which case then we'll look to the people in the room, and then we'll look to the people online. If we do not see any or after they have had their opportunity, you can then close the public hearing, and then we have a conversation whether you wanna keep any element of testimony open beyond that. And then we can go into deliberations.

Yeah. I have next after the staff staff report questions for the staff, which we kind of did some. Were there any other questions for the staff

for for Eric? Yeah. The the the key component is you can ask clarifying questions during deliberations. You just can't deliberate during clarifying, and I think some of the questions are starting to intersect.

Okay. Alright. Okay. Yes. So this is an open public, meeting. At this point in the meeting, any member of the public in the audience can provide comments on the items being reviewed by the planning commission. Public, public that would like to comment should indicate such on the sign up sheet or, I believe still we can take online. Raise your hand online. Thank you. Yeah.

Seen seen none. Going online? Yeah. Going once? Going twice? Okay. Let's, move discussion then. We'll now have an informal discussion among the planning commission staff.

You may wanna close the close the public hearing.

Yes. I don't have that comment on here.

I'm sorry. I I it might deviate from yeah. It's in general, there there's a time in which the public then doesn't have the opportunity to provide additional additional oral testimony so that if you deliberate next meeting, people don't have the expectation they're still gonna be able to talk because you closed the oral portion.

Gotcha.

You then can keep written testimony open for another few days for anybody who sees this online and then wants to provide written testimony. But, again, that is entirely up to you.

Okay. So do do we have to vote on that and keep in the, public comment or the written comments open?

It would be it would be benefit it would be beneficial so that we can make sure that Do I have a

do I have a motion to close public comment?

Motion to close public comment.

Second.

Okay. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Any

opposed? Okay. Alright. So that will close public comment then on this subject. So now we'll move on to a discussion. We have an informal discussion among the planning commission staff.

We need a motion that we'll call them.

If only if you're choosing to leave the written comments open for any additional time.

Okay.

So to continue to next week.

Yeah. Because if we have Yep.

That's true.

Yeah. Why don't we why don't we do that? Also, what's wait. If we can come to an agreement to move this forward tonight, then we'll do that. And if we don't and we wanna leave it the subject open, then we'll we'll open it for additional written comment.

Does that

sound good to everybody? Yep. Alright. Okay. We'll try again then. Discussion.

I I do have one question. We had sent postcards to impacted residents. I think I saw in the last slide that we went ahead and calculated 300 feet. So when we set those postcards in February, anybody that was within 300 feet of a streamer or wetland got that postcard.

Yes.

Okay.

Did we have we calculated? And if we haven't, that's fine. But have we calculated any change in impact in increasing from the original 150 feet to the three or to the 200 feet in type two and type three?

The number that I have is based upon the current, the current potential impacts. And, again, I believe that, that additional impact was 346 feet. Oh, I'm sorry. Now now I'm getting now I'm getting my measurements off. $346. No. 346 acres. Sorry. It's been such a long day. And the and that's not undevelopable land. That's just land that potentially could be impacted. It doesn't take into account people whose has buffer breaks. So that 300 acres could have a buffer break at 25 feet. So those don't count. I mean, the maximum amount of land potentially impacted by the changes are are 300 and something acres.

Yeah. Do we know how many residents that impacted? I know we have acres, but do we know what that

That

increased the house count?

That that was it it would be some play some place under the 2,300 because, again, we'd all the parcels were sent based upon 300 feet, so it would be less than that. But, no, I don't have that number on top of my head.

Thank you. Question

about if I'm reading this correctly, and this this was raised also in one of the public comments around that the that we're we're using performance based approach Mhmm. For streams, but then we're using a different approach for wetlands. Is that correct?

They're both performance based approaches, but the sideboards for performance based is a lot tighter on wetlands based upon clear direction from the Department of Ecology in relation to what best available science says and does not say. So, I I would say that, yes, we are using performance based, but the the limits are not as wide as to what you can propose as mitigation.

Do we know that those standards produce better outcomes?

We know that the state believes that they meet no net loss of ecological functions if you follow that process in the ratios that they are proposing.

And then do you have an opinion on whether or not, like, modern stormwater practices actually have a more favorable impact or outcome?

I I I I think they definitely do. That that doesn't necessarily lead to our is new development, it would does that affect how new development moves forward? It just makes a statement about old development on how out of whack those likely are with no storm water in certain instances and very, very small buffers and all of that. So it isn't really added for new development. It just is a statement about how we may be needing to remediate stormwater for a lot of our older developments who basically everything just went into a ditch, and the ditch went into the ditch, and the ditch went into the shoreline.

Is it I mean, the consultant that that that the city hired to provide best available science, if I'm getting this correct. Right? And you also said that Port Orchard is using the same consultant.

Yes.

I mean, is there any bias with these consultants? Is there anything to say that I mean, how reliable is are their recommendations versus if we hired another consultant, they would come up with different numbers?

We're utilizing the same consultant that we utilize for third party review. Basically, when someone comes in with an application, they will submit environmental documents. Those environmental documents will be, reviewed by our third party. We've had that third party consultant for more than ten years and have had nothing but superlative experiences with them. When you start going down the how reliable our consultant role every consultant has credentials.

They have technical aspects. Though at times, they may not necessarily agree. You put two cons two you put two engineers in a room, and they're not gonna agree on on a particular answer necessarily. But I will say that the one that we're utilizing for our review, the city feels a 100% confident that they have provided the best work available in a discussion that doesn't always have absolute emphatic answers.

Can a property owner hire a different consultant if they wanna, you know, request a variance or some some exception? Can they hire who they want? And then or

Basically, when I I let me kinda back up. I apologize if I if I confused matters. When an application comes in, they will pick the applicant will pick their consultant. Their consultant will come, and they will do their study. The people, they can pick them based upon price. They can pick them based upon qualifications, whatever. They will then submit documents to us. We will have our third party review those to say, yep. That makes sense. Or, well, that's a little that that's a little off. And then if the two consultants can't come to some kind of accord, then we bring a third consultant to the party to break the to break the tie.

The slide had buzzed by pretty quick. Could you remind me between category one, two, three, and four wetlands, which ones we changed from the original recommendation? I just didn't get a chance to

I apologize. I shouldn't have taken the slide down.

That's okay.

I'll bring it right back, hopefully.

I got the streams. I missed the wetland.

Yeah. The wetlands is a much bigger. Okay. That's that. That's that.

There we go. So everything in green is as it was in the original draft. It is the category two wetlands. And, again, the distinction between the category two and the category three is they actually walk and talk a lot the same. But the difference is category twos have a hydrologic connection to something else, either a stream or another wetland or another series of wetlands.

So as you start to see a wetland chain that may not necessarily be a 100% connected, there's, like, I don't know, a 100 yards in between the two, but they all seem to be running along the same topography. There's a strong possibility that while the water may not be visible on the top, they the water could be visible underground connecting the two. That makes a three to a two, and I probably just wasted a bunch of time by describing it.

What does to bridge you further maybe you've already said this, and I apologize. But what does not meeting any of the above characteristics mean or classify as?

Basically, when you if you go through the Department of Ecology's wetland rating system, they have classifications for estuarine and wetlands of coastal lagoons, forested bogs. If you don't meet any of those definitions for one reason or another, you fall into this catchall, which is everything else, which, again, not all not all wetlands are created equal. Sometimes they are strange in a lot of ways. Sometimes they are sometimes they're circular and kind of and sometimes they're archipelagos that stretch out and all a whole bunch of different areas. So it is intended to capture

Okay. All about the soil classified a wetland property, but it just doesn't meet the other wetlands categories?

Yes.

Okay. So it's not like all other property or something. Okay. No. I just wanted to make sure.

No. I I apologize.

Can you remind me how old are the existing setbacks buffers?

Existing buffers are more than 10 or more than ten years old. And I will say that the the wetland buffers definitely went through a more rigorous update process than the stream buffers did. Again, going back to the fact that I haven't seen a 25 foot stream buffer since 2005, and that's twenty years ago. So there would have had to been one iteration of update between then and now. So but, yes, I would say that at at minimum ten years.

And did you say that this is every ten years we have to that this is reviewed? Yes. And then can you remind me again, like, why in the draft do we have a range? Like

Mhmm.

To be like, why would somebody, like just like in the forest, like, why would you have a 100 what would get what would allow 100 versus a 300?

If you're if you're doing a low intensity use, you're one one hundred. So you're doing forestry, passive recreation, utility corridors, you are or you're a 100. If you are doing a high intensity use, you're the high end, and there's a number that lives there in the middle. Okay. You should usually equal equidistant between the two that falls that equates to moderate.

Is the trends going back to these other updates from ten, twenty years ago

Mhmm.

I assume things are just keep getting more, restricted on each update. So I guess my question is, like, how is this going to look in, like, ten years? On the next update, are we gonna be pushing it to 400 feet?

I honestly could not tell you specifically. I will say the dramatic differences between the 2005 and 2015 updates went in my now going back to my old job. I did the 2005 and then the 2015. The difference the difference between what we had before 2005 and 2005 was huge. And the difference between 2005 and 2015 was pretty small in in change.

So I I I don't think it is a straight line. I think it really kinda comes to what new science has come out, what endangered species may have may have appeared in our region, and whether science is indicating there's some other characteristic in our water system that is impacting fish that doing something else buffer wise, width wise, makes better. But if you go back to the slide I have here, largely, as you're starting to get out on the out the the outer rim outer rim, you're really now talking about wildlife habitat. So you're no longer really talking necessarily about fish. You're talking about what how do other all the other animals get addressed.

So you'd like to think that unless there is a lot of endangered upland wildlife in your area, the numbers shouldn't change as dramatically as you're seeing from the last update to now. But, again, I am guessing, and I will be retired by the time the next one comes up because I told myself I would not do another critical areas ordinance after this one. I told myself that the last time too for the record.

Would you professionally, since you've

been through a few of these,

would you say, where do you think that the changes here fall into between, you know, a big update versus a small update?

I would say for wetlands, it's a it's a it's a small update. Right? You can just note from here that, obviously, in certain places, it's category twos that the best available science has probably indicated, okay. The hydrologic connection, ultimately, those wetlands are feeding some stream someplace. The lesser buffers we had before were indicating that what the water quality or temperature or whatever was getting into streams at levels that were not appropriate.

Thus, there was a shift on that one piece. So I think the difference between two and three but, yeah, when it comes to streams, I believe there's been a lot of, a lot of change, a lot of new science that's indicated the importance of lesser water bodies, lesser streams to the health of the bigger streams in ways that are negatively impacting salmon and other fisheries.

Yeah. Water temperature is huge for salmon habitat.

Yep. And the and the type and I think it's also the type of chemicals that not all chemicals get pulled out of the pulled out of the water by trees and soil as well as others. And there's likely some of those chemicals that they're finding are negative. Thus, you need more space to be able to allow more plants and more soil to pull that out. Again, I I I'm a BA, not a BS.

I really opened myself up on that one.

Does anybody have any specific questions or concerns with the with with the proposed proposed document as it stands right now?

I do. And it's more I hear you on the 200 where we different I I think, like, where we differentiate from Pierce County.

And Mhmm.

You know? Pierce unincorporated Pierce County is a stone's throw away. Yep. And I think about if somebody wants to develop land, would they just choose not to develop here in Mhmm. This in the city and just, you know, go just a little bit further. And that worries me that we're but, I mean, 25 feet, maybe, maybe not. But, again, it's just a concern and something I just wanted to put out.

It's valid concern.

No. Sorry. Go ahead.

I was just gonna share. I I shared the same concern. I I don't know that I don't know. I don't know all the protocols of this, but I don't know that I feel comfortable recommending higher than Pierce County. Because I also feel like on another side of that, you have consistency. It's something that's continually important to have consistent. So for everybody and I and affordability and those types of things. And so, I guess, what would be your I mean, if you I mean, I don't know if it's you that how it works, but meaning, why why do you still lean towards going higher than Pierce County's recommendations instead of just being consistent and also being competitive and also making things more affordable for our city.

The most recent hearings board decision out of Snohomish County struck down a 150 foot buffers, which is what led to this kind of this increase. Where Stonebridge County is landing, it it they're still having the same conversation as well. 200 feet's on the table for them. There is a component of, risk. Do you wanna be challenged?

Do you wanna go through the court system? Do you wanna redirect staff resources, legal resources? We're operating off of the best information that we have on that. So really, it is it it it it's a it's a risk base. If the planning commission wanted to consider a 175 feet, then likely a motion to consider it in a second would then allow for discussion and then potentially a vote if that's something that the planning commission is interested in.

Is, are there any other specific items in the, in the update that anybody has a concern?

I guess just piggybacking off of that legal issue, is there not the flip side of that where somebody can challenge it from saying that 200 is too stringent and that they only need to be one seventy five and come at Citi from that direction?

It it legal challenges can come be come from any any particular angle. In my experience, rarely have I lost being to being not being protective enough. I'd I have to have good reasons why I had those positions in the past. I came from Kitsap County, so I definitely know what an l looks like when it comes to growth management, not because of anything I did wrong, but just because things were different. It it it very rarely have I seen someone challenge a jurisdiction about not being protect about being too protective in certain instance in certain instances. But that's just my experience.

So with that said, let's I I would entertain a a call for a motion or recommendation on this topic with with a with a perhaps an amendment that would address the concerns of the of the of the setback amount, and then we can and then we'll have an opportunity to to to debate that specific motion if, if anybody would choose to.

Yep. The the the the best way to go forward is to put the current make a motion to put the current draft up for discussion.

Right.

So then someone seconds that, and then someone goes forward, and they will say, I would like to amend that motion with the change to the buffer. That gets voted on, and then you if you have more, you just do one after the other after the other, and then you wrap it up at the end.

Alright.

I'm sorry if that

was So I'd like to move that we have a discussion on the current proposed changes up to 200.

No. I guess we would take a a motion to to recommend the critical areas code update.

I would like to make a recommendation to review the proposed changes to the critical area code updates.

I second that.

All those in favor?

Oh, no. Wait. That Oh, oh. Don't vote don't vote on that one. Yeah. Okay. Now now now you at are there are there any offenders?

Thank you. Now we'll debate.

Procedural procedural question. At the end of these votes, are we is it closed? I mean, we're not gonna are we not leaving it open until our next meeting? Because back to the whole public comment period and such.

I I think, ultimately, it'll come down to whether after you've gone through all is all the discussion that you have. If you feel you're at a point where all of your issues have either, a, been addressed in the planning commission recommendation or the votes failed, you then can decide whether you want to take additional testimony and then come back on the twenty first to wrap it up. Staff does not have druthers either way.

So then is it then I would motion to make an amendment? Okay. I motion to amend a recommendation of only one seventy five buffer instead of the 200.

And that's that's regarding the streams?

That's for type two two Type two

and type three.

Okay.

Wait. Do we ask for a second on that? Okay. Is there a second?

I second that.

K. So we will So for clarification, we're ask we're asking for one seventy five and type one, two, and three.

We're moving to talk about it. Right.

Is that what we're just I

I

know? Type two and three. Type two

and type three are the only two that I think we're making.

Two

That's they have some dramatic numbers here. Are they still at zero to a 150 on type one?

They are at 200. They're at 200 feet for type ones.

200 for type one.

Then I'm only motioning to keep consistent with Pierce County on two and three at one seventy five.

Are the other draft proposal numbers, are they consistent with Pierce County as well?

I have in my notes, and please feel free to correct me, 200 now on type one for Pierce County, one seventy five for type two, type three, a 115 for type four, and a 100 for type n.

That that's accurate. And

then what about wet lens? Can you

Yeah. Yeah. In general, if you if you if you go oh, if is the question connected to this or could you probably would discuss how you wanna land on this, and then you move on to the next streams right now.

Too big. Okay. Yep. Okay. And what was there a second then? Yes.

Yes. I second the motion.

So then we can debate. Yeah. Well, let's go through and, I guess, if we just hear your argument for that for the reason. Yeah. Sure. Go ahead.

I, as I think kind of all of our cons or I don't wanna speak for anyone else, but from the concerns that I've heard and from the public comments, I I just feel like it is. I hear the concern to wanna not be challenged at the 01:50, I think meeting in the middle there at the one seventy five then kind of does bold that protects us from further litigation and time and energy spent on making adjustments, but also keeps us consistent with peers and keeps us competitive and keeps us just a as affordable to and then meet the growth management act.

Do you know if there's other cities within Pierce County that have a more restrictive buffer than what the county does?

There are some cities that have 200 feet. Once you cross over in onto the other side, you end up in a much more developed state in a lot of ways. So you'll actually find in certain cases, buffers are on the lower end on on that end because, again, so much of it is already developed. Everything's in a pipe. Here, we are still dealing with relatively pristine, areas, which is a different level of protection.

K.

But I'm just saying that being different than the county isn't a new thing. Like, yeah. Uncommon. Yeah.

I did did. While we're in the same general geography, obviously, when you get out into the county, you're talking about much larger wetland systems, a lot more pristine nature. So protect again, protection. The more pristine the area is, the more it's gotta be protected versus the stream in the pipe. So oftentimes, counties will cities will deviate from counties.

Is there any other thoughts for this amendment?

Just clarification confirmation that that the 200 is was based on best available science from

It it

would That's where that number came from is

Based on a from an approximation of best available science, through the lens of what site potential tree height could potentially generate. Yeah.

I would just say, in terms I'm I'm inclined to, stay with the 200 just because it does seem like a still a reasonable number based on the the the consultant's recommendation based on the best available science. I I don't know that the 25 feet makes that much difference. And to be a little more conservative to prevent any litigation down the road, I would I would be inclined to stay with it 200 feet from from my opinion. Anybody else wanna speak?

I actually just wanna echo the the argument that I think it's splitting it right down the middle is a conservative approach for us, removes any confusion between the county and the city, keeps us competitive for further development. And I'm am I right in assuming that when a permit would get submitted, if there was some sort of extenuating circumstances with a certain stream, like Donkey Creek or, you know, something like that, that we're we're within our rights as a city to still ask for some additional evaluation above a 175. Sorry. I didn't mean a 150.

Oh, generally, when you establish one of these as we are as our draft is currently constructed, it takes a very, very special circumstance. We we do have the clause in the code to expand it if we if

If we need to.

If we needed to, but it would be at the very, very extenuating circumstances that I I again, I have not seen it applied.

Right. And then I tend to I hear what you're saying. I tend to rather place that burden on us for those exceptions and set a threshold that would be palatable and affordable to developers and other citizens. And I I think if if the county feels like a 175 is appropriate best available science, I think I'm inclined to agree with that, and I think it's a good compromise. That's my position.

Anyone? I I would also second that and so seconding her point as well about just being consistent with what the county is doing as somebody who's currently trying to build their own house. And, you know, you ever talk to other people who have built their houses, it's like, oh, are you dealing with the city? Are you dealing with the county? It's a huge you know, everybody has their opinions back and forth of, like, which one's easier to deal with or which one's more stringent. And I think it would just make it easier for everybody if they were just the same and said, it doesn't matter if you're at Gig Harbor or if you're in Pierce County or if you're across the road. The wetland is all the same and protected all the same.

Okay. Anyone else? Alright. Should we vote on the amendment then? All those in favor? Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Opposed? I'll say nay. Alright. The with that, you will add the amendment to the motion.

So

Yeah. Is there any other amendments then?

No amendments, but never mind. I I have a comment, but I don't know when it when it's appropriate to say it.

Well, the next step would be to call a question and see if we wanna move this forward to the to the to the council. So if We're we're still in the discussion phase. Right? If he speaks to this, please please please go ahead.

So I I just this has to be done, and and I acknowledge that. And but I also wanna acknowledge that you you said that there will be some impact to developable land. Mhmm. And my hope is in your next phase that you that you try your best you and your staff try your best to have, like, a no net loss to developable area. So whether that means through flexibility or through density, like, let's really think about how we can do that as the city.

Totally totally understand and a very, very valid, valid expectation. And, again, much like conversation I'm having here where we have to do this, you're gonna be hearing it on the other end when people are saying, okay. Well, I what about the trees on the developable part part? Or maybe a conversation about, okay. Maybe there aren't quite as many trees left behind on the developable portion because you already protected additional ones in the critical areas.

So it it as long as I'm still here, you should expect to be hearing that when I come back to you. Can I propose one other consideration based upon public comment that's been submitted? Please. The Department of Commerce submitted a comment. I think it was one of the latter ones that indicated there was something missing from our one of our definitions. I believe it was repairing management zones. I think it would be valuable to since they indicated that that was incongruent with state law and only impacts irrigation ditches. Basically, it indicates, okay. These are streams except for these others, which are irrigation ditches and other things like that. Those aren't necessarily included.

I believe making that change would be valuable consistent with, commerce, comment.

Great. Thanks for bringing that up. But, is anybody care to, forward an amendment?

I'd be happy to if you tell me where that section is notated in the

Oh, it's the

public comment. It's in those comments.

Oh. I'll I I I'll pull it up real quickly. I apologize. I had it up just a second ago.

So, Eric, if I'm I'm looking at the public comment, the commerce's point is that our definition is not consistent with their definition, which is also the definition in the WAC. Yes. Alright. Then I make a motion that that we, the city, align our definition of, fish and wildlife habitat and conservation areas consistent with commerce and the WAC.

Aye. And anybody any discussion or concerns like that?

I'll second that motion.

Second. Okay. All those in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any any opposed? Alright. Hearing none, we'll, would like to add that amendment also to the, subject at hand.

Thank you for bringing that back up.

Okay. Any other comments in in the debate phase here?

I guess I would you know, my preference would be that we leave this open and put a final vote, next week after public comment is we hear more public comment around, particularly with our builder community, around, you know, our recommendation to go down to one seventy five and if there are any other constructive changes that they would like to see, you know, particularly around wetlands or any other considerations that we might consider. I mean, if we don't hear any more comment, then it's an easy comeback and and, you know, take take a vote because we have nothing new to consider.

Are you making a motion to leave it open for written comment? I second the motion. K.

Can we make a date certain? Because I I'll need to compile some of some of this. So having it closed no later than Monday, close of business.

Monday of this coming week?

Yeah. Because you'll you'll be meeting on the twenty first. So based upon your current proposal, you would you you would want some additional opportunity for people to who have seen this to provide some additional comment, yet you still need me to package up some of this for you to be able to take a look at, which is gonna take a certain amount of time. And then if anything else new comes, we need to prepare be prepared to talk about that. So if you wanna leave the written comment period open, I'd recommend the written comment period be open no no longer than close of business, let's we'll just say 04:30 on Monday, '18. There we go.

Monday. Alright. So I'll amend my motion to leave the public comment open through

I'm not sure. I think we need to probably vote this down and then open that up. Right? Or would this because this this subject can't stay open. I mean, we have a we have a Wait.

Wait. What you would do in this instance is you would indicate that you are holding this hearing and this motion over until the twenty first. Okay.

I can do that. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I'm okay. Okay. Is there so we have alright. So then your motion is to to do that, just that. Hold this over until the fourteenth. To the twenty first. Or, like, excuse me. Today's fourteenth.

Yeah. And leave public comment open until, 04:30 on May 18. Written public comment. Written public comment. Thank you.

Written public comment. Okay. The is there a, is there a second?

I'll second that.

Okay. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Alright. So, yep, we'll hold over then until the twenty first. So I guess with that, we'll we can move on to other business then. Is there any other business other than it looks like we'll have a meeting then on the twenty first at 05:30. And with that, is anything else from staff? Nope. Alright. With that, we'll, request a, motion for adjournment.

I move that we adjourn the meeting.

Second. Alright. All there in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye. Thanks, everyone.