Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. Good evening. Good evening. We'll call to order the 09/18/2025 meeting of the Gig Harbor Planning Commission. Start with the roll call. Commissioner Brookhorn, I'm here. Commissioner Jordan? Present. Commissioner Martin? Here. Commissioner Nassau is absent and excused. Commissioner Staagras? Here. Commissioner Cesarcini? Present. And commissioner new commissioner Joe?

Present.

We'd like to welcome our new commissioner, Rosie Joe. Round of applause. Thanks for joining us. I think the second item on the agenda is the chair election. What's that? Oh, sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Approval of minutes.

And I'm sure Rosie wants to do that. No. I'm just kidding.

Okay. I skipped over the that part in the sorry. I'm so excited. We got a new person. Alright. Yeah. Approval of minutes for the last meeting. Do I is there a motion to approve?

I move that we approve meeting minutes. I second.

I second. And all those in favor? I. And opposed? Hearing unopposed, so we'll, approve the minutes. Okay. Public comment. Do we have anybody in the queue for public comment, Michelle?

If anybody online is interested in making public comment, please raise your virtual hand located at the bottom of your Zoom screen. Seeing none.

Alright. None. Okay. We'll move on to the agenda items. We, already took care of one of those. We're welcoming our new commissioner. So now we'll move on to the chair election. Is there any, let's see. Anybody wanna volunteer or be nominated? I think we do we nominate? Yeah. Yeah. Alright.

I will second that nomination.

Alright. Is there anyone else? Okay. So do we I guess we should vote on that. Alright. Who's in favor of, me continuing with this, hot mess? Say aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Yay. Anyway, with that, we'll, continue. So we need a vice chair, though, so is there a nomination for a vice chair?

Mister, are you interested? Your your your attendance is really good. That's why I asked. Yeah.

What? Oh, anyone else? Allison? No? Jason?

No. Really? No. Sure.

I'll do it. I'll nominate Jason Jordan in for voice chair.

I'll second that resounding excitement. Alright.

All those in favor of, commissioner Jordan as vice chair, say

aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Opposed. None. We'll continue. Okay. With that, we'll pass it on to, I guess, Eric, are you got a presentation for our critical areas?

Thanks. Yes. I do. Thank you very much. For the record, my name is Eric Baker. I'm the community development director. I'm hoping the energy behind the chair vice chair elections had nothing to do with you spending so much time with me recently. So what we are here to talk about today is just one moment. Let me get the PowerPoint up so everyone in Zoom land can see. There we go.

Much better. Today is kind of a introductory presentation about the critical areas ordinance, otherwise known as the critical areas title 18 of of our code. We've been spending a lot of time through the comprehensive plan. We've talked about housing. We've talked about density.

We've talked about construction and development standards. While we're talking about the need to expand our housing stock, which will be another topic for this fall, also need to be thinking about how we're gonna protect our natural resources and our natural systems, and that's where the critical areas ordinance and critical areas code comes into play. The critical areas code is required to be updated every ten years by the growth management act. It is intended to be done in generally in concert with the comprehensive plan, though this year it was a year behind. City code has to be reviewed every ten years for consistency with what we call best available science.

Best available science is a pretty much compendium of scientific journals about how you best protect, these series of critical areas that I'll cover here in a moment. The goal of, the regulations is to ensure that we are having no net loss of function and values of of the critical area. So as you're doing construction, that construction is not impacting wetland streams and other natural features. And, again, no net loss is the the threshold we need to establish when we are writing our code. It used to be a lot more ground up.

Local jurisdictions had to pretty much do all their own research, take a look and figure out what is best available science and what is not. Subsequently, a number of the state agencies have kind of stepped in and provided a certain amount of that assistance. The Department of Ecology is largely the expert related to wetlands. The Department of Fish and Wildlife is generally the expert as it relates to streams. So we are looking to them as well as other jurisdictions who have already completed their critical areas ordinance as to what best available science for the Kitsap Peninsula where Gig Harbor resides is located.

This is due on 12/31/2025. I do not expect we're going to hit that date. Again, we had a number of other projects that we had to work through, including the comprehensive plan, which ran several months late. But to ensure proper outreach, which is key, the critical areas ordinance is going to be impactful on development as well as property owners, especially when we're talking about wetlands and stream buffers. We wanna make sure that there's adequate time for the public outreach. Thus, we really are looking at a quarter one, quarter two twenty twenty six adoption. Yes, commissioner.

Eric, what agency do we have to submit this to for approval and review? Is it it's commerce, or is it who is it?

The critical areas ordinance is submitted to commerce to be distributed to all the state agencies. So all the state agencies will review it, including Department of Transportation, etcetera. They will then provide comments on our comprehensive plan, which will then come to the planning commission prior to planning commission hearing to know exactly how how they have weighed in on on the contents. It isn't none of the state agencies have a blessing of the of the document. They just have the ability to comment.

But much like the comprehensive plan, the critical areas regulations can be appealed to the growth management hearings board, and the growth management hearings board can rule as to whether we are compliant with the growth management act, compliant with best available science, etcetera. So what do we cover? When I say natural systems, what are we really talking about? Well, we have multiple natural features that we are looking to cover, but one of those is not shorelines. Obviously, Gig Harbor has a pretty expansive shoreline.

That's covered by the shoreline the shoreline master program. That is a separate entity that is not responsible to be updated until 2027. So I will likely be bringing that before you at at a later date. But what is covered is wetlands, streams, also fish and wildlife habitat areas, steep and unstable slopes. Those are also called geohazards in a lot of ways.

Flood hazard areas, as well as critical aquifer recharge areas. You're gonna find that most of our attention probably definitely tonight and probably throughout the process is gonna be focused on regulations related to wetlands and streams as those regulations establish things regulations that pretty much are where you cannot build regulations. So it is really areas of private and public property that cannot easily be constructed for housing, commercial, any other activities. So that usually, generates a lot of concern from private property rights, housing advocates, etcetera, because we are in these regulations saying what part of our city really cannot be developed because we need to protect it for, for no net loss of function. When you're talking about steep unstable slopes, flood hazard areas, and critical aquifer recharge areas, those regulations are really you can, but you have to submit these reports.

And usually, that is where an engineer appears. Steep and unstable slopes, you need a geotechnical engineer to say, okay. If you build here under these circumstances, you you are safe. For critical aquifer recharge areas, it is you need a hydro hydrological report saying, yes. You can put a gas station in this area. However, you must have all of these safeguards around it to ensure that there is no contamination. Those three are just add additional requirements. They aren't necessarily no. You can't build. And, obviously, when you get to the no. You can't build type regulations, that's where most of the focus is. Yes, sir.

Couple just a quick question. I forget. Where does if you've got a stream that's critical areas and it goes into a shoreline, which is under SMA, And that 200 foot zone for the SMA, does that take over any stream, requirements in terms of CAPO and then you follow SMA?

Largely, you will, be following the critical areas of ordinance. Critical areas of ordinance is gonna be following very closely the the s the SMP in that instance. Usually, the buffers are the same, and the regulations are the same. Obviously, if you're going to build within that 200 feet, while the buffers might be driven by the critical areas ordinance, you will be looking at the necessary permitting requirements of the shoreline master program. So then isn't it incumbent on us to make sure that there's no conflict there as part of this review? The the the staff will be making sure that whatever is proposed is consistent with our shoreline master program. Okay.

And then, with wetlands and streams, I just wanna make sure I understand. Mhmm. So I get, like, steep slopes, flood hazards. You can have an engineer to help assist with, with that. But, are you, as part of this update, are you saying that with wetlands, you could no longer have a, like, a biologist come out and delineate the wetland, or are you for reduced buffers?

No. No. Right? There would I'll be covering that. I'll be covering wetlands and streams here in a moment. But, yes, there is the ability to request reductions and buffers and things of that nature. But those criteria are a lot stricter than just needing to get an engineer stamp Got saying, okay. If you build in this manner, there are a lot of other requirements related to it. And oftentimes, the approval is more difficult. Thanks.

So what is the update process we're currently going under? We have contracted with an environmental consultant, the environmental consultant that does our environmental review for, permits that come in, to the counter. They went through we brought them on in April. They conduct conducted a gap analysis. Where does our current code where's the holes in our current code versus best available science? Where are the areas we need to focus on? That was done in June 2025. Based on the gap analysis, the team, staff, and the consultant is preparing draft code amendments. So it's like, okay. If the holes are here, how are we going to address that based based upon best available science?

Those will be available here in the next few weeks when we made available to the planning commission to chew on as well. As and that's where public outreach will kick in, where we go out to a number of stakeholder groups, developers in the community to talk through what the main changes are going to be, and I'll cover what's we expect some of those mid big flashpoint topics to be. I think we can all kind of assume what they might be as we are as we're moving forward as, again, they they will have the impact on development moving forward. And then coming winter twenty twenty five and early twenty six, we'll be coming back before the planning commission and going through the formal hearing process after potentially editing the draft documents consistent with information we received from public comment. Any question about the process?

Just a disclosure. My employer, my organization uses these same consultants.

Mhmm.

So I don't know if that's a city attorney. I I I just wanna wanna make sure my colleagues understand that. And if that is some sort of conflict for me, then I just wanna full disclosure.

I I think it's very useful information to know, but I I don't think unless you're getting some kind of monetary benefit from that consultant relationship. And, honestly, these consultants are just providing technical expertise that's being filtered through staff, which then will go before the your your recommendation body. While I I'm not an attorney, I only play one at this dais, I I don't see a conflict of interest, but I would put it to the other commissioners to see if they see anything that could be problematic.

I don't see anything other than I think now you have to be chair. No. I'm just kidding.

Yeah. I I don't see an issue.

I don't see a conflict in that.

Alright. Well, now I will move to one of the two, what I'll call, big ticket items in the in the updates and what is covered by the critical areas ordinance. Again, I'm pretty much just setting the foundation for what a critical areas ordinance covers. This doesn't really diving into what any of the proposed changes may be that will be coming forward at a later briefing. Wetlands aren't one size fits all. They come in a number of different categories. Those largely are categories are one through four. Obviously, one be well, not obviously. The one is the highest category wetland, the one with the highest habitat value. Oftentimes, they are the largest.

Oftentimes, they can contain sensitive species that are not found many places. Some examples would be our estuaries, like was mentioned when the streams meet meet the shoreline. Priority plant and fish fish species. So if your wetland has some kind of endangered salmon in it, you would be there, and also larger systems. As you start moving down category two, you're now talking about smaller areas, still significant habitat, but not as much as category one.

They usually have a variety. They're usually not monoculture, so they're not just a forested wetland. They can be a forested wetland with some grassland areas, some other hydrologic features. Usually category twos are connected to other water bodies, so it usually is not an isolated system. It's one that hydrologically is connected either through a stream or some other way with other wetlands in the general area. Category threes, these are the most common. Those are your forested wetlands as you're driving along and you note the large stands of alder. Oftentimes, they're located in the low spot on a on a piece of property. Those oftentimes are category three. They're smaller.

They generally are not connected to one another. There's a lot when we're doing analysis of, wetland classifications, this is where categories in twos and threes share a lot of similarities, and, really, that's where a lot of the biological assessments come in. And I'll talk a little more about that in a moment as to exactly which category it may or may not be. And then category fours, these are the isolated, small, low habitat areas. They can be 1,500 square feet.

They can be 2,000 square feet. They usually are they usually have grass. They are you wouldn't truly note them as a wetland. But this is a kind of a good time to kinda talk about what makes a wetland. Generally, wetlands are cat or categorized, need with three basic things.

You need particular soils, you need particular water, and then you're also gonna find particular vegetation in those areas. If you you need to have one or more of those of those qualities to note an actual wetland body, usually two. Sometimes you will find three. So skunk cabbage, that is one of the more common wetland plants. Pretty much we take a look at vegetation and you note that their leaves are round and not like blades, you're now looking at wetland grasses and things and things like that.

So what usually happens when a permit comes in is we ask for a wetland determination at minimum, that is what what category wetland is on-site, and also what a wetland delineation, which is not only what category, but where does the wetland edge stop. So, wetland determinations, easier and cheaper. Wetland delineations, harder and more exact. But as we're gonna talk about here in a moment when it comes to buffers, it is that delineation that shows the edge of the wetland feature and the beginning of another regulatory concept called buffers. Any questions about the categorization system?

That this is where a wetland biologist is usually employed. Those wetland biologists will indicate that as well as any potential mitigation measures moving forward.

Does the city have a wetland biologist on staff, or do you hire that out?

No. The Ferrelon company is our reviewer. They also do review for Port Orchard and other other other smaller jurisdictions. We have a very small staff, and we also have a small number of permits that come in that have this interface. So having somebody with that expertise is is would not be the best bang for our buck. Okay. Unless you're a wetland biologist, Nestor, and I didn't know. Nope. Nope. Alright. Nope. No. We don't have one on. We don't have one.

Eric, question for you. On on that, who places the signs? I've seen those signs out in some of the trails and stuff up by Northcake Harbor and things walking around there.

If you're talking about with the wetland buffer signs sometimes attached to split rail fences and and things like that, Those are required to be put by the developer. Okay. If it's public property, it would be the city that would put them up. But, yeah, usually, we depending on the wetland type, we require some kind of split rail fence or something that that that, in theory, keeps people out of it, and the signage helps explain why. So like I mentioned, the wetlands come into hey. Look. One of signs. So there's the wetland feature itself. That is the actual wetland. That is the thing that the critical areas ordinance is attempting to protect.

So that is the area that you are strongly recommended to stay out of because mitigation of impacts to the wetland feature itself is very hard to address. If you're going to fill part of a wetland, it is very hard to mitigate that loss. And a number of other, jurisdictions come into play if you want to depending on how much you're looking to fill. Federal agencies get involved. The tribes are very interested when you're looking at filling wetlands.

There's an army corps of engineers permit that's required if you're gonna be filling more than an acre of wetland. So the wetland features are the things that developers desperately try to stay out of if at all possible or design around because the mitigation is high, it's expensive, and it's sometimes it's difficult to be successful. One of the mitigation measures can be basically filling a wetland here and then creating a new wetland somewhere else. That wet that new wetland may not take. Obviously, wetlands need those three things.

They need soils. They need wet they need water, and they need, they need vegetation. If you don't get the water into that area, that soil and that vegetation is going to die. So it is it is a challenge if you are gonna be talking about filling wetlands, and wetlands don't stay static. They grow over time.

Sometimes they go away, though usually that is because something bad happened somewhere nearby where the water where the water got diverted. But oftentimes, you will find that they will grow over time, that they the amount of water just due to climate, due to development in the watershed, we'll direct more water to the low spots. Thus, if you get a wetland delineation in, say, 2016, you'll need to get another one if you wanna develop in 2022 because we don't know if that wetland is still where it use where it was before.

Quick question. The retention ponds that we've built around, do those become wetlands?

No. Those are actual stormwater ponds. They, do not contain the wetland vegetation. Sometimes you'll see or I'm sorry, the wetland soils. Sometimes you'll see cattails and some other things that are kinda planted around the periphery. Those aren't really meant for stormwater. Those are really meant as more of a landscaping effect so that it doesn't look like a storm water jail as much. But yeah. No. Those are maintained in a manner with more sandy soils, etcetera, to make sure that you're getting necessary retention.

And then to a degree, in certain instances, infiltration. So, no, they cannot be considered as as wetlands. Though oftentimes, depending on the type of stormwater pond you're talking about, they can be considered landscaping.

Thanks.

So as I indicated, wetlands are the types of things that are generally to looking to be avoided.

Yes. I I apologize. Back to that slide.

Are is there an approved wetland bank in the KB that the city is allowing? Not at this time. Wetland banks off off-site mitigation is something that, as we're talking about increasing densities in certain areas, it is going to be important because sometimes you cannot mitigate on-site. There's just like I mentioned before, wetlands need to be in a place where wetlands can be successful. There are certain wetlands that can be located off-site, ones that have been denuded over time.

What what basically I mean by that is, let's say, a pasture that has been with maybe a stream that has been tight that has been channelized. That area is low habitat value, low low function. You could potentially remeander the stream and you could replant that area as a wetland bank. In exchange, you'd be able to sell credits to people. That is usually intended to be a option of last resort because, again, the idea is to protect the wetland body that is located in the area.

Even if we had a wetland bank, it wouldn't necessarily be right up any potentially anywhere nearby the area that you're impacting. It does provide benefit to the watershed, But as you start talking about smaller species like salamanders and things such as that, they need those small water bodies, to, have habitat to be successful. So, yes, it is an avenue that the city is going to be looking at establishing, either through a nonprofit or through other efforts, but it is, again, intended to be a mitigation of last resort.

So just so I'm clear because this is interesting to me. Sorry, everybody else. The so that you could obviously mitigate on you know, prefer to stay out of the bank or stay out the mitigation buffer or wetland. You can mitigate on-site. You can mitigate off-site, and then there's a bank on top of that that you buy credits from. Is that I just wanna make sure that's how I interpret the the differences.

In general, wetland banks are off-site. So I would say it's two it's usually two categories, not three. So it yeah. In the off-site mitigation is usually in some kind of a banking formula. Either a, you have an easement over somebody's property that you're restoring, that you're getting credit for, or you have the more monetary based bank. So I I I I'd classify it as two rather than three.

Well, that's that's interesting because if I had property and I had both my properties had a wetland, but they were, you know, different locations, I thought I could do either advanced mitigation or project specific mitigation on property b to support property a. And a bank by I thought federal and state statute was really a financial instrument. Well, somebody else has built the mitigation site, and you're paying into it and buying credits from it. So I Yeah. I I feel like those are two different things.

I I I think from a financial instrument, yes. Yeah. You definitely are, but a bank works just like the thing that you're improving on your property. You just are pay basically, that bank would have been established by somebody restoring a a wetland off-site. Just like you were restoring it off-site, the difference is they're doing it upfront for credits.

You'd be doing it as, in theory, a four to one or eight to one mitigation for your own development. Ultimately, though, the city's open, at least initially, of subject to city council approval to those different options for developers? Yes. It is considered in our comprehensive plan as a mitigation as mitigation measures. They are very complicated, though I do know that an organization is looking to do one for the entirety of the Kitsap Peninsula, which could be valuable for not just folks up in the Kitsap in Kitsap County, but also down here in Gig Harbor.

And, the the criteria there would be it needs to

be in the same watershed? Yes. It needs to be located in some watershed. Thank you. So, now once you've established the type of wetland you have and the edge of the wetland, you now talk about how you protect that wetland. The wetland is the feature that is being protected. Buffers is the first step in protecting those wetlands. Buffers serve a number of different purposes. Largely, they're intended to filter toxins, pollutants, etcetera. They're also intended to provide wildlife habitat for both terrestrial and marine marine animals.

They range in size depending on the category, and I'm talking about current code right now, from 25 feet in buffer. So you have the wetland, then you have 25 feet. And then if you are the higher order cat category one wetlands, it's 250 feet. So that is area that is those are what we call bulk buffers. So that is a single standard that if you don't wanna do any additional analysis, you don't wanna do any other work, you just follow the bulk buffer, stay out of that area, and and you're you're good to go.

However, not all wetlands work in a manner where bulk buffers work. 200 feet might be great for some wetlands, 50 may be great for another. Some wetland systems, you may be able to get the same protection at a lower width. That's where you get into site specific analysis. So instead of utilizing just the bulk buffer, my wetland says I need to be a 150 feet, I'm going to hire a habitat biologist.

That habitat biologist is gonna come and say based upon the vegetation in the buffer, is it a mature forest? Is it just a grassy is it a grassy buffer? Potentially, you can, get less buffer in one area if you put more buffer in another or you restore an area of buffer that is not providing a lot of benefit. So say this is grass right up to the right up to the shoreline buffer or right up to the water, waterline. You could potentially, replant that in trees and other vegetation to increase habitat, increase the values.

In exchange for doing that, you might be able to get closer, to the wetland in in another area. So instead of having one straight line buffer, you would have one that would be able to kinda move in and out. You'd have the ability to develop, other components of your site with structures, roads, stormwater ponds, etcetera. But, again, the goal of this is no is no net loss. So, most of these mechanisms are not creating a loss in value. They are providing no net loss, just not through the bulk buffer strategy. But, really, it is the buffer width and the bulk buffer width where you start from. That is one of the things that that has the biggest impact on what you can and can't develop on your property.

I think I I have a comment or a a question, actually. Mhmm. I believe you mentioned earlier that you guys are looking to expand the buffers. And I'm sure that you have a map, and you probably know which parcels are going to be impacted by the buffer. And you talked about a little bit about your outreach. Are you specifically going to outreach to the owners of those parcels that are affected by this buffer? That's one. And two, what's your timeline for that given you're trying to get this done in q one?

Yeah. Well, the q one and q two. So we're looking all the way through June. Outreach is the most important part as it comes to the critical areas ordinance. Gig Harbor has pretty much two streams, but it does have a number of wetlands, especially located on its existing undeveloped properties.

So the idea is once we have a draft ready for public consumption, we're gonna go out over a three to four month period and talk to all the people who are directly impacted, but also all the other stakeholders. Because, again, the wetlands and streams don't and aquifers don't just benefit the people who happen to live along them. They benefit the entirety of the community. So we're gonna be going out to those focusing on conservation groups, environmental groups, but also developers, real estate, etcetera, the folks who are going to have to find out how they're gonna develop, again, higher densities, which we are encouraging with our with our other efforts on less land, which is what could come if the council were to expand wetland and stream buffers. So I do not shortchange outreach.

Outreach is the key component to make sure that you ended up with the right answer. We we can spend all the time in this building, and I can sit with my consultant to say, hey. What should this be? But, ultimately, the public needs to be factored into that, and I see that as pretty much being in October through December effort possibly moving into January depending on some of the feedback we get. Because, again, this is not compulsory. This is if if significant issues are raised by the public, we need to address those. And that may involve us having to go back to our consultant to say, what do you think about blank piece of comment?

Higher you mentioned higher densities. Mhmm. And just wanna make sure I was tracking. So as an example of the critical areas, once we're done with this, you all conclude that there's gonna be a lot less land developable. I know. I I hope that's not the outcome either. But if that's the case, as a result of this, you're when you say higher density, are you talking about, like, changing the zoning code to allow for more density because less land?

Well, we are of the outcome of the critical areas ordinance, our comprehensive plan is requiring us to update our development code to increase housing, housing diversity. So we are gonna be changing our development codes to allow for potentially, smaller setbacks from property lines, greater heights of buildings. We've audit I think we were already briefed by Catherine on the increased density. So more units are gonna be allowed to be located in those areas. The challenge is how do you get additional density in areas that now with the critical areas ordinance, we may be allowing less land to be developed in it. And that is the interesting conundrum of the people sitting in this

Just one more point on that. As part of that, thinking about that and wanting to do everything we possibly can to protect the wetlands and all the critical areas in Gig Harbor, Some cities have an interrupted buffer Mhmm. Provision in their code. Is does Gig Harbor and if not, would you all consider that?

Interrupted buffers are things that appear in critical areas, ordinances all the time. Think it'll depend on the category of of wetland and exactly what kind of hydrologic connection there may be between them. I I think oftentimes what he's talking about, I I believe, is, like, when there's a roadway that runs in between a wetland. Does that does the buffer extend to the other side of the roadway, or does it stop at at the roadway? And I think that largely would depend again on the hydrologic connectivity between the two and whether some of the area on that side is directly feeding the other side.

Does the code allow for interrupted buffers today?

I do not believe so as of yet, but I know our consultant has been looking at that in in regards to our gap analysis. K. Thank you.

Eric, the most recent available lands report, which was used, right, to develop the housing dent or housing requirements in most jurisdictions, how long was that 2023, 2022?

The most recent data that we utilized to develop the 2020, I guess, now we'll call it five comprehensive plan, was done in 2022, and it was operating off of the current critical areas ordinance. So depending on the outcome of council and the outcome of the any buffers or any other potential impacts to development potential, we may have to go back and take a look at some of our land capacity assumptions to see if potentially we aren't accommodating as many units as we previously had thought.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So you have the buffers. The buffers range currently from 25 to two fifty. Once you get to the edge of the buffer, you then have an additional 15 feet where you're unable to put structures. Why is that? Obviously, if the buffer is intended to be protected, it's really hard to build a build a building right up against that without impacting the buffer in some way. Right? Heavy equipment, when you're laying a foundation, when you're pouring a pouring a roadway, you're going to injure it. That 15 feet is intended to provide protection. You can still do things in it, but you just aren't allowed to put any structures within that area.

Questions regarding the difference between buffers and setbacks as it applies to wetlands? Alright. So now we're gonna move on to streams. Streams are also called riparian areas. This is oftentimes where a lot of our wildlife corridors also exist. Obviously, North Creek would be an example of one of these stream corridors. They come in a number of different types as well. These are based on the Department of Natural Resource mapping, though oddly enough, is the Department of Fish and Wildlife that is responsible for helping classify them. So it is a combination of state agencies that are helping. Much like wetlands, they are are categorized from type one down to type five.

Reason I have a separate typing system on here is our current code utilizes one through five. Most other codes utilize the letter system next to it and likely our update will. So I want to provide some kind of a crosswalk. Basically, type one, streams are shorelines of the state. They are, anything that's located along our shorelines, the estuaries, lakes of a particular size, and major year round fish bearing and the streams that are often directly connected to the shoreline.

So, again, that segment that was referenced previously, that 200 feet from the shoreline, oftentimes, that component of the stream at minimum is gonna be a type s. Those are the most important streams. They are the ones that carry with it the largest buffers. Type two and three streams, these are ones, that are, they're larger streams. They're not as big as type one, of course.

They are year round, and they are fish bearing. So they usually, you'll find type two and three streams up to a point where some kind of fish blockage exists. Like, little tiny culvert, some kind of other thing, anything in that area would be classified a two or a three or a type f stream. Those have smaller buffers. But, again, still highly valuable, especially when you are talking about having endangered species, Chinook, located within it.

And then when you get down to type four or NP or type five, NS, you're now talking about the smaller streams that do not have fish in them. The difference between NP the p stands for perennial. The so NP is nonfish perennial. It means that the stream runs all year round. Oftentimes when you see that fish blockage on the other side of the blockage, that's where you see the type four stream.

It is the stream's running all year round but cannot accommodate fish because the fish can't get over through or around something. And then you have the type five streams. Those are the ones that are they're intermittent. They go dry in the summertime, and they do not have fish habitat. They usually don't have a gravel bed. But in the wintertime, you will note usually a pretty good a pretty good amount of of water. Generally, fives can run into fours. Fours will then run into twos and threes. Twos and threes will run into one. And category ones, then, ultimately, you're out to the shoreline.

Occasionally, you're going to find the streams that just start and stop. Usually, from one wetland to another. One wetland that was up higher, one wetland that was down at the bottom. Sometimes you'll find a stream that does not connect to the shoreline or any other stream. Those are classified similarly. Any work within the stream banks is not covered by the critical areas ordinance. That's covered by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. That is every stream is actually owned by the state of Washington. So they own all of our water bodies. So any kind of work requires a permit from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, not the city.

Much like wetland streams are protected by buffers. Here, depending on the stream type, these buffers range again from 25 to 200 feet. Those are, again, are the bulk buffers. Much like wetlands, buffer averaging, buffer restorations, buffer reductions are allowed with biological assessments indicating the no net loss in value. It is a somewhat similar system.

Best available science on this in regards to bulk buffers is also talking about something called site potential tree height. So the buffer, instead of being a set number, is really based upon the height of the trees that are located within the buffer. So if you have, say, a stand of Madrona trees in your buffer, your buffer is gonna be less. If you have a stand of, Alders, also less. But if you have Douglas firs or cedars, now your site potential site potential tree height is higher.

That is a system that is, supported by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. However, a number of jurisdictions have struggled with including those in their critical areas ordinances. I do believe that that is going to be a discussion that we're gonna have to have both in the public, but also with the state agencies as we start working through whether we're gonna go with the bulk buffer standpoint, a single number, or it's going to be this more flexible concept. Obviously, if you go to the more flexible concept, you need to bring in a professional to find out how much buffer is on your property, which in turn turns around and tells you how much prop how much you cannot build on, which oftentimes raises the hackles of the development and private property owners a little bit more than just saying your buffer's 200 feet. Now it's like I had to pay $30,000 to find out my buffer was 200 feet.

Again, buffer averaging, bus buffer restoration, all similar mechanisms. You are able to restore certain parts of your buffer. You are in each of these buffers are intended to be sequenced to a degree. You just don't start at one mitigation measure. You usually go from avoidance, try to stay out of the area as much as possible, then you move down to minimizing.

So you try to impact it as little as possible, then straight up mitigation, and then after that, you're moving down to variance. So you really are moving kind of down a sequencing of mitigation. I didn't mention that with wetlands, but I should. You can't just automatically go to, I want to buy into a wetland bank. You have to show that you, a, couldn't stay out of the wetland, and then, b, weren't able to handle it on-site before you can get to any kind of off-site mitigation opportunities.

And much like the wetlands, there is also a 15 foot building setback that's required from the buffer. Same reason. We don't want the buffer disturbed by construction activities. Now we're gonna move into the others. I'm gonna spend a little less time on these.

Steep slopes with the massive slide in Snohomish County became a real big thing where everyone was really, really concerned about the potential for massive slides and the massive casualties and damage that came along with them. To that end, we do have requirements if you're going to build around steep slopes. The bulk buffer for a a steep slope is you are supposed to stay as far away from the edge of the slope as the vertical height of the slope. That is the bulk buffer. So if say, slope is 75 feet, your buffer would be, excuse me, 75 feet.

However, what often time often happens is that is where the geotechnical analysis comes in, the geotechnical report. You have an engineer that comes in and, okay, if you construct in this manner, you are able to get closer to that steep slope. That is a very common mechanism. It's utilized, heavily. There's a number of construction techniques.

The downside is those construction techniques are rarely cheap. So when we go back to the affordability of housing, every time we're talking about wetland mitigation, we're talking about geotechnical reports, we are increasing the cost of development in one way or another. You are able to get usually within 25 feet of the steep slope with a geotechnical report. We have similar geotechnical reports required for seismic hazard areas. Another thing that we are concerned about is some of our smaller fault lines.

We do have a smaller fault line in in Gig Harbor. If you are in that area, you need a geotechnical report to to show how you're gonna construct your building in a manner that is going to be safe for either the private property owner or the public facility. Any questions about steep slopes? Again, those are let those are more common for geotechnical reports to be utilized to minimize the buffer. And yet in certain instances, you can actually build on a slope. But once you start building on a slope, the costs really go up, and the risk gets a lot higher as you aren't just impacting your development. You're impacting everybody that is gravity some j may impact if that, slope lets go.

Eric, does the city have a a geotech on, like, on call as well?

We have a series of engineers in the public works department, but not a geotechnical engineer. Geotechnical engineers are usually employed by the developer. We do run it by our existing engineers to make sure that they they pass the smell test, but I do not believe we have a specific geotechnical engineer on staff at this time.

Is that, and maybe that's outside the purview of this. But like the like we mentioned, or you mentioned when I asked about the wetlands biologists and having one on staff or, you know, on call, I wonder if it would make sense. I've seen, you know, geotechs are specialized, and, it's my experience that it's hard to get a civil engineer to wanna argue much with a geotechnical engineer because they're not a geotechnical engineer. So just I don't maybe that's a not for this conversation, but it seems to me that it's in the cities and then in the community's best interest if, even if the developer had to pay for the city to hire another geotechnical engineer to review that work.

We do operate off of the third party review. You are correct. Not all engineers are created equal, though some may disagree depending on how you talk who you talk to. But a civil engineer can take a look at certain aspects and say, okay. This doesn't quite look right. You need a third party review at that point, in which case then the city has employed a third a third engineer to come in and decide, okay. Does this make sense? Does this not make sense? So we do have that avenue. It it is not utilized a ton, but is at our disposal.

Hey, Eric. Yes. So I was wondering, is there kind of, like, a matchy matchy action between the city and the county, you know, in the areas where they're kinda, like, bumping up against?

We try to maintain consistency where we can. But, again, we are doing independent best available science reviews. This Pierce County has a much larger jurisdiction, and that applies to all of Pierce County. So their regulations may may be slightly different due to the fact that the ones that they have to apply on the other side of thirty eighth, they also have to apply outside Spanaway. But we try to keep them as close as possible.

And, of course, when you're utilizing best available science as your foundation, you should be relatively close. We are looking at negotiating an interlocal agreement, with the city for all of our urban growth area boundaries, in which we would be utilizing our regulations in the county as long as it's inside the UGA so that when it annexed, the development and the requirements would look just the same. So you don't get that, I guess, using your words, not matchy match that would come from designing to or or designing or protecting to the county standard. But I I do not expect that they'll be identical. I do expect that they will be very similar.

Flood hazard areas. This is, something that, again, with king tides and heavy rains, we're noticing a substantial amount of flooding, that is occurring in a number of areas. These flood these flood events are affecting public infrastructure. They're impacting private property. They have a number of things that we need to be rating over time.

We map oh, actually, FEMA maps our flood our flood areas. These areas are largely established by the flood insurance administration based upon a specific map. The important part of this is, again, not saying you absolutely cannot develop in these areas. Obviously, a number of our floodplains are located right on our shorelines with a whole bunch of existing uses. But what it does is establish some very clear standards for what that construction looks like, and those are usually at higher at a higher level.

Usually, if it's some kind of a bulkhead, it has to be higher because you're in a floodplain. Construction standards, your, foundation has to be, significantly deeper in the ground. Sometimes you have to be higher off the your, construction needs to be higher off the ground to be able to handle those flood events. Catherine, you were a flood administrator. Is there anything else you'd like to add about flood flood hazard areas?

So the city of Gig Harbor subscribes to the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP. And this is actually a federal program that through that partnership with the NFIP, we enforce FEMA's rules. And that way, anyone in a flood zone gets a discount on their flood insurance. So we're enforcing those federal rules. However, they do audit us every it's supposed to be every five years, but with staffing, it's gone a little further than that.

And if they take a look at our flood permits and say, wow, you're not enforcing the NFIP rules, they can actually charge everyone an additional $50 at first. So everyone in the whole city that has a flood insurance policy could be surcharged $50 because we haven't been following the program. So when it comes to flood hazard areas, there really are no variances. You have to follow the the subscription the subscripted code from FEMA, unlike the wetlands and streams where you can get, like, a reduced buffer and things like that. And Eric mentioned elevation.

So the standard is one foot above the base flood elevation, and that flood insurance rate map provides that we call it BFE. So if it's 18 feet, then any habitable structure has to be one foot above that 18 foot base flood elevation. So when it comes to flood hazards, like I said, there's there are really no variances or anything like that.

So that would be for new construction?

Correct. There's another thing called substantial improvement. So you take the value of the house or or its structure, not the value of the property. And if it's improved 50% or greater, the whole structure needs to be brought up to flood standards. And if you get a little bungalow, 50% of a a value of that is isn't really that much of an improvement. So, yes, if, something's improved to that threshold, then the whole thing has to come to flood standards.

Yeah. If go you down to Fort Lauderdale, you'll notice as you're driving along the shorelines that the bulkheads are all at different heights. It all comes down to exactly when they built their most recent structure that, yeah, that the bulkheads had to be higher if you built in 1990 than they were in 1980 and much higher if you built anytime in the last ten years.

Catherine, thanks for that. I didn't realize that was, that's good expertise. I remember some controversy about those flood maps. And have they all been reestablished? Has everybody agreed to them? I feel like there was a big hoopla a couple years ago, maybe it was five years ago now plus, about updating those maps and whether it was the datum and and and ultimately the requirements associated with those. Have those all been approved and adopted by all jurisdictions?

So FEMA, gives us the map so that it's not our studies. They will actually do the study. So if there is a controversy so say you're in the flood zone and you're like, there's no way I'm in the flood zone. You can get what's called a letter of map amendment where you basically hire an engineer and you show that you're out of the flood zone so then you can be taken out of the flood zone through that mapping. I don't remember a lot of controversy about five years ago, but, yeah, it's not our maps, so we have to take their maps.

Do you remember when

the map was last adopted updated?

No. For for here, I don't know.

Yeah. I I think what you're referencing is the Pierce County has adopted has gone through a number of analyses about exactly what they think the flood Right. The the flood plains are, and there is a disconnect between what FEMA says they are and what Pierce County says they are. However, Gig Harbor doesn't have the level of confidence necessary in the Pierce County work to say, okay, FEMA, we're gonna set you aside considering for all the things that that she just mentioned. So I think there might be better information out there.

The federal government may be behind the curve on it. But, when you're talking about data, there is data that is, accurate and has been peer reviewed enough to be utilized for grant applications for incentive programs. But then there's a much higher threshold when you're talking about regulate regulatory. You need, substantial support. And usually, the federal government is the gold standard on that, especially when you're talking about a federal program, that affects insurance rates.

Yeah. Thanks. I I remember you're right. It was accounting. I think King County was also involved in it as well. So those two big counties were were pushing back. My other with respect to best available science and in the flood zone, flood hazard areas in particular, there are wetlands and flood hazard areas that also act as flood mitigation. I think the science that I've seen is really calling that out these days. And in fact, some developers are trying to get flood credits, if you will, for for building wetlands and flood zones. I, is it possible for your consultant to look at, those wetlands in the flood zones?

Because, I feel like the standard to fill so this is just me talking. But the standard to impact those wetlands should be higher than a wetland outside of the flood zone because it also has a double benefit of being in a flood zone and helping with floods. Does that make sense?

Yeah. That is something that other jurisdictions have taken a look at, though it is hard to kinda mix that in with, again, the no let no no net loss of of function. But it's something we can have the consultant take a look at and see if there's a way to get at least some additional value if you are again restoring wetlands in the floodplain. Obviously, most floodplains are there's a significant number of critical areas that are already located in there, which case the, the wetland regulations would trump the, FEMA regulations. But, yeah, we can see if there's some kind of additional credit that we can give.

What I'm that's great. I'm suggesting carrot and stick. So additional value credit for for enhancing a wetland in a flood zone, but may also making it more difficult to impact a wetland in the flood zone.

Yes. I I the the flood retention is one of the main reasons or one of the various reasons we protect all wetlands. But, yeah, you are correct. In flood zones, anytime you fill one of those oftentimes, when you fill wetlands in period, you're creating another flood zone someplace because the water has to go someplace. It just isn't going where it went before. And so usually your neighbor gets it. So, yes, I think that's something we can look at both carrot and stick. I promise I'm I'm coming to a close.

Can you hear it?

Yes. Appropriate read out.

It it's entirely up it's entirely up to the to the commission.

I hope you'll do it.

It's it's always yeah. It's nice to have people here with us, so go ahead, please. Yeah.

Yeah. But can you go to the and say your name and everything for the record?

Sorry. Sorry. Yeah.

Didn't wanna make it awkward, but yeah. Does that look plugged in? That's cool.

That's on now.

Hi. I'm Shar Tovar. My question is relative to the one that came up earlier about the flood zones that you're it's relative to new construction, but you made the point that substantial improvements Correct. Yes. So potentially trigger. How do you define substantial improvement? How do you get to 50% of what?

Oh, yeah. So what we usually do is or I've done in the past is look at the tax assessment and see what the building has been valued at. So let's just throw a number out there and say the building is valued at $500,000, but maybe the whole property is, like, $800,000 with the land and maybe a garage or something like that. So so we have a $500,000 structure. And say you wanna put a second story on there, and that the value the added value of that, say, is $300,000.

So that would be 50% greater than that $500,000. So then that would trigger that substantial improvement. And it's cumulative over ten years. So it's not like you can put, oh, okay. I'm gonna redo this, and then I'm gonna redo this kinda piecemeal. So through our permitting system, we keep track of those permits through a property, and then we can tell if if that has been been triggered. So

50% of the

Of the structure.

Has it structured at what point in time?

At the time of submittal of a building permit. Yep.

When you

bought it, when you sold it, where

So so we'll look at the I'll pull up the value of what what the tax assessment was. So I'll look at what the tax assessor valued the building at.

So the the the the most recent year. So if

you Yeah.

You you you came in today, likely, you'd be operating off of a 2024 Yeah. Assessment.

Okay. Thank you.

Hi, Catherine.

Yeah. Hi. Yeah. Good to see you.

Alright. Lastly, we have critical aquifer recharge areas. We'll call them for fun. Basically, these are intended to protect aquifers from contamination from land uses. So largely, what this is is this is regulating high hazard activities.

Gas stations would be an example where you're putting a, underground fuel tank in in the ground that if it starts to leak, there's a possibility that underground, it could work its way into the aquifer. And, contaminating your aquifer is one of the worst things you can do when your community is 100% dependent on your aquifers. It isn't necessarily just protecting aquifers, but also protecting what are called wellhead radiuses. Gig Harbor has a number of water systems, and they have a number of wells. And each of those wells has a certain radius around each one that basically indicates that those areas are even if they aren't necessarily right smack dab in the middle of an aquifer, are particularly sensitive if there is some kind of a leakage because, again, a well is a direct shot down into the aquifer.

You don't have to move through hundreds of feet of dirt. You get to go you get to go straight to go and you collect your $200. So you we have to be careful of the land uses that are being done in wellhead radiuses and in critical aquifer areas. These are generally all mapped, so we have them all located. Again, this is not a you can't develop this way, but what it in these areas, what it is is if you do develop, you have to develop under some very strict standards.

You'd have safeguards in place. If it is to leak, how are you going to how are you gonna capture that? Oftentimes, that includes measuring devices surrounding underground tanks, or it is a large concrete, I guess, we'll call it bin located around above ground tanks. Sometimes when you're getting down to truly hazardous materials, some of the worst of the worst materials that even a little bit of it can be substantially damaging, the requirements can get a lot higher if you wanna locate them in specific areas. Now we're talking manufacturing that is doing metal plating and things like that, things with really bad chemicals.

Those have much higher standards. I've never seen an instance where they were necessarily 100% forbidden, But oftentimes, those often carry with it what's called an environmental impact statement, and the conditions that come with an environmental impact statement make the make the project undoable. But, again, it is not an outright prohibition. It is you can if, unfortunately, depending well, not unfortunately. It depending on the type of chemicals you're using, that bar could be really high to the point where it is cost cost prohibitive.

Obviously, we're not looking at a lot of metal plating operations here in in the Gig Harbor, but the occasional gas station is probably the best example of someone who might have to care about whether they are and are not in a critical aquifer recharge area.

I believe I understand that we have a few parcels that currently are not being used for commercial residential, but had prior materials on it, which could I'm not saying are, but could affect this. How do how do we monitor that, or do we monitor those properties, and are we aware of them?

We have anecdotal information about about some properties that may have at one point been utilized as a dump. I believe there's one located off of not Burnham. No. It might be Burnham. But would that but the amount of contamination, the type of contamination, we don't know.

The the cleanup of those is the responsibility of the property owner. At times, state agencies can get involved with that. And those state agencies, if they are aware of something on the property, they can come in and require the, property owner to at at least analyze the potential impacts on their site. Those come in two main flavors, phase one and phase two, analyses. Phase one is you pretty much look at whatever happened on the property and make an assumption whether there's an issue or not.

Phase two is you're actually digging holes in the ground, and you're taking samples, and you're saying, okay. Is there something bad here? The city doesn't necessarily have a program right now where we are out and looking for these and requiring remediation. But anytime a permit comes in that is in anywhere near one of these areas, it is a condition that of the application.

And and if there is an opportunity to actually clean that up, which would be advantageous, but then the cost is so prohibited prohibitive for the developer, is there any help or support or any state grants or anything like that to help? Because lots of times, you'll see properties just stay on stay there, become vacant.

Mhmm.

They're ugly to look at, and it's sometimes it's because people developers say we cannot afford to to build there because of the mitigation that we would have to go in and clean that up. We couldn't pencil it out.

The Department of Ecology

Yep.

Mhmm. Has a program. Yep. They prioritize property like, basically, they call it brownfield sites, and they prioritize that. But the way that they do it, they actually prioritize the cleanup by what is being proposed to be there, and their highest priority is affordable housing. And so it just depends on what the potential property owner or new property owner is is proposing to build.

Yeah. The Can I add to that? Of course. Because the Department of Ecology, their toxics program is governed under the Model Toxics Control Act. And if you're another government entity, you're eligible for up to 50% recovery. So in other words, the state has a fund available. We all, pay for it through a part of the petroleum and other toxics tax. So there's quite a bit of state funding available under MACA. The catch, though, is that's not a private citizens aren't eligible for that funding. So oftentimes, cities, counties, ports will work with a private developer and partner with them so that they can capture some of that funding to help offset that.

And then the other thing I wanted to mention is Ecology also has a known and suspected contamination site list on their website. And if if if any citizen thought that there was a concern, you're more you know, Ecology will hopefully investigate.

The the Brownfields program, through the Environmental Protection Agency provides funding both for assessments and for cleanups of sites. And, oftentimes, those are funds that are applied for by, by governmental entities, but can be utilized on private properties usually in conjunction with some kind of a redevelopment plan similar to what the commissioner just mentioned.

So quick question. I was wondering, like, I think I'm trying to recall back when the comprehensive plan time that there was, like, 20 plus approximately water purveyors in the city. K. All the ranging in all different sizes. Right? So how how is that engaged with? How is that you know, especially in regards to what we're just talking about. So

It it we all of those are mapped. So all of their wellhead radiuses, etcetera, appear on a map for when when it comes in. So it doesn't matter if it's our wells or someone else's wells. We're all aware of them. We are in the process of having conversations with a number of the smaller water providers as to whether they have any interest in potentially becoming part of the city system.

Obviously, that we don't take them all on because at times, sometimes there's cost, sometimes there's not. But I think there is long term benefit in having all of our water systems on under the city maintenance as smaller water systems can vary in sophistication and maintenance level. So

kinda going back to the title Mhmm. Are there any other types of aquifers within the city limits

Mhmm.

Rather than critical? Or, I mean, is that is anything being used for freshwater used critical?

Not to my not to my knowledge. The other type is our shallow aquifers. They're ones that are not really being utilized for drinking water anymore. They're usually old water rights that are utilized. I I guess Port Gamble was an example. They had a series of shallow rights coming out of particular springs. But, yeah, the critical aquifers are the ones that are a hundred, two hundred feet down. They serve the vast majority of, the peninsula. But, no, I am unaware of, any of these shallow aquifers.

The can I follow-up on your question? Because I was gonna I I thought you were asking something slightly different. Does the city of Gig Harbor have a critical aquifer recharge area anywhere? I yes. Yes. We do. Okay. So and is it is it basically the entire city?

It it's a good chunk of the city. I I I I I'll I could bring a map when we come and we have this conversation regarding the new regs.

Well, that's good. I didn't know that. But this for the critical areas regulations, it's not about the well or the small private utility that uses the aquifer. It's about protecting the aquifer. Right?

Correct.

So so we're not gonna whether it's an individual homeowner's well or a small private utility, we just the goal here, I just the question is to protect the aquifer in general.

Correct.

So those are things you can and can't do. It's not gonna say you can't have a well or you can't create a private water company. It's just our job is to protect the aquifer. Is that right?

Yeah. That's correct. All of the decisions about water rights are the Department of Ecology, and they're again, all the water, not just the streams, but all the water in the ground is also owned by the state. So they have they have sole ability to determine how not only where you can draw, but how much you can draw.

So in my scenario, if I'm in the recharge the critical recharge area, I might not be able to do plating. That's a great example. But if I'm next to my neighbor who has a well and I'm not in the critical recharge area, I might be able to do plating. Is that right?

If if the zoning were to allow it Yeah. Yeah. Generally, that well if you're outside the wellhead radius so, again, that's several 100 feet out.

But that's a separate regulation. That has nothing to do with the aquifer. Right?

That is related to the protect because I even if you're not in a critical aquifer, ultimately, that well is making connection with some kind of groundwater someplace approved by the by the health department. Regulations for critical aquifer recharge areas are supposed to address those as well. So I I I would say it it applies to both.

Even if that well's not in the critical area?

Even if it's not in the the critical aquifer recharge areas are specific areas of the aquifer as well as those wellhead radiuses. Those are all considered, recharge areas. So even if you're not over a critical aquifer, if you are doing something close enough to something that has a direct connection to some kind of underground water body, we're concerned about that.

Thank you.

Another question?

Yes.

So, again, this is going back, and it's really hazy, but I think I remember it's something along the line of, like, the recharge rate for the you know, for most of the aquifers within the city limits is around two years to to get is that correct? Or

Unfortunately, that that I do not know, but I can get you the answer.

Well, I kinda bring it up because does that play any role into the, you know, restrictions or or any of those elements as far as being able to, you know, grow the population or add more density, you know, or anything along those lines. So

Our capital facilities plans have to be designed in a manner that determine ensures that we have adequate water rights. So of all the wells that we have, we have the ability to pull enough water to be able to handle those. Our cap facilities capital facilities plan shows that we have adequate for the for the next twenty years. I think there is a general concern about water quantity in general and what, outside of making sure that we aren't drawing out enough water, how necessarily we are judging exactly how much water is in that aquifer. Because, obviously, we operate off the Department of Ecology's information.

Getting a water right from the Department of Ecology is a multigenerational experience, so it's very, very hard hard to get. But there is conversations about local governments having a higher responsibility, especially as it applies to water water recharge into stream channels. It is stream I'm sorry. I'm getting the term. I'm getting the term wrong.

Basically, streams need to be at a particular level to be able to handle salmon. So there is a particular concern that if we draw too much water out of the aquifers, ultimately, the stream channels are not gonna have enough water to be able to handle salmon. So there is that parallel as well. Currently, our current code does not address that. Our proposed code very likely will not address that, though though I do expect that that will be a comment that you will hear during public outreach.

Thanks, Eric. Alright. Well, I think that I got I'm now at the last slide. Based on what we've seen so far in regards to the gap analysis, some of the, again, big ticket items are you're probably going to be looking at some expanded wetland buffers. So our our current buffer widths are lower than other jurisdictions and lower than best available science would recommend.

The Department of Ecology is pretty specific on exactly what those look like, so we will have that information for you as well. Expanded stream buffers is also likely. The fish streams may see a little increase, but it honestly, it is the non fish streams that may see a higher increase as we still have 25 foot buffers on the lowest category streams. There are not a lot of jurisdictions that have have 25 foot buffers anywhere. You could be seeing those buffers move edging up towards a 100 feet.

The reason why these are important aren't necessarily just for new development, somebody who has a vacant piece of property with a wetland on it, and how can I build something on it now? It really is an impact on the people who have the stream running through their backyard that was 25 feet from it or 50 feet from it. And now the buffer is wider, and they had planned on putting in a deck or a hot tub or an accessory dwelling unit. Now those areas may be located within a wet a wetland or stream buffer in a way that could impact their ability to develop. Thus, why wetland buffers and stream buffers are the big ticket animals that we spend the most time talking about other than the other things that we talked about at the end of this presentation.

We wanna clarify mitigation measures and process. I do believe that bulk buffers have a place, but bulk buffers are not the perfect answer. It may say that it's a 100 foot buffer. That is not guaranteed to be the right answer for all properties. Site specific flexibility needs to be provided.

If you have a biologist who comes in and indicates that you're meeting no net loss at 75 feet or 50 feet, even if the bulk buffer says a 100, we need to make sure that we have a process where that can be adequately vetted. Science is doesn't is not a one size fits all. So we wanna make sure that our code allows that level of flexibility, and then we also need to update our definitions and references. There's a lot of terminology that is a little antiquated that we need to change up. So I I will expect that this will be a very it'll be an interesting conversation.

I think you've heard me kind of foreshadow these conversations over the last six, eight months. This is one of the big ticket items that could have an impact on on our residents in a way that some will feel is very positive in protecting our natural resources. Some may feel are impacting their hopes and dreams for their property moving forward. So I've done two critical areas ordinances in my past. Each one of them were they were good times.

So, Eric, remind us again of next steps now, please.

The next steps is we are going to be producing draft code revisions that will be entering into the public realm for public comment. That'll probably be coming out sometime in October. We will then be having public out we'll be sending out mailers to all the potential people who are impacted. We'll be doing a series of open houses, stakeholder groups. I do believe in meeting with absolutely everybody where they are, every outhouse, henhouse, and doghouse.

So if you know of organizations of groups who would be interested in hearing something like what I just told you, I am more than happy to attend any and all of them. Again, it is having kind of the back and forth conversation that is most valuable even in this virtual era that we live in. That makes me sound old, doesn't it? Mhmm. But so the outreach will be the next part. I would expect probably the next time the planning commission would see something would be November or December. It could be as late as January, especially if public comment generates a lot of potential additional changes.

And am I to did I understand correctly that you said that this process will also reach out to our urban growth areas?

This process will not impact urban growth areas. It only impacts, inside the city limits. We have a separate process going on where we are, discussing interlocal agreements with the county in regards to those in our in in regards to those urban growth areas. That is a separate sideline process. We're only focusing on the regulations that apply to inside the city limits at this time. Pierce County completed their critical areas ordinance last December.

Okay. Thank you. More process questions. Will this require a public hearing?

Yes. This will this is a code. It's a a land use control, so it requires all the noticing and all the public hearings both before you and the council.

When do you anticipate best guess? Is that the January, February?

That would be Jan that would be January. May late January, early February. Because, again, I I don't just wanna spring this on you and then say, hey. What here are what the public thinks. I would like to be able to have a similar presentation like this, kinda walk through. Here's the various elements that you're seeing. Here's the public comment we heard related to each of these to give you a little bit of a preview that you can kind of gestate on before before the public hearing.

Will SEPA be triggered

for this?

SEPA is definitively triggered.

What's that?

SEPA is definitively triggered.

Okay. And when will that take place?

SEPA, once we have a draft code, we likely will conduct we'll complete a SEPA checklist, and we will do a determination at that point. So that would be looking at sometime in October. October. Maybe at November. Sorry. Let's say we're gonna go November. October is really close, I just realized.

One last question, Jared. I promise I'm done. I think you've already hit your limit. I know. I know. I'm I'm on overtime. 15 foot setback to the buffer, I'm really puzzled by that. Mhmm. I wonder if it's appropriate to ask Eric and your team to consider. Is that how other jurisdictions do it? Is that a best practice? Yes. I've not seen it in some of the bigger cities I've worked in. One would one could argue that just just add the 15 feet to it, you're gonna probably require a fence or some denotation that, you know, you're gonna stay out of that anyway. It it feels clunky to me because it's a regulation tied to another regulation.

Why wouldn't what what's the value of doing it that way? I get your point about, like, not wanting to impact the buffer, but just make the buffer bigger then.

I guess the issue, if you make the buffer, bigger, that's an area that you can't get into at all. Basically, I'd I'm I'm the 15 feet is so that you could have your, bulldozer run around the outside and put in your foundation. It isn't really about long term impacts. It's about the impacts of the actual construction activity. You can very easily damage root systems, etcetera, creating a series of danger trees in the buffer later on. If you don't have a certain amount of distance where you aren't putting in buildings, etcetera.

And and you're pretty confident that's how most jurisdictions do it?

Kitsap County has done it for my entire previous career, and Pierce County has done it for the same length of time. I it's pretty much the limit. I guess King County, it's where any experience?

But I've also seen where setbacks can be waived by the wetland biologist too. Yep.

Okay.

This is only adding because I work South of and Thurston County, they do it as well. Lewis County, it's done that way as well. Alright.

So with that, people wanna know more, you can contact me. Again, please, if there's folks that you know that would be very interested in talking about this, especially their concerns related to critical area protections, Whether it is pro or con, I I I go to all rooms, and I am more than happy to have in-depth conversations with organizations.

Eric, the the city's putting on an HOA open house

Yes.

I think on the thirtieth. Are you gonna plan on having just a little notice that we're we're going to be doing this just in case there's some management there that would like to learn more about that.

Yep. Very likely, we are going to have, at the, DCD booth, here are the current code, efforts. It won't just be that. It'll be also be, the phase two code development about housing. And, yeah, I the our booth is gonna have all of that as well as we have a flyer that pretty much indicates what's the difference between CC and RS and code. They're not the same thing. And so we welcome anyone to come again four to 6PM here in this lovely room, September 30. Yeah. And I really appreciate your time tonight.

Thanks, Eric. I I had one question. The the consultants for the update, is that was that a single report that they made, or is this a issue immediate? Any other words, as far as background, is there anything you can share from that standpoint?

Yeah. What we do is we have the gap analysis that is complete. I can send that to you tomorrow morning. So I'll give it to Michelle to give to all of you. That basically shows where our holes are and then the draft, I I guess, so Monday. It'll be it'll it'll be Monday. Yeah.

No. There wouldn't be any rush. I might be curious to just

Mhmm.

Peruse that at some point.

Yes. I apologize. I I probably should have had the foresight to have provided that before this meeting. Okay. But, again, I I I on this one, we really kinda want to focus on what critical areas are and are not, rather than how they could be changing. But I I can see the wisdom in having given it to you in advance.

Great. Anyone else having alright. Thanks, Eric. I guess other business, I think, just next meeting, October 2. Is that what we're looking at? K. Entering this October The the

the topic for that meeting is going to be phase two codevelopment related to addressing housing diversity and intensifying density in a a number of zones within our

city. Alright. Okay. With that, I guess we'll entertain what's that? Oh, okay. Yeah. Of course. Yeah. We, again, welcome our new commissioner. Thank you for joining us, mister Joe, and our and our audience. Thank you for

joining us.

We're often quite lonely here. Yeah. And with that, I guess we'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Unopposed? Thank you, everyone.