Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

That's okay.

Okay. I'll order the 02/19/2026 Green Bay Harbor Planning Commission. Do a roll call. Jason Jordan? Present. Kim Anderson?

Present via Zoom.

K. D. Cornell. Present. Jim Anderson. Present. Rosie D. Joe.

Present. And

our newest member, Brent Waskin.

Awesome.

Okay. First order of business approval of the minutes from 02/05/2026. Any motion to approve?

So moved.

So moved. And a second. Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. It's approved. Any public comment?

Did you wish to make public comment tonight? Nope?

Okay. We'll start off with the agenda items then. First order of business is Dana Welchman for commissioner. Brian, would you just like to say just a little introduction about yourself?

Hello, everyone. My name is Brian Waskin. I have lived here for almost two years now. I'm a community planner with the navy up on there. So most of my experience has been federal planning, but definitely excited to do more city.

Great. Well, thank you for that volunteering. No problem. Okay. And then with that, as all new members, we're paying them for chair and vice chair. So I guess we'll open the floor for nominations.

I will nominate you to chair. And for the record, mister Parker. Alright?

Is there any other anybody else of the nomination?

I I would be happy to accept a chair position if if you are so inclined.

Oh, good. Yeah. I do we have another another nominations?

So sorry. I didn't do that. So you non you nominated you for chair, and then she's volunteering for chair. So I guess yes. Okay. So I'm make sure it was chair and not vice chair. Chair.

Chair. I I recommend maybe there are you're explaining there are two elected positions.

Yeah. There there's a chair and a

vice

chair, and it's I don't I don't know what the term is. Is it just one year, I guess?

Yep. Yeah. Usually, the first the first meeting of the year, but we didn't have a full board, so we waited.

Yeah. Yeah. So and I'm I'm happy to continue serving, and I'm happy to stand aside too. But if, why don't we,

well, if there's two of

us that are interested, we can have a vote. Do I have a nomination?

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you, and my video is not working well. I'm vice chair is fine as well. I'm just I'm happy to help where needed.

K. I'd like to make a motion to nominate chair commissioner Burkhart as chair and commissioner Anderson.

There has to be a second motion after we Oh, okay. Vote vote for chair. Yeah. Sorry.

So I'm I'm gonna make a motion to chair Burkhart to remain.

Alright. Then is there a second? I'll second that. Okay. So I guess then all those I guess we call for a vote. Yeah. All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Any opposed? Alright. So I guess I'll do another term within his chair. And then any nominations for a vice chair?

I'd like to nominate commissioner Anderson for the vice chair.

I'd like to second that. Alright. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Any

opposed? Alright. Okay. So we'll do it. Ms. Anderson is our vice chair. Alright. Moving on then. Critical area code update from development director Eric Baker. All yours.

Thank you very much. Thank you all for coming tonight. This is a continuation of the conversation about the critical areas ordinance that we had two weeks ago. Again, as a reminder, the draft document is located out on the website, and we have been notifying the public more or less recently. We're sending out almost 2,800 postcards to people who are located within 300 feet of either a wetland or a stream.

Not all of those properties are going to be affected by the potential changes, but they are, near a water feature that could be affected. We wanna make sure that they are aware, a, of the updates. But, also, we have two public meetings that are coming up, the first of which is on March 3. That is a virtual meeting. So there'll be a presentation very similar to what things that you've already heard from the public in general.

And then we will be going into virtual breakout groups where folks are able to ask questions and ask questions, make comments about the potential changes. After that, again, trying to set kind of a foundation for what the critical areas ordinance does and does not do. On the tenth, we have a open house. Both these meetings are at 05:30. The open house is in person here in this room.

That will be more of a open house type scenario where people are able to come and ask specific questions about their property, about their area, about how those potentially could affect them. The idea being that we'll give them little more direct involvement in their specific questions, which then, based upon the comments that we're receiving during this period of time, we will be taking those and making any necessary revisions to the current draft that would will generate a separate document called the staff draft, which then will would formally launch the critical areas or consideration process by, first, the planning commission. You'll hold a public hearing. You will have deliberations afterwards, and then that you'd make a recommendation to the council who then would hold a public hearing and then make the ultimate decision. This is expected to occur over the next several months, wrapping up in on June 30 or sometime before June 30.

Any questions about the schedule and where we are? The the purpose for today is the planning commission asked a series of questions at the last meeting. I've attempted to cover some of those in the in the presentation that I'll be giving you here in a moment. And then also to field any additional questions that you folks may have that may require additional information prior to, again, us going into that formal consideration process, which won't be until April or May I think April. Questions about that process?

Alright. Well, I'll just kinda back up a little bit. One of the questions that that has come up in the public, and that was some I mentioned at the last planning commission meeting is exactly highlighting some of the importance of the wetlands and streams. Like, we started with the state requires us to make to update the code and that we have to do adverse with consideration of best available science. But we really didn't go into exactly why that state mandate exists.

We'll focus largely on wetlands and streams. Wetlands and streams, again, we are a peninsula made up of where the glacier what the glacier is left behind. So we are pretty much going uphill and downhill if you're going east west. That leaves a lot of low areas. Gravity likes water to pool at the in the low areas and or flow in and form a stream.

So these are important features for floodwater storage as we have a lot of rainfall in the community. That rain does not necessarily all make it down into the aquifer. Obviously, we are very aquifer dependent for our water sources, but we have a lot of clay layers. There's occasional opportunities for water to get down between those clay layers to the to the aquifer itself, But the vast majority of wetland of water is gonna run along that clay layer layer until it reaches the low spot. And when it reaches the low spot, it is going to start it's going to create either a wetland or if the topography in the low spot is of a of a certain gravity, it will flow to the next water body, the next water body, and then out to the sound.

Without wetlands, these water these the waters will have to go someplace else. The water doesn't just magically go away. It it is a matter isn't a matter of shifting the it would just it is just a matter of shifting the water around the community. And, ultimately, the water storage from our wetlands help support stream flows. Stream flows are important predominantly for fish habitat.

We are in the tribal area of the Puyallup tribe who have usual and custom rights. We also have endangered Chinook salmon in a number of our streams. So the wetland streams support the stream flows that then support the fish runs that are dependent not just on our tribal fishery, but our commercial fishery. It provides water quality improvements. Certain a number of us are trying to be considerate of what we put on our lawns and what we put in our yards.

And then just general development as a whole has certain nutrients or other discharges that come off from just our general uses. Wetlands in particular are good opportunities to filter the water before it gets discharged into a stream and then out to our out to our strength I'm sorry. Out to our shorelines. Like I mentioned before, it feeds the aquifers. Not a lot.

Not a ton of vast majority of the water that falls on our ground over the course of a year does not make it back into the aquifer. It works its way in the streams and out to the shoreline. It is that these also provide a certain level of shoreline stabilization, and that, as I mentioned before, is essential habitat for fish and wildlife. So Gig Harbor prides itself on its natural beauty, wetlands and streams, and their associated buffers make up a good chunk of that to a large component of our community and is also incredibly important to the environment. I'm gonna pause there for any questions.

No. Some of the folks have kind of asked, okay. Well, in general, how do I know if I have a weapon? It's like, what what what makes a wetland a wetland? Like I mentioned, ultimately, water will flow down to the low spot.

If it cools in a low spot long enough, it is going to change the ecology and the the geology of the area. So first of all, the water is eventually going to change the soil composition. Generally, if you're looking at an area and the soils are dark brown, like you'd see with topsoil, like you'd see with peat type of thing that you fertilize your you fertilize your flower beds with, you plant your garden plants in. Those oftentimes are are wetland soils. Vegetation.

The vegetation in a wetland is different in a lot of ways. Yes. Alders grow. So alders don't necessarily mean you have a wetland, though, usually, if you see a big grove of alders, that oftentimes can be wetland area. But you're gonna see things like skunk cabbage, also a series of grasses. Grass grows everywhere. How can I really tell? One of the simpler rules of thumb is if it's blades of grass, but actually have edges, sedges have edges. Rushes around is the, kind of colloquial way to say it. Rush grass is a wetland grass.

That's the one that they're going to you they're they look like old tubes. Those are oftentimes wetland vegetation. You see that type of grass growing. There's a lot of water in the soil, and, that type of vegetation, that type of vegetation grows in that area. And then, also, if you have, water saturation at any point during the year, it doesn't have to be all year round.

It doesn't have to be open water, not like pawn ponds, obviously, are wetlands. But, again, if you get significant water saturation at some point during the year, there's a strong possibility that you may have a wetland on your side. Also, like I mentioned before, we have a whole series of maps that are located on the city's website, which has known wetlands. These come from surveys of soil types, but also come from surveys done by the federal government back in the seventies. And as projects have come forward, they've been responsible for producing wetland determinations or wetland delineations.

When we get those, we include those on the maps as well. Those are a good way if you are sitting at your desktop to determine where wetlands may or may not be, But these are soils, vegetation, and water are three ways to kinda determine if you're on the ground of if whether your property may or may not have a wet. And pause there. Alright. Well, another one of the questions is, yes, we have wetlands.

Wetlands are important based upon the features that I just mentioned a moment ago. Streams are important for a lot of the reasons that I just mentioned a moment ago. But the biggest impact to the developability of land isn't necessarily the wetland or the screen itself. It is the protections we put around the outside. So one of the one of the main ways that we do that is through buffers, that is areas of upland land that is not allowed to be developed.

It must maintain itself as the natural precipitation can't be cleared, can't put pavement on it, can't do a number of things. This is a a general illustration of some of the benefits of a stream of the buffer, and as the buffer width gets wider, where certain other benefits kick in. Obviously, with the stream and wetland, we talked about the fish habitat. Having trees near your stream helps shore up the the stream banks, but also provide shade. The fish as they're going through their lifespan life cycle, The small fish need places to hide, and shade is a place that they do that.

Also, shading helps moderate water temperatures. We're having a lot greater heat events. And without any kind of tree canopy, the temperatures of what in many cases, there's some relatively shallow water bodies can heat up and also create impediments to fish habitat. Just like wetlands, they can filter sediment and pollutants. So anybody who's fertilizing their lawn, that fertilizer has a distance to go, and other vegetation pulls those nutrients out of the ground.

Nitrogen is a excellent nutrient to grow to grow vegetation. Too much of it in the stream or in the wetland is detrimental to fish fish habitat and, ultimately, the the shoreline. We also filter sediments and other sediment. So, again, soil. As you're talking about streams streams, if they're going to have fish, they generally need to have a rocky bottom.

Silt and other fine sand as it works its way down can end up covering up that rocky that rocky base, which in turn impacts fish fish habitat. And then once you get past kind of the protecting the stream, we are responsible for providing a certain amount of wildlife habitat and wildlife connectivity. So as you get to kind of the outer part of the buffer, obviously, the wildlife is gonna use any part of that buffer and, in many cases, our backyard. That it it gives them an ability to make it from one part of our community to another part of our community without walking on our roads, without walking through our yards. It gives them a place to live without necessarily coming into contact with with human with human beings.

So these are some of the aspects that buffers bring. Best available science has different thoughts on exactly how much how much width of a buffer is necessary to meet these various components. Two of the documents that that we provided to you that was requested on how we're kinda coming to some of our conclusions about buffers is the best available science review from both Kitsap County directly to the north of us and Pierce County, which is the area that surrounds us. These two reports take a look closely at the geology and the geography of our area as well as the habitat. So it it goes into account not just best available science.

A science paper may be incredibly valuable in Kansas, but may not necessarily as applicable here. We are looking at, again, scientific documentation that has been compiled and synthesized by our nearby neighbors who have completed their critical areas review update, and one of which I believe has been through the appeal process. That is that is the county of this. Any questions about buffers or the best available science documents that I'm certain that you fell asleep to at some point over the last forty eight hours? So before I get to the comparison of the wetland buffers that are in the current draft, I do wanna remind folks that when you're looking at the ranges in the document I'm about to show, wetland buffers aren't just about the value of the wetland itself.

It also compares itself to what you're proposing to neck put next to it. A low intensity use does not need as much protection as a high intensity use. So I I don't think I was as clear last time as what high intensity uses were. But in general, those are residential developments that are greater than one dwelling unit an acre, otherwise known as every residential development that we're gonna be putting forth in that gate park over the next twenty years. Commercial retail services, industrial, active recreation. When I talk about active recreation, think sports fields, think basketball courts. Okay. Well, think pickleball courts. I guess that's what we're mainly we're mainly doing nowadays. Those would all be considered high intensity uses.

So when you take a look at the ranges I'm about to show you in a in a moment, remember the high part is is the high land use intensive. So when we're talking about anything other than those uses there, that's where some of the lower buffers kick in. So it isn't necessarily a range as in let's pick from in here. It really is based upon the use uses that are being proposed. Moderate is, again, residential with units that are greater than one dwelling unit an acre.

That's our rural areas, and then we don't have new development that's proposed at that. Paved trails like the Cushman Trail would be an example. Also, logging roads and other forestry related infrastructure, landing pads, things like that. Would would be far moderate. And then low is basically forestry. That's just the active growing and cutting trees, passive recreation, like trails that run through some of our open space areas, and then utility corridors. Example would be the the I'm sorry. No. I I high tension electrical ones that run through. Any questions about that before I go back to this?

Do I go to a compilation of the scary slides that I showed you last time?

No. It's, farmland,

agriculture. Farmland, it depends on the type of farmland that you're looking at. Farmland, if it is active if it's active, like, let's see, planting, tilling, disturbing, it's a moderate use. If it's more like pasture land, it is considered a low e it's it's considered low.

Alright.

So one of the questions was, okay. Well, how do we compare to some of the other jurisdictions that we that are around? This table here shows our existing buffers located at the far left. The area in green, the buffers that are located in the current draft. And then you have the Pierce County, Kitsap County, and I also included Port Orchard because they are a city roughly of our size that are all that's also on our peninsula.

They are still going through their their their process, so I I do wanna highlight that. So as you're looking at here, we are, in some places, lower. In other places, we are higher in regards to buffers. Let's just look through the the wet one buffers. You'll note that some most of the high buffers are remaining the same.

So the high intensity uses like residential developments are residential developments, commercial developments are being proposed to stay this to stay roughly the same except in one area where we do have feedback, and we could potentially go down to 225 feet for category two wetlands. Though as you're noting, there are instances where other jurisdictions are using up to 300 feet. And then but what you are noting is that these low end. So the low intensity use is those buffers are going up. That was one thing we did find from best available science that even when you are doing low intensity uses, fifty, forty, twenty five feet is not enough of a buffer to be able to provide those benefits that I mentioned from the from the buffers on the previous slide.

So the bottom is going up in wetlands. Most of the high intensities are staying the same or in certain instances going down. And then on kind of the flip side, you are noting that the streamer repairing management zones are increasing, especially as it applies to the lower level of streams. Yes, sir?

Sorry.

Before you didn't go too much on streams. Mhmm. Can you walk us through the best available science that allows us to go from 300 to two twenty five on this category too? Like, what's the rationale for that?

I'm surprised. The the rationale on going down to 220 sorry. Going down to 225 feet is that the category two wetlands, not all of them are necessarily connected to to one another. I will mention we'd like to mention before, there's a lot of instances where wetland buffers can go down. There's also instances where they can go up. For category two wetlands, we elected to go at a position where there may be instances where that does get increased. There's also instances where it may get decreased over time versus starting at 300 feet and only operating off of a a decrease only

strategy. So I'm still trying to figure out, like, what does the science say that that that would allow for the high end to be less?

The over less than three than the 300 feet, it really comes down to the type of habitat quality that is located in in the category two wetlands. The habitat quality for a lot of the areas in Gig in Gig Harbor, It is proposed that those those features that come with a buffer for category twos can be serviced by 225 feet for category two wetlands. Again, that is water quality, that is shading. It is wildlife connectivity, especially when you're running through if you move up Donkey Creek, Donkey Creek has a series of wetlands that run from the set that run all along it. That would be an example of its those are category ones, very likely down by the mouth of the stream, and then moving up to category twos as you move a little further.

I can dive a little a little bit deeper into that and provide you guys additional detail.

I'm just it's very rare that you see the science code the other way. I'm surprised. In

this case, the science isn't necessarily going as much the other way as the ability to increase buffers in the code has increased. So with we now have the ability under certain circumstances based upon habitat value to increase the buffer widths in ways that we necessary we couldn't that we couldn't necessarily under the current code.

So I can raise Will you be able to go beyond 225 feet?

And for a category two of them? Yes. Based upon the habitat qualities. If, again, there is it is a wetland connected to a stream that's also connected to a that's connected to a a stream with shoot up salmon, which is a dead endangered salmon. Very likely that could see an increase probably moving back up to the 300 level. So I I I'll provide you additional detail. I I have not been as clear as I'd like to be, and I'd like to be able to provide you something in writing on that topic. Do we have a

question? Yes.

Someone just asked

to call on her.

Oh, yes, ma'am. I

would like to understand in the category four wetlands. I I think I understand in the other categories if we're higher than Pierce County, that's that's obvious. But how do we handle having a a lower requirement in category four versus Pierce County? Is that just rural Pierce County?

That is the urban areas of Pierce County, so all of our urban growth area boundaries. I'm looking here at the category four wetlands that we have right now, and we are we're running from 25 to 50 feet versus Pierce County is running from 40 to 50 feet. They are requiring additional protection for, again, the low category land uses. Meanwhile, the high category land uses like residential, like retail, like if all the urban style development, it remains at 50, which is akin to Pierce County.

Thank you.

Eric, and just a follow-up on this more here. So, again, back on categories two, I mean, did did I hear you correctly that that could increase based on a necessity? I I guess I'm kinda stuck on the fact that the GMA and the the requirement to be to not exceed what is necessary are we is to your example that you gave, that two twenty five could increase if it's necessary for for something site specific?

Yes. Just like most of the site specific amend alteration options that we're talking about usually trend them lower. There is the other side where there is a specific habitat quality that is special to this area that could increase the width. So the category two weapons is one area that we're proposing to utilize that strategy, while the others, you should largely be seeing those are at the maximum. I've been by maximum.

I mean, that is the level in which there are special habitat qualities. And, of course, with cat with category one wetlands, you're gonna see that pretty regularly, but those are oftentimes associated with shorelines, estuaries, high habitat areas, and then the category three wetlands were key where you are for high, roughly keeping the same width. However, it would be higher for the low intensity uses as we are finding that 40 feet for category three wetlands is inadequate predominantly for wild.

Two questions, and you don't have to answer them tonight if if I'm getting off here. But one, are are any of the areas within the city are there more is is there more than one area that falls under these categories, or do we have, like, one particular site that is specific to one category? And the other is with these with these setbacks increasing, is how much how much of it how much land would we have otherwise been able to build on under the under the previous rules that we don't have exactly having significant impact in in in the amount of land that we have for a building, or we is it is it negligible?

I it's definitely not negligible. It's also very hard to calculate, and I'll just I'll describe why. In many cases, streams oftentimes are associated with wetlands on either side. So the the wet the stream may have a 50 foot buffer, but it's got a 100 feet of wetland on either side of it. That's not new protect. That would not be new protection if we went from 50 to a 100. It's like, no. That's still area that could not be that could not be developed on. When it comes to exactly how the wetlands are spread out over the commute through the community, I believe we have a a predominance of category three and four wetlands. Those are, again, relatively isolated wetlands.

We do have some areas, the areas along North Creek, the areas that are located just there on the other side of the high school. They are wetlands that are likely connected to one another. So as you get forested wetlands that are connected, you start to move into the category two component. And I think the the last component that when you're talking about being able to calculate when it comes to wetlands, it's harder to calculate. We know where the wetlands are in most cases, but we don't know the type for the most part.

Ones, twos, and threes, we have a good handle on where they are. Four is less so. And then on top of that, we have the issue of the issue of the buffers and the fact that they overlay over the top one another more often than not in a lot of areas of our community. It it it is going to be a good amount of land that is going to be required to remain in trees after the code is adopted versus where we are today, and that is going to limit development potential on vacant properties and potentially on some people's properties who are built very close to an existing wetland. It it would be a lot easier for me to claim that wasn't true, but, no, transparency says that, yes, this is going to have an impact on developability in certain areas of the city.

Have a quick question as well. So who makes the determination of what category of wetland is, and who defines that?

When a project comes forward, if you're located within 300 feet of a mapped wetland, you are required to do some a habitat assessment. Someone has to come out and say, okay. You're too you're far enough away from the wetland. Don't worry about it. Or you have, like, a a category wetland that you're now within 25 feet of or 30 feet of. That is oftentimes a wetland biologist. That's somebody who is scientifically trained in determining not just what type of wetland it is, but where the wetland edge is. There's two types of assessments. One is a determination. That's the one that says UV category two, UV category three.

And then there is the delineation, which is where is the edge of the wetland. And the edge of the wetland is where the buffer begins. So a habitat biologist would come out, indicate the type of wetland, the edge of wetland. And then if the development proposal was locate was to were to be inside either, a, the wetland or, b, the buffer associated with the wetland, there would need to be a mitigation report that comes along with it if the development proposal is to continue forward.

Question. It does it does it matter what is being developed on the site regarding these setbacks, the buffers?

The wetlands, yes. Going back, the low number that you see here is the low intensity uses. The high number is the high intensity use. So most of the uses that are going to be proposed in the in the city are gonna be some kind of structures. They're gonna be some kind of residential that's higher than one dwelling unit an acre, and it's going to be a series of commercial and industrial type uses.

All of those are gonna fall into the high category, which means that you should really be looking at the high numbers as the most the predominant bulk buffer. And, again, we'll talk we've talked about what mitigation is and what site specific review looks like. The bulk buffer is what you would follow if you didn't want to go to any other effort to propose a alternate buffer based upon a site specific analysis.

How does the city ensure a consistent application of the policy?

Of the policy in regards to what we the the way we review yeah. The way we review environmental doc a, we indicate a environmental review is necessary. The applicant will go out and obtain that from a a legitimate consultant. That will come back. We have a consultant on staff. I do not have an environmental planner. Too small too small to have somebody just focused on that. Our environmental consultant firm will review that report for consistency with best of all the science. And, also, based upon the individual proposals. They will come back, they will make a recommendation to staff.

If that if it is in concurrence with what the developer has proposed, we'll you we will utilize that. But, again, when it comes to site specific, it is truly site specific. We consistently apply the process, and we consistently depend on the qualifications of scientific professionals to determine what is no net loss. And we apply those to all of our decisions whether they're made by the director or whether they are proposed to the hearing examiner, which the hearing examiner would then make the decision whether it is appropriate or not. How do the numbers compare for the moderate zones then?

Moderate zones? In general, the moderate zones tend to fall. I I just use the example of category two wetlands. The moderate would be a 150 feet. It's all located in the draft.

That's the one that I remember off the off the top of my head. So as you're going through mitigation, certain high intensity uses can utilize a moderate intensity buffer if they produce a habitat management management plan. We talked about mitigation at the last meeting. If you are taking an existing buffer and making it better, a grassy buffer is now going to be forested by through replanting. If you're providing a wider buffer on one area property, you may be able to get a shorter a smaller buffer on another part of your property.

If you're utilizing those, high intensity uses can utilize the moderate intensity buffers for weapons. But, again, that is on a site specific basis based upon the qualities of the feature on the property as well as the proposed intensities. Any other questions about wetlands? It's the one that definitely has the least clarity right off the bat. It's the type of thing that wetlands also don't stay put. They tend to grow over time, but they also tend

to move.

I have one more question. It's it's a good follow-up to what you just said. How confident are we that we have identified wetlands appropriately and that we don't have some areas identified as wetlands that might not be subjected to these changes?

Can you ask that last part again? I I

think Yeah. So kind of the converse. Like, do do we have them all identified accurately, and that could mean that we've got some identified as wetlands that are not wetland or or the other

way? Yes.

The the situation, we have the best mapping that we have. But that mapping either a, can be old. Wetlands do grow over time, which is why a wetland delineation is only good for a certain number of years before you have to get another one. Because, again, wetlands can get smaller. Sometimes, depending on how hydrology has changed in in the watershed or in the basin, wetlands can go away in their entire.

We don't recommend anybody does that as that's called draining a wetland. But in certain cases, just if a development up the hill changes the hydrology where now water is going into a stormwater pond that used to go into the natural topography and come down into a wetland. Wetlands can't disappear. That is why if you're within 300 feet and you employ a habitat biologist, a lot of those habitat biologists in situations where the wetland's gone will just will provide a report indicating the wetland is not existing on-site. When it comes to new wetlands, usually, that when the wetland grows, you're within that 300 feet, we ask that they have that biologist, again, determine the edge of the wetland.

The place that we have the least ability to address is if it it is a unmapped wetland, and it's not connected to anything else. It is just an area that we show as upland, but happens to be wetland. We do do site inspections, and we also know what a wetland looks like. So we are able to stumble upon them at in particular instances. But that if we're looking for a potential loophole, that may be the one.

Usually, those wetlands are not high category wetlands. They're the smaller isolated category four wetlands, usually a grassy patch that's a low area that is a couple thousand square feet or a thousand square feet in size. Those are the ones that we may not necessarily be capturing all of, but we are doing our very best efforts.

That that makes sense. For the for the areas where we might have identified as wetland when it's not, I guess my my only concern would be that there would be some sort of mechanism for residents to say, hey. You know, I don't have a wetland here. I I would hate to see us declare somebody's home noncompliant when possibly this doesn't apply to them anymore.

Yeah. We have no interest in in in putting somebody under regulations that do not apply to them. We wanna make sure that we have a clear process for them to do so. The bigger question is if if that that wetland is deemed to be no longer with us, exactly how we go about updating the mapping and removing it. Again, like I mentioned, our mapping is updated with new wetland delineations as projects come in. We do not have as clear process on removing wetlands, mainly because they do not that occurs very rarely, but that is a good thing for me to follow-up on.

Thank you.

So with wetland buffers I'm sorry. With stream buffers, we are increasing, as I mentioned, the stream the nonfish streams significantly. Best available science indicates that the nonfish streams, even though they do not include fish habitat, oftentimes run into fish streams. Thus, their temperatures, their sediments, their nutrients all have impacts on fish habitat even if there is not a fish necessarily in that stream. And to address, again, those basic needs of the water quality, water temperature, etcetera, 100 feet is the minimum amount necessary to provide protection for a stream that runs to the shoreline or runs to or runs to a fish bearing stream.

Type two and type three, those are now classified as type f streams. Those are showing a 150 foot buffers. Again, those are increases over our existing buffers, Though, are currently proposed to be lower than both Pierce County and Kitsap Counties based upon best available science. That is towards the low end of the buffer width. I do expect that the Department of Fish and Wildlife is gonna have thoughts on that as I'm gonna talk to you a moment.

They have a different way that they would like to see people calculate stream buffers that have no bulk buffer. Everything is site specific, and I'll talk more about that. Hey. Here's that moment. So with screen buffers, the Department of Fish and Wildlife is strongly recommending the jurisdictions use what they call site potential tree height.

So instead of having a bulk buffer, they are basically asking you, the property owner, to determine the types of trees that are located within their buffer. And based upon their height at about two at 200 years, that will generate exactly how wide the buffer needs to be. This varies by tree species. If I have an older if I have if I have a bunch of alders planted in my buffer, that's as good that is gonna have substantially shorter tree height than two hundred years. Alder may not even gonna make it a 100.

So the buffer is small. However, if there are Douglas firs in that buffer, that buffer is wider. And, for example, Douglas firs could be up to about 300 foot they can have 300 foot buffers if you take this strategy all the way to its end. Other jurisdictions, as I've been looking at this, have been viewing it more as a 220 to 225 feet. That is because it is not just dependent on the height of the tree at two at 200 years.

It's also the growth rate of the particular trees and how that factors in. Like I mentioned, other species are lesser. The problem a lot of jurisdictions have, including the city of Gig Harbor when we are looking at it, is there is no way either, a, for the applicant to know how big their buffer is when they walk onto the property, and there's no way for the public to know how wide that buffer is supposed to be without having a expensive site specific analysis done. So in general, you're asking somebody to pay someone to come out and find out how much your how much of their land they can't use, which can impact whether somebody buys a property. And if somebody's already bought a property, they thought it was a 150 foot buffer, it's a 225 foot buffer, what does that mean?

And while I think I mentioned the last one, bulk buffers are important for people who they they don't want to do the site specific. They don't wanna spend the additional money. Site specific is always the best answer if if folks are looking to spend that kind of money. However, requiring everybody to do it who may be within 300 feet of a wetland or a stream feels like an additional expense, and it creates a level of uncertainty, like I mentioned, not just for the applicant, not just for the property owner, but also for the public who may be concerned about trees coming down in our community, which we have a number of people who are very, very concerned about tree canopy in the city. I say all of this because I do expect that you also have a copy of the Friends of Pierce County.

That letter highlights site potential tree height as Fish and Wildlife's recommendation. That that proposal is pretty much part of Fish and Wildlife's comment letter on almost every critical areas of regulation. There's, to my knowledge, only one jurisdiction who's currently employing it, and that's the city of Anacortes. All other jurisdictions, including the ones that are close to us, are again utilizing the modified bulk buffer and then mitigation strategy that you see in our draft. Yes, sir? Yeah. Thanks for

calling out that comment. Appreciate that. So there's DNR. The DNR is the bulk of hers. That's where they come from for streams. Is that correct?

DNR establishes the stream typing Okay. Because the state owns all the water, including all the water in the streams. Barber, fish, and wildlife is the folks who focus on the widths of the buffer outside the streams. So

So I guess my question, though, is it seems like doesn't someone at the state have to say, you either have to do it this way or that way, or is it our understanding that it's totally optional? We can go one or the other.

Not yet. As I mentioned at the last meeting, best available science used to be about this wide. Local jurisdictions could pick from a number of different peer reviewed articles to kinda come to their conclusions. As the years have moved on, that the best available science is becoming a little more isolated than what the Department of Ecology and the Department of Fish and Wildlife fields are those parameters. The Department of Fish and Wildlife, while they would prefer to see site potential tree height, they are truly looking for a certain amount of protection of function and value, and they do acknowledge there are other ways to generally get to that.

The bulk buffers that we have laid out are trying to, again, be that surrogate for this laborious process. You're getting to roughly the same answer without having to do the substantial analysis that goes along with it. We have not yet submitted this to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Very likely, when we get through the comments and we revised it revised the draft based on the comments, we'll then submit it to Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Ecology for their comments so that the planning commission and council will have them in time for the public hearing process.

Would it make sense that we have a hybrid approach where there's the both buffers, which are easy, but if someone wanted to say maybe their buffer should be less, I guess, that they could do the tree study, and would would the would the code allow that? This is the first part of her. Could the code allow that?

Our current code is structured. You're doing the site specific analysis, the type of habitat that's located in the buffer. While all trees are great to one degree or another, alders are less so, firs are more so. In many cases, you can be to improve a buffer to potentially get a buffer reduction or to get a buffer averaging, you could be mixing in Douglas fir or cedar with an alder forest to be able or older trees to be able to improve that buffer. So I I believe that the draft that you had before us and the way that we structure mitigation and the site specific alternatives as it applies to streams achieves that goal.

A follow-up on that. Mhmm. So so DNR determines the stream typing. So do we foresee that there could be a conflict between what DNR says the stream type is versus then something something that something that comes out of the the site specific, you know, inspection?

Rarely DNR rarely wades into the critical areas, but fish and wildlife could may have particular ideas. Usually, the fish and wildlife only weighs in on any kind of development in and around streams when they are impacting the stream channel itself. We don't control anything within the within the boundaries of it. There's always a possibility for having a battle royale of consultants. One consultant says it should be this, another consultant says it says it should be that.

Though we run into fish and wildlife weighing in on the project level relatively infrequently, That being said, our tribal representatives pay a very close attention to these. And if there is to be some kind of a disagreement between what a project proponents consultant says on the site specific review. Oftentimes, it is the tribe that comes forward and says, no. That doesn't quite match. If that is the case, we get the comment.

The comment comes in. Usually, that comment has to be something beyond, I don't agree with that. It is, here's a here's analysis of the study. Here's something that that debunks what what has been said here. That will then require the department director in certain instances or the hearing examiner to decide exactly where the where the point is.

And, again, that's why we employ the our environmental consultant, the one that works for us and nobody else, to be able to help the director or the hearing examiner bridge the gap between competing law school. How often are the streams mapped for? Not as often as most people would like. Again, for wetlands move pretty and grow pretty regularly. Streams in our area do less so. Most of them are in size ravines. Now there's a lot of room for them to go. Skagit would be an entirely different story. They're on flat lowlands. They have what they call channel migration zones.

And after one heavy rain, a stream could go from here to over here based upon a flood event. So they aren't mapped as often, but you do have the ability to have the Department of Natural Resources come out if you believe that, a, you don't have a stream on your property, or, b, you have a stream and it's not typed properly. Usually, that is an applicant saying, there are no fish in here. I've not seen any fish in here. Look at that culvert that's about 300 feet down the road. There's no way a fish could get up here. Why does your classification come all the way up to my property? There is an ability for them to do that. It is somewhat long and laborious and not something our code can really address, but there is an app.

If an applicant goes through that that process, then what is the this what is the process with the city to then adopt a different buffer zone based on a more favorable outcome?

That that would be rolled into their their site specific analysis, that they would indicate that this is not a type f stream. This is a type n n p, which is stands for nonfish coring instrument, which means the buffer shouldn't be under 50 feet. It should be a 100 feet, and they can also then come on on top of that. I think I can go ahead and go down to 75 feet over here. If I go to a 125 feet over here in exchange, I'll replant this grassy area with some tree with some additional trees to improve the habitat in the buffer that I'm not sure.

What is the enforcement on people's proposed you know, they're them saying that they're gonna plant trees to get an approval of something, and then what is who's going back to check who knows if they actually did that.

They they come with a monitoring requirement. They need to provide us information, and oftentimes, we'll go out and check. Again, we we don't have a lot of permits that have these types of impacts. We are a small city, so we are limited in staffing. But we do go out and monitor, especially in instances where damage to a wetland buffer or stream buffer was done without without without any kind of so so a code enforcement action.

They we have a monitoring program and ensure that, again, these trees are growing over time. Depending on the type of mitigation that's proposed, sometimes that could be just planting trees and letting and staying away from them. But other times, it can require irrigation. It can require a number of other things to make sure that the tree plantings don't get outcompeted by scotch brood or blackberries or all the other things that we would like not to have running around. So we we have a program to do so, and it has been largely successful to date.

Other question. I guess while I'm there, did anybody else have anything else they would like me to highlight from the letter from Friends of Pierce County? They well, we I have one other thing that they brought up that I'll talk about in a moment, but I wanna make sure I'm covering. If if if you have any questions that don't include wildlife, I have a slide on that. Now could be a

good time. Will you keep responding to them?

We usually do not respond directly back to all all the comments. We take we take them in. We include them in a matrix. We make sure that all the decision makers, including you, will have full access to all of the comments that have been submitted both in a small summary, but also in their their original format. So you'll be able to disseminate them. But, no, we don't comment back on each one. That creates a back and forth loop that sometimes is beneficial, but is outside our ability our staff ability to do. Right now, it's one. Right now, we can hit we could we could probably handle it. But once you create that precedent, then everybody is going to respect it.

And the one thing I never wanna do is play favorites. So if I'm ever mean to you, it's not personal. Did I mention wildlife quarters? Another comment that was mentioned that by the Friends of Pierce County and also was one of the requirements that we utilize buffers for is ensuring that we have wildlife wildlife connectivity as well as opportunity for wildlife to live live in our community. For the purposes of the critical areas ordinance, both in my old job and in this job, we really focus wildlife corridors on our stream buffers on our wetland systems.

I'll show you some mapping as to why we consider it that way. Also, we go about beyond regulation. We acquire large quantities of land in our community that are important for wildlife that aren't just environmentally focused. We own a lot of passive recreational open space. We own the land down along North Creek. We are actively trying to acquire land so that regulation is not the only way we're addressing this. I think that other species lesser with a holdover from another slide. You caught me on a cut and on a cut and paste exercise. I apologize for that. Yep.

As as does the last one. So never mind the last two bullets rather than oops. But what I do wanna highlight about this is as we're talking about wildlife in our communities, we do need to be aware of the as the lion king said, the circle of life. We do have varying forms of wildlife in our community, but some wildlife we are more interested in preserving than others. Ultimately, the the animal you see at the top, I think most people are concerned about continuing to see deer in their community.

They probably don't wanna see them in their rose garden. One of the reasons they see them in their rose garden is because we plant things that they would much rather have than what is in their wildlife habitat. Raccoons, another type of wildlife that were are cute when you're seeing them on their neighbor's yard, but not cute when you're seeing them in your neighbor's garbage. But, lastly, when you see the last animal, which is, again, the the carnivore, the one that is necessary to keep the other populations in in check, you see one of those in the neighborhood, and they're and you become very, very concerned. You're concerned about your dog.

You're concerned about your pets. You're concerned about your kids. So when we're talking about providing wildlife habitat, we have to be very cognizant of the full range of animals and what is necessary so that you don't create an environment where you have wildlife, but it's unhealthy wildlife. I don't know if you've seen deers deer have deers. You see deer roaming around that have ticks.

No no little big black spots on the side of them. Those are deer tips, so that is the culmination of Lyme disease. Also, you may note that a number of deer, especially when populations get too large, they will have different colorations and blotches that is an illness that actually affects the entirety of their herd. So when we're talking about wildlife, it's important to make sure that we have checks and balances in place to ensure that that wildlife is healthy both for themselves, but also also for us. Questions on wildlife corridors?

I guess I'll go to the slide. This would be an example of what I talk about a wildlife a a wetland or a or a wetland or a stream system acting as a wildlife corridor. You'll note that the the green swaths through here are largely forested areas that occasionally are crossed by a by a road. That is an opportunity for wildlife to travel without having to run through your backyards. They're still gonna go into your backyards if you plant something or, god forbid, you feed the wildlife. Mhmm. Do not feed the wildlife. Keep the wildlife wild. You see it at the zoo. You see it at the point of science.

It it applies to all of us. Not everybody is interested in wildlife and is concerned about whether they could be dangerous. You're actually putting the wildlife at risk. Bird feeders, probably not as much, but if you're if you're feeding the raccoons peanuts, please stop. It's not it's not safe for the it's not safe for the raccoons.

It's not safe for the other one for the other residents in your neighborhood. And that my son makes me have to say that every time. It it is a zoology major. So lastly, as we're kinda walking through this, you'll note that people are people can get not people. Animals can get from Dogfish Creek moving all the way up, moving into Gig Harbor North using this system. We have other connected systems throughout. You go to the other side of the highway. You'll note there's two big wetland systems there on either side of 90th Street. There is an opportunity for them to traverse utilizing that. So when you see the comment from the Friends of Pierce County, this is how we are electing to address it in the current trust.

We looked at that. Yeah. I just wanna highlight this slide once more. This is the stream this is the stream buffer type. As you're kinda going through, we do have it mapped to the best of our ability.

This is consistent with the Department of Natural Resources stream mapping. Very likely, you'll note in that instance there in the middle where it's a red f and then stops and then becomes a green n. That is where the fish habitat stops, which very likely means there is a fish barrier located right there. If that fish barrier is to be removed, the remainder of that stream could become a fish barrier stream. That's another way that regulatory regulations change over time, not just with new science, but also with the change in the condition of the geography.

Kevin already talked about the update process. I do wanna again put a plug in for anybody who may be listening who or who watches this video later on. March are two opportunities to hear a modified version of this presentation as well as to come on the tenth to come to this room and ask questions of staff on how this may impact your property. Again, like I've highlighted a number of times, this isn't just about vacant pieces of property that might have limitations. This is also about folks who are living around or near a wetland or stream who, due to expanded buffers, might be limited in what they can do in their backyard or in their side yard that they may have planned otherwise.

I wanna make sure that everybody has the opportunity to get their questions answered and their comments provided so that staff can utilize it to improve the draft document again for the next draft, which then will be coming before you in earnest for consideration again in the let's see. What do I have here? Looks like March it'll probably be March and the April.

Question, Harry. How were you know, how is the public notified? Do we mail something to each address in those areas? Do Right. We know those those ones that are likely impacted by this.

Yep. 20 2,785 postcards went out as of today indicating that these meetings will be happening and that there is a draft available, and those are the folks who were within 300 feet of all mapped wetlands and all mapped streams. Also, we are utilize the city newsletter, social media. Gig Harbor Now has already done a copious article on this based upon the last presentation. And this is a known quantity in the public based upon the dirty looks I get when I walk out when I walk outside. Actually, I'm kidding on that last part. What was that

what was that number again? I didn't quite catch that. Sorry.

Oh, the number of people we sent postcards to?

Yes, please.

2,785.

Thank you.

Yes. I I if I had been betting, I would not have taken you over. I will say that I was really surprised that there were that many properties that abutted critically. I I had to guess about half that. So beyond that, we are also working closely with the master builders, our local realtors.

We also have presentations planned before the chamber of commerce. And I, again, am willing to go and present and talk to every outhouse, henhouse, and doghouse in the community, and they're working very hard to get that information out to homeowners associations and other folks who may want to hear about this prior to a decision at the end of quarter of at the '2.

Eric, sorry if I missed this, but I'm I'm not tracking Mhmm. Slide six and slide 10 seem to me they're different numbers. Did you you walk us through that?

Let's see. I I can't let's see the numbers here. So slide six is what?

Slide six is the buffer comparisons. Mhmm. That one. Mhmm. And so as an example, I see category one one hundred to 300 proposed. But then if you go to slide 10, it it says one it says draft two fifty.

Yeah. I'm just not tracking one. Yeah. It's the the accurate one is the comparison chart. Yeah. I skipped over those other slides because those were ones that were hold holdovers from another

Okay. So that they're not part of the proposal? No. And they're not what the best available science is. Okay. Sorry. You probably said that. So going going back to slide six, and I know we beat this one up pretty good. I'm still a little bit confused. Yeah. I'm still a little bit confused. Mhmm. So if I if I I wanna repeat what I think you said. Mhmm. On the category two wetlands, it's the bulk buffer is a 100 to 225 feet, but there could be site conditions that make that bigger.

Yes. And is so so my first question then is, is that only for category two wetlands that that could happen?

Generally, it is most common for category two wetlands due to that connectivity factor. All the others tend to have certain other more more specific features. The the category twos, it really is that hydrological connection that is not necessarily a 100% visible via mapping that can bump bump a buffer up. Okay. So

so it sounds like it's possible on ones, threes, and fours, but more likely if it's gonna happen on two. Yes. So I I I appreciate, like, when you present this to the public and to the city council and to us again, like, a footnote that clarifies that these really aren't, like, the maximums, if I'm understanding you correctly. It could be more. I think that'd be really, really important for the public to understand. Mhmm. And then secondly, I just wanna confirm that the opposite isn't true that it could be less based on some sort

of site condition. No. They they definitively, we have specific a very specific process that allows them to be less based upon a site specific analysis. Again, we focus let's focus on streams because it's a little little clearer. Somebody who's located on a on a fish related stream through that site specific analysis can get a reduced buffer, either a, through buffer averaging or through buffer reductions if they are able to show that they are meeting no net loss on their property based upon the feature they have and the condition of their buffer.

You make certain parts of your buffer better than it is. If you didn't do anything, you're able to potentially impact some other portions of the buffer in certain ratios.

Okay.

So and and what I really did is I really focused too heavily on how you make the buffer smaller, not necessarily on the fact that you can potentially make the buffers larger.

I I just so these are almost like if you didn't wanna do any studies on your property Mhmm. This is what you're gonna get stuck somewhere in this range. If you wanted to do some additional studies, hire a biologist Mhmm. You could potentially shrink it. But, alternatively, when the city evaluates your proposal, they may add to it. That is entirely possible.

A lot of that comes in the conversations about the type of wetland. Again, focusing on the category two, that's the one that's the one most people are gonna wanna stay away from in in in a lot of ways due to the fact that that the buffer is wider in lot of ways. So, yeah, that it could potentially be larger, though very likely any reputable, I haven't had biologists in their analysis is going to note certain aspects of that. Thank you. For clarification, so it's

so if I own a property and I wanna go to the maximum, I come into the city and I I ask for my permit or whatever I'm gonna do based on the maximum, nobody's gonna come out and check the property to then determine whether or not it should be different than the max. Right?

In general, if you are within 300 feet, you need to provide a habitat biologist test to provide you something indicating that I'm that I'm outside the buffer. Don't worry about it. And at which point then, we will have our environmental consultant look at that, But I think it would be rare for us to come for us to turn around and say, no. That should be bigger unless there's something in that report that leads to the idea that we need to take a closer look.

Yeah. I mean, the the reality of this is that all properties are gonna get a site specific analysis because you're gonna have to determine whether there's actually wetlands or not

Yeah.

If you're within

Granny feet. 300 feet.

Yeah. And and, again, this is a work in work in progress. Again, this is largely the city's attempt to be able to provide adequate flexibility. The 225 may not be the best way due to the fact that it is too confusing, that it does create this idea that things can get bigger, which, again, isn't necessarily a great feeling to a number of folks. So this conversation is very helpful for me.

It's, again, I think this is well intended, but, again, well intentions and good policy are not necessarily the same thing. So I I appreciate this conversation, and it's picked some things in my head both about how to describe it, and is the description overly complicated in a way that makes a complicated talk topic even more so.

Going back to the 2785 postcards Mhmm. Is that all city proper,

or is that UGA also? All city proper. Our code update only only affects the folks inside the city. K.

And do we know what percentage of our property owners that represents?

And I I could I could probably do the math. Obviously, we have about 13,000 people who live in the city. Our household size is a little over two. I'm gonna say that's probably I'd say a third would be too much. I'm probably gonna say it's about a quarter.

Eric, back to our goals around providing enough housing under comp plan GMA. Is the city in a position or is could the city consider an area that's a known wetland? Mhmm. Presumably, like, a category one wetland. It's gonna be a large wetland where they could say, hey.

We want development to go in this area because of the other the other infrastructure. Maybe there's it's close to sewer, know, all the other waters available, lots of stuff. Roads network's good there. And we're going to invest in, like, mitigating that area so that more development can happen, and maybe we wanna take another wetland and add to it. Is that is that is that is the critical areas ordinance review time to talk about that?

What you're talking about is a a wetland banking system. We do cover the ability for people to do off-site mitigation. If you go through the sequencing, you can't avoid, you can't minimize, or you you you can't avoid, you try to minimize, you'd mitigate to your best best ability, but you had a beautiful buffer already, so there is not really a way to make it better. You then can look at off-site opportunities, which are an example would be wetland banking. That is an opportunity, as you described, for somebody who has a denuded wetland, oftentimes an old pasture that they are if they redirect the stream, they go and they plant it, and they get credits for it.

That is a relatively long and laborious process that requires the army corps and the department of ecology to sign off on that and provide you the credits to do so. We don't currently have a wetland bank in the city that I do have experience working towards one in in Kitsap. It is a relatively laborious process. But much like all the conversations about housing, regional solutions may be necessary in certain cases, whether it be stormwater ponds, whether it be anything else. Finding a way to not have everybody have to do a little and instead have some have one area where it's it's largely all I all combined is more cost effective and oftentimes can be better for the environment.

A lot of these environment members of the environmental community and certain tribes are concerned about that because you're affecting the environment of one area to the benefit of another. So one stream may get worse while another stream gets better. They have some difficulty with that general concept. It is they don't necessarily say no to it, but it is the proposal they would like to see least because, again, all streams, especially streams that have fish in them, stream flows are incredibly important. So a hit to that stream, a hit to fish habitat, then fish runs in ways that they are uncomfortable seeing.

So I didn't hear you. The board of my employer, we we did a bank. We have a bank, and, unfortunately, it's the wrong watershed, so it doesn't help your Gig Harbor, but it does help those in the Kaliberg Watershed. And it was a laborious process. Many, many years lost money. My question, though, is would the city consider not not developer. It just is that is it even a possibility that the city could work towards a bank for future development? Yes.

I I would say as we're moving forward, obviously, there is a process. We would need a property that very likely we already owned that had a denuded wetland of some kind. We would need to put forth a staff resources to go through the process that you just described, And then we would need to make sure that there is enough development potential in the basin watershed, etcetera, to be able to ensure that we can sell off all those credits. Mhmm. The downside is oftentimes with that is you have to invest a significant amount of money to be able to get those credits, and those credits will eventually pay you back, much like any kind of scenario like that if you invest the money and you don't get that many buyers.

There is another entity that is looking at doing a wetland bank on the peninsula that in gets updated. I think they're calling it the greater they're Greater Peninsula mitigation project, something like that. That would create a competition with whatever we had. And I think, you know, our best interest is to see how that effort moves forward and whether the Navy, it it continues to expand their needed mitigation. They have mitigation programs doing every time they add on to wharfs.

The work that they're doing at Puget Sound Shipyard is gonna have certain environmental impacts that they need to mitigate. Seeing what those opportunities are would likely be more cost effective and would happen faster than if we tried to do it ourselves in a city of 13,000.

That's totally good. And thank you. It's and thank you, panel, for letting me you know, I just feel like it it it takes the sting off of telling property owners they can't develop their property if the city's working on a way that maybe they could buy into some credits. And I think there's a strong desire from people I talk to in this community about growth and the potential for growth. So to me, now is the time to be considering that as a city.

No. I I think all these things are going to be connected, and especially as we move into the housing conversation, it is going to be exactly how we go about addressing the needed infrastructure improvements, how we address climate change, and how we do it in a cost effective and regional manner so that we don't leave it on every individual property to handle as that is inefficient and oftentimes creates unintended consequences, either lower housing density density than we wanted or a odd housing configuration that was necessary to be able to maintain two trees in the middle. I think those are all gonna be important conversations, and I do believe there's a good number of folks on who are gonna be on both sides of the conversation. They wanna maintain the quality of life, the trees, the vegetation, and are dubious of new housing and growth. And then there are the folks who are looking for something new in New York Harbor that we've had over the last thirty, forty, fifty years.

Mainly, the people work in Gate Harbor. I think the important part as we continue through this conversation is as you get additional questions and as you go through the incredible the page turner that is the code, if there's certain aspects of the code that you'd like to talk about more, I do believe I have one more of these briefings prior to going into the formal decision the formal recommendation process. I wanna make sure that I've been able to answer as many questions to the best of my ability, and I highlight that last part.

Thanks, Eric.

Well, thank you. I appreciate your time. And and two two meetings in a row is and there's it should be hazard.

Thank you for coming back and answering some of our questions from last week. Oh, we lost

our camera.

Not a problem at all. I really appreciate a lot of the comments that you have been bringing forward. Again, it's these types of iterative conversations that are very valuable to us, again, coming to what is the best possible answer. And, again, sometimes creativity can be a detriment. So I I I appreciate that conversation.

Anyone else have else have any other questions for Ernie? Alright. Well, thank you, and thanks to the rest of the staff for the free

pre reading. I promise you'll get to see more of them and less of me over over time. I know. They do. They are a lot of fun.

But it

will always be me.

It will always be Michelle, but, again, that is good.

Happy Happy to have her. Alright. Other business then. I guess next meeting, Thursday, 03/05/2026, is the plan. With that, then I guess we'll entertain a motion.

So moved. That's it.

Second. Alright. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Alright. Thanks, folks. Okay.