Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. We can get started.

Morning. Welcome to the 03/24/2026 Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to call the meeting to order. Roll call, please. Chair

Dirkovich? Here. Vice Chair Manley?

Here.

Commissioner Lewis is absent today, and so is commissioner Star. Commissioner Sansma?

Here.

Commissioner Burke?

Here.

And commissioner O'Leary?

Here.

We have a quorum. Thank you. Before we get started, I'd like to say that the planning commission is principally an advisory board to the Pierce County Council. Actions taken by the planning commission on almost all agenda items will be forwarded to the county council as a recommendations for its consideration of final action. First item on our agenda is approval of minutes from the two past meetings. I'd like to entertain a motion. If there are no questions or comments, I'd like to entertain a motion to on the '20 February.

Senator Berger, move to approve. Second. K. We have a motion and

a second. Any questions or comments? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Any abstentions? K. Motion carries. Now for the 03/03/2026, minutes, I'll entertain a motion if there's no questions or comments.

So moved. Second.

And we have a motion and a second. Any other any questions or comments? If not, those in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed? Any abstentions? K. Motion carries.

Next

item on our agenda is a presentation on the countywide planning policy amendments for Visions. And this is a briefing, so there's no action today on this item. I'll turn it over to staff. Thank you.

Thank you, chair. I appreciate that. For the record, I'm Justin Patterson, senior planner with Long Range Planning. Thank you all for allowing me to speak today. Before I dive too much into the presentation and give a quick overview on why this is just a briefing, today, I'll be discussing proposed amendments to the Pierce County Countywide planning policies.

These amendments were actually proposed, debated, and then voted on and approved by the Pierce County Regional Council. So this is why it's more just an awareness briefing. This these amendments won't and we'll talk about the substance of them here in a moment, but they they it's nothing really drastically changing Mhmm. With boundaries and things like that with this. This is very much a technical process amendment, but we wanted to bring this to you for awareness because it may come up later down the road. So with that, into presentation.

This order Press the right side button.

Oh, there we go. Maybe. There we go. Great.

Thank you. So in 2024, Washington, passed SB fifty eight thirty four. This was, this amended RCW thirty six seventy a. That's the the comprehensive plan UGA section of the growth management act. This really allows for the the intent of this legislation was to allow for land swaps within the UGA revision process based on development patterns, growth capacity.

So very similar to the normal UGA revision process, but off cycle. Presently, Pierce County operates a bank for these types of requests. So if we are not in the comprehensive planned update process, so off off of that cycle, and there's a municipality that would require a or would like to do a UGA revision, The current code allows for that revision to happen. It goes through PCRC. That that request goes to the regional council.

They can approve, deny. If they approve, there is the possibility to bank the credits from the urban capacity. This isn't really the greatest or most effective way to manage these these revisions. In fact, the last oh, sorry. Slide right up for a second.

The last time that we had a UGA revision of this sort was Gig Harbor. They had 96 credits. They are still sitting there. That that transaction has never been balanced. And then the comprehensive the last comprehensive plan update actually removed a lot of a lot of GA land, so there's really no need to use those credits.

So it really kinda makes the bank redundant, for lack of a better word. These SB fifty eight thirty four sought to put some more process there, and that's what the pooch Pierce Pierce County Regional Council saw, and that's what these amendments are there to do. Jumping. So this is the difference between the bank and the swaps. This really just shows a breakdown of what I've talked about.

The main point being that UJ swaps really makes the bank redundant. The main changes will be that any revisions to the u UGA need to be matched and result in no net increase in urban growth capacity. So if a municipality would like to revise their urban growth boundary, we need to find commensurate land elsewhere, to make a swap. It removes the need for the bank, and it ensures compliance with the now amended Growth Management Act. The other nice thing about this is that it adds a very clear and repeatable process, for us.

The amendments that, regional council put together tie this into our, pre ban when I say our Pierce County's, planning and public works department, comprehensive plan amendment cycle. So that's an annual process. So now every year, any UGA revisions will come to PPW. We'll take a look, and we'll handle the process from there as opposed to going to regional council and having to do a lot of back and forth. It makes it a little easier and and just kind of

a clear repeatable process there. I have a question.

Sure.

And maybe you'll get into this more in your presentation. So if I'm getting a little ahead of the game, just let me know. So I just wanna make sure I understand this correctly, the difference between the bank and the swap. So when Gick Harper gave up the UGA area, right, that land area, I I'll call it, went into the the bank. Right?

Buckley wanted to get they wanted to expand their urban growth area, but were unable to get approval for that. So explain to me how that works. I mean, just as an example, say, Buckley Work was able to get approval for UGA expansion. What is the difference between the two and how that land area is allocated?

Yeah. It's nice if that's jump in on that. Oh, please. Buckley question. Yep.

So Buckley would not been able to use the Cake Harbor credits because there's a difference between residential credits and what would have been commercial credits. Buckley's request was explicitly for commercial expansion. Okay. So the Gig Harbor credits could not have been applied to that regardless. Residential, apples to apples. Exactly. Okay. And the work they need to do that they were asked to do by the Puget Sound regional council and the Department of Commerce is to demonstrate through their comprehensive plan that they have a need for additional commercial area. And at their latest comprehensive plan, they have comments in there that they'll work with us to do that ahead of their next comprehensive plan update.

Okay. So if if then I'm I'm just trying to understand. And so it has to be apples to apples. And so if they took the Purdy, your Irving Grove area, if Buckley were to get approval, they would be able to use that land area because it's commercial for commercial.

Purdy is, still

Yeah. I know it's I know it's still

That that's complicated. So I can't see what I'm

just trying to get it straight in my head, the difference between the bank and the swaps and how that works.

In either case, it would have to be like for like, and I apologize how to explain the swaps. But in either case, it's like for like.

So commercial bank Alto or just Correct.

Yes. Commercial for commercial, residential for residential. And just to be very clear, if a jurisdiction can demonstrate that they have a need to expand their urban growth area, they don't need to swap for that. That's demonstrating a need, and they can They can

just expand their Correct. Yes.

That is allowed under the Growth Management Act. They do, however, have to show their work and do their homework to demonstrate that they have that need.

Mhmm.

But even if they don't have a need, this then becomes an additional tool. If it's just a desire, not a need, then they can expand assuming somebody else wants to let go of a different part of the urban growth area.

Don't the cities have discretion over their zoning to to some degree? If they wanted a like for like, they could take a residential area that's not not this vacant Rezoning. And turn that into commercial so they could swap commercial to commercial? Absolutely.

So just to clarify that, you you say that if they have a need, they can they can do it. But if they want, they have to go through the swap.

Correct. Yes. So does that the bank, whatever's in there, does that ever just go away? So does it sit there in perpetuity?

Yes. The bank has or with this update will go away.

It just goes away?

It just goes away.

So it's just lost?

It does. But we with the latest comp comprehensive plan update, we didn't keep those credits anyway. So there was there was no need for those. We retracted the the Irvingworth areas by I believe it's it's over 1,300 acres. So well more than the Cape Harbor credits were were are currently. So there's there was no need to maintain the bank. And with this process in place, that really makes the bank redundant.

Ah, got it. K.

So question. As it relates to the bank, just so that I'm clear, in speaking in residential terms, are these given a value on a per unit basis? The you clarify. Okay. So in serving on the conservation futures board, we would go in and buy development rights. Like a monetary value account? There was a monetary value assessed, and then they would sit in a bank, and they could be purchased by a developer to increase density in an allowable area. Did this have any of that same kind of function, the bank?

No. The bank never had any function like that. That is, it's purely for UGA territory. And the the credits that we're talking about, for example, I think in Harvard case, it's the residential credits. So, basically, the the amount of residential capacity within the land that was revised.

So 97 residential credits, to your point, are just gone?

Yes. Well and and then the other issue is is that in Dick Harbor, when they gave up that urban growth area, they the zoning of that property changed, and it it went to a lower density residential. So in some respects, property values changed because it because the zoning changed.

Thank you. Yep. Of course.

Up to the next slide. So this is just to show exactly what's being changed. There are four major parts of this. It sets a clear schedule, so all revision requests will be submitted and reviewed during the comprehensive plan amendment, the annual comprehensive plan amendment process, not the the main cycle. Municipalities do have to do their homework and show their work still for a revision, but they this is different from the work that we do for as mister was talking about earlier.

This is to show an in the RCW itself, which should be in your packet. This shows that more environmental constraints are managed on this so that it's really showing that there's a comparable amount of land being swapped and comparable density. And the UGA bank is removed. The other big piece of this is that it removes the regional council as the managing entity, which is much more involved process, and planning and public works will take on this because we're rolling it into the comprehensive plan amendment cycle. And just to show where these actually occur, if you're familiar with the countywide planning policies, they're organized slightly different than county code, for example.

This really is all within what is CDP policy u g a three. It updates some of the language at the header of that policy. And then three dot two, three dot four, and three dot five are pretty substantively extensively updated. And that is all I have. Oh, I'm sorry. There's a process slide here. To talk about this a little bit in more depth, this have been debated and discussed with the regional council. I will say I was at many of those meetings and a lot of the same questions came up. There's a lot of discussion about what does this do or how does this work. It was debated pretty vigorously.

It then was passed January 15. We wanted to give you a briefing just as as awareness, and then we'll take this to and so we really are just kind of ushering what the regional council came up with, and we'll take this to council for full adoption

soon. With that, that is now all have.

You have any other questions, update, take those?

Yes. One question. The proposal says that the 2024 periodic update found the countywide UVA has excess capacity. Specifically, how much excess capacity are we talking to?

I believe off the top of my head, it was 1,346 acres. Might be off on the second numbers.

It's over 1,300. Residential or commercial or combined or what?

I it was a mix depending on where you're looking. I don't have those specifics right in front of me. I I could find out for you.

And where does most of that located then too?

That is also a good question, but I from what I understand, lot of that is more on the East side of the county and then Cape Harbor as well. I have some provision, but I

wouldn't want it. So these are in some municipalities, but also in in Pierce County.

I mean, it's pretty spread out in the county. Yeah.

I'll just add a little to that. The work to look at those initially looked at 2,500 acres, give or take. They were identified as the lowest density, lowest intensity areas within potential annexation areas, so overlaps between jurisdictions and the county as well as other parts of the urban growth area through a process of you know, first, they're identified through a simple mapping exercise and then looking parcel by parcel at them, discussing about it, and eventually taking them to the council for their consideration. That initial 2,500 acres was reduced to 1,300 acres of what was removed as deemed through that process to be unnecessary to meet the future growth target. So that's 32,000 housing units in the next twenty years.

So it's not to say that there is a potential for other areas to be removed in the future, but these were the most likely areas that were not necessary to meet the housing and commercial growth.

Who who deems it unnecessary, these areas as being unnecessary for future growth? Well,

ultimately, it's up to the council to decide that question, but, really, the exercise is based on our growth targets. So just a a little background on that. Our housing growth targets population, housing employment growth targets start with the office of financial management. They give that to the Puget Sound Regional Council who considers that for the four county area. They, in turn, through their memberships, so our elected officials and elected officials from across the region, decide on the county allocations for those growth targets.

And those county allocations go to the Pierce County regional council, where all the 23 cities and towns and the county get together to iron out who takes what. And everybody has to take their fair share, under state law, growth has to go everywhere. Our growth target through that process is 32,000 housing units. And then if you look at our buildable lands analysis report that was done before the comprehensive plan, but at the same time as the growth targets, there's sufficient capacity within the existing urban growth area to meet that demand of 32,000 housing units in the incorporated part of the county. So even with the reductions, right, even with a more expanded initial proposal of 2,500 acres, there's sufficient land elsewhere to meet that demand.

I I guess my frustration is that because I live in Jake Harbor, I know what the pressure is for people who want to live there and the fact that they gave up urban growth area. They're not hitting their housing target targets, but yet they were able to release, you know, a bunch of UGA back to the county, which means growth is very limited over there even though we know that there's a lot of pressure for that people want to live there, which is driving up the housing prices, which is making that area, you know, unaffordable. And it's it's just it's it's a little frustrating. That's why I'm trying to figure out, you know, what's how is it considered unnecessary? I mean, what is what do you look at when it's you determine or the city or state, whoever it is, decides that this urban growth area is not necessary here because we're not anticipating the growth.

Well, there's two things to say to it. There there's a simple math, and I'll get to that in a second, because it is it's not that simple, but it's simplistic accounting for what could happen. But in the case of Tig Harbor, we are actively Justin is leading those work, actively working on annexations with the city. Mhmm. We are working through a process where they are looking at their remaining potential annexation areas, and when it is that they intend to annex all those lands with the expectation that once that happens, those areas would be up zoned as part of the city.

Mhmm. So there's additional capacity housing capacity would be created there. Right? And so that that conversation is ongoing, and it's more or less their intention to take all of it within the life of the comprehensive plan. So that's one part. The other part is for each and each jurisdiction does this slightly differently. But the the basic math concept behind it, for each parcel that you have, you look at the zoning of what's there. You look at the available land on that parcel. So subtracting out all the areas you couldn't build, all the critical areas, wetlands, and so on. Subtract that out to how much land you could actually build.

You look at the zoning, and so that's your undevelopable potential for how many housing units you could add there. Then you look at redevelopable potential, and this is where this becomes more art than science, but there's a lot of history to how you do this. In some jurisdictions, the the simplest way of doing it is looking at the value of the improvement, so the buildings versus the value of the land. And if the value of the land is higher by some factor, each jurisdiction does it a little differently than the value of the improvement. That probably means that it's redevelopable.

So if you have a piece of land, oh, I don't know, a quarter acre that's worth $200,000, but the improvement on it is only $50,000, that sure looks like a teardown maybe. Right? So that becomes redevelopable. So that that's the basic math of it. And, again, you would do the same capacity analysis.

What does the zoning go out here? And you look at that maximum envelope. That's not what's likely to develop. But in Pierce County today, within the urban growth area, we are at well above capacity for a half million doll a half million housing units if you do that math. So our growth target of 32,000, we have capacity within existing zoning for more than a half million new homes potentially. That's countywide, though. Within the unincorporated part of

the county. Right. That's not, I mean, area specific. I mean, because there are areas that are more desirable than other areas that people wanna live in.

Agreed.

So once Gig Harbor annexes in the rest of the urban growth area that they have, they cannot grow anymore. Correct?

Unless they demonstrate that they have filled up their capacity and are not able to accommodate future growth, in which case, the growth management act is set to allow them to expand their boundaries as they can demonstrate, but they don't have any further space within the city boundaries.

Go ahead.

Thank you. So my question is when you do your count, are single family units together with multifamily units that are rentals all lumped into that, or do you break out single family versus multifamily, tenant versus ownership?

It's all broken up and then added together to get you to an urgent. But it is all detailed in the buildable lands report, and it is all broken up.

Okay. But when you're giving us the number that there's x number, whatever it is, 32,000 or something like that in current capacity so that we have more than adequate lands, We're not talking single family housing only. No. We're talking vertical development or rental units and some single family.

Yes. Across all housing types. Our growth target is doesn't consider what type of housing it is. We're supposed to accommodate the growth of 32,000 additional housing units. What their form is is So not dictated to

And I understand that, and you guys are probably given a scope and and of work and so forth. But for the average citizen, when they hear housing units, it's a little misleading that that it might be beneficial that there's a definition of that that accompanies this so that people recognize it's we're not talking three bedroom, two bath houses in a sidewalk and a driveway in That's all points. In separate form. We're we're talking about a conglomerate mix of different forms of development to achieve these numbers because, obviously, it takes more land for the typical subdivision than it does for a vertical development, which is historically more rental properties than it is homeownership. So I just I I think that that distinguishing that might be beneficial to other folks that are gonna not have the benefit of sitting at getting answers from you.

What

what they do is very challenging because one is they're trying to determine what the global lands are. In order to do that, you have to be able to assess all the critical areas. And just recently, they just almost doubled or tripled in some cases the critical areas Mhmm. Within their growth boundaries. So that's a huge factor.

The next thing is if you have 10 acres and you say, what's the capacity of this 10 acres if it's not encumbered by any other development or any critical areas, that 10 acres could be 100 units Mhmm. Or it could be 10 units, or it could be one unit. Yeah. And so outside the urban growth boundary, it's one unit. Inside the urban growth that can create a thing. So the urban growth boundary doesn't have to be expanded. What has to be done is its zoning change, and that's what they've done in this last comprehensive is they've taken they've made it generic and said units, you know, and regardless of what they are. They're not single family. It could be apartments or condos or anything.

I understand that. My recommendation still stands. I think a definition to units when you're using terms like homes or residential units, I think it's critical that somewhere in there, it says this includes the following.

So that that is very clearly spelled out under state law that drives the targets that we receive that leads to the 32,000 housing units. It's very clearly spelled out. I think you all appreciate that in Pierce County, predominantly, we have single family development. If you look at the permits that we've seen in 2026 so far, come online, and you can see those on our website because we keep track of all the permits. They are all predominantly single family, and there is even within the urban growth area.

I don't have the number offhand, but considerably more more capacity for even just single family homes, those same three bedroom, two bath, driveway homes, than the 32,000 housing units, even if we were only speaking about single family homes and not talking about any vertical, any apartments. But that definition is very clearly spelled out in the state statute.

But they may be attached because there's a lot of product coming up right now. They're single family, but they're attached. They're not single family in the sense where they're detached single family homes on individual lots. There is capacity in Pierce County land today for detached single family homes. Thirty seven thirty. For 32,000 and more.

Right on.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Commissioner Manley, do you have any comments or questions? Doesn't look like it. Okay. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. Thanks, Justin. Thank you. Okay. Our next agenda item is the stormwater insect development manual update. And we will be making a recommendation on this one.

I'm Maureen, the water quality manager. We were here a month ago. I'm here with Emma, our stormwater planner, and Kuni, our stormwater engineer, to request a recommendation of that our stormwater manual updates are consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Move forward with.

We'll do a quick recap of the update process. Very short on the proposed changes. Much condensed from last time. There was a question about cost benefit. There was the the housing of these proposed updates, and we have some information on that and then answer any questions along with our request for the recommendation.

We've gone over the regulations last time and in that process explained the impacts of stormwater, the pollutants that are emerging pollutants of concern that are killing salmon before they can spawn, letting that whipping changes to precipitation is happening more often, and that the stormwater manual updates are designed to address some of those issues.

And so this is just a a quick recap of our process and our timeline. So this process really started all the way back in August 2023 when the Department of Oncology was releasing draft information on their manual updates. And so that's when we kinda started compiling the changes that we were going to propose to make. And then our public engagement and collective decision making process really started and kicked off in February 2024, and we are kind of wrapping that up now as we speak to new folks and as we, go to council. And, again, just a reminder that decision making process, consisted of both internal and external technical advisory committees that discussed our proposed changes, and made recommendations.

And then we went ahead and incorporated those, and then we submitted those changes to the Department of Ecology for review and approval. And so that's that's kind of where we're at now. We still are hoping to have this new manual available to the public in June to give folks about a month or so ahead of time before it will be made effective to really understand the changes and be

able to be compliant. And

this slide summarize our key updates and the changes, and then the left side is the what is required by the department of ecology to to for our manual to be functional equivalent and then provide the same required protection environmental protection level. So that includes the lower redevelopment threshold for road, commercial, and industrial project, and then they clarify the language about underground utility activity exemption. So underground utility activity has been always exempt, but they just clarified the the language saying that if the underground utility activity is a part of the new new or redeveloped project and that is not exempt, to be exempt, you have to have just a project as a underground utility activity. So and then they also allowed some flexibility of the wetland hydro period protection. So there is some typo there that during the summer month, not the winter.

And then they also provide us some bio retention of BioMix E and Ps to be used for phosphorus sensitive antibodies. And then the right side summarized the Pierce County specific changes, and then most of our internal and external tech spend most of our time discussing and then come up with those changes to be more address our needs and then our our local characteristics. And the first one includes the additional environmental protections. We emphasize the use of the three NIBP for better water quality treatment, especially to address the more of our emerging concern of chemicals, and then managing the rapidly changing precipitation by updating our precipitation data into the PMP sizing model. And then we are also hoping to improve the groundwater protection by limiting use of underground injection of a stormwater into the combined compound groundwater, which is our major drinking water source.

And then we also spend a lot of time to give a cost and then benefit balance to support this more sustainable development and then customer support by relaxing some of the survey and the testing requirement, especially for the single variations of development and the low risk project, and then also streamlining some of the software processes to shorten and then expedite the review process. And then we also provided some of the template and the worksheet so they can do the calculation and design by themselves instead of hiring a professional engineer, which can be very expensive. Yeah.

How would you like us to do this? Do you want us to hold questions till the end?

Yeah. We have if you have question, we can do this time as well.

Okay. Just let me know if you wanna keep going. But so on this, is this primarily focused on new or is this a a focus and a budget aspect that we could expect to be implemented on existing challenges that are in the county?

It is more for the new development and the redevelopment, and then existing development will be handled under the permit and then as our the capital project.

Thank you. Yep.

And then we also provided some of the E and P options, which can be easy and then simpler and then hopefully the cheaper for the people to install. And then we also updated some of the terminologies to reflect more the new science and then also the common practices as well. And then last time that we got us a recommendation to the to do the cost benefit evaluation of those changes, and then we are still working on to get the final numbers. But we should be able to have those information ready for the council meeting. But the premier preliminary result shows more of a mixed result.

So it it will be depending on the site characteristics and then what type of options that each project proponent wish to choose or required to choose. For example, because of the precipitation data update, some of the infiltration BNP size might go up up to 16%. But if they choose to use our prescribed BNP options that we are gonna provide, and then they don't need to necessarily hire PE, so that would cost their budget as well. So it can give us some mixed the result. So with that, we can take any questions and then answer and then also get the recommendation from you guys. Okay.

So a couple places in here, you talk about a lower threshold. Is that defined anywhere what what a lower threshold means?

Yes. In the manual, the lower threshold is required by or the road and commercial and industrial development, and then it is spelled out in the manual, so in the flowchart.

It's also required by our NPDS stormwater municipal permit. So it's within the permit, which is more the absolute minimum that we have to have. Those thresholds are based on think we described this last time in a little more detail, but they're they're based on the planned disturbance of a development and then the planned impervious result of a development. Those two things are considered, and that was lower. And particularly, redevelopment thresholds were made more consistent with the development threshold.

So that's that's an ecology requirement. They they proposed well, it is now in our permit that we have to match that. And that was in particular to capture more stormwater to address issues with emerging chemicals of concern that are killing a fish.

So that is primarily focused on private development. Correct? I mean, as far as redevelopment and new development, this is addressing the private sector?

Our roads, Washington State Department of Transportation has to meet these. Okay. Our our it is public and private. We are not exempt from these laws.

Okay.

Alright. But this isn't maintenance. This is for redevelopment and new development.

Correct. There is a specific exemption in the permit for maintenance. It's very narrowly defined, but there's exemptions for maintenance.

And maintenance wouldn't have these new standards then?

No. No. No.

You're just maintaining?

Replacing in kind without expanding, and these do not apply. You're just outright exempt.

Okay. Thank you.

Go ahead.

I'm gonna raise the same concern I raised the last time, and that we're using precipitation data that's historic. And as we all know with global global warming, there's more more moisture in the atmosphere. So we're seeing this in the atmosphere rivers we're experiencing right now. So I think being more proactive is is an issue, and we have to project what we think it's gonna be, not necessarily what we've experienced. So that's my main main concern that we build this for the future.

Yes. Oh, thank you. I think maybe I can spread this a little better. But due to the uncertainty of the future presentation projections, that was the limitation that we have, that we couldn't come up with the one scenario that would likely happen for the future. But the two address so that was the limitation that why we couldn't go to the future scenario and then ask people to size the BMP accordingly.

But Pierce County, we are using not just a local weather dataset to have the precipitate scientific information into the model, but we are using from the Vancouver, Canada to the Salem in Oregon. So we are using more of a Northwest

data.

Yeah. Northwest data to capture some of the possibility that might happen in the best region. So that is another way to handle the some of the variations and the uncertainties are coming with those weather patterns. And then we are also able to incorporate the data up to the 2024 so we capture some of the the recent atmospheric fever in this update as well.

Alright. And I know previously, as had said in the last presentation that it had been 1998, the last time we collected the data. From this point forward, this manual and this permit are re upped every five years. We will be able to incorporate data, and we will incorporate data every five years.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments before I open the public of our meeting?

I have one. Is there a list of the technical advisory committee that has already looked at this and and, I guess, approved it? Is there a list of those people?

Yeah. Yeah. We do have a list of our external technical advisory members, and we do have a list of the folks that were on our internal technical advisory group as well as we had subgroups of that overall technical advisory group that were really subject matter ex experts, and we had a list of those kind of

Are they online?

Our web Can I look at them now?

You mean the the list of the members?

Yeah. Can I look at it? Can we see it?

Yes. Yes.

Yeah. K.

Let me look. Stormwater manual. It's on the stormwater manual web page. The Pierce County two. Have the Pierce County store on the web page. And we're

also going to open public meetings, and we'll have a list. I don't know if it's on the web page. We get a list of all attendees to that open public meeting. Yes.

Are you okay for now?

Yeah. I'm just curious of the. I just wanted to know who they who the people were that looked at that they were engineers in in the private sector.

Yeah. The external technical advisory committee was primarily composed of engineers and development folks, the development community.

With that, I'm gonna open our public comment, portion on this agenda item. See any members of the public in the room here. Do we have any members of the public online that wish to speak to this stormwater manual update agenda item?

For those online who would like to provide public comment, please press the raise hand icon on Zoom or star nine on the telephone keypad. It doesn't look like there are anyone online that would like to provide comments.

K. With that, I'll close the public comment portion on this agenda item and turn it back to the planning commission for any additional questions or comments or a motion for recommendation.

I'll go for you to recommend for adoption. Approval? Approval. Yes.

Okay. Have a motion.

I have

a motion and a second. Call for the vote.

Chair Djukovic? Aye. Yep. Vice chairman?

Aye.

Commissioner Sonsma?

Aye.

Commissioner Burke?

Aye.

Commissioner O'Leary?

Aye. The

motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Megan. And our next agenda item is the solar energy and battery energy storage system regulation updates. This is also we'll need to make a recommendation on this after the public comment portion and or staff's presentation and public comment portion.

Morning, Planning Commission. Can you hear me okay? Okay. Good. For the record, my name is Ansley Silva. I'm an associate planner with Harris County Benning and Public Works long range planning division. I brought this proposal on solar energy and battery energy storage systems as a briefing to the planning commission in January. And today, I'm bringing this proposal. Again, I'm sure you get along, and we'll have a public hearing as commissioner Dirkovich mentioned and get a recommendation from this commission. Also, today with me are some fire staff, Patricia Conant and captain Chris Faff may appear.

So if there's any technical questions related to fire safety of battery energy storage systems. The purpose of this these proposed amendments are to help enable Pierce County's transition to more renewable energy. It focuses on two related areas, updating current code related to solar energy systems and establishing new regulations for battery energy storage systems, which I'll refer to as BEST for short. Pierce County adopted a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030 and increasing renewable electricity such as solar is a major tool to reach that goal. Because solar is intermittent, best are necessary to store excess energy when demand is low and release it during peak hours.

What are best and why regulate them? Best or electricity. There's different battery chemistries out there today, but most common now is lithium ion. Best can back up the electrical grid that distributes electricity from producers to consumers, support renewable integration, and allow homeowners to store electricity. Best development has generally increased since 2019 for several reasons, such as utility needs, the Clean Energy Transformation Act targets, and the price of these batteries has dropped.

They can range in size depending on capacity needs from a panel inside a home residence, or it could be multiple shipping containers grouped together, sometimes referred to as a battery farm. There are some safety concerns. Batteries can explode or go into thermal runway or fire very difficult to extinguish as an immediate concern, and longer term concerns involve potential for contamination. These concerns are largely addressed in state and national fire code, the International Fire Code and the National Fire Prevention Association Code. Local governments are mostly responsible for permit requirements and citing and land use compatibility.

There is a bit of a local trend in temporary moratoriums as jurisdictions figure out the best way to incorporate these into the landscape. At Pierce County, there is currently a holding moving permits forward, but there is currently in review a policy decision to address this until regulations are passed. This update stems from sustainability 2030 and the comprehensive plan updates, which prioritize renewable energy. Also early in 2025, we received technical assistance from national program that provides guidance to local governments to reduce barriers to the installation of solar energy projects to help governments local governments meet their climate goals. The program is called SoulSmart.

It's funded by the US Department of Energy. Throughout the later part of last year and also this year, we've been drafting these amendments that included conversations with long range planning, fire prevention staff, development services, the office of resiliency and climate action, surface water management, as well as a few conversations with Puget Sound Energy and planners from other jurisdictions who are also working to incorporate this technology into their landscape. We formed informed tribes of this proposal. That was a question a commissioner had at the briefing. We did send a letter of notification to tribes, to JBLM, the Department of Commerce, as well as submitted a SEPA checklist.

We've also had a public facing web page where folks could comment by any commission hearing today, and the council's community development and environment committee hearing will be May 18, and the full council meeting hearing has not been scheduled yet. Again, this proposal implements recent policy direction. The 2024 comprehensive plan emphasizes renewable energy and streamline permitting sustainability 2030 called for eliminating barriers to solar, and these these amendments implement Sole Smart recommendation while aligning with state and regional climate goals. For solar, the proposed amendments edit by code to add consistency, new definitions align with state definitions and Sole Smart recommendations. Also, will see that SoulSmart is allowed as an accessory use in all zones.

A purpose and intent statement was added. There are several changes to remove unnecessary barriers. High end setback exceptions are clarified, so they apply appropriately to roof mounted versus ground mounted systems. Solar energy systems are proposed exempt from certain screening requirements, which can reduce costs and also reduce the panel's efficiency. Development services staff are also working towards over the counter permits for residential rooftop solar energy system.

All state and fire state and national fire codes address many safety issues. It's the county's responsibility to consider citing and compatibility or additional mitigation measures. This proposal creates a new chapter in the code for BEST and utility scale BEST would require a conditional use permit and review by the hearing examiner. Utility skill vests would not be allowed within 100 feet of sensitive uses like schools, childcare centers, and medical facilities. It is also prohibited in two zone agricultural resource lands and rural farm.

Setbacks must be cleared of combustible vegetation. Underground utilities are required where practical and emergency signage and contacts are required to support first responders. Financial guarantee and recovery costs are also required. These amendments are consistent with the Growth Management Act, vision 2050, and countywide planning policies and the Pierce County comprehensive plan. All of them emphasize reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supporting renewable energy, which encourages cleaner air and climate resilience as well as modernizing infrastructure.

With that, happy to take any questions.

Are there any questions by the commission?

I I just wanna make a I I reviewed the the letter that was submitted by Puget Sound Energy to Como Public Utilities and our labor group. They they asked for three main changes on those. I wanna acknowledge that it was thoughtful input was received particularly from our utilities partners, labors. And I agree the national standards like NFPA and UL provide strong, well tested foundation for safety. These standards are critical.

At the same time, I believe there's a real tension we need to hold carefully. Our role as at the county level is not only to support the rapid development and clean energy, which I strongly support, but also ensure that how and where these systems are cited reflects the unique characteristics of our community. I I support the proposed best regulations because I believe they strike the right balance. So I I don't agree with what they've suggested in the letter.

Any other questions or comments from the commission? I have a question. Sure. Go ahead.

Could you just restate the exclusion on the ARL and rural farm?

Sure. For battery energy storage systems and considering particularly agricultural resource lands, those are preserved to support the county's long term production of food and agricultural just protect the county's agricultural land base. A ARL lands are protected under GMA by a comprehensive analysis, and protecting prime agricultural soil is a big part of protecting that land under GMA. In in 2024, I believe the Washington Supreme Court made a decision supporting encouraging protection of that land even if the land currently isn't used for agriculture. So that's the intent behind the prohibition behind the ARL land specifically.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments before I open the public comment period? Seeing none. I'll open the public comment portion of our meeting on this particular agenda item. I don't see any members of the public in the room here. So are there any members of the public online that wish to provide comment on this agenda item?

For those in the line who would like to provide public comment, please press the raising hand icon on Zoom or star nine on your telephone keypad. So let's start here, with Ben Luxenberg.

Please state your name for the record name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes to provide your public comment.

Oh, yes. My name is Ben Luxenberg. I'm a cofounder of Mammoth Summa Power, a battery energy storage development company with company address of 522 West Riverside Avenue in Spokane. Writing comment on this. Really appreciate all of the time, effort, and thought that the Pierce County planning staff have put into putting together the these proposed regulations.

And and, overall, we think that they're, reasonably balanced as one of the commissioners mentioned. We haven't we aren't privy to the Puget Sound Energy letter, but we are otherwise working with Puget Sound Energy on on some of our projects. I think if we were to make any suggestions or recommendations for maybe future improvements to the to the proposal would be to make further distinction on the permitting pathway and citing compatibility criteria based on this proposed size of the battery projects, which a lot of jurisdictions, both in Washington state and in other areas around the country do, whether that's based on, say, acreage or square foot of a proposed facility or various electrical measures of of project sizing where there might be a conditional use permit for one size and buy right for another depending on the zone in which the proposed project is located or or similarly having somewhat different rules around setbacks and landscape buffers based on the proposed project size and maybe other variables as well, such as proximity to sensitive infrastructure.

Thank you.

K. Next up, Christine Don.

Please state your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes to provide your comments.

Hello. My name is Christine I'm actually a resident of Pierce County. I live at 8213 20th Street Court East in Edgewood, Washington. Good morning, planning commissioners. My name is Christine Naughn.

I'm the local government affairs manager from Puget Sound Energy, also known as PSC. I'm here to briefly mention just item six a, solar energy and battery storage systems regulations update. The letter was mentioned by one of the commissioners. We just sincerely appreciate the collaboration and careful consideration by Pierce County staff to ensure that clean energy goals are being met and that the safety remain a priority. We just really are grateful for the conversation, the inclusion, and really just coming to us and asking us, how this would impact us, how we can work together, and how we can move forward.

So thank you again, and we really look forward to the continued work ahead. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public online that wish to provide comments on this agenda item?

It does not look like there are any other public comment. I'm seeing any.

I will close the public comment portion of this agenda item, Turn it back so

that somebody up over there.

I know you you had done the inside, but I I had a couple comments.

Oh, okay. I may. So I'll reopen the public comment portion. Sorry. I just

Thank you, madam chair. I've just been listening. I have a few comments or questions on this. I'm probably your typical layman that doesn't know a lot about energy, but I am concerned when I listen to how you have to have setbacks and buffers from these units that is less land that is being made available. And as a mom and grandmother, I'm concerned with the safety issue of this when you see reports of boats catching on fire that are carrying electric vehicles.

And when you learn of a police station in Spokane that burns down because an electric bicycle that was there, and my antenna go up in the in the safety realm. And I was touring a a warehouse that had hydrogen, and that was certainly an eye opener on the use of that power. And I'm just a little concerned of, you know, the big picture of this, the intensity of putting these big power banks. And I, you know, I toured a a storage unit in Puyallup, and I was a little overwhelmed at this the size of the the stacking farm, I believe it was called, when the containers are put together and the intensity of monitoring the expense. I I just there's just a lot of things that that the typical constituent is going to want to know, and I'm hoping there will be more information on that as time goes on.

Thank you. Thank you. Did I say who I was? Amy, I say pardon? But did I say who I was? And Pearson County canceled District 3. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Now I will close the public comment portion of our meeting and turn it back to the planning commission or any additional comments or questions, staff, on this agenda item. If not, I'll entertain a motion.

Vice a movement of this being passed by the county council solar energy and battery energy storage system regulation update. Seconded.

K. We have a motion and a second. We don't have any additional comments. I'll call for the vote. So the motion

is to recommend approval for that request? Correct. Chair Djokovic? Aye. Vice Chair Manley?

Aye.

Commissioner Sonson? Aye. Commissioner Burke? Aye. Commissioner O'Leary? Aye. The motion passes. Thank you.

Do we Sarah, do we have any other business?

We are not planning on having a meeting in April, so I did not put that down.

Is there anything else you wanted to add?

Nope. Excited for your May meeting, which I believe will have to celebrate your final

May would be my last meeting.

May would be your last meeting, so we'll have to celebrate your time as a chair and member of this commission. I think we're all very, very grateful to you for your service, but we'll say so visually amazing at that point.

Understand that the two at large positions

are not moving forward at the moment. Okay. Back to the drawing board.

Okay.

The thinking on applicants was such that they were from different council districts, which the two were. Missed the part in the code that also specified that they'd from different cities, which they were not. So back to the drawing board. Don't anticipate that.

I think

fast enough for them to be here. Okay.

Alright. Thank you. If that's it, I'll adjourn the meeting, and I guess we'll see you all in